A national need, highlighted by the resent desperate situation in Cornwall: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-26042990 Also large areas of central of Wales and the English Midlands (not least Lutterworth and many towns and villages in Leicestershire along with those in many other counties in the Midlands and the North) were deprived of services when the Great Central and local lines were closed. Beeching's "one route only from major city A to major city B" left thousands of towns and villages without rail access, also leaving many major towns in close geographic proximity without direct links. Roundabout routes may be OK for freight and mail, but they simply are not efficient for commuters, especially at a time when pollution, energy needs and road maintenance costs all point towards the better, greener alternative; rail. This is made all the more relevant by the need to reduce road traffic, and plan for a more environment-friendly future.

By making a 3rd yr specialist doctor a consultant, he will be putting medical clinicians under unreasonable duress to both perform above their skill level and be responsible for the care pathway of patients well in advance of their abilities. Calling a 3rd yr doctor a consultant is a hideous mis-representation and will most likely have nothing but negative effects on the staff and healthcare organisations who will be required to work with the new system.

Under the proposed Immigration Bill migrants will lose most of their appeal rights. We ask where this removal of vital legal rights will end – it could soon affect all of us. Also, everyone from doctors to landlords will have to check the immigration status of their patients, tenants and other service users. But these people are not professional border guards, nor are they familiar with the ins-and-outs of immigration law. We call on the Government to leave border control where it belongs - at the border, with the professionals. Why is this important? The aim of the Coalition Government’s Immigration Bill is to create ‘a really hostile environment for illegal migrants’ (Theresa May). In reality, this hostile environment will affect all of us. No wonder this bill has been described by a Bishop as ‘pernicious’. This bill will create a nasty regime of snooping and surveillance that will affect us all; • Forcing landlords to check the immigration status of their tenants is such a complex task that landlords may well discriminate against anyone who might possibly be an immigrant – a threat to many UK citizens. The UN fears it will create ‘a climate of ethnic profiling’. • It will force the banks and DVLA to make similar checks, with the same result. • NHS staff will spend their time checking your immigration status instead of helping you. Also, If you are a migrant, you will have to pay a special health surcharge as well as VAT and other taxes. The Bill will undermine traditional British tolerance. It will sow suspicion and mistrust between people. For more information visit the Movement Against Xenophobia http://movagxen.wordpress.com/max-statement/ So far the Bill has had an easy run through the House of Commons, so we must look to the House of Lords to stop this nonsense.

I have polycystic kidney disease and it is vital I take blood pressure tablets. I cannot always afford them. My blood pressure gets dangerously high - twice I have ended up in hospital.

We depend on the quality of young people's education being sustained to give them and us a secure future. I taught for many years in a much-praised Sixth Form College, where I saw thousands of students being given opportunities to improve their lives. The college, like many others, offers a much broader range of subjects than most schools can, but some of these subjects are now being lost. Staff are highly experienced in teaching their subjects at 'A' Level, as they only teach 16-18 year olds, so students usually perform to the best of their abilities. You say that you want all institutions to be excellent, so why spoil successful State-funded ones?

This is obviously important to us. No one wants to risk being unemployed, see their job out-sourced, relocated or sent overseas. There is a very real threat that our work will be “off-shored”. But it’s important to many other people even if they don’t know it. We deal with data that is sensitive personal data belonging to Ministers, MPs, hundreds of thousands of civil servants including myself, and external clients and it should stay in the UK where our laws protect its use. We need to show the decision makers that we want what is best for our workers, our communities and UK tax-payers - not what is best for the profits of private companies based overseas, with loyalties only to their shareholders. Our colleagues in Newport have received considerable support from your parliamentary colleagues and we hope that we can rely on similar support from you and other Merseyside MPs.

Millions of tonnes of food, particularly fresh food, that is perfectly good for human consumption are destroyed every year by supermarkets because it is in some way "blemished". Meanwhile those living in poverty, housed or on the streets, are going hungry or even malnourished here in the UK. This is utterly immoral and must cease NOW.

What is happening in Syria today, with several million of its population refugees, hundreds of thousand dead, injured and having suffered terribly, including torture, rape and chemical bombing, is in a country barely 4 hours flight from Britain. People in Britain care and in the past have supported those in similar situations in much larger numbers - Jews, East African Asians, Vietnamese - yet barely a few hundred Syrians are being allowed to come to this country. It is clear that the situation in the camps in Lebanon and Jordan is causing great suffering and enormous pressures upon those countries. Please allow British families to offer to host Syrians, at least on temporary visas until the conflict is settled.

The cuts mean that in the cases of divorce and separation the spouse denied legal aid will be the one who cannot afford to go out to work because they are looking after young children. The spouse who can afford legal representation is the more likely to win the custody battle. In very many cases he or she is really not the best parent to look after the child/ren and the heartache for both the children and the better placed parent will be grossly unfair. This matter should most definitely NOT be a case whereby the parent who has the money to spend on the case is the victor. Lives will be severely blighted. Many in particular only see their children as a key to the door of the family home and do not have the children's interests at heart. The withdrawing of legal aid in these cases is grossly inhumane and really must not go ahead.

Information Commissioner's Office (the office that oversees compliance with the Data Protection Act 1998 (DPA), has published guidance on this issue and advises that even though there is no lawful requirement on a school to obtain parental consent for fingerprinting children, the school "must" involve the parents to ensure that information is obtained fairly, unless the school can be certain that the child understands the implications of giving up his/her prints. This is outrageous how can a child understand the implications of giving up their prints? They would see it as some sort of futuristic game! I do not share the same enthusiasm, concerns is that it plays on these ideas and gets children accustomed to giving up their highly personal biometric data as a matter of routine. If children at primary school age are taught that it is normal to hand fingerprints or other personal data to their school or local authority, how alarmed are they going to be if and when, as adults, a future government tries to reintroduce the idea of ID cards, for example, or to argue that there should be universal DNA retention? How schools are ensuring that children are giving informed consent is very hard to determine and practice seems to vary widely. The ability of a seven-year-old to give consent is going to be very different from that of a 17-year-old. Surprisingly, the law does not require that consent be obtained from the parents of a child, although good practice and guidance has recommended that it be obtained in advance. We are aware of many cases where this has not happened, though, and parents are only informed after the event.

This is important to me, because there's a lack of awareness that men can get raped or sexually assaulted despite the recent male rape attack in Bristol. According to UK charity Mankind 1 in 29 have reported being sexually assaulted and 1 in 20 have been affected by sexual violence. There's a huge denial that male rape exists, rooted in mistaken ideas that 'real' men can fight off an attacker, women cannot rape men, and male rape only happens in prison. These mistaken beliefs make it hard for male survivors to come forward, because they are left with feelings of shame, confusion and self blame for what happened. That's why we need the council and police to publicly recognise male rape to make it easier for male rape survivors to get the help they need and to report the crime.

Did you catch the Benefits Street programme on Channel 4? You'll find a benefits street in most towns or cities, particularly in the north of the country. Many of the students affected by this cut in funding will have not followed a straight forward path through education. They may not have achieved GCSEs in Maths and English; English might not be their first language at home; they may have been in care; they may have behaviour or learning difficulties; young women who have been pregnant; young people who live independently; young people who have suffered any emotional or socio-economic trauma, all generally take longer to progress compared to others from more privileged backgrounds. Sustaining Britain's benefits streets by denying young people, particularly those who've had tough start in life is just not right. These young people need help and support to gain qualifications and life skills to get that first job.