Is is a magnificent addition to the splendour of Princes Street Gardens and deserves to be seen as it was intended, not surrounded by fencing. An insult to the late Mr Daniel Ross who gifted it to the city.

Apart from being an historic and architecturally important building it is currently well run and will be a great loss to the area. I cannot see how the closure would provide any meaningful saving to the City of London.

Benefit sanctions target the most vulnerable in our society - like the parent who had their benefits stopped after missing an appointment because their baby was in intensive care for example. A total of 466,000 people were hit by sanctions which saw them barred from claiming Job Seekers Allowance for an average of between four weeks and three months. However, 2,000 repeat offenders were hit by significantly harder sanctions and had their benefits stopped for the next three years, including 49 single parents and 978 people under the age of 24. A statement from Mr Boles withdrawing the comments followed remarks to his local newspaper, suggesting the Tories could amend the current sanctions regime. Nick Boles said “In the run-up to the election there is not a lot we can do, but we can get the case studies together where the sanctions seem to be most unreasonable … The beginning of a parliamentary term, when people are looking at things afresh, is the best time to make a change.” But what happens after the elections? The government do as they wish and the people who vote for them remain trapped in the sanctions, left to go without basic needs such as Food and nappies. The Trussell Trust Charity who run the local Foodbanks and The Grantham Passage pick up the people effected by Sanctions and Benefit cuts. The case studies are there and the people are real. Infact Gill Thompson and Cathie Wood have come together through impossibly tragic circumstances. Both of their brothers died, hungry, with no money to buy food, after their benefits were stopped. How many more people need to die? Would we leave an animal without food, No? The owners would be prosecuted. As a Grantham constituent who votes I would urge Nick Boles and fellow MP's to start supporting the people who vote instead of showing they care more about the party line and climbing up the party ladder. Look at repealing these benefit Sanctions before the Election.

This is important because the poor are getting so far deeper into poverty.

It is still legal to discriminate against people in Northern Ireland in relation to the provision of goods, facilities and services on the basis of the person's age unlike in Britain and the Republic of Ireland. Older people in Northern Ireland endured the 'Troubles' for many years and looked forward to the 'peace dividend', only to find that their elected representatives can't agree to give them the same protection under the law as is enjoyed by older people in the rest of the UK & Ireland. The Northern Ireland Executive includes a proposal to introduce legislation to outlaw age discrimination in its Programme for Government in 2011, but has so far failed to get agreement in the Assembly for this over the last 4 years. Prof. Mark Lawler of Queen's University Belfast has described how many older people were being denied possible life saving and enhancing cancer treatments each year purely on the grounds of age.

If this is a true Labour value it should be adopted across UK Labour.

The Queens Sovereign Grant for 2014-15 was £37.9 million, although this is a drop in the ocean according to republic.org.uk which estimates that "When all [the] hidden expenditure is included, the real cost of the monarchy to British taxpayers is likely to be over £299m annually". There is no way this can be seen as value for money, especially while the most vulnerable in our society are facing the prospect of an even more savage cap in the amount a household can receive in what (for the most part) is a vital, and necessary, lifeline. To find out more about the campaign visit www.charliekb.wordpress.com/2015/03/03/slash-their-benefits/ www.joshua-hill-walsh.com/

I don't have a TV licence, I don't have one because I do not watch Live Television. I enjoy expanding my mind by reading books and listening to music and Podcasts, if there is a show i am interested in watching I will use Netflix and purchase the DVD. The proposed licence fee changes are unfair to those of us who do not watch live television, the fee pays for the BBC, so they can broadcast shows such as Eastenders, Pointless and Bargain Hunt. A great deal of shows are aimed to entertain elderly viewers, many of whom do not have to pay for a TV licence. Under the new proposals I would be forced to pay for a service I do not want and do not use. This is unfair. Why should people who decide to broaden their minds with books and music rather than watch 'Snog, Marry, Avoid' be forced to pay a lot of money to subsidise those who have nothing better to do with their time.

The Agency Workers Regulations (AWR), which came into force in October 2011, gives agency workers the right to ‘equal treatment’ with the same pay and other basic working conditions as equivalent permanent staff, but this doesn't prevent harrassment, bullying or discrimination. It is because the law that allows verbal termination of employment for agency workers makes them vulnerable to abuse at work place. Full details of the Regulations can be found at https://www.gov.uk/agency-workers-your-rights/your-rights-as-a-temporary-agency-worker The verbal termination of employment gives too much power in the perpetuators of these crimes who are most often the reporting officer or immediate senior employee. We need to prevent it happening in the workplaces and make sure that the employer fulfills duty of care towards an agency worker from day one to the last day. This would happen only if the agency worker is made aware of their rights from day one. That's why we need: a) Induction from the employer and not just the agency b) Written Termination letter from HR A verbal termination of employment doesn't respect dignity of labour and can be unprofessional. A written letter of termination gives an agency worker a dignified exit and a fair opportunity to address grievances, if any. It also encourages senior employees to follow procedures with regard to termination of employment of agency workers, instead of acting on a whim. A written 'employment termination letter' from HR could also be used as a reference by the agency worker for future employments. This would also help the agency worker to feel like a valuable part of the work force, who is respected for their contribution to the workforce instead of being written off as a disposable replacement worker. Also, If all the the councils and government bodies set an example by changing the way they deal with Agency workers, others may follow.

HMRC wrongly and unfairly applied favourable terms to the settlement of 1,100 individuals/businesses it identified from leaked HSBC Swiss files as having evaded paying tax, even though none of the 1,100 cases qualified for the favourable terms. Tax evasion is a criminal offence and the favourable terms offered included immunity from prosecution, penalties from 10% of unpaid tax instead of 200% and a claw back period of 10 rather than 20 years. These favourable terms have cost the British taxpayer up to £100million in tax revenue and the potential of further criminal prosecutions. However it is not too late. As the rules were wrongly applied the decision to offer favourable treatment can be overturned. We can still recover the correct amount of money owed to help fund our public services.

Public provision of water services in Scotland should continue to be a point of pride and a point of principle. Water is a service that should continue to be delivered for the benefit of the people. Public water provision in Scotland has resulted in the lowest average water bills in the UK for both households and businesses. Let's keep it that way by maintaining the responsibility and the benefits of water provision in the hands of the public sector here in Scotland.

There are estimated to be 1000 North Korean refugees living in the UK – that is an incredibly small number. But now the Government has confirmed that Britain will now automatically ship away the small number of North Koreans whom manage to escape from one of the world’s most oppressive regimes and make it to the UK. For North Koreans who do not have any information about the outside world when they escape the country, an option to choose another country to settle in should be guaranteed. A recent court ruling that means Britain regards all North Koreans as South Korean citizens and is likely to refuse them asylum. These people face amazing obstacles in order to escape the brutal regime, including famine (the arduous march), disease, forced labour camps, torture, reprisals on their families including the death penalty (North Korea has a guilt by association policy) and slavery both in North Korea and in China. For those that do cross the Tumen River into China thinking this to be their salvation they then find themselves sold into a life of slavery on the black market or hunted down by North Korean agents and the Chinese authorities to be forcibly repatriated to North Korea where death or starvation awaits. These people risk so much to escape such a ruthless regime in North Korea and Britain now decides not to help and to turn its back on the very, very small number that make it here? North Korea is in a category of its own when it comes to human rights violations. It is a totalitarian state where many people are enslaved and tortured. All forms of freedom of expression are repressed and people are purged using the death penalty, there is mass malnourishment and outside Kim’s Pyongyang it is commonplace for people to starve to death. Amnesty International reports that many North Koreans, including children, are detained in political prison camps and other detention facilities in North Korea. Conditions are dire. Torture is rampant and public execution is common. Many of the prisoners die of malnutrition and overwork. No refugee should be refused or prejudiced on language or cultural difference. Why should Britain cherry pick whom it helps in this way?