We live in a rural location and rely heavily on internet and internet based sevices for business, education and entertainment. We are located in a village that has 95% fibre coverage and BT has left out our road of 36 houses and 1 public house due to apparent capacity issues. Our businesses need to keep running without consistent outages and interruptions due to inferior broadband technology. Our residents need to keep up and participate with current and on going technology evolution.

Tower Hamlets Council seems to think libraries are a thing of the past. When I talked to my 10 year-old granddaughter about this recently. She was shocked when I told her Bethnal Green library is under threat. Before COVID, she used to go there regularly with her school, as her mum did before her. She says children need real libraries and real books. Libraries are vital to the future of our community, now more than ever. Many people don't have access to the internet, or space to do homework and not everyone wants to read a book on a screen. Our libraries also play a vital social role, for children, schools, older people or those who are isolated or lonely. COVID has also reminded us that not all children have access to remote learning. That's compounded in Tower Hamlets, where hundreds of children live in cramped, overcrowded homes. Tower Hamlets Council should join with other local authorities to demand the government provides the money to keep our libraries open.

The new variant of COVID -19 has been reported to be 70% more transmissible than the original virus. All health and social care workers dealing with suspected or positive patients are at greater risk of serious illness and death. The current level of staff sickness in the NHS and in social care and the mounting death toll for these dedicated workers is completely unacceptable. This needs to be addressed now, not in weeks or months time.

They do not understand the root causes of homelessness, homeless people are often looked down upon as being "lazy" and "not looking for a job" but being homeless is what contributes to the unemployment rather than the other way round. To have a job, you need a bank account, to have a bank account you often need an address. This means that homeless people are stuck in a cycle of unemployment.

The new Otley East development will bring an extra 550 houses to Otley. This makes it even more important that we have adequate infrastructure. We realise that Leeds City Council have had severe budget cuts but Otley cannot afford to lose this vital resource.

In state-run schools, and in private schools where at least part of the funding came from government, corporal punishment was outlawed by the British Parliament in 1986, following a 1982 ruling by the European Court of Human Rights that such punishment could not be administered without parental consent, and that a child's "right to education" could not be infringed by suspending children who, with parental approval, refused to submit to corporal punishment. It became apparent that hitting children in school was morally wrong and now it is illegal. Permanently excluding a child is an act in which a school decides, plans and then executes the traumatic punishment of rejection. The similarities with the decision making, planning and then execution of a physical attack on a child are painfully obvious. There is no moral argument to justify saying to a child they are no longer wanted by the institution that is set up to act in loco parentis for a substantial period of that child’s life. The first objection to making permanent exclusion illegal will inevitably be that schools cannot cope with the behaviour of some children and they need to be able to safeguard other children and staff. In order to make permanent exclusions illegal this objection has to be answered to the complete satisfaction of both teachers and parents. If the law were to change then it would have to be accompanied by an increase in school budgets to ensure they are able to adequately fund the options that are available instead of permanently excluding the child. This proposal fully recognises that this is a pre-requisite and requires all those who might support this movement to sign up to ensuring schools are able to deliver their new statutory duty and ensure all their children receive a full-time education until their legal school leaving age. The moral argument for not permanently excluding a child is clear. If for a minute you ignore the reason for the permanent exclusion, then the action of removing a child from its school is a traumatic event which inevitable has consequences for the child. Put simply it is a rejection of the child by an organisation which is charged with acting as a good parent while it educates them. The act of a permanent exclusion (rejection) is not one a good parent would countenance and yet we allow schools to do this based on the excuse that there was no other option. We aim to prove this is a false premise which allows schools to abdicate all responsibility for a child who they were supposed to nurture and educate. To demonstrate the number and variety of options a school can already use instead of a permanent exclusion the following list (which is not exhaustive) has been assembled. 1. Managed move to another school 2. Move to a pupil referral unit 3. Counselling 4. Mentoring 5. Therapy 6. Move to a special school 7. Part time timetables 8. Alternative education providers 9. Colleges 10 Temporary exclusion while other options are sought. “But children who are permanently excluded are not singled out; it is only based on what they have done?” 78% of pupils who are permanently excluded either have SEN, are classified as in need or are eligible for free school meals. 11% of permanently excluded children have all three characteristics Boys with social, emotional and mental health difficulties (SEMH) but no statement are around 3.8 times more likely to be permanently excluded than a non-SEN child. SEMH girls are around 3 times more likely. Children in receipt of Free School Meals are around 45% more likely to be excluded than other pupils Black Caribbean are around 1.7 times more likely, and Mixed White and Black Caribbean children were around 1.6 times more likely, to be permanently excluded compared to White British children. Children on a Children in Need plan are around 4 times more likely to be permanently excluded compared to those with no social care classification Children who have a Child Protection Plan are around 3.5 times more likely to be permanently excluded. Children who are looked after are around 2.3 times as likely to be permanently excluded than children who have never been supported by social care. It is clear that if you are a vulnerable child, you are in far more likely to be excluded than those who are not vulnerable. It is perverse that the children in most need of stability, understanding and support are those who are far more likely to be rejected by the very people who are paid to prepare them for adulthood. This campaign seeks to make permanent exclusions illegal whilst funding and supporting schools to find and organise a form of education that removes the stigma and trauma of a permanent exclusion. The IRCT is starting this national campaign in order to encourage all schools, politicians and parents to come up with a different system than the current one which officially tells children they are no longer wanted by their school. Many of the children permanently excluded have already suffered Adverse Childhood Experiences. To officially inflect another trauma on these children is both cruel and unnecessary. All children permanently excluded are still legally entitled to a full-time education which the local authority has to provide. Why then does there have to be a formal rejection of the child in order to try and find suitable education for these children? Surely the organisation that knows them best should be central to ensuring any new plan addresses the needs of the child.

There was a Post Office at this site until December 2019 as part of the Waitrose shop. When it was sold to Lidl a commitment was made to open a PO as part of the complex. Agreement was reached between Lidl and a newsagent but the Post Office has blocked the plan. We want this changed.

It is important as we are all in the same boat during this awful pandemic therefore we should all be treated the same.Whilst some businesses are receiving all the help provided some others are being left out in the cold whilst business face the impact of no financial grant as well as no business due to either being closed or having no customers due to being told to stay at home whilst we still have to fork out to pay bills ,wages as well as spending money on making the business safe.

In the 6 months since Covid cases have soared, our NHS is on it’s Knees and 50,000 more people have died. The UK now has one of the highest death rates in the world, higher even than Trumps America. This global pandemic is far from over. New variants are being discovered around the world, so understanding the transmission of this virus is paramount. Boris Johnsons government have failed time and again to halt the spread of Covid, this week we have seen the highest number of deaths recorded in 1 day. In Prime Minister’s questions, (20/01/21) Ed Davy MP again asked the PM for an enquiry but was refused. To learn the lessons of what’s gone so devastatingly wrong under the leadership of Boris Johnson, we ask for the launch an independent enquiry this Spring 2021.

In a recent document, Jacob Rees-Mogg MP wrote, “Every Member of Parliament will be aware of the deep unfairness inherent in the country’s health and social care provision.” This unfairness has been thrown into sharp contrast during the Coronavirus pandemic, but may be traced back to 1948, when the NHS was founded to provide comprehensive healthcare, free at the point of care, for everyone in the country, funded through general taxation. In distinction, social care remained the responsibility of Local Authorities, funded through local taxation, but heavily means-tested and subject to eligibility criteria. Like other parts of the care systems, social care has been significantly underfunded and not fit for purpose. The provision of social care in England is failing on many counts. • It is profoundly unfair. o Nobody can tell when they might require support to live as independent a life as possible, and the cost of such support is unpredictable. o Cancer sufferers receive care that is free at the point of need, but dementia sufferers are means-tested. People sustaining a stroke resulting in disability are not considered to have a medical problem but a social one. o Privately funded service users are subsidising state-funded users • It is inefficient in its use of resources. o Hospital beds are inappropriately occupied while wrangling takes place over the funding of the ongoing care, rather than the setting that will best meet their ongoing needs. o There is heavy reliance on informal care, imposing costs on families and the wider economy. o Transactional costs of the fragmented market eat into resources for actual care. • It often does not meet the needs of the individual. o The goal of social care is to allow people to participate as fully as possible in community life, with security and dignity. Too often this is not achieved. o Care does not always allow people to maximise their potential or exercise the life choices that most of us take for granted. • It struggles to recruit and retain sufficient carers for the needs of the service; o Despite the recognition of care workers as being key workers in the response to the pandemic, there is a lack of recognised training standards, qualifications, and career progression. o Pay and conditions do not reflect the value that society places on those who care for their loved ones and require public subsidy through the benefit system. • It poses a serious risk of financial collapse of major care home providers, with consequent insecurity for residents and a short-term approach to investment in staff and facilities. There has been much talk of integrating health and social care, spanning many governments, but paradoxically, successive governments have created divisions rather than integration; the creation of the provider purchaser concept, the internal market, the continued fragmentation of the NHS and the 2012 NHS and Social Care Act are some examples. These have led to increasing lack of coordination between the hospital and primary care. Significantly, the changes have resulted in multiple bodies rather one authority providing the services, resulting in a disorganised service. The changes we propose would ensure that all parts of the care service would be obliged to collaborate with each other to provide what would be best for the individual and to redress the increasing lack of continuity of care, in addition to producing a fairer, less complex, and more cost-effective service. Note 1 Local Care Authority (LCA) This would replace the local CCG. This would bring together all relevant provider units (hospital care, primary care. community care, social service, mental health and ambulance service) within the influence of the LCA. Each provider would be expected to provide a set of agreed services according to the needs of the local community and avoiding duplication of services. It would be a requirement that representatives of providers include a senior clinician, a member from front-line staff, where these would be relevant. LCA would ensure that the agreed services are delivered efficiently. It would also liaise with the relevant Local Authority in addition to charitable bodies and private providers. Each provider unit would keep its own administrative structures unless they wish certain aspects to be given to the LCA. LCA would establish agreed governance structures and annual audits readily available to the public. LCA would liaise with local trade union bodies LCA would receive allocated resources from the regional authority. LCA would be expected to establish a confidential and independent office for Freedom to Speak Up. Note 2 Regional Care Authority (RCA) This would replace current structure at a regional level. This would include representatives from each LCA within the region in addition to those from large providers across the region and tertiary centres, universities, government agents and the Colleges. It would be responsible for seeking resources from the government on behalf of the LCAs and capital costs. It would liaise with other relevant RCAs It would ensure the government policies are understood and delivered throughout the region It would receive annual reports from LCAs Commissioning services for those services not available to the National Care Service (ICS) would be carried out by the central government.

In this climate of Covid we are asked to work extra hours but feel us a Nurses/Midwives get taxed to the hilt. Our pay is rubbish and we work extra hours to make ends meet yet we are living some of us on the bread line. Extra support needs to provided for childcare .

I had to give up my job in October 2020 due to the intolerable stress and bullying. I have worked all my adult life other than when I was a stay at home mother for four years and when I cared full time for my Mother, who has dementia for almost four years. These years are credited for NI towards my pension. But they are not considered as qualifying for Jobseeker's Allowance. I have not been able to get a job yet and have no income, despite paying NI for more than 35 years. This feels like a gross injustice