Two separate issues in two different services have arisen in the last few weeks and months with one single common cause of the problem – private companies running vital public services. Runwood Homes, a company who made £14 million profit out of care provision last year run six ex-council care homes across the borough, after the council gave them the contract two years ago. The period of pay protection is due to end and Runwood are looking to tear up existing contracts and re-engage workers on inferior terms and conditions, including cuts of up to £900 a month in pay and cuts to holiday and sickness provision. We believe this could ultimately lead to inferior care to our elderly residents which is unacceptable. Sita Suez have run the waste and recycling services contract for Doncaster Council for a number of years and have a history of poor industrial relations at the Doncaster depot which has led to a number of disputes, meaning bins left unemptied across the borough. Doncaster Council have recently completed the tendering process for this service and has been won again by Sita Suez for 8 further years. Two weeks into this contract, Sita Suez have announces 112 redundancies in the service along with sweeping changes in how the service is to be delivered going forward including; • Bin collections dropping from 5 days a week to 4 days a week • An aging workforce having to work 10 hours a day • Potentially dangerous practices with HGV drivers having to operate in residential streets for longer, when our kids and grandkids might be out playing after school. There is no economic or social rationale for private companies to run public services. In other local authorities services are being brought back in house for the very reason private companies generally provide a poorer more costly service, for the simple reason that private companies have to make profit to appease shareholders. Doncaster Trades Council say ENOUGH IS ENOUGH. The last straw should have been the disastrous decision to allow private equity owned Care UK to run services to care for our adult population who require care for severe learning disabilities. We cannot take this any longer. Sign the petition to the elected Mayor, Councillors and MPs and Chief Executive of Doncaster Council to demand that the council cancel contracts with both Runwood Homes and Sita Suez to protect, local services, jobs and terms and conditions of workers in both services

It was understood by the Parish Council and villagers that we would be allowed unrestricted access to the common areas of the Granta Park site, as agreed during planning negotiations. It is an integral part of village life, with many residents having used this area for recreation for over 30 years. It provides a safe route to the village from the Land Settlement to the centre of the village. This is particularly important for children attending the school. They will be forced to use Pampisford Road, which has no footpath. The traffic calming methods which have been installed are ineffective. This road is now considerably busier due to the amount of traffic generated by Granta Park employees. The employees of Granta Park enjoy the facilities of the village, particularly at lunchtimes. It would be a shame if the villagers were not afforded the same privileges of enjoying the grounds of Granta Park. As far as we are aware there have been no issues caused by villagers having access to Granta Park.

This was a deliberate and premeditated breach designed to dupe Lancashire County Council and disregards their authority.

It is an increasing problem Country wide for all tradesmen and women. It takes years of hard work and a large expense to build up a tool kit and a van that enables you to earn an honest living. More and more people are being affected by this crime and it needs to be stopped. I want this petition to reach Parliament to demand new laws that impose a minimum 2 year sentence on those convicted of vandalising vans and stealing tools. Also, we need a system that ensures any victim will be reimbursed for their loss in full immediately to enable that person to carry on working.

I am extremely disappointed to see that The General Estates Company (http://www.general-estates.co.uk) who own and operate the Bathampton Toll Bridge feels there is justification in increasing the charges from 70p to 80p each way – a 12.5% increase, way above the current rate of inflation at 2.6% and certainly higher than the increase many have received in salary over the last 4 years, since last it increased. Firstly, I have requested from several sources what possible justification there could be for increasing this cost? The Bathampton Mill bridge has for a long time been more expensive, per distance travelled than The Seven Bridge, The Clifton Suspension Bridge and even The Dartford Crossing bridge on the M25. During this time of austerity and nationwide uncertainty, when the cost of living in has never been higher in recent history, how can anyone justify this unfair price hike? The toll bridge takes £1000's of every day from people just trying to get to work, taking their kids to school, operate their business... basically just trying to get on with their busy lives. It is an unjust Tax on honest, local people, when the alternative routes through Bath, Bradford or Limpley Stoke are by no means acceptable alternatives. Yet again we are penalised for simply trying to get to work!! I am sure that many local people chose to cycle or walk when it is viable, but since public transport does not offer an alternative option, the toll bridge is often the only route, unless you have time to drive into Bath or Bradford instead. I have had enough!!! As well as starting this petition, calling on a halt to this increase, I will also pursue a complete stop at best, a reduction at least to the charges to residence of the 3 boughs of Bathford, Batheaston and Bathampton. I will also be making formal complaints to MP's as well as Bath, Bathampton and Batheaston Councils to stop this unjustifiable increase and yet another increased tax on local people. Please support this cause and stop this frustrating and expensive toll.

The beaver is the most important, formerly native, animal to Britain that could create landscapes that protect our native plants and animals. They also save taxpayers money in water treatment and flood management costs. The beaver was hunted to extinction and we have a duty to bring them back to our rivers. The effects of beavers will improve water quality, reduce flooding and help turn our river banks back into wildlife havens. This is resisted by some groups who want to exploit our river banks for private gain or fear change in the countryside. 1. The beaver family in the Beauly is not causing any problems and is popular with locals 2. They did not come from illegal releases so there is no need for SNH to make an example of them. 3. They have been there for 5 years or more and are breeding. Kits have been seen this year. 4. Trees for Life are fundraising to run a licensed beaver project in that area and would like to study and add to the existing beaver population. 5. Without this it could take decades for beavers to disperse naturally to the north of the Cairngorms. 6. Trapping these beavers is a waste of public money and a pointless animal welfare risk.

Jake Berry MP (Tory minister for the so-called Northern "Powerhouse") has advised cash strapped Wirral Council to use its own resources and reserves to help victims of the huge explosion that tore through the centre of New Ferry, Wirral earlier this year. 33 people were injured 2 seriously, many businesses were destroyed, a further dozen shops and services put out of action and 30 families displaced from their homes. With so much of the town centre destroyed, shoppers have stopped going to New Ferry and the surviving businesses are suffering from loss of trade and facing financial ruin. Insurance companies have been very slow to act and indeed reluctant to pay out (with nobody having yet been found guilty of causing the explosion), leaving residents and businesses without sufficient financial support with which to rebuild their lives. Many people are not only suffering financially, but also emotionally with depression and the equivalent of post-traumatic stress disorder. The government has shockingly refused to call the explosion a NATIONAL INCIDENT, what on earth does constitute a "national incident" then ? Despite pleas for funding assistance from local MPs, businesses and residents, the government has turned its back on this devastated community, citing rules and regulations for not offering any disaster relief funding to help those affected. New Ferry, Wirral - a deprived community in a Labour controlled authority - is being treated entirely differently to other communities in the UK that have faced similar, and seemingly less significant, disasters. Jake Berry's refusal of assistance is an absolute disgrace and makes a mockery of the title Northern Powerhouse. New Ferry should be treated the same as other communities that have recently suffered (as should every community in the country should a similar disaster befall them), and the rebuilding of its centre should be funded by the British government A.S.A.P If you agree that New Ferry (and every other community in the country affected by such an economically damaging disaster) should be treated fairly and given government support, please, please sign this petition, thank you

My name is Eddie Gilbertson and I was diagnosed with pleural plaques in 1999. I know what it's like to have an asbestos-related condition and how important it is to receive piece of mind when you are told you have a toxic material in your body. I co-ordinate and run the South Wales Asbestos Support Group (SWASG - http://www.swasg.wales/about), and with their backing and support I am bringing you the information and background surrounding this petition. The purpose of this petition is to bring attention to a House of Lords decision that residents of both England and Wales should not be entitled to compensation when diagnosed with pleural plaques, while their counterparts in Scotland and Northern Ireland are allowed to do so. Since the 1980s, the presence of pleural plaques was treated by the courts as giving rise to a potential provisional damages claim. An individual would be able to instruct solicitors to investigate liability in the knowledge they would achieve peace of mind - they could also be entitled to compensation should they develop a more serious asbestos-related condition in the future. In 2007, the House of Lords ruled that people with the condition would no longer qualify for compensation after insurance companies challenged workers’ rights to claim. Compensation for pleural plaques was reinstated in Scotland in 2009 and again in Northern Ireland in 2011 through legislation passed by their devolved parliaments with the knowledge that the combination of the physical change to the lung tissue when combined with the inevitable anxiety as to the individual’s future and the risk of development of more serious conditions, ought to be actionable. This leaves those who were exposed to asbestos dust and fibres throughout England and Wales unable to claim compensation if they are diagnosed with pleural plaques. Caused by exposure to asbestos dust and fibres, pleural plaques are a condition affecting the membrane surrounding your lungs and lining the inside of your ribcage. After being exposed to asbestos, it is very common for areas of the membrane to become thickened and fibrous, and to accumulate a chalky material. Despite there being no symptoms associated with pleural plaques, the fact that they are there signals the presence of asbestos fibres in the lungs which may independently cause life-threatening or fatal diseases, such as asbestosis or mesothelioma. To put it shortly, pleural plaques are an indicator of potentially serious health problems in the future. Diagnosis means that people with previous asbestos exposure can feel great anxiety about what their future holds, and can even alter someones state of mind. I know several individuals who have since been diagnosed with pleural plaques, as well as the families and friends of others and it can be very harrowing to see such fine gentlemen and ladies know that one day they could develop a life threatening condition and get no support, all while their mental well-being deteriorates. When you are told you have asbestos fibres in your lungs - no matter how serious the related condition - it's frightening and isolating. What does is mean for your health and future, and the future of your family? It is for these reasons that I wanted to set up the SWASG, and I am now bringing forward this petition.

Surrey County Council have decided to withdraw all funds supporting our valuable Home Support Teams. Many residents feel cheated and betrayed - why? Because they only moved into "Sheltered Accommodation" when they were assured that Home Support was available. Many having turned down "Granny Flats" in order to preserve their independence, now they are stuck! Vulnerable and elderly residents in Sheltered Accommodation rely on this support. Viv Y. who is now ninety says " we have been so lucky to have our lovely Home Support Angels - without them I would be in hospital. With their support and dedication I have not blocked a bed in hospital and can be in the familiar surroundings of my own home and lovely neighbours" Nora S. -" If this service is withdrawn I shall have to move somewhere more secure. I owe so much to Home Support for helping me stay in my own home. It would be a wonderful Christmas present for us all if this threat could be lifted" The Home Support teams have largely taken upon themselves myriad problems that arise on a day-to-day basis in residential establishments for elderly and vulnerable people. In fact they take on problems way beyond their remit because they care. Arguably, without Home Support many residents would either be hospitalised or relying on other emergency services such as Doctors,Fire Services and police incurring further costs that outweigh the proposed savings. .

On a regular basis I encounter drivers causing unnecessary danger simply by moving off from the wrong side of the road. A car that is moving in this situation always has a driver it doesn't always have a passenger who has a clearer view of the road. With a law in place this common dangerous practice would reduce.

Launceston is situated on the border with Devon far from any other hospital and 25 miles from Derriford Hospital in Plymouth. We need our Community Hospital and an Urgent Care Centre to serve our rural community's health care needs. With a rapidly expanding population in the new housing estates on the periphery of Launceston and an ageing population in the rural hinterland, we desperately need adequate health provision in the Launceston area. My husband has numerous chronic health problems and we spend a great deal of time in both Launceston Hospital and Derriford Hospital. I drive him to all his appointments and the trips to Derriford can be long and tiring for us both. We are not alone. There are many families like ours. Without emergency care in Launceston, our quality of life would be severely diminished. We need our Urgent Care Centre in Launceston. We need a fully functioning Community Hospital. We need our NHS.

As someone who has lived with chronic pain for over 15 years, I have considerable experience of the current pain management options and have tried over 30 medications and treatment regimes specifically aimed at reducing my chronic pain. I have used cannabis in the past in order to help control my pain but the current legal situation means it is illegal and is classed as having no medical benefit which deters those in considerable chronic pain who may gain some benefit from cannabis. Scottish Government figures estimate that over 223,000 adults in Scotland experience chronic pain. The Scottish Government have provided funding which set up the National Scottish Chronic Pain Management Service in Glasgow and which led to an overhaul of chronic pain services. While these investments are welcome, I believe that the Scottish Government needs to commit to exploring the medical benefits of cannabis based products in order to develop better treatments for those in chronic pain. I am aware of the reserved nature of drugs policy in the UK and confirm that this isn't a call for the legalisation of cannabis but for the First Minister to allocate money and resources for the exploration of the benefit of medicines based on cannabis. I've had a supporting quote from Crossbench peer Baroness Meacher: “It is shocking that cannabis remains illegal for medical use in this Country. The majority of US States and at least 11 Countries in Europe now recognise the medicinal value of cannabis to patients suffering chronic pain and other conditions. The World Health Organisation is now reviewing the legal status of cannabis under the United Nations Conventions. We are urging the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs - the drugs advisory body to the UK Government - to review the evidence on cannabis. It has become urgent for the UK to legalise cannabis for medical use, and I am now hopeful that this will happen within two years. This is of course far too long a delay but we will get there if public pressure continues”. And a supporting quote from Liberal Democrat peer and Lib Dem Home Affairs Spokesperson Baroness Hamwee: “The UK's drugs policy is good for the criminal gangs who profit from it, but heartless towards people who would benefit from medical treatment using cannabis. A health-based approach, and regulation, is simple common sense.”