This is applying the same principles to business as the government is proposing for trade unions.

The Credit industry in the UK already has plenty of tools to use when pursuing debtors who will not pay their debts, to the point of getting a County Court Judgement and then engaging Bailiffs to go after the debtor or repossessing property. In addition, they are under a duty to work with debtors who find themselves unable for whatever reason to pay their debts as originally agreed and to find more suitable ways of repaying the debt. The fact that a company will sell an old debt for a fraction of its face value means that the debt has already been written off and all options for collecting the debt have failed. Almost without exception, these companies do not exercise any form of due diligence to find out whether the alleged debt is still valid. In many cases, it isn't. Instead, they write threatening and intimidating letters to potentially vulnerable people about old debts which may well have been forgotten about. This practice is unfair given the vast array of tools already available to the credit industry. It is not in the interests of the Credit Industry because the debts sold have already been written off. The practice is born of sheer greed and benefits nobody except the companies engaged in it. For that reason, it needs to be banned.

More and more UK residents not only on benefits but in work reply on food banks to feed there family.

Because this is forcing low income families to fight to keep their homes as based on household rents this could mean two earners of 15'000 each that equal to the threshhold put in place and therefore could see them homeless or being desperately forced out of london away from their income and their childrens schools. Imagine being a low or even middle income family on social housing living within an area like hoxton or islington and being forced to pay local rents that could mean one whole salary spent on just rent before any other bills such as council tax / elec/ gas etc!!!!

This Bill represents a wide-ranging attack on workers' rights. It's designed to restrict the right to strike and act collectively in the workplace

We, the undersigned, care deeply about the arts, and equally the natural environment and the rights of humans around the world. We believe arts and cultural institutions should break their ties with oil companies such as BP, a company which has caused repeated environmental catastrophes, including the Deepwater Horizon spill, and been implicated in numerous human rights violations. Furthermore, BP is turning a profit on the continued extraction of dirty fossil fuels, pushing us towards runaway climate change, whilst lobbying against environmental laws and clean energy alternatives [1, 2]. By accepting sponsorship from BP, cultural institutions give the oil giant much-needed positive publicity, and help it to obscure the destructive reality of its activities with a veneer of respectability. At the same time, oil sponsorship taints the reputation of the institutions that accept it. We recognise the vital importance of arts funding, particularly after public funding cuts. However BP sponsorship provides less than 1% of the annual income of the British Museum, Tate, and Royal Opera House, and just 3% of the income of the National Portrait Gallery [3], yet BP are allowed to place their name and logo alongside the names of these institutions, on their website and in exhibitions (despite many artists and arts workers having strong views against such branding) [4, 5]. BP needs these institutions far more than they need BP. This is the 26th year that BP has sponsored the Portrait Awards, through an agreement with the National Portait Gallery (NPG) in London. Fortunately this agreement is due to end this year. The NPG could choose not to renew the agreement, and to find a more appropriate sponsor for the Portrait Awards. However, negotiations about renewal are already underway. The NPG will not drop BP as a sponsor without strong pressure from the public and the arts sector. We need to act now. Over its 26 years of sponsorship, BP has repeatedly caused great harms to the environment and people; it has been responsible for multiple deadly explosions and oil spillages, including that of Deepwater Horizon, which killed 11 people, decimated ecosystems and livelihoods in the Gulf of Mexico, and resulted in the largest corporate fine in history [6]. It has traded with oppressive regimes from Azerbaijan to Libya, and has even been implicated in torture in Colombia [7]. It has recently expanded into tar sands, an extreme form of energy production which contaminates water and tramples on indigenous rights [8]. Worldwide, fossil fuel companies have currently laid claim to five times the volume of oil, gas and coal that humanity can burn without causing dangerous and destructive levels of global warming [9] - despite this, BP has stated that it will continue to explore and exploit new reserves of oil and gas into the future. In 1989, the National Portrait Gallery ended its eight-year Portrait Award sponsorship agreement with tobacco company John Player [10]. It is time for this national cultural institution to show such moral leadership and forward-thinking once again, by cutting ties with BP. As a partner of the National Portrait Gallery, the Scottish National Portrait Gallery can influence this decision. We call on this respected national cultural institution to put pressure on the NPG to find a more appropriate sponsor, and to refuse to host the BP Portrait Awards until a new sponsor has been found. For more information, please see: http://bp-or-not-bp.org/ http://bp-or-not-bp.org/scotland http://platformlondon.org/p-publications/picturethis/ References 1. http://www.theguardian.com/business/2010/may/02/bp-deepwater-horizon-oil-spills 2. http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/sep/21/bp-tops-the-list-of-firms-obstructing-climate-action-in-europe 3. http://platformlondon.org/p-publications/artoilinfographic/ 4. http://fossilfundsfree.org/who/ 5. http://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2014/jun/24/no-oil-painting-bp-sponsorship-npg-portrait-award 6. http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/jul/02/bp-will-pay-largest-environmental-fine-in-us-history-for-gulf-oil-spill 7. http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/may/22/gilberto-torres-survived-colombias-death-squads-now-he-wants-justice 8. http://environmentaldefence.ca/reports/canadas-toxic-tar-sands-most-destructive-project-earth 9. http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/global-warmings-terrifying-new-math-20120719 10. http://platformlondon.org/p-publications/picturethis/ 11. http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/climate-risks-as-conclusive-as-link-between-smoking-and-lung-cancer/

We are being asked to vote on something which will possibly change the future of Britain and haven't been given the facts from which to make a choice.

In May the government will block charities, who receive a government grant, from being able to lobby and campaign against government policies. A clause inserted into new and renewed grant agreements  will state that Charities can't take part in "activity intended to influence - or attempt to influence - Parliament, government or political parties". Sir Stuart Etherington, chief executive of the National Council for Voluntary Organisations, said the new rules were "draconian". "This is tantamount to making charities take a vow of silence and goes against the spirit of open policy-making that this Government has hitherto championed." Meanwhile big business, who receive government grants can carry on spending over £2.5bn a year on lobbying Westminster.

This is important due to the gambling addiction that has gripped this country. Gambling is an addiction that cannot be controlled and asking people to ban themselves from these establishments is not the answer to this problem especially with all the available online casinos and apps that can be downloaded. These companies and the television companies are still encouraging this horrible disease, people no longer have a choice when their addiction is being advertised as a fun , cool and exciting way to go about your spare time.

Users of the park visit the Ham Common (An SSSI area " of great beauty and interest.") and engage in sport & leisure activities that are based at Lake Pier. Perhaps most significantly they are residents of the local area including the youth of the borough, adults previously encouraged under ‘well being’ schemes, mature residents who visit to enjoy the environment and many others; fishermen, children and families - ‘crabbing’ and enjoying the shoreline. Most unfortunately the Poole Harbour Canoe club that has recently been encouraged to invest in a new boathouse at the site and who support the engagement of all ages in enjoying canoeing and kayaking may also suffer. Juniors, families and adults will all now sadly be discouraged by the introduction of these charges negating the good work of many in the borough who have previously encouraged active participation of these diverse groups of the community. The club has "Top Club" status from the National Governing body - the British Canoe Union through the diverse nature of its work and activities. http://www.pooleharbourcanoeclub.uk

This is a major crossing point for children and families using both John Hampden School and Lord Williams's School. At the moment there is no direct line of sight from where cars approach the turning into the East Street and cars frequently do not stop at the junction and often do not even indicate They come round the corner at speed and there have been a number of near misses where cars have had to slam on breaks or children get pulled back by their parents. A block of flats was built on the corner which directly impacted on the sightline of drivers into East Street. We are urging Thame Town Council to help save lives by providing adequate warning signage at the very least.

Unfortunately this is not an isolated incident in the St Albans Conservation Area. Recently, for example, an other locally listed building (Hawthornden, 23 Hatfield Road ) was demolished nearby. Let's step back from this path or we will lose the special character and architecture of the city. In 2012 the Victorian Society wrote: "The Pemberton block was built as an extension to the 1883 Hatfield Road Boys School and is now the only part of the school which still survives", and further: "The Victorian Society is backing local campaigners opposed to the demolition of the Pemberton block, the last remaining evidence of the town’s historic St Albans school for boys." Finally they conclude: "'Victorian and Edwardian schools were built to last and lend themselves well to adaptation. The demolition of the Pemberton block would be an appalling waste of a structurally sound historic building, and the site calls for a much less destructive solution". How could demolition have been approved against all expert opinion coming from Historic England, the Victorian Society or the Secretary of State (2012 decision), and against the wishes of the vast majority of the local St Albans Community including leading organizations like the St Albans Civic Society or the St Albans and Hertfordshire Architectural and Archaeological Society? To conclude here is a link to a 2012 letter by Mr. Donald Munro, former president of the St Albans and Hertfordshire Architectural and Archaeological Society, about the importance of this building and why it should be protected: http://www.stalbanshistory.org/page_id__443.aspx