Labour has said it will scrap the House of Lords and replace it with a second, elected house. This will not add anything to parliament, it will just add another layer of establishment figures that passed through private schools, did PPE at Oxbridge and will move into directorships when finished. The selection could be one member per constituency or several per county or some other geographical boundary. We need a second house populated by people that didn't get into power by knowing someone important or buying their way in. The MPs/PM must have no possibility of influencing the make-up of the new house. There must be no incentive for new members to use their time to attach themselves to the establishment. This will most likely lead to women, ethnic minorities, the poor, the unemployed, the disabled, those that didn't go to public school, etc being proportionately represented. If they need advice on points of law they can use the same methods the MPs use (civil service, advisors, etc). The second house should be able to send ill thought out legislation back to the MPs for revision. In addition it should be able to propose legislation for MPs to debate. We currently have nobody in either house that knows what it's like to live in poverty and have no network of rich friends to fall back on. This should redress the balance. It will prevent the new house being populated by those who want power (and therefore become corrupted by it) If anyone selected doesn't want to stand (or has to leave) they can be replaced by a further random selection. Selection would be very cheap - eg picking a random national insurance number. No-one can be a member of the new house for more than one session. The session should last the same amount of time as the MPs session (5 years) but could possibly be offset by two and a half years to prevent MPs from 'buying off' the members in any way for a parliamentary session. The new house would be located outside of London if a physical location is necessary and would allow for remote meeting (eg telecommuting) for as much time as the new house deems necessary.

MPs accused of abusing the unreformed expenses system will escape official investigation after the House of Commons authorities destroyed all record of their claims John Bercow, the Speaker, faces accusations he has presided over a fresh cover-up of MPs' expenses after tens of thousands of pieces of paperwork relating to claims made before 2010 under the scandal-hit regime were shredded. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/mps-expenses/11204405/MPs-to-escape-expenses-investigations-after-paperwork-destroyed-by-Parliament.html I am calling for John Bercow to be investigated to by the police to find out if there are any records that have been destroyed contrary to the proceeds of crime act . I am calling for a police investigation into every MP’s expenses. I am doing this on the grounds that although MP’s are entitled to expenses, these expense claims should be available to the public to inspect the claims made. There is a 7 year time limit for investigation of these claims and MP’s should keep proper records of these claims. If they fail to do so then they are failing in their duties as public servants. In my opinion any MP that has not kept records of their expense claim for the past 7 years should be investigated with the possibility of having to repay those expenses if they are unable to justify the claims with paperwork to back up the claims made. We, the general public, are constantly being told by politicians that the laws are all inclusive and that if we are innocent then we will have nothing to worry about. This same principle should also apply to MP’s and if the MP’s are innocent and can prove that they have made expense claims that are justified then they are entitled to keep the expenses received. However, if MP’s are not able to prove that the expense claims that they made are justified then they should be forced to repay these expenses. Below I have pasted a copy of the proceeds of crime act part 7 (this has been taken from the following page) - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proceeds_of_Crime_Act_2002 I think that at the end of this there is an important part about this act that should be acted upon – The offence of failing to report a suspicion of money laundering by another person carries a maximum penalty of 5 years imprisonment and/or a fine This means that if any member of public suspects that any MP has falsely claimed expenses that they are not entitled to – by law you must report this suspicion. If anybody reading this suspects that any MP (or any other public figure such as the speaker John Bercow) has committed an offence then it is your public duty to immediately forward this suspicion onto your local police authority. I would suggest either putting your suspicions in writing or forwarding this page by email to the chief of police in your area. Proceeds of Crime act part 7 Unlike certain other jurisdictions (notably the USA and much of Europe), UK money laundering offences are not limited to the proceeds of serious crimes, nor are there any monetary limits, nor is there any necessity for there to be a money laundering design or purpose to an action for it to amount to a money laundering offence. A money laundering offence under UK legislation need not involve money, since the money laundering legislation covers assets of any description. Technically therefore an individual who steals even a paper clip in the UK commits a money laundering offence (possession of the stolen paper clip) in addition to the predicate offence (of theft of the paper clip). In consequence any person who commits an acquisitive crime (i.e. one from which he obtains some benefit in the form of money or an asset of any description) in the UK will inevitably also commit a money laundering offence under UK legislation. The principal money laundering offences carry a maximum penalty of 14 years imprisonment. The offence of failing to report a suspicion of money laundering by another person carries a maximum penalty of 5 years imprisonment and/or a fine. Parts 8 to 12 of the Act make further provisions with regard to investigation of suspected offences, international co-operation, etc. Importantly it is a criminal offence to impede a money laundering investigation by the authorities by the concealing, destroying or falsifying of documents relevant to the investigation or by the making of a disclosure of information which prejudices the investigation. The offence carries a maximum punishment of 5 years imprisonment.

There are numerous reports and accounts of our claim including the findings of the Work and Pensions Select Committee and the Public Accounts committee - (http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201415/cmselect/cmworpen/394/39404.htm). Further 105,344 people agreed with Debbie Sayers and myself when we called for Hold Iain Duncan Smith to be held to account for misusing statistics http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/iain-duncan-smith-must-face-2912624, to no avail, this is despite the Government agreeing that "statistics should be presented in a way that is fair, accurate and 'unspun' ". These distorted 'facts' are used to further deprive disabled people of the essential benefits needed to manage their conditions; so far the 'Cuts' have resulted in disabled people losing an average of £4,410 per person - 9 times more than the burden placed on most other citizens http://www.centreforwelfarereform.org/uploads/attachment/354/a-fair-society.pdf. These mis-truths are also responsible for justifying the latest proposals, irrelevant of the Evidence http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/ampp3d/disabled-people-threatened-another-cut-4534714 Iain Duncan Smith continues to ignore his Government and persists in misusing statistics, and it is for these reasons we believe it is time for the Powers of the Commissioner for standards to be exercised, and for Iain Duncan Smith to be independently and openly investigated for breach of Conduct Jayne Linney & Debbie Sayers

Many patients are very anxious about the future of their local hospital, particularly after various media disclosures, including the announcement that 1,000 beds in hospitals across the city (of Birmingham) are due to be axed! Our campaign group, Save Good Hope’s Local Services, brings together local people who use and care very much about our local hospital, Good Hope, in Sutton Coldfield, West Midlands. We are independent of any political party and are campaigning to stop the closure of key departments at our hospital. Closures of key departments at Good Hope Hospital could be the start of a slippery slope: in many areas of England, hospitals have already either been downgraded or even closed. One of our main aims, as stated in an earlier petition, has recently been successfully achieved. A public meeting to discuss the Trust’s proposals finally having being held in October, after much campaigning! And now we are calling for people across Birmingham to say NO to the closure of key departments at the hospital. These were revealed in the Trust's document (before the consultations had even finished!) as the following: 1. The transfer of Trauma FROM Good Hope to Heartlands Hospital; 2. The transfer of Orthopaedics, Ophthalmology and Colorectal Surgery FROM Good Hope to Heartlands and Solihull, both great distances to travel for many people and particularly difficult for carers and those they care for, the elderly, very young and disabled. In response to concern already expressed by many people at the ongoing consultations regarding transport, the Trust have suggested the equivalent of `taxi’ ambulances so to speak. But who would pay for this? Even if it was to be the Trust, how long would they actually pay before saying they had run out of funds? Would patients then be expected to pay, including those from other areas even further out, such as Tamworth & Lichfield? The Heart Of England Trust has been reported in the media as being the highest earning Trust IN THE COUNTRY from car parking charges, netting an annual profit of nearly £4million! At the public meeting, one of our campaigners asked the Trust why and if that money could be used to help keep our hospital services local? At present, it is obvious that this Trust STILL lacks openness, transparency and empathy with patients. They need to really start to `think like a patient’, because at the moment, they don’t.

Britain first are a far right hate group that promotes racial and religious hatred via their website and Facebook page. The number of their likes, even though fake, gives them a veneer of respectability and increases their global reach. The comments on their posts are of the vilest hate speech imaginable. Facebook needs to investigate Britain Firsts page and remove their fake likes.

Fracking carries significant risks. Strong evidence suggests risks of significant health and environmental damage, damage to the quality of home and family life—and damage to property. Fracking releases pollutants into the air and risks polluting water supplies. Stories come in from all over the world. The evidence is well supported and researched. Families can't drink water. Cattle die. Children suffer. There are also risks from fumes, vibration, heavy traffic, from light pollution, and much, much more. The UK government is ignoring important democratic and human rights considerations in its 'dash for gas'. Human rights to health, to a healthy environment, to enjoy wellbeing don't even figure in the debates. On top of this, ordinary people, many of whom have never, ever protested before, are being subjected to underhand tactics designed to intimidate them and which violate their civil and political rights. Enough is enough. The UK government has important responsibilities under human rights law. It is time to ban fracking until a full human rights impact assessment has been made, based on the best evidence, and independent of the companies with an interest in fracking the UK.

1. Rural areas are liable to decline if their infrastructure and services – public transport, education, GP practices, cottage hospitals, street lighting, etc – are not effectively funded and supported. Unless these are of a good standard and accessibility, businesses will not be established in rural areas, those already there will be unable to attract workers, and this will run counter to the government’s own policy (see Truss, E., 2014, “Stimulating Economic Growth in Rural Areas”, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs). 2. Those who live in rural areas are entitled to a reasonable standard of services and national infrastructure. The cuts in grant to local authorities have made it impossible for rural counties to maintain services and infrastructure at a level anywhere near comparable to that provided in metropolitan areas. 3. Some government policies have been implemented without consideration for the impact on rural areas – e.g. the raising of the school/training leaving age to 18, requiring all young people to reach centres of population on a daily basis, while councils are forced to remove subsidy for buses that could get them there and no government provision has been made for this. Thanks to LM and AB

so people can walk home safely and be seen

1) It is not sustainable to develop new sources of fossil fuels. If climate change is to be limited to 2°C, which is necessary to avoid catastrophic impacts, 80% of proven fossil fuels reserves cannot be burnt. We note that, with one quarter of the county less than 5m above sea level, Kent is very vulnerable to the rise in sea level that will result from our changing climate. 2) All water supplies in Kent are severely stressed. Fracking requires very large quantities of clean water (almost 19 million litres per frack). There is not an adequate water supply in Kent to sustain fracking. 3) Fracking produces very large quantities of polluted water which contain radioactive elements from deep underground. Water treatment plants cannot safely dispose of this waste. 4) Water supplies can be polluted by fracking due to pollutants leaking from the shale rock, or from wells drilled through an aquifer. There are many cases of water pollution from fracking documented in the USA. 5) Kent’s roads are already busy with many heavy goods vehicles. Development of onshore oil or gas extraction would require many truck movements, increasing the heavy vehicle goods traffic on Kent’s major and rural roads. 6) We value the peace and amenity of Kent’s countryside, and oppose onshore oil and gas development that would industrialise rural Kent. Production from onshore wells is short-lived, requiring many wells to be drilled. 7) Financial analysts, the Chancellor and the onshore oil and gas industry all accept that development of shale oil and gas in the UK will not reduce the price of gas.

Our West Hendon are a group of concerned residents on the West Hendon Estate that believe that the developments taking place benefit private developers at the expense of our community. We fear the development is going to force many people from our community out of the estate and possibly out of London. We are therefore making the following demands of Barnet Council, Barnet Homes, Barratt and Metropolitan Housing Association.

"The Rough" is an adjacent greenfield site which has been the target of developers for decades. The plan includes re-building Ascot Heath School between the "The Rough" and Ascot Stud Farm, leaving the eastern half of this greenfield site susceptible to creeping status change. It is important because this is green belt designated as a Special Protected Area and because there are other East Berkshire sites with infrastructure (sewers, arterial roads, hospitals) much more suited to new housing developments.

The Bill would rewrite the rules that force market tendering of services and that are seeing millions of pounds wasted on competition lawyers that should instead be spent on patients.