Our Ancient Woodlands have evolved over hundreds of years and cannot simply be replaced by new plantings of trees, no matter how many trees are planted for every one destroyed in an ancient woodland. These Ancient Woodlands have very complex relationships, for instance between some of our rarest Orchids and Fungi. But there are many such relationships which cannot be replicated in a new planting. These complex relationships between trees, flowering plants, insects, birds, mammals, amphibians, worms, nematodes, bacteria and fungi would be destroyed if the destruction of these Ancient Woodlands were to be allowed.

Maggie* won't have had much of a Christmas. She has been living rough since she was brutally evicted and her boat and all her possessions seized by the Canal & River Trust in late November 2013. Her home was towed away by a team of 20 bailiffs, Canal & River Trust officials and police. She was left standing on the towpath with only the clothes she stood up in. Maggie suffers from schizophrenia. She hasn't been seen for weeks; friends, family and even the Police are concerned for her safety. They fear that the frightening nature of the eviction has affected her already fragile mental state. A friend who witnessed the eviction said "Maggie's illness contributed to the situation that led to the eviction. But what an appalling and distastefully unnecessary dispossession of a schizophrenic's home. Canal & River Trust should have helped this vulnerable woman to resolve the situation. They should not have waded in with this draconian show of force. Their behaviour is a disgrace". He continued: "Maggie needed support and as a charity, they should have acted with compassion, not sent in the troops to remove an eight-stone sick lady from her home. This is just one of many examples of Canal & River Trust's bullying of live-aboard boaters. Canal & River Trust is a charityless organisation. If Maggie has come to any harm I will personally hold Canal & River Trust responsible". Derek's* Christmas was almost as cheerless. A pensioner, he has lived on boats for more than 30 years. He became seriously ill several years ago. He needed regular medical treatment and had to stay near the hospital and doctor. Without a permanent mooring, the law states that under normal circumstances he should travel to a different place every 14 days. But in exceptional circumstances such as illness, he is entitled to stay for whatever longer period is reasonable. This did not stop Canal & River Trust pressuring him to take a mooring and then taking court action to evict him and seize his boat. He stands to lose his home in early 2014. Harry* is terminally ill. He needed to moor his boat near the hospital for extended periods while receiving treatment. Threats by Canal & River Trust to seize his home unless he took a mooring have forced him to pay for a mooring that is a long distance from the hospital, even though he has the right to stay longer than 14 days in one place if it is reasonable to do so. Canal & River Trust won't drop their enforcement action against him because they claim his past record of boat movement is poor. The reason he couldn't travel much was because of his terminal illness, but Canal & River Trust don't seem to care. They are legally a charity, but their actions are uncharitable. Harry deserves better in the remaining months of his life. There are many more disabled, elderly and vulnerable boat dwellers like Maggie, Derek and Harry who are being threatened with eviction and seizure of their homes by Canal & River Trust. These boat dwellers have rights under the Equality Act to be protected from losing their homes; rights that Canal & River Trust refuses to recognise, in breach of the law. A report by Bath and North East Somerset Council condemned Canal & River Trust's failure to meet its equality obligations. The report, published in July 2013, stated that the Council "met with senior executives of the Canal & River Trust and were disturbed both by their lack of awareness of equalities issues, and by their use of draconian powers to enforce the conditions of the licences they issue..." Boats can be licensed to use Canal & River Trust's waterways without a permanent mooring under Section 17 (3) (c) (ii) of the British Waterways Act 1995. For more information about the rights of boat dwellers without permanent moorings on Canal & River Trust's waterways, see this 30-minute film by Wiltshire Council http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CYsBn5xABEc The report, Boat Dwellers and River Travellers: Housing and Major Projects Policy Development and Scrutiny Panel: a Task and Finish Group Review, by Bath and North East Somerset Council is online here at page 19 http://democracy.bathnes.gov.uk/documents/g3691/Public%20reports%20pack%2023rd-Jul-2013%2017.30%20Housing%20and%20Major%20Projects%20Policy%20Development%20and%20Scrutiny.pdf?T=10 *Names have been changed to protect these vulnerable people.

Dear Minister, Maria Eagle stated in The House of Commons Debate on Food Poverty on Wednesday 18th December 2013 that, "there is a very straightforward way for Ministers to clear up any doubt about the reasons for the increase in reliance on food aid: they can finally publish the official report into the growth of food banks, which was delivered to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs in June. That report has now been sat on by Ministers for six months, longer than it took to produce. In April, the then Minister of State at DEFRA, the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr Heath), said: “The conclusions of this work will be available in the summer and published on the Government's website.”—[Official Report, 23 April 2013; Vol. 561, c. 821W.] Now Ministers say the report is still being subjected to “an appropriate review and quality assurance process.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 26 November 2013; Vol. 749, c. 1293.]" I demand that The Department of Work and Pensions and DEFRA release this report so that we can all see if the Government's report agrees with, or disputes claims from Voluntary Organizations and Churches; that one third of people referred to Food Banks are due to Social Security delays and cuts. I would also like to remind you that people, working and unemployed, who are referred to Food Banks, can usually only be referred to them three times within a twelve month period, after that there is no help! I would like to know from you, why this report has been subject to "review and quality assurance" for so long and when will it be released?

The new Universal Credit replaces JSA, Income Support, ESA, Housing Benefit, Tax Credits and Working Tax Credits. Government says Universal Credit will make work pay. This is rubbish. Universal Credit is about cutting the Social Security bill meaning millions will be worse off. Once fully implemented Universal Credit :- Will mean easier sanctioning forcing people to live off nothing. Housing subsidy will be time limited forcing more to be homeless. Support for child care drastically cut. Disability elements cut or abolished altogether. Thousands of small businesses will be forced out of business. Some rates are lower than current benefit rates. For the unemployed UC will eventually become time-limited. The government has so far wasted hundreds of millions in IT and other failures but even they admit the benefit savings will be in the BILLIONS. BILLIONS taken from the needy and most vulnerable in society.

Lyndale school is a special school for children with special needs. Its a wonderful school and the council want to close it due to shortfall of £70,000. For some of the children there is no suitable alternative. The disruption and emotional upheaval to the children this will cause is dispicable and we urge the council to reconsider. We will fight all the way and by any means to keep this school open.

Hundreds of pedestrians have to cross these intimidating roads every day, many of them children attending a number of local schools, particularly Balfour Primary, Downs Infant and Junior, Dorothy Stringer, Varndean and The Montessori School. There are also two parks adjacent to the roads (Blaker’s and Preston which are a popular choice for sports, recreation and walking), a busy local shopping area, homes for older people and several children’s nurseries. We urge the city council to prioritise the needs of people for safer roads where they live, shop, work, play and go to school and reduce these traffic speeds as soon as possible. Preston Drove and Stanford Avenue were excluded from the 20mph speed limit scheme on the basis that they are "key bus and taxi routes", but buses only use sections of those roads or are infrequently scheduled, so they are not key routes. Surrenden Road is a wide dual carriageway in a residential area and the traffic presents a clear risk to children and adults. It has been the subject of a long term community campaign for road safety improvement. There is overwhelming evidence that reduced traffic speed reduces casualties and mitigates the effects of road traffic collisions. Research shows that 20mph zones in London have reduced overall casualties by 42%, and the reduction was greatest for younger children. The study concluded that: “20 mph zones are effective measures for reducing road injuries and deaths.” 20 mph speed limits on these three roads would bring enormous benefit to the people using them. Speed reduction should be urgently applied.

On the 4th December, 2013, the government announced that children who were in foster care would be allowed and supported to remain with their foster carers until they were 21 years of age. There was much celebration amongst campaigners when the announcement was made. However, those celebrations did not extend to children and young people in children’s homes. Children in residential care are not included in this change even though arguably the residential sector cares for possibly the most vulnerable and disadvantaged young people who may be unable, or indeed choose not to be fostered. ECLCM is a campaign group, without funding or political affiliations with any other group, formed to stop Government discrimination against children in residential care who want support to 21, the same as those in foster care. One young 15 year old in residential care said: Just because foster children are settled in a family environment does not mean that young people in residential are not. I would love to live here until I am 21.' Children in children’s homes will still face being discharged from care at 18 (or even younger) and facing the savage disadvantages that life can bring. We know from the feedback we received that these young people were not celebrating last week. It is our view that increasing the care leaving age for fostered children and not those in other residential settings will have unintended consequences. It will: • create a ‘two tier’ care system, in which children in foster care receive longer aftercare support than those residential settings; • create an ‘underclass’ of children in care who have to leave care at 18; • reduce real choice for children as they will be compelled to accept family care in order to gain better aftercare; • create serious issues for social workers when family placements are breaking down. Instead of considering a residential care option, they may repeat family placements in an effort to protect aftercare; • have an impact on the self-image and confidence of children in residential settings other than foster care, who may feel undervalued and discriminated against by a change which excludes them through no fault of their own. We welcome the change in leaving age for fostered children to 21 years of age. We congratulate the campaigners who achieved this and acknowledge work that took place over several years. However, we feel that to accept this change whilst excluding other children in care is discriminatory and not sufficient. We ask that the government support all children and young people in care to 21 years of age. We ask all those who share our view to support our campaign for equality. It is the least we can do for our children. Petitioners: BEN ASHCROFT @AshcroftBen IAN DICKSON @IDickson258 ROSIE CANNING @RosieCanning1 ED NIXON @EdNixon2 LISA CHERRY @_LisaCherry PAOLO HEWITT @PaoloHewitt1 ALEX WHEATLE MBE @brixtonbard DR JOSIE PEARSE @angelstrand DR GORDON MILSON @gordonmilson HELEN WILLIAMS @coralhels MARY CAMPBELL-WHARAM @insight_mary RAYNE O'BRIEN @rayne_obrien DANIELLE McLAUGHLIN @Dmamclaughlin ROSE DEVEREUX @RoseDevereux1 PHILOMENA HARRISON IVOR FRANK, LLB, Barrister-at law

Its is so important that Seaham's new secondary school is replaced, like for like, and that it includes a swimming pool. Past generations of Seaham learnt to swim in a makeshift outdoor swimming pool, colloquially known as the pit pond, which was in fact water storage for Dawdon Colliery, however following the demise of the mining industry, and the closure of the three pits which were in the town, the pit pond was lost to the following generations. Swimming is such a vital life skill and even more so for the children of Seaham who live on the North Sea coast to have access to a decent sized learning pool. We believe the whole community would benefit from the replacement of the pool. This is not about profit, this is about saving lives. Surely one pool is worth more than several lives which have been lost in the past few years in our seas.

Our traditional customs are an important part of our National Heritage and in danger of being lost because organisers cannot afford the costs associated with compliance with Health and Safety legislation, insurance costs, security costs and similar placed on them by local authorities. These local authorities should be providing the means for the traditional customs to continue not placing obstacles in the way. E.g. The Bacup Coconut dance (which has been happening in Lancashire for over 150 years) is under threat because they cannot afford to pay for road closures. The Sussex Bonfire tradition is under threat because of increasing legislation and escalating insurance costs from 'ambulance chasers'. Other European nations have protected their customs by listing them with UNESCO, placing an international obligation on local authorities to assist rather than hinder their continuation for future generations. There is no question of compromising public safety but the means to make our customs possible without stretching the resources of the people who carry them out must be found. Nobody questions the resources used for the protection of World Heritage Sites and this is no different. It is good for tourism and for local economies to keep our customs alive.

I've heard that Hywel Dda health board are to downgrade Bronglais. They'll stabilize patients in Bronglais, then fly them down to Carmarthen

This is important because after so many years of governments and police trying to shut down our scene we are still here and we still feel we are doing no harm. If you feel the same then please sign this petition and get this issue addressed by the people who can make a change.

Access to Work isn't a benefit and doesn't incur a cost to government - in fact it brings money into the treasury, yet Deaf and disabled people are having their support allowance capped or cuts made (meaning they can no longer afford to use qualified interpreters or the support they need). This places jobs at risk and has already resulted in job losses and demotions. People currently in work are potentially being forced out of work and onto benefits, which goes against everything the government is telling us they are trying to achieve. Deaf and disabled people bring a vast amount of skill and talent to our workforce that we can't afford to lose. We want to ensure that full support is provided, and people are enabled to gain, maintain and progress in their chosen careers. Personal choice and control needs to be handed back to the experts on Deaf and disabled access needs in the workplace - the individual Deaf and disabled people who use the scheme We want to ensure Deaf and disabled people are not subjected to a glass ceiling due to lack of support.