In the light of the current legislation which aims to claw money back from social housing tenants who are in receipt of housing benefit if their accommodation has 'too many' bedrooms - it might be interesting to discover how many MPs have claimed for housing that they 'under-occupy', and which of these MPs are in favour of the bedroom tax.

We call on our councillors and local authorities to protect people from the frightening threat of eviction from their homes.

As you are probably aware; Navitus Bay Wind Park (1) will be located off the Dorset and Hampshire Coasts, to the west of the Isle of Wight, and also visible from Bournemouth, Poole and Swanage. I understand this development could produce the equivalent energy to power 800,000 homes and reduce carbon emissions by up to 1,125,000 tonnes per annum. This will be a tremendous contribution to our country's energy needs and carbon reductions. It will also help towards our renewable energy target of 15% which in the past few years has been behind plan and behind the progress rates of many other EU nations (2). I am very concerned however that a small group of local activists are using information that has little to no scientific backing to discredit this development and are creating fears about the impact on tourism and jobs in the area. I would urge you to balance any of their views against the report produced by The University of Edinburgh, presented to a Committee of the Scottish Parliament (3) in which there is clear consensus that there has been no measurable economic impact, either positively or negatively, of wind farms on tourism and concludes that “while some strongly held localised and anecdotal opinion exists, the Committee has seen no empirical evidence which demonstrates that the tourism industry in Scotland will be adversely affected by the deployment of renewable energy projects, particularly onshore and offshore wind” I appreciate the turbines will be visible from the coast on a clear day but believe this to be a small and perfectly acceptable compromise for the benefits delivered. Furthermore, I personally confirm that this development will not any way restrict the frequency or manner in which I enjoy the beach and coastal areas in the effected locations. 1. www.navitusbaywindpark.co.uk 2. http://ec.europa.eu/energy/renewables/reports/doc/com_2013_0175_res_en.pdf 3. www.scottish.parliament.uk/S4_EconomyEnergyandTourismCommittee/Reports/eeR-12-07w-r.pdf

The government has just announced plans to re-privatise the East Coast mainline. https://www.gov.uk/government/news/fresh-start-for-franchising Most Brits would agree that our rail service is not up to the standard we would hope and expect. Overcrowding, overpricing and delays are a regular feature of journeys. A four and a half hour long-distance train journey shouldn't be like taking the London Underground at rush hour - but too frequently it is. Almost everyone who uses the trains regularly will have their own horror story about lengthy delays, ridiculous ticket prices and dangerous overcrowding, often all in the same journey. Many of these problems are directly attributable to the bungled privatisations of the 1990s which - contrary to their justification - have led to massive increases in the public subsidy levels for railways, and have allowed operators to extract profit for shareholders in the good times, while passing the risk back to the government and taxpayer when things go bad. Two franchisees for the east coast mainline quit their franchises after massively over-bidding for government contracts between 2005-2009. The taxpayer was left to pick up the pieces, and since then, the east coast service has been run by government agency Directly Operated Railways under the East Coast brand. East Coast has been largely successful, with high levels of customer satisfaction and improving punctuality. It's also returning a profit to the government, rather than shareholders, and shows that the public sector can deliver a rail service efficiently and for the public good. The service is not perfect, but it's better than many other private operators, such as Virgin and First, who will both be seeking to take over the East Coast service. Can you stand back and let Richard Branson get even richer from your train fare while service levels worsen? East Coast doesn't need a new operator. Constant change in management is not good for our train services and not good for customers. It leads to huge legal fees, consultancy costs and human errors which end up being paid for in delays and increased ticket prices. The east coast service needs continuity, stability and the time to build on what it has already achieved. The public ownership of East Coast should serve as an example of the potential for successfully run public railways. Other franchises for the UK's rail services are also due to be renewed under the government's current plans, but as they come to the end of their current terms, the government should bring other services back into public operatorship following the East Coast model.

Portrush is a fantastic place to live and visit due to its natural beauty including its beaches, This beach has been enjoyed by dogs and their owners for as long as I can remember over 30 years and 30 years before that and that again I have no doubt. To enforce this ban would surely stop people from visiting the area, how can that be a good thing when so much money has been spent in the town in recent years.

For two and a half years we have been trying to find out the circumstances surrounding the death of our son, Andrew, in France in September 2010. Throughout the process of organising a post mortem, trying to work with the French authorities to understand what happened, and trying to work with the Foreign Commonwealth Office we have been faced with many struggles and barriers in gaining access to all the answers we, as a family, need about Andrew’s death. We are currently at the third stage of appeal, desperate to understand the circumstances of our son’s death, but the Foreign Office is refusing to release this information as they claim it could damage relations between France and the UK. Andrew was living in France with his French girlfriend. He was heavily medicated without choice, for a degree of paranoid schizophrenia. He wanted to return home to the UK but his partner prevented him from doing this. The day before he was found dead he told his partner that he wanted to return to the UK. Even in the weeks before he died he had spoken to family members about returning home. Andrew could talk to anyone, he saw everyone as a friend. In the UK he always enjoyed people’s company and this was denied to him in France. From the age of 12 he played chess and before and after he studied Maths at Leeds University he played at County level. He worked at PGL activity centres and loved his guitar. His company will always be missed. As a family we not only feel we have a right to this information, but that any family in the future who may go through similar circumstances in finding out about a loved one’s death in the UK or abroad should have access to all information in the case. The Foreign Office should only be able to withhold information if it’s in the interest of national security, not because they want to prevent embarrassment as seems to be the case in our terrible situation, a situation many families find themselves in. We therefore ask William Hague to please appeal to the Information Commissioners Office to rule in our favour and finally release to us all the details of Andrew’s death. We want him to stop allowing the Foreign Commonwealth Office to use the broad language in Section 27 of the Freedom of Information act to refuse to release information to grieving families who need to understand the details of their loved ones death. The UK government’s need to save face should not be put above its citizen’s need for answers during such a traumatic time.

Do you want to save D&T in schools? As part of the governments' new proposals for the National Curriculum the Design Technology curriculum has been redrafted. It's under real threat. Please read on... The government have drawn up a draft curriculum for Design Technology in schools - a curriculum from 1952 - where cooking wholesome savoury meals, repairing textiles, growing plants, and learning basic construction skills has reshaped Design Technology to become little more than activities that practice DIY skills for home improvement. Useful in itself but... the new curriculum does not adress the vital knowledge, skills and learning that our creative and cultural economy depend on, in which design plays such a crucial role. Should this proposal be implemented, school children will be denied a design education that can inspire and equip them to discover their talents and fulfill their own creative ambition. Design professionals are now concerned that the lack of vision and lack of rigour in the proposal will lead to 'a lost design generation'. I have worked with design students at both secondary level and at further and higher education level. Design and technology at secondary level must have the scope to teach children the skills that can access and underpin university level studies. It must engage with industry and the world of professional designers to inspire and open up new career opportunities for young people. It is the only subject where, as James Dyson recently put it, 'mathematical brainboxes and science whizzkids can turn their bright ideas into useful products'. PLEASE READ THE FOLLOWING PROPOSED PROGRAMME OF STUDY FOR D&T http://tinyurl.com/bwms93u Latest opinion on the proposed new curriculum: From the Design Council - http://tinyurl.com/btlgz8w http://tinyurl.com/cxltwgp From the Design & Technology Association (DATA) http://tinyurl.com/cf3gxm3 From James Dyson - http://tinyurl.com/c38adm3 The consultation process web page: http://tinyurl.com/btjqupr Consultation responses can be completed online at http://tinyurl.com/aknu9vg Please also SIGN AND SHARE THIS PETITION Thanks.

It is essential parenting is not seen as a SECONDARY career choice as it now appears to be in the eyes of our politicians and perhaps even our society. Those parents will now be substantially worse off in monetary terms relative to parents who work outside the home.

Last year, student Cait Reilly and unemployed driver Jamieson Wilson, took the Tory led coalition to task over their controversial Workfare programme arguing that it was unlawful. Three Judges found that regulations under which most of the Tory led coalition back-to-work schemes were created are unlawful. The main issue is that the Tory led coalition lost this case and they lost because they failed to provide sufficient and legal information about Workfare to job-seekers. It is estimated that 231,000 people were originally affected by their decision and had their benefits sanctioned (ie stopped). The morality of the Workfare system is not being debated here (although flaws of the system are outlined below). This petition is about the abhorrent behaviour of the Tory led coalition that followed this decision and their decision to retroactively change the law. On 19 March 2013, a Bill was rushed through the House of Commons which will change the law (that they broke) retroactively thus enabling the Tory led coalition to avoid having to repay the money that they illegally took from job-seekers - an average of £550 per person. The issue here is threefold: Firstly, the Tory led coalition (assisted by Labour and Lib Dems) are trying to retrospectively change the law to protect themselves from their own flawed policies. By retrospectively changing the law they can ensure that no law has now been broken and thereby avoid having to repay those who they illegally sanctioned. This behaviour is morally repugnant and vile and cannot be allowed to happen. Secondly, there seems to be a complete media blackout on the story and the Bill was rushed through, the day before the Budget - one may argue in an attempt to bury it? Thirdly, the Workfare scheme is fundamentally flawed and has been shown not to be an effective tool to get unemployed back in to work. The problem is there are no jobs for people and the Tory led coalition is deflecting this fact away by demonising those looking for work such as Miss Reilly and Mr Wilson. There is plenty of evidence to show that workfare claimants are replacing real jobs. Since this WP came in, many retail giants and the Royal Mail have used workfare so they don't have to offer overtime to their existing workers. Asda recently put all their part-time staff on contracts which guarantee just 4 hours work a week. Many shops are run by workfare. This whole scheme is about exploiting labour - the workfare claimants are being exploited for free labour; the existing workers are being exploited by losing hours and pay; and we are all being exploited when what we buy is making profits for corporations which are using what is effectively indentured labour. People who are fortunate enough to be paid for their work are afraid of rocking the boat lest they be replaced. These schemes guarantee a cowed and compliant workforce, paid or not, who will be reluctant to unionise and unwilling to protest in case they lose their jobs. Meanwhile, taxpayers' money is being poured by the billion into the coffers of welfare-to-work companies and corporate profiteers, and Labour seem to be OK with this in principle. These are extremely important issues and cannot be ignored.

I have been a Geography teacher for more than 25 years. During that time I have taught my pupils dozens of different topics, from map reading and geology to volcanoes and earthquakes. But nothing I’ve ever taught my students has been so important as what I teach them about climate change now. The challenges man-made climate changes pose to human beings are huge. In my classes, children learn about these challenges and why they are relevant to them. They learn why it is adults tell them to recycle, switch off their computers and close doors to keep the heat in. From an early age, we are teaching children to respect the world around them and to value human life. These are values that many of them will carry with them for the rest of their lives. They are the best possible weapons we can give them to help prevent disastrous climate change in the future. But the government’s new guidelines for the national curriculum threaten all of that. Children will not be taught about climate change unless they take GCSE Geography - a course that was only taken by 27% of GCSE students last year. For children under the age of 14, climate change will appear only once in the syllabus - under the heading “efficacy of recycling” in Chemistry. It’s not enough for children to be taught the cold facts behind the science of climate change. To fully understand why climate change matters, they need to understand how it affects real people, how it relates to them and changes the world they live in. This is an understanding that’s essential if our children are going to be part of the responsible, engaged and sustainable society we all want to see. And the truth is, children love learning about climate change. My students are interested in global environmental issues such as Arctic conservation and have real concerns about the effects of climate change on people, wildlife and animals. They are constantly asking questions about extreme weather we’re experiencing and want to understand why these changes are occurring. They want to know if they’re going to get worse in their lifetime and what they can do about it. The government are making decisions about what young people can and can’t learn about without asking them - yet it’s young people who are going to suffer the consequences of these decisions. So I’ll leave it to one of my students to tell you what it is they think about all this: “If the next generation isn’t taught about the effects of climate change then where are they going to learn it from? If they don’t learn about it they won’t take into account the damage they may cause in the future.” Please sign this petition. Together, we can show Michael Gove that his plans are wrong - for our children, our planet, and our future. Margaret Hunter Geography teacher at The Warriner School in Oxfordshire

It is important as the cuts are hurting the pensioners and the disabled, as because of the cuts social services and local councils are charging us a so called well being charge, this will only be well being to the council not us who will have to pay this on top of our rents which are high, £623.48 every four weeks.

The cruel archaic export of live farm animals should end because of the suffering caused by extremely long journeys often without mandatory breaks, food and water, then slaughtered in what would be unacceptable conditions in the UK. If the animals were killed as near to rearing as possible (which would create jobs in the UK) and exported as meat it would also end the time and expense of policing a trade that a great number of people find objectionable.