The current parish boundaries were drawn up long before Beverley had a building boom, which saw the settlement grow into the continuous built-up area we now know. The separation into three parish authorities is now outdated, and no longer reflects the community. It also means that some residents living in Beverley, specifically to the North and the South of Beverley, do not have a say on Beverley Town Council because they belong to Molescroft Parish and Woodmansey Parish. In other words, the current community governance arrangements hinder effective local government. Residents on Lincoln Way and the surrounding area are unlikely to consider themselves as living in Woodmansey. Moreover, residents have expressed concern that their interests are not properly represented on Woodmansey Parish, as exemplified in said parish council’s decision to commission a Neighbourhood Plan that covers only the village itself. As for Molescroft, it forms part of Beverley, and its residents ought to have a say on the Town Council; however, this cannot happen whilst there is a separate Molescroft Parish Council. To sum up, the current community governance arrangements hinder community cohesion and effective local government by artificially splitting the town of Beverley into three parts. The above recommendations · improve community engagement · bring communities closer together · create better local democracy · result in more efficient delivery of local services We are, therefore, asking East Riding of Yorkshire Council to undertake a community governance review to ensure that community governance arrangements reflect local identities and facilitate effective and convenient local government.

It is important because MP's are supposed to: By virtue of the oath, or affirmation, of allegiance taken by all Members when they are elected to the House, Members have a duty to be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty the Queen, her heirs and successors, according to law. Members have a duty to uphold the law, including the general law against discrimination. Members have a general duty to act in the interests of the nation as a whole; and a special duty to their constituents. Members should act on all occasions in accordance with the public trust placed in them. They should always behave with probity and integrity, including in their use of public resources.

Filibustering is an unfair tactic used against the spirit of democracy in Parliament. Just a Minute rules would make debates much more fair, democratic and and entertaining, and encourage many more people to take an active interest in politics.

The release of the Panama Papers has shown that tax avoidance/evasion is still a massive problem allowing the greed of a rich elite to rob HMRC of £10's billions which could be used to fund Education, Welfare or the NHS, instead of us having to have ideological austerity forced on us. No MP, and certainly no Cabinet or Shadow Cabinet member should be found to be making any kind of gain from offshore accounts/tax avoidance schemes so, In the interests of transparency and in the public interest all Cabinet/Shadow Cabinet ministers should make their Tax Returns public to show they are not using any tax avoidance schemes and there is no conflict of interest.

In recent years the NUS has become a laughing stock that many students no longer feels represents them or their best interests. The curtailing of free speech and a proliferation in censorship have made themselves uncomfortably common occurrences on a local and national level, this has to stop. Non-platforming speakers that the NUS does not see eye-to-eye with and creating "safe spaces" sterile of conflicting opinions doesn't solve anything, it is un-academic and makes UK University students seem like petulant children whenever we find an idea we disagree with. Students deserve better than this, we want debate, to challenge and be challenged, that is what University should be about. Not to be molly-coddled, and our fragile points of view "protected" from views that differ to ours. People with unacceptable views must be argued with, not banned. We also wish to see and end to the unbelievable representation rankings in the LGBTQI division. Recently it was decided that gay male students do not deserve the same level of representation in this division anymore because they are 'not oppressed enough', by NUS standards. An assumption that is not necessarily true to life. This is an unacceptable display of discrimination based on orientation and gender that the NUS has previously prided itself on stamping out, yet now is guilty of. Irony. The banning of certain items of clothing and decorations, especially at Universities such as Manchester truly trivialize the issues that the actions are meant to be in aid of and make a mockery of the real advancements in social justice that were achieved by our forebears. For these reasons I am calling for the NUS leadership to take in to account our collective displeasure with the direction the NUS has taken and demand that we be allowed to re-elect our national and local representatives in the near future. It should also be made clear where the candidates stand on the above mentioned issues: "Safe spaces", no-platforming, and LGBTQI representation, so that students may make an informed choice on who they elect.

This is very important because of the fact that Donald Trumps ideals and proposition are flawed and are frankly ludicrous. For example: a Mexican / American boarder wall, a ban of Muslims entering the US, War on ISIS ( this issue need to be handled with care, not weapons) and finally women being criminalised for having abortions.

The above MPs are examples of unpopular unqualified Secretaries of State (SOS) and illustrate the obvious need for a move away from the "lucky dip" approach to assigning secretaries of states. In contrast, teachers and nurses have to study, have to complete Personal and Professional Development (PPD) reflective diaries in order to reflect, learn and improve their critical thinking skills and practice, as well as complete continued professional development (CPD). This would be done with reference to current peer reviewed articles and judged by qualified higher level academics. The same should be expected of those in positions of Power, like Secretaries of State (SOS). Here are alternatives to the "lucky dip" approach: The appointed must... 1. have an appropriate qualification in the field that has had a minimum of 1 year practice placement, or... 2. complete a compulsory six month practice placement, one month pertaining to different levels of practice in the field (that will help the person to obtain a holistic view of their area responsibility). Furthermore, five qualified advisors must be appointed (one for each year of office), who vote on the secretary's decisions. The appointed person in this option will be payed less as they lack the qualifications and the difference will be payed to their advisors, or.... 3. be supported by five (one for each year of office) qualified specialists put forward by the elected party, these are then voted in by professionals who work in the field.

To make the UK a fairer place to live, not one where the rich avoid paying their fair share towards society. WE ARE ALL IN THIS TOGETHER.

Kingsley Road runs alongside two primary schools and is used by pedestrians, cyclists, cars and buses. After much campaigning by Kingsley Community Primary School, a zebra crossing has been added to the road, however many cars still speed through it and ignore pedestrians crossing the road. In order to make the road safer for all road users, we the undersigned propose reducing the speed limit to 20mph and enforcing it with a speed camera. Residents who live on Kingsley Road have reported that it is difficult to reverse out of their driveways currently, as other cars drive past so fast. A child from Kingsley School has been involved in an incident on the road. Many parents with children at the schools are in favour of reducing the speed limit, as are local residents. There is no need for this road to have a 30mph speed limit. A driver driving at 20mph is far less likely to be involved in a road collision than one driving at 30mph.

We are continually told by Government that privatisation or the involvement of the private sector is the cure for all economic woes. The NHS is suffering from creeping privatisation, the national rail system was sold off years ago and the government is currently selling off executive agencies such as Ordnance Survey regardless of the business case. However they appear to be strangely reluctant to apply their policies at the heart of government by selling off their own premises. About £3.5 billion will need to be spent in the next few years on repairing the Palace of Westminster in the least expensive option considered. The buildings are apparently subsiding and are in any case very vulnerable to rising sea levels. The government should accept the logic of their own policies and relieve us of this expensive burden by relocating to a less expensive location (possibly an out-of-town retail area with good communications), and to complete the package outsource their day-to-day support services to one of the many out-sourcing companies they consider competent to manage hospitals, prisons and the rail network.

George Osborne wanted to take away payments from the disabled to give tax breaks to the rich. This is a right wing agenda and should be recognised by the BBC. The BBC was very quick to label Jeremy Corbyn as "Left-Wing" but has so far been reluctant to address George Osborne as "Right-Wing" we need to address the balance.

George Osborne has announced plans to take £70 a week away from thousands of people with disabilities, by cutting Personal Independence Payments (PIP). For many of us, this will mean losing the crucial support which enables us to get out of the house. Many people in our area would be hit hard by this cut. This petition calls on our local MP to do all they can to stop this cruel and unfair plan. Please, show your support for local people with disabilities and help stop the cuts to PIP.