Autumn Adjournment

Fiona Bruce Excerpts

Tuesday 7th November 2017 Commons Chamber

[Fiona Bruce (Congleton) (Con)]

I will spend a few minutes responding to yesterday’s Adjournment debate on the 50th anniversary of the Abortion Act 1967. It was a short Adjournment debate, and only the ministerial response was possible.

Criticism was made of a grant from the money raised by the tampon tax to the charity, Life. Since it was founded in 1970, Life has helped to house more than 12,000 vulnerable mothers and babies and provided help and non-directive counselling to tens of thousands more. Life was described in the debate as an anti-choice organisation. Far from being anti-choice, Life seeks to give women a genuine choice about whether to keep their baby and to offer them much-needed support if they choose to do so. The grant of £250,000 awarded to Life over three years was described in yesterday’s debate as:

“the largest sum from the tampon tax fund”.—[Official Report, 6 November 2017; Vol. 630, c. 1307.]

That, too, is incorrect. It was, in fact, only about the 10th largest. But that sum, so stridently objected to by some in the Chamber yesterday, is dwarfed by the amount paid to abortion providers. The sums are staggering. Over the past decade, hundreds of millions of pounds of taxpayers’ money have been paid to private sector abortionists. The Times reported that the head of Marie Stopes International, to which we pay millions of pounds to carry out abortions in the UK and overseas, received a phenomenal £420,000 in one recent year alone—four times the Prime Minister’s salary. Twenty-two of its employees were paid more than £100,000 each. What kind of charity is it that pays its staff these sums out of public money? Surely the Charity Commission should be investigating this.

On the 50th anniversary of the Abortion Act 1967, may I express my concern at reports resulting from Care Quality Commission’s investigations into the abortion practices of Marie Stopes International, which is described by some as an industry? Last year, the CQC’s inspection report identified a wide range of concerns about the way in which abortions are carried out by MSI, including criticism after finding dead, unborn babies in open bins. Again, what steps are Ministers taking to address these concerns? This is not just about me as one individual expressing concern, but the Government’s own regulator doing so.

We should also be concerned about another abortion provider and charity, the British Pregnancy Advisory Service, which describes itself as a not-for-profit charity but appears to be involved in lobbying to change abortion law, despite statements made by the previous Government that

“taxpayers won’t be made to foot the bill for political campaigning and political lobbying.”

My right hon. Friend the Member for West Suffolk (Matt Hancock), who was then Minister for the Cabinet Office, said in February 2016:

“Taxpayers’ money”

must not be

“wasted on the farce of government lobbying government.”

Yet I recently received a letter from BPAS, which included the following:

“I am writing today to ask that you consider defending and extending reproductive rights in the UK during the course of this Parliament...all Parliamentarians—regardless of their personal view on abortion—should support decriminalisation of abortion in the UK.”

The letter, dated 10 July 2017, asks me—I presume it was sent to all MPs—to support a campaign. I am placing a copy of it in the Library. I understand that Ann Furedi, chief executive officer of abortion provider BPAS, is on record as saying, at the London launch of the “We Trust Women” campaign, the stated aim of which is decriminalisation of abortion:

“I want to be very, very clear and blunt...there should be no legal upper limit”.

The campaign’s website states that it campaigns to see the 24-week abortion time limit “removed from criminal law.” What steps are being taken, both by the Government and the Charity Commission, to address lobbying of this nature by a government-funded organisation?

In yesterday’s debate, mention was made of Professor Lesley Regan from the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, who I understand supports decriminalisation and persuaded its council—but not the membership—to back decriminalisation in a ballot. I understand Professor Regan has argued that the practice of abortion should be no more restricted by the law than the practice of having a bunion removed. If so, I find this incomprehensible. In her response to the debate last night, the Under-Secretary of State for Health, my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Jackie Doyle-Price), reflected this when she said:

“I am sure that everyone in this House agrees that no woman undertakes a termination lightly. For many, it is extremely traumatic”.—[Official Report, 6 November 2017; Vol. 630, c. 1306.]

I agree. That is why there are protections within the current law, such as the requirement for two doctors to certify approval, and that, apart from in exceptional circumstances, late-stage abortions after 24 weeks should not take place. And the public appreciates this. I know that polling figures can be questioned, but it is interesting to note that very recent polling from ComRes shows that a massive 72% of people believe that, far from lifting the practice of abortion outside the current legal parameters in place today, such as the requirement of legal consent from two doctors, these parameters should remain in place.

That this message is not a fluke is underlined by an unlikely source: recent, extensive BBC-commissioned polling by ICM that clearly showed respondents supporting two doctors continuing to approve an abortion. It showed a clear rejection on the grounds of abortion due to disability and far lower support for abortion under other circumstances than may have been expected, and certainly would be expected if one listened only to the campaigning of those who are pushing for decriminalisation. As these polls indicate, that is not what the British public want. A ComRes poll from May shows that 70% of people want the 24-week time limit lowered—not surprisingly, bearing in mind medical advancements in foetal viability over the last 50 years—and that 91 % want a specific ban on the practice of abortion on the grounds of a child’s sex.

It is important that we remember here that those who campaign for decriminalisation and the sweeping away of the safeguards that that would entail never mention that a modern and humane abortion law should consider and uphold the dignity and rights not only of the woman but of the unborn child.

Taxation: Beer and Pubs

Fiona Bruce Excerpts

Tuesday 31st October 2017 Westminster Hall

[Fiona Bruce (Congleton) (Con)]

Pubs are indeed great community assets, but many face challenges because of the availability of cheap alcohol in supermarkets and off-licences. Cheap alcohol carries tremendous costs to health, too. One particular product, high-strength white cider, causes disproportionate levels of harm and perpetuates deprivation and health inequalities. It is often called the drink of choice for the homeless, the lonely and vulnerable young people, many of whom are on the streets, underage or drinking simply to blot out their problems. It results in death for many who drink it, but it is people’s drink of choice because it is so very cheap.

High-strength cider has developed largely because, as a result of anomalies in the tax system, it has the lowest cost per alcohol unit of any product on the market. A 3-litre bottle of white cider contains 22 units—the equivalent of 22 shots of vodka—and can be bought for just £3.59. The homelessness charity Thames Reach says:

“Super-strength drinks have become one of the biggest causes of premature death of homeless people in the UK, and…are doing more damage than both heroin and crack cocaine”.

Some 78% of the deaths in Thames Reach’s hostels are attributed to high-strength alcohol.

Before I speak about how the Treasury can address this problem, I would like to mention the touching story of one mother, Joanne Good, who came to Parliament in February to tell us about her young daughter, Megan, who went out to a new year’s eve party aged 16 and drank half a bottle—1.5 litres—of Frosty Jack’s. She died in her sleep. These high-strength products should not be available for pocket-money prices. In the light of the Government’s commitment to put social justice at the heart of all they do, introducing a new higher band of duty in the forthcoming Budget that applied to cider with an alcoholic strength by volume of between 5.5% and 7.5% would be a targeted and proportionate response. It would leave the majority of ciders completely unaffected; the vast majority of products subject to the new rate would be white ciders.

There is compelling evidence that altering duty bands can influence consumer behaviour, so I ask the Government to consider increasing the rate for this band of drinks. I am offering them a healthier option. With an increase in tax take, what is not to like?

[Steve Double (St Austell and Newquay) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to speak in this debate; I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley South (Mike Wood) on securing it and on his excellent opening speech.

I have the incredible honour and privilege of representing the constituency that contains St Austell Brewery, which since 1851 has been brewing high-quality beer in the centre of St Austell under the ownership of the same family. It now enjoys incredible success and exports a number of its brands around the world.

The three years of beer duty cuts and the subsequent freeze were incredibly positive, not just because of the money they saved on the cost of a pint of beer, but because they sent the brewing industry the clear message that the Government backed it and were behind it. That gave brewers the confidence to plan for the future and invest in products, plant and machinery to grow their businesses and the market. Unfortunately, the rise in the retail prices index earlier this year has undone virtually all the good work of the cut and freeze years and has sent a negative message to the industry.

I encourage the Minister to take back to the Chancellor and the Treasury the strong message that this year we really need at least a freeze in the beer duty, to restore confidence in the industry. We are a Conservative Government, after all; we believe in low taxes, and we know that punitive taxes do not work. Cutting, or at least freezing, the beer duty will allow the sector to continue to grow, with more and more jobs being created.

I must also mention the small breweries’ relief scheme for brewers who produce up to 60,000 hectolitres a year—I did not know what a hectolitre was until a couple of days ago, but there we go. That threshold is clearly acting as a brake on small breweries that prevents them from investing and growing beyond it. Some form of tapering would be very welcome, because we have created a squeezed middle—brewers who are just above the threshold but are paying much higher rates of beer duty. I believe it is time for a review, and I ask the Government to work with the industry to get an overall view of small breweries’ relief and see whether the limit can be increased.

[Fiona Bruce]

Does my hon. Friend support my request that the Minister consider applying small breweries’ relief to cider producers, who do not enjoy that advantage at present?

[Steve Double]

I absolutely agree that cider should be considered for the relief as well.

The Budget gives us an opportunity to send the clear message to the brewing industry and our pubs that we back them, we understand how essential they are and we need to take action to support them.

Summer Adjournment

Fiona Bruce Excerpts

Thursday 20th July 2017 Commons Chamber

[Fiona Bruce (Congleton) (Con)]

Today I want to talk about how a Conservative Government with a Conservative Member of Parliament in Congleton and a Conservative-led council in Cheshire East are working together to deliver effectively for people in my constituency and the wider Cheshire East area.

Let me give as a first example this week’s Government announcement on school funding. I spoke in the Christmas recess debate, on this very spot, of how the Government’s proposed national funding formula would not serve well the school pupils in my constituency and the wider Cheshire East area. In January, I took a delegation of headteachers to meet the Minister for School Standards, and the leader of Cheshire East Council, Councillor Rachel Bailey, came with us. The Minister listened and asked what annual amount those headteachers considered would be needed to provide senior school students with the education they need and deserve. The answer they came back with was £4,800—exactly the amount that this week the Secretary of State for Education has confirmed will be provided by Government for our pupils. As she told me, this is a very good settlement for Cheshire. Ministers responded to our concerns, and I want to thank them, just as local headteachers have thanked me for this result, which shows a Conservative Government working with a Conservative MP and Conservative councillors to deliver for local people.

I turn now to planning matters, noting that 27 July is the date scheduled for adoption by Cheshire East of its local plan. This will come after one of the most lengthy and complex examinations in the country. It is true to say that in the past I have not held back in this place from saying that areas in my constituency have been blighted by developers keen to grab green space and agricultural sites for inappropriate development. However, now that the local plan inspector has found that a five-year housing land supply has been identified, that battleground should—and, I believe, will be—a thing of the past. This is a new day. I call on the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government to uphold the inspector’s view of a five-year Cheshire East housing land supply, and the terms of the local plan, together with the further several neighbourhood plans in place locally, and to reject any planning appeals to develop further greenfield or green space sites. This should now provide an effective means whereby inappropriate developments are stopped once and for all in my constituency and beyond.

I give credit to neighbourhood planning groups and town councillors such as Mike Benson in Sandbach, who have worked so hard, as I have here, to ensure that neighbourhood plans have a real impact. In Sandbach, where there is no housing need, there should now, in future, be the inference that no additional housing will be permitted other than in accordance with NDP—neighbourhood development plan—policies. Indeed, that is already happening. We need only witness the way in which the former housing Minister recently rejected a planning application for land to the rear of Park Lane and Crewe Road in Sandbach, directly on account of the need expressed in the Sandbach neighbourhood plan for an area of separation. Again, this shows a Conservative Government working together with a Conservative MP and Conservative councillors to deliver for local residents.

I turn now to the many transport improvements in the area. Let me first set the record straight once and for all: it was local Conservatives—MP and councillors—who obtained money to improve junction 17 of the M6, and not any other party or person. I know, because I was there at the very first meeting of the Highways Authority when I requested funding to prevent future accidents—in particular, for the southbound exit of the M6, which, as I clearly identified to the Highways Authority, was becoming dangerous. Action was taken and funding was provided. Similarly, a Conservative MP working with a Conservative council obtained from a Conservative-led Government £46 million for the Congleton link road—one of the highest road grants under that Government—thereby reducing congestion, reducing air pollution, and opening up employment land for new and expanding businesses. Work will start next year, with a planned completion date of 2020.

The same effective joint working resulted in £1.25 million being provided for the Middlewich eastern bypass business case. That extremely convincing business case showing wide economic and wellbeing benefits was produced by Cheshire East Council this spring. I need not go into further detail about that now, as I have spoken about it several times in this House. I am grateful to the roads Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Hereford and South Herefordshire (Jesse Norman) for meeting me again this week and listening so carefully as I pressed for funding from the Government towards the construction costs of approximately £56 million. That would unlock employment land for up to 2,000 jobs and support the reopening of Middlewich railway station for passengers, linking it to a Crewe hub for HS2, which, in turn, would be a springboard for wholesale economic development and connectivity across the region.

Cheshire East Council, together with the Cheshire and Warrington local enterprise partnership, is working hard to ensure that the HS2 hub is built at Crewe, but to ensure that it realises its full economic potential we need at least five trains an hour from London to Crewe. My hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool North and Cleveleys (Paul Maynard), the Minister with responsibility for rail, is a good listener, and I am sure that he will take that on board, together with my oft-repeated request that the line to Middlewich be reopened to passengers. I thank him for agreeing to meet me and representatives from the mid Cheshire rail link campaign about the matter.

Ease of transport is essential for people’s wellbeing, and so Government funding has been provided to improve Cheshire East’s roads. No less than £92 million has been invested over the past five years to improve them radically, and they are now among the best in the country. On Monday 24 July, £1 million-worth of improvements in and around the pedestrianised areas of Congleton town centre will begin. Local councillors are delighted that Congleton has two new minibuses after obtaining £50,000 of national funding from the Department for Transport. A Conservative Government, working with a Conservative MP and Conservative councils at both county and town level, are delivering for our residents in real and tangible ways to improve their quality of life.

I finish by thanking the Government for the funding given to our local schools, most recently £1.7 million for improvements at Eaton Bank Academy and more than £100,000 to refurbish Havannah Primary School. Our schools merit this; 96.2% of them are good or outstanding, and they are in one of the top 20 authorities nationally. A Conservative Government are supporting well a Conservative MP and a Conservative council, working for the real-life benefit of residents.

Christmas Adjournment

Fiona Bruce Excerpts

Tuesday 20th December 2016 Commons Chamber

[Fiona Bruce (Congleton) (Con)]

I want to speak today about just one issue of great concern, which is how negatively the proposed new national funding formula for schools will impact on schools in my Congleton constituency if it is not revised. It is critical for the children of my constituency that it is.

Prior to the announcement last week, my constituency schools were already among the poorest-funded in the country. We therefore expected a good funding increase. After this announcement, however, headteachers tell me that theirs will be the very worst-funded schools in the country. The most poorly funded local authority used to be £4,158 per head, but this will now be Cheshire East, at £4,122 per head. Imagine my heads’ consternation last week when they discovered that their funding will not increase, but actually drop. I use the word consternation; they used the word outrage. No wonder that within 48 hours of the announcement no fewer than five headteachers came to my constituency office to express their utter dismay.

A year ago, I took a group of headteachers to meet the former Education Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for East Surrey (Mr Gyimah), to ensure that he heard directly their concerns on the poor funding for Cheshire East schools, and to implore him that the new formula must address them. And this was after a similar meeting in the previous Parliament, when Cheshire East local authority officers met his predecessor for the same purpose. In addition, hundreds of my constituents signed a petition for fairer funding. This issue is far from new, which is why last week’s announcement was so shocking.

My headteachers are asking how Cheshire East has become the most poorly funded area, after they made such a convincing case to the Minister at their meeting. They thought they had been heard. I, too, find it difficult to understand.

What is particularly concerning is that these are some of highest-performing schools in the country, but there is a point at which their laudable level of achievement cannot be maintained. Only yesterday, the Secretary of State said in this place that she had been able to ensure that underfunded areas would be able to “gain up to 3%” over 2018-19 and 2019-20. My schools are facing exactly the opposite—not a rise of 3%, as the majority of my high schools face a reduction of 2.9%.

Before I relay some of the unpalatable options facing headteachers in my constituency, let me set in context last week’s announcement, because a number of other factors make the funding reductions for my schools far worse. First, the National Audit Office has said that schools face a reduction of 8% in funding in real terms by 2020, due chiefly to unfunded increases in employer costs. That makes the average savings to be found not over 2%, but over 10%. In addition, the reduction in the educational services grant will mean a further hit for academies in my constituency, which means all seven high schools. Even graver, there is still no local plan in Cheshire East, which has led to hundreds of new houses being built without additional funding for the proportionate increase in the number of children attending schools. This effect of so-called “lagging” means that schools are required to educate additional children with no additional funding.

What do headteachers tell me will be the effect of this new formula on their schools? With reference to the primary schools, Martin Casserley, headteacher at Black Firs Primary School, says they will be forced into significant reductions, including reducing support staff to help special educational needs children.

The high schools will lose £800,000 a year between them. Eaton Bank alone will face losses of £300,000 over three years. Headteacher Ed O’Neill says this would be “deeply damaging” and

“the removal of the educational services grant…and the NAO-calculated pressures mean that total savings of 12% will have to be found.”

Richard Middlebrook, head of Alsager High, who was nominated for headteacher of the year and is a national leader of education, says that the only way to survive would be to open for only four days a week, narrow the curriculum or close the sixth form—all completely implausible.

Dennis Oliver, headteacher of Holmes Chapel High, also a national leader of education, is looking at the removal of all teaching assistant posts, or the loss of all technicians, or the loss of eight non-viable sixth-form groups, or removing heating and lighting for a year or removing general resources for children, such as paper and books. John Leigh, head at Sandbach High and a long-established Ofsted inspector, tells me he risks losing his school’s “outstanding” status. He now has a £200,000 deficit as a result of lagged funding, due to new housing in Sandbach. He believes that the only feasible way to run the school would be to remove the rich programme of extracurricular activities, reduce the curriculum offer and/or reduce the number of sixth-form classes. He is already teaching 12 hours of maths a week himself to help balance the budget.

Sarah Burns, headteacher at Sandbach Boys School, has calculated that losing the entire music, art, business studies or geography departments could achieve the reductions, but that is simply not possible for a school that is a regional leader in music and the creative arts. She is concerned about the recruitment and retention of key staff while managing a reduction of 2.9% and she calculates it will actually be 5%, taking other factors into account.

David Hermitt, chief executive officer of Congleton Multi-Academy Trust, of which I am a patron, is facing a reduction of 2.4% at Congleton High, but he tells me that in addition he has been educating over 50 children every year for free for the last three years due to the increased housing nearby, equating to over £200,000 per year of missing funding in each of the last three years. This has depleted healthy reserves. He says the school has made every cut it can to ensure that it has a balanced budget. He says that,

“we have increased average class sizes, removed some subjects from our post 16 provision, increased contact time for teachers and reduced the amount spent on books and computer equipment.”

I am proud to be patron for this well-run multi-academy trust, which is already helping to drive down back-office costs for the three schools in the trust by providing central services of finance and human resources.

Middlewich High faces even deeper reductions as a result of the change in funding for children with special educational needs and disabilities, for which it has a dedicated unit. It is a lead school for emotional health, and Members may recall that during Prime Minister’s questions recently, I drew attention to its outstanding work with the most vulnerable students and families. However, Keith Simpson, its headteacher, has said,

“as Head I have no option but to reduce staffing from this area in order to meet a minimum number of teachers to provide a curriculum.”

He added:

“This is alongside the shortfall in SEND funding for schools that maintain a truly inclusive intake. This short-term view will only store up problems for society and other services in the long term. I feel that the holistic support for children and families is being sacrificed and has no educational value in raising standards for our most vulnerable students.”

Those headteachers, whom I know well, are utterly dedicated and professional, but the concerns that I have expressed on their behalf today have been increasing for several years. They have concluded that the proposed national fairer funding formula is not fit for purpose, certainly in Cheshire East. They are asking the Government to go back to the drawing board after listening to the outcome of the current consultation, and I am asking for the concerns that I have expressed today to be included in that consultation. I hope that the Deputy Leader of the House will refer them to the Schools Minister, and will convey my request for an early meeting with him to which those headteachers will travel at short notice; and I hope that the Schools Minister will not just hear but act, by reviewing the impact of the new funding formula on the schools in my constituency. Without such a review, there will be grave implications for the education and life chances of the children about whom those headteachers care so deeply.

I wish you, Mr Speaker, and all Members in the Chamber a happy and restful Christmas.

Small Charitable Donations and Childcare Payments Bill

Fiona Bruce Excerpts

2nd reading: House of Commons & Money resolution: House of Commons & Programme motion: House of Commons
Tuesday 11th October 2016 Commons Chamber

[James Duddridge (Rochford and Southend East) (Con)]

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker; it is great to catch your eye. It has been a while since I spoke from the Back Benches, and I have certainly never before spoken after the hon. Member for Aberdeen North (Kirsty Blackman).

This place is at its best when we can use real-life examples and be a lot more passionate than when we are simply reading from a briefing document. Whether we are talking about the two-and-a-half hours, or however long it takes to make a cup of tea, about charities shovelling snow, which we do not have in Southend—I suspect we do not have the snow, which is something my children would very much like—I share with the hon. Lady some understanding of the credits. My youngest is five, so I greatly sympathise with her. In particular, I thank her for pulling me up and correcting my intervention about whether it was possible under the existing legislation to change the 1:10 ratio, although I would like to return to that in a lot more detail later in my speech.

This is the first time I have spoken from the Back Benches in some time and it is a particular pleasure to do so on the subject of charities. My constituents are an awful lot more interested in charities and what we can do for them in Southend than they are in some of the very good work that I did overseas. Important as that work was, charity begins at home, and in this case it begins in Southend.

[Fiona Bruce (Congleton) (Con)]

Does my hon. Friend not agree that there are some tremendous small charities founded in our communities that seek to help communities abroad, whether by helping orphanages or schools? Does he agree that we need to support them as much as our charities at home?

[James Duddridge]

I thank my hon. Friend for pulling me up. In fact, round the corner from my office is a charity that supports people in Uganda, which was within the geographic patch that I was responsible for. It is indeed a Southend charity and it would receive some of the benefits of this legislation.

The Second Church Estates Commissioner, my right hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Dame Caroline Spelman), mentioned the great value of churches in the community. Like perhaps other Members, I want to pepper my speech with examples from my constituency. I want to pay particular credit to the Southend Association of Voluntary Services, which pulls together charities and best practice and allows charities to be given the expertise to utilise the types of benefits that the Government are introducing.

It seems like only a hop, skip and a jump since 2006, when I remember throwing two lever-arch folders into my bin in Portcullis House, in the knowledge that I would never again have to look at charities legislation. I should have kept those two Bills, but I went back and looked at the Charities Act 2006. It was a much bigger Bill, with 78 clauses, rather than the nine clauses we are considering today. There are a lot of things that are still relevant today: the debate about whether schools should be charities, and whether education is in itself a charitable good or whether charities need to go out and prove themselves over and above. A lot has changed. My hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Mr Turner) was speaking from the Opposition Front Bench, and there was also a gentleman from Doncaster North—a junior Cabinet Minister with great, or maybe not so great, things ahead of him—who did a good job on that Bill.

One charities issue that was raised during the passage of the 2006 Act was “chugging”, or charities mugging. I notice that the short title of this short, nine-clause Bill is quite wide, so there are perhaps opportunities to insert a few more clauses, whether proposed by Her Majesty’s official Opposition or enthusiastic young Members of Parliament such as myself, or—[Laughter.] It does not say “Pause for laughter” in my notes; that was not a joke. Maybe the Minister will bring forward a review of charities mugging. Even now we get harassed at tube stations, and it is a distraction from the passion for charitable giving that, really, everyone wants to engage in.

--- Later in debate ---

[Fiona Bruce (Congleton) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan). He and I often have many common concerns at heart, and I echo a number of the points he has made today. I hope that Ministers will note that similar points are being made across the House today. Before saying anything more, I will follow the proper example set by my right hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Dame Caroline Spelman) by declaring my interests. Not only am I patron of a number of charities, but I am still the senior partner in a law firm that for over 25 years has had charity law as one of its specialisms.

Like many other Members who have spoken, I served on the Committee that scrutinised the Small Charitable Donations Bill in 2012, so I welcome the amendments set out in this Bill to make the donations scheme more effective and flexible for small charities, particularly new charities, and also to make it simpler. One reason I particularly welcome anything that makes running a charity simpler is that over the years I have had many clients in my law firm who have a brilliant idea for setting up a small charity but find it increasingly difficult to recruit people as officers, and particularly for the role of treasurer. I very much welcome anything that makes being the treasurer of a small charity easier.

The term “small charities” is something of a misnomer, because often it is those charities that pack the biggest punches. For example, there are a number of charities in my constituency who work to improve the local environment, and the extent of their contribution to local people’s enjoyment of that environment is staggering. I think of the Sandbach Woodland and Wildlife Group and Dane Valley Woods. Those two groups alone have improved acres of local countryside, public footpaths and areas for local people to enjoy. I also think of the friends of a number of railway stations in my constituency, such as Alsager station, Congleton station, Sandbach station and Goostrey station. Those groups are often the unsung heroes of our communities, yet they add so much to the enjoyment of our environment.

I also welcome the inclusion of community amateur sports clubs in the Bill, because their contribution to our communities can be substantial. They of course contribute to health and wellbeing, but they also strengthen community ties and foster a sense of belonging, particularly for children. I want to pay tribute to three clubs in my constituency, Triton hockey club, AFC Alsager and Alsager cricket club. They have been at the forefront of a successful campaign over several years to ensure that the former site of Manchester Metropolitan University in Alsager is reopened for use as a community sports facility. It is their dedication over many years, combined with their understanding of the community’s sporting needs and their contribution to encouraging literally thousands of young people to take up sport that has ensured the recent success of that campaign. I pay particular tribute to those groups this evening.

I welcome the Bill because, according to the Government’s figures, the take-up of the scheme we debated and then brought forward under the Small Charitable Donations Act in 2012 has been regrettably low—far beneath hoped-for levels, as has been said. In 2014-15, the Government budgeted £84 million for the scheme, but the actual spend was £21 million, which was a clear shortfall. The number of charities accessing the scheme was just under 20,000, far fewer than the 65,000 we would have expected if the £84 million spend had been achieved. I therefore very much welcome the Bill’s intention to increase take-up by simplifying the eligibility criteria, but I ask the Government to ensure that there is some real and effective promotion of the scheme once the Bill is passed, as I hope it will be.

I echo other Members’ requests that the Government look again at simply dropping the matching criteria—again, a most effective method of increasing uptake. As has been said, the eligibility requirements could be simplified to make them the same as those for gift aid, so that if the charity knows it is eligible for gift aid, it will be eligible to gain access to funds from the scheme. I understand that there have been concerns about fraud, which the Minister has expressed, but, again, I concur with other Members and ask what evidence there is of that. I am told by charities that there is actually little, if any, evidence that fraud has been a problem with the scheme or that the matching criteria have been effective at highlighting those intent on making fraudulent claims. Will Ministers review the issue, and provide any evidence in Committee? Alternatively, will they look at whether fraud is in reality a barrier to consideration of dropping the matching criteria altogether?

I draw the attention of the House to a joint survey by a number of groups. The Association of Independent Museums, the Charity Finance Group, the Institute of Fundraising, the National Council for Voluntary Organisations and the Small Charities Coalition surveyed more than 340 charities across a range of sizes, from those with fewer than 10 employees to those with more than 500. They found that the take-up of the current scheme in percentage terms was, as we would expect, and as Members have indicated, far higher in very large organisations than in very small ones; in fact, it was 71% in large organisations, compared with 41% in smaller ones. While the sample was small, there is a clear indication that organisations at the smaller end of the spectrum use the scheme less frequently, so anything that can be done to assist them to access it is to be welcomed.

The charities were also polled on accessing information about the scheme. Some 22% of medium-sized organisations said they found it difficult to access information, and 26% of small organisations found it difficult or very difficult, but 41% of very small charities found it difficult or very difficult. That goes to show how important it is that the Government focus on the promotion of the scheme. Many survey respondents were still unaware of the scheme or that they could be eligible. It would be a far simpler message to charities if we simply said, “If you are registered for gift aid, you are eligible for the scheme.”

Let me touch on the issue of cheques. I concur with other Members and ask that the Government consider making small cheque donations, as well as contactless payments and cash donations, eligible for the scheme. I welcome the contactless payment proposal, but many donors—particularly elderly ones—still write cheques for £10 or £20. The logic behind allowing cheques to be included in the scheme is very similar to that for allowing contactless or small cash donations—namely, that it can be administratively burdensome to get declarations from cheque donors, particularly if those donations are irregular and small charities do not have the resources to chase up donors. Making such a change will arguably help small charities even more than allowing contactless payments to be included, because contactless technology is expensive. Small and local charities, perhaps set up by someone who has retired, may not possess the technical capability to process contactless payments, while they might very well receive a good number of cheques.

In conclusion, I suspect that most of my points are not novel—many have been raised this evening, or were raised with the Government during their consultation—but I hope it will be helpful for the House, and indeed for the thousands of charities in the country, if further reflection on such issues is conducted as the Bill travels through the House.

Finance Bill

Fiona Bruce Excerpts

Tuesday 6th September 2016 Commons Chamber

[Philip Boswell]

I must admit that I have sympathy with all who have reservations about any position taken in this Bill, given that, as my hon. Friend has said, it seeks to implement measures devised prior to the EU vote and therefore fails to provide for an economy that faces the harsh reality of Brexit. I am sure that we all look forward to the autumn or winter statement—whenever it will be—and the redress it will contain, imaginary or otherwise. We will then see, I presume, whether the new Chancellor is as good with imaginary numbers as the previous one was not.

The Federation of Small Businesses has raised serious concerns. It has highlighted that the changes are particularly acute for members of organisations who are on modest incomes. It has further submitted extensive evidence regarding member feedback on the proposed changes. A number of responses have highlighted concerns from the owners of small and microbusinesses that the changes may mean that they will not be able to continue to employ their small workforces.

In addition, evidence was submitted to the Committee by Jason Kitcat of Crunch Accounting, who has produced excellent work on the matter. I acknowledge that Mr Kitcat has been referenced several times in discussions about the proposed changes, but his analysis is significant and, as such, ought to be raised again. Crunch Accounting has highlighted how the changes as proposed hit lower-earning microbusinesses the hardest. The Government have stated that the changes in dividend income will be offset by planned future changes both to the way in which Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs treats corporations and to personal allowances. However, Crunch has highlighted how those anticipated changes will not fully offset the impact of changes to HMRC’s treatment of dividend income for microbusinesses, as proposed by the Bill. In addition, Crunch has highlighted how measures cited by Ministers, such as changes to employment allowances and the annual investment allowance, are rarely available to microbusinesses, as they have little capital investment requirements.

I stress that the importance of small and medium-sized enterprises to the Scottish and UK economy cannot be overstated. There are few things on which I agree with the Prime Minister, but I do agree with her statement last month that

“small and medium sized businesses are the backbone of our country.”

I further welcome her indication in the same speech that she intends to listen to smaller firms. However, I am concerned that, despite that profession from the Prime Minister, the regressive changes to dividend income will not only disincentivise new SMEs from forming, but have the potential to cause existing microbusinesses to fail.

It is essential to note the number of SMEs that are categorised as microbusinesses. The UK is home to 5.2 million microbusinesses, which employ 8.4 million people. In Scotland, microbusinesses play an essential role in the economy. According to recent Scottish Government statistics, 99% of businesses in Scotland are categorised as SMEs, the vast majority of which are microbusinesses. Overall, microbusinesses comprise 81.5% of the businesses in Scotland. The figures are similar for the UK as a whole. According to House of Commons Library research in late 2015, 99% of businesses UK-wide are categorised as SMEs, 95% of which are microbusinesses.

Microbusinesses are essential and central to the functioning of both local and national economies. Given that microbusinesses make up the vast majority of businesses in Scotland and UK-wide, I find it absolutely staggering that HMRC does not make an assessment of microbusinesses as a separate group. Given the prevalence of microbusinesses throughout the economy, it does not seem on this matter as though the Government have listened to the concerns of smaller firms, despite last month’s proclamations from the Prime Minister.

When my hon. Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Roger Mullin) introduced the original SNP amendment regarding the proposed changes to the way in which HMRC treats dividend income, the response he received to his concerns about microbusinesses was that

“the Government have considered the general economic impact of the changes…the measure is not expected to have any significant macroeconomic impacts.”––[Official Report, Finance Bill Public Bill Committee, 30 June 2016; c. 18.]

This statement taken alone is staggering, given that, as I have stated, 94% of businesses in the UK are categorised as microbusinesses. I fail to see how introducing a change that principally impacts microbusinesses would not be expected to have any significant macroeconomic impact.

The Minister stated in her introductory remarks that we do not yet know the impact of such legislation. I would like to highlight oral evidence given to a Committee of the other place on 8 February 2016 by Cerys MacDonald, the deputy director of personal tax at HMRC. When asked by the Chairman about the impact of these changes on microbusinesses, Ms MacDonald stated:

“I can assure the Committee that we recognise that the dividend tax changes will mean that a lot of people in owner-managed businesses are now paying a higher level of tax than previously, despite the benefit that they will see in the reduction of the corporate tax rate.”

Those two statements seem to me to be at variance with each other. Do the Government believe, as indicated by the Chief Secretary to the Treasury that the proposed changes to dividend income will not significantly impact on microbusinesses? Or do they believe, as indicated by Ms MacDonald of HMRC, that the changes will impact on owner-managed businesses, despite the planned future change to the corporate rate?

Given the uncertainty surrounding the inconsistent responses from Government, coupled with substantial evidence from the Federation of Small Businesses, Crunch Accounting and others, it seems as though the Government have not fully and comprehensively considered the impact of the proposed changes on small and microbusinesses—the backbone of our economy, as I am sure we all agree.

New clause 8 would require the Government to conduct a review of the impact of the changes on microbusinesses, including the impact on the failure rate of microbusinesses and the options for minimising the impact of the changes on directors who are on low incomes. I therefore advise hon. Members that we will press new clause 8 to a Division.

[Fiona Bruce (Congleton) (Con)]

I rise to support new clauses 2 and 3, the social justice arguments for which, in support of some of the most vulnerable individuals and families in our society, have been so eloquently and comprehensively set out by my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr Burrowes) that, although I had prepared speeches on both new clauses, there is no need for me to take up the House’s time to echo what he has already said. I therefore simply put on record my full support for what he said, and I ask to be identified with his remarks.

[Jonathan Reynolds (Stalybridge and Hyde) (Lab/Co-op)]

I rise to support amendment 141, which is in my name and those of my hon. and right hon. Friends. I am extremely grateful to Mr Speaker for selecting my amendment, and I would also like to place on the record my thanks to the Public Bill Office, whose advice and help on the matter have been greatly appreciated by me and my office.

I hope that the amendment will find agreement on both sides of the House, and I hope that the Government will not oppose it. The amendment would establish a very small tax exemption for residual cash balances that remain in an employee share incentive plan when an employee leaves such a plan. A residual cash balance is a sum of money, insufficient on its own to buy a single share that month, which would usually be carried over to the next month but which has to be refunded if an employee leaves the scheme. I propose that that balance, capped at a maximum of £10, would instead be donated to charity. That would have the added advantage of reducing costly and burdensome processing by company payroll departments.

Share incentive plans are a good and tax-efficient way to save for the future, and many employees take them up. I believe we should encourage employee share ownership. When an employee leaves a share investment plan, there is commonly a cash residual amount remaining in the account; often, it is just a few pence or a few pounds. When the employee chooses to leave the plan—that is mandatory if the participant leaves the company’s employment—the cash residual can no longer be carried forward. Under the current system, any remaining cash held in the plan when the employee leaves the plan is required to be processed, via the employer’s payroll, to apply national insurance contributions and income tax via PAYE and to pay the net balance to the employee. This process typically costs between £2 and £9, but provides little benefit to the individual receiving such a small amount.

Furthermore, the benefit to the Exchequer is far less than the total cost to companies of administering these payments, with companies paying almost twice as much to process the payments as the Treasury actually receives. To put that into numbers for the ease of Members in the Chamber, it is estimated that the administration costs for companies are between £400,000 and £500,000, while the benefit to the Treasury is just £200,000. If amendment 141 was accepted, charities and good causes would benefit by about £360,000, on top of the savings that companies would make.

There is a precedent for such a change. There are already examples of situations in which HMRC has agreed to individual exemptions to share incentive plan providers, which are currently based on specific requests assessed case by case. There is an appetite for this change among share investment plan providers and HMRC. Amendment 141 would be only a very small change to this Bill compared with what it covers, but it is one that could bring benefits both to companies and to charities and good causes, while at the same time supporting share investment plans by removing a costly and bureaucratic part of the system. The amendment would also help to simplify the tax system and encourage more charitable giving, both of which are stated priorities for this Government and would be priorities for any Government.

I was very pleased and heartened yesterday when the Government accepted amendment 145 in the name of my right hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint). I sincerely hope that the Minister will accept this amendment and that we can achieve the same result today. If she does not say she will accept it, I will seek to divide the House, but I can genuinely see no reason why the Government would not want the amendment to be agreed to.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend all hon. Members who have made very valuable contributions, in particular the hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr Burrowes). He is no longer in his place, but I would like to speak to his presentation on new clause 3. He set out clearly where we stand.

I want to put on record again the consistent support of the Democratic Unionist party for the provision of the transferable allowance for married couples. I remember the hon. Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce) and I taking some verbal attacks in this Chamber—mostly from the Opposition Benches, I have to say—for our stance on this issue, but we persevered and the Government persevered. I thank the Government for bringing in the provision in their previous term. I had hoped there would have been some indication that the Government could support new clause 3. I understand, after talking to the hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate, that he will not press it to a Division. If that is the case, we have to abide by that.

The sadness for me is that the Government have, until today, chosen to invest the lion’s share of their resources in their other income tax policy of raising the personal allowance. It is undoubtedly true that that policy helps poorer families, but it is very badly targeted. If I may say so in a respectful way, it seems to be targeted at those who can well afford it, as against those who cannot. I have to put on record that I have some concerns about that. The Institute for Fiscal Studies has demonstrated that 75% of the benefit—and now, as the allowance is being raised from £10,000 to £12,500, even more than 75% of the benefit—goes to those in the top half of the income distribution. That is what the available statistics and charts indicate and I have to say they are very stark. They indicate an imbalance in the system that, as the hon. Gentleman clearly stated, is a concern.

[Fiona Bruce]

There is another imbalance in the system. I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman is aware that the married couple’s allowance, which provides support to married couples where at least one spouse was born before April 1935, is worth £8,355 a year. Should we not also be looking at providing for those families with young children who are in the lowest socioeconomic bracket and supporting them similarly?

[Jim Shannon]

I could not agree more and I would like to make a comment on that later. New clause 3 clearly outlines the importance of that, but unfortunately we do not have the opportunity to support it today. I am sure the Minister, who knows I respect her greatly, will be able to respond to some of our concerns.

The IFS has demonstrated that, in contrast to the personal allowance, the transferable allowance results in 70% of the benefit going to those in the bottom half of the income distribution. The problem is that so far this has received only symbolic recognition. That has had two effects. First, the fundamental marriage accessibility challenge has not really been addressed, which is a massive issue given the impact on life chances of being brought up in a married home compared with a non-married home. Secondly, the very limited symbolic recognition has translated into low take-up. Given the distributional impact of the two tax policies and the impact of the transferable allowance on life chances, I have to say that if the Government are to have one symbolic policy and one substantive policy, they have got it the wrong way around. I say that with great respect. It would have been wiser to focus investment on the transferable allowance rather than redistribute billions to those in the top half of the income scale by raising personal allowances. I believe that we urgently need to change that. If the allowance cannot be made generally available to basic rate married couples, it should be focused, as the hon. Member for Congleton said, on families with children under five.

--- Later in debate ---

We—and when I say “we”, I mean this Government and this House—should focus on families with children aged five or under, because it is in that group that child poverty is growing right across the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. I am greatly concerned about, because child poverty levels in my region of Northern Ireland are the highest—a fact that cannot be ignored. We must do something to address this issue.

[Fiona Bruce]

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the highest levels of marriage breakdown occur when children are aged between nought and three? We are looking to support marriage at just that moment of greatest strain.

[Jim Shannon]

As always, the hon. Lady is wise in her interventions. I thank her for what she said, which underlines other important issues. If we can help at that critical time when the pressure is on, I believe that this House should do so. I hope that the Minister will do so, too, in her response.

The impact of the allowance on low-income households also needs to be addressed, as new clause 3 proposes. I hope we can do that at the right time. The new clause refers finally to

“ways in which the allowance could be changed to target low-income families with young children.”

Those points clearly illustrate for me what is necessary in this Bill, although the provisions may not be as hard and fast as I would like them to be.

Let me conclude; I am conscious of the time. In the longer term, there is a pressing need to adopt a more balanced approach to the resourcing of raising the personal allowance and increasing the transferable allowance. I fully support the transferable allowance and I would have hoped that the Government could commit themselves to it. Speaking as someone committed to progressive tax policy which targets those in the lower half of the income distribution scales rather than those in the top half, if the proposal means less money going to the personal allowance, in my judgment and, I believe, in the judgment of many in this House, that would be no bad thing.

The Economy and Work

Fiona Bruce Excerpts

Thursday 26th May 2016 Commons Chamber

[Fiona Bruce (Congleton) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to follow my colleague on the International Development Committee—the Chair of the Committee—the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Stephen Twigg).

To have a strong economy, we need a strong society. That is why I welcome the many references in the Gracious Speech to improving life chances, especially for the young and disadvantaged. The Children and Social Work Bill and the prisons and courts reform Bill are particularly welcome in helping to give a second chance to those who, in so many cases, never had a first chance.

Last week, the review of prison education by Dame Sally Coates, “Unlocking Potential”, proposed that to improve the life chances of prisoners, a holistic vision of education is needed for them, including family and relationship learning and practical advice on parenting and financial skills. It is heartening to note that the Government have agreed to implement the review in full.

Another excellent report that has also just been published is Lord Laming’s “In Care, Out of Trouble”, in which he says:

“Remedial work and rehabilitation are essential but prevention is so much more rewarding and fruitful for the young person and wider society.”

He says that good parenting “creates the solid foundation” to give the child the best start, and that the “essential ingredients” are security and stability. He says that

“in this context…young children develop self confidence, trust, personal and social values and optimism. Loss, neglect or trauma at this early stage in life often result in profound and enduring consequences.”

That is why the commitment in the Gracious Speech to

“increase life chances for the most disadvantaged”

by tackling

“poverty and the causes of deprivation, including family instability”

is so welcome.

Addressing this challenge is urgent. The needs are widespread, and not just for those at risk of entering the care or criminal justice systems. Years of evidence-based research by the Centre for Social Justice has shown it is demonstrably the case that growing up in a family where relationships are dysfunctional, chaotic or insecure is not only a key driver of poverty in itself, but a driver of other causes of poverty such as addiction, mental health problems, behavioural problems, poor educational attainment, worklessness, depression and debt. Teachers and mental health charity workers in my constituency tell me that disturbingly increasing levels of poor mental health among children, including very young children, frequently result from insecure family relationships.

[Suella Fernandes]

Does my hon. Friend agree that the recently announced change to the measurement of life chances—from one based on an arbitrary relative income to one that takes into account worklessness in households and educational attainment—reflects the multifaceted nature of poverty and achievement?

[Fiona Bruce]

I do indeed. I also think that we should include family instability in that statutory footing.

Yesterday, Relate published a report on couple relationship distress in the UK. It states:

“Good quality, couple, family and social relationships are the basis of a thriving society…central to our health and wellbeing…poor quality relationships have far-reaching consequences. Inter-parental relationships have…been recognised…as a major determinant of children’s life chances.”

However, Relate’s analysis estimates that almost one in five of adult couple relationships in the UK could be characterised as a distressed relationship, meaning one with a severe level of relationship problems that has a clinically significant negative effect on a partner’s wellbeing. The figure for partners with children under 16 is even higher. Encouragingly, however, Relate also says:

“A broad range of relationship support services are effective at improving relationship quality.”

I hope Ministers will read the report and note its recommendation that we need to

“expand access to a spectrum of support for good quality relationships, overcoming barriers of accessibility, availability, and affordability to ensure that anyone who needs it can benefit from support.”

I look forward to the publication of the Government’s life chances strategy. I hope that it recognises that poverty of relationships is a severe limiter of life chances, and that substantially increased support for stronger family relationships is needed in every local community. It is important to provide somewhere in every locality where people can go for such support and advice, at any stage in their family life—whether they are starting a family, bringing up toddlers or teenagers, coping with supporting an elderly parent, or simply a couple going through a rocky patch.

The troubled families initiative has been successful in providing intervention and support at a crisis stage. Let us learn from that, but provide support much earlier, when families feel they need help. Let us normalise asking for help and providing it. There cannot be a family in the land that would not benefit.

Fixed Odds Betting Terminals

Fiona Bruce Excerpts

Tuesday 26th April 2016 Westminster Hall

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered fixed-odds betting terminals.

Fixed odds betting terminals are a big issue, and a big crowd of hon. and right. hon Members are here to speak about them. There is a lot of concern in the House about the issue. There are probably some hon. Members here today—perhaps not so many—who will not be speaking with the same level of concern as me, but Opposition Members intend to take the issue further in their speeches today.

Fixed odds betting terminals are touch-screen roulette machines found in betting shops across the whole United Kingdom. Gamblers can play casino-style games with a maximum stake of £100, which can be wagered every 20 seconds. That is a possible total of £300 a minute. We have more than 35,000 fixed odds betting terminals in the United Kingdom’s bookmakers. FOBTs are disproportionately found in the poorer parts of the United Kingdom and generate some £1.7 billion of revenue for bookmakers. Campaigners have labelled the machines the crack cocaine of gambling, and that is what they are. The issue is of great importance.

Bookmakers have a powerful lobby and powerful friends. They have kept arguing that we need more evidence, despite the obvious case for regulation, in order to protect their huge profits made at the expense of the vulnerable. We are here to speak for the vulnerable, for legislative change and for better protection.

[Fiona Bruce (Congleton) (Con)]

The hon. Gentleman is bringing forward the debate with his characteristic compassion. Does he agree that it is a matter of social justice that we address this issue? Those affected are not just those who are addicted, but their families, and in particular their children. It is primarily for them that many of us are here today.

[Jim Shannon]

As always, I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention—she is an hon. Friend, too. She speaks with heart and compassion, and she speaks for me as much as everyone else here.

Our Prime Minister told Parliament more than 12 months ago that FOBTs are a serious issue, and that he would act as soon as there was more evidence. Since then, two tragic cases of suicide have been linked to the machines, and there are numerous reports of the terrible impact they are having on the most vulnerable, but the Government are yet to act. The Minister is here to respond to the debate, and we look forward to hearing the ideas that he will put forward in response to what we have to say. There is no place for £100-a-spin games on the high street in bookmakers that have little or no supervision. There is a simple answer to protect the vulnerable, as the hon. Lady said, and that is to reduce the stake.

Enterprise Bill [Lords]

Fiona Bruce Excerpts

Wednesday 9th March 2016 Commons Chamber

[Fiona Bruce (Congleton) (Con)]

I rise to support amendment 1, which bears my name on the amendment paper.

The Conservative party views family as being at the heart of a strong society, which is what we all want. Many Members have said that the Conservative manifesto made no mention of any changes to the Sunday trading rules, but it did have something to say about the importance of supporting family life. It pledged to

“back the institution of marriage”

and

“help families stay together and handle the stresses of modern life”.

It also recognised family breakdown as one of the four root cause of poverty.

Budget Resolutions and Economic Situation

Fiona Bruce Excerpts

Monday 13th July 2015 Commons Chamber

[Fiona Bruce (Congleton) (Con)]

I welcome the Budget. Much of the thinking behind it recognises that worklessness is a root cause of child poverty, and that a lack of employment skills and effective training for the world of work dramatically reduces a young person’s life chances. I welcome the Government’s determination to address those issues, and in my constituency we can already see tangible results. Unemployment figures for the five years to June 2015 have fallen by no less than 62%, and the number of young people claiming out-of-work benefits for a similar period has fallen by 61%.

Investment in the economy of the area has been unprecedented. An investment of millions of pounds has been made in Jodrell Bank as part of the science corridor across Cheshire, and no less than £46 million has been committed by the Government to the Congleton link road. I trust that the Minister will join me in recognising that one key reason for that local growth grant was to open access to and land for business parks and employment sites, and to increase job opportunities for local people. That should remain a key priority in the finalisation of the link road plans, so that businesses such as Reliance Medical Ltd—led by inspirational local businessman Andy Pear—have room to expand locally, along with others such as Senior Aerospace Bird Bellows. We must send a clear message to international companies with factories in the area—such as Airbags International—that Cheshire and the UK are very much open for manufacturing business.

The northern powerhouse concept is welcome. I ask Ministers to ensure that its benefits truly extend beyond the Greater Manchester region, so that young people in constituencies such as mine in Cheshire who—as a recent survey of Congleton youth council showed—very much want to stay, live and work in the towns that they grew up in can do so. One immensely effective way in which the impact of the northern powerhouse could be widely realised would be the reopening of Middlewich railway station to passengers—a campaign that thousands of residents of Middlewich have supported for many years. That would open up rail access directly from Crewe, right through Cheshire and into Manchester, and relieve pressure on the M6. It also has the support of many surrounding constituency MPs. I urge Ministers to look into that and to revert back to me with their considerations.

I also welcome the Government’s intention to fast-track the building of homes on brownfield sites. A great deal of grief, no less, has been caused in my constituency as a result of the rapacious attack on green space sites by developers—including prime agricultural land—only a stone’s throw from hundreds of brownfield housing plots that they persist in ignoring. I welcome the Minister’s intention to encourage development on brownfield sites, but we must ensure that not only is permission fast-tracked but that developers are realistically motivated to build on that land and not just to bank permissions. Not only a carrot but a stick may be needed. I welcome the news that Ministers have plans to improve the timely delivery of a local plan where a local authority has not yet produced one, and I ask Ministers to clarify urgently what the Government’s plans are to ensure that that takes place.

I referred at the outset of my speech to worklessness being a root cause of child poverty. Another root cause is family breakdown, and I would like to address two issues that concern me with regard to that and to the Budget. The first is Sunday trading because I am deeply concerned about proposals to delegate Sunday trading legislation to local decision makers. In August 2014 the Government made a welcome commitment to put family back at the heart of public policy, and to initiate a family test so that all new domestic policy should be considered in the light of its impact on families. I cannot see how the proposed alteration of Sunday trading regulations will have anything other than a negative impact on families. Ministers may argue that the decision the House is being asked to make is simply one of delegation rather than relaxation, but I cannot accept that.

When one local authority area decides to relax its Sunday trading regulations, surrounding areas may well feel compelled to do so, and we should recognise that reality. As the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children states, Sunday working has a detrimental effect on the quality of time parents can spend with children, and I am particularly concerned that that will affect children in the poorest families most, as they have least flexibility in deciding whether to work on Sundays. The health and strength of family relationships are not only a major influence on the health, wellbeing and life chances of children, but key contributors to the economic wellbeing of the nation. Parents, children and communities need time to rest, recharge their batteries and invest in relationships, and we further degrade Sundays as a day of rest at our peril.

I am disappointed that the Budget made no mention of an extension of the transferable tax allowance for married couples. It is currently worth only about £200 a year, whereas the value of 30 hours of free childcare is about £5,000. What message does that send to the stay-at-home mum or dad? Extending the transferable allowance would send a proper signal in favour of marriage and stability, recognise the important role played by stay-at-home spouses and help to address the seriously unbalanced tax burden that we place on one-earner married couples, as the “Taxation of Families 2013” report published last week by CARE—Christian Action Research and Education—showed. The report also highlights how one-earner married couples with two children on 75% of average wages face a marginal tax rate of 73%, the highest in the OECD.

--- Later in debate ---

[Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con)]

Before I start my comments, may I respond to the points made by the hon. Member for Workington (Sue Hayman)? Towards the end of her speech, she referred to a more positive outlook for younger people. That outlook is something that I hear about from young people who are training for apprenticeships, or who are attending the local further education colleges. They have a much more positive view. They can see the opportunities that have been created in my part of the world, which is, to a great extent, thanks to the investment in the offshore renewables sector. These young people have a vision of the future and can see the opportunities, and we should do all we can to support them. Of course, in our constituency work, we come across those who face challenges and significant problems. There will always be those people in our communities and we should do everything possible to help them. Certainly, the policies that I have picked out from the Budget do exactly that.

Two specific aspects of the Budget benefit my constituency. First, the coastal communities fund is being topped up. I was at an event on Friday evening with Amanda Austin, a businesswoman who manages the major shopping centre in Grimsby, next door to my constituency. She had already downloaded the application forms for the coastal communities fund. She had a scheme in mind and she could see how we could take advantage of that in the Cleethorpes area.

Secondly, the extension to the enterprise zones is particularly welcome. The largest enterprise zone in the country is a cross-Humber one, which partly takes in my constituency. We have attracted considerable businesses. Able UK, which is investing hundreds of millions of pounds in my constituency with the Humber marine energy park, has just signed a deal with Dong Energy, which is already a significant investor in the area. It is anticipated that 1,000 jobs will result from this deal. It involves manufacturing, which we want to expand in our economy.

[Fiona Bruce]

I thank my hon. Friend for referring to the speech of the hon. Member for Workington (Sue Hayman). Does he agree that she seems to have forgotten that under her party’s Government there were over 1 million young people who were not in education, employment or training, and that this Government have radically improved that, to the benefit of young people in this country?