EU red tape burden on local businesses

MP Calls Local Business to make EU red tape burden known to Government

Fiona Bruce MP is asking businesses across the Constituency to contribute to a call for evidence from the Government for concrete examples of EU rules and regulations which pose unnecessary barriers to their businesses.

At a recent meeting which the MP arranged for constituent’s in business with Sajjad Karim MEP this issue came across loud and clear as one of major concern to local businesses.

Yesterday in the House of Commons Fiona Bruce raised this issue with the Minister of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, Michael Fallon, who in response urged businesses to provide examples of evidence of red tape to a task force which he and the Prime Minister have set up to tackle this burden on British business.

The Commons exchange was as follows:

Fiona Bruce (Congleton) (Con): Small businesses in Congleton and across the country struggle with the burden of regulations from Brussels. Will my right hon. Friend update the House on the work of the business-led taskforce on EU regulation, which he is chairing?

Michael Fallon: Yes, the Prime Minister and I met the taskforce last week, and I will be meeting it again tomorrow. We have issued a call for evidence, which gives companies large and small the opportunity to provide us with concrete examples of European rules and regulations, including new proposals, that pose unnecessary barriers to the growth of British businesses and need reform. I encourage all hon. Members to ask businesses in their constituencies to submit examples and evidence to the taskforce.

Business people in the Congleton Constituency can make their views known to the taskforce by contacting tacklingeuredtape@bis.gsi.gov.uk

End the “discrimination against unborn disabled children”, says Parliamentary Report Chaired by Fiona Bruce MP

End the “discrimination against unborn disabled children”, says Parliamentary Report Chaired by Fiona Bruce MP

The Government must review the Abortion Act and end the discrimination against unborn disabled children, says a major new Parliamentary Report published this week.

The report says that the current legislation is out-dated, allowing abortion for disabled babies up to birth and is in urgent need of reform.

It sets out a raft of recommendations aimed at reforming the rules governing abortion on the grounds of disability and ending the wide disparities in how the Act is applied across the country. 

The report, the work of a cross-party Commission, chaired by Conservative MP Fiona Bruce, Chair of the All Party Parliamentary Pro Life Group, says: “...it is time to review the moral, ethical, legal and practical framework within which this provision of the Abortion Act operates and how the law applies to a fetus beyond the age of viability...”

“...Parliament should consider at the very least the two main options for removing those elements which a majority of witnesses believe are discriminatory – that is either reducing the upper time limit for abortions on the grounds of disability from birth to make it equal to the upper limit for able bodied babies or repealing Section 1(1)(d) altogether.”

Mrs Bruce commented: “This is an incredibly difficult and emotive issue, which for too long governments of all colours have failed to properly review. In part this is due to the very strong feelings on both side of the debate, usually traduced to an argument between pro-choice and pro-life, but as one respondent told the Commission. I defend the right of a newly-pregnant woman to seek an abortion for personal reasons, but I do not accept that a disabled baby should be aborted purely because of the existence of the disability. Lives of disabled people are in general of great value and quality and medical advances are such that it (abortion on grounds of disability) seems unnecessary.’

Fiona Bruce MP continued: “Given the advances in medical science and the very positive changes in our attitudes towards disabled people since the relevant law was enacted over twenty years ago it is time to review it.”

The Commission received nearly 300 submissions (299) in both oral and written sessions and found “...that there continue to be strongly held and polarised views on how the law treats abortion for babies with disabilities...

“The vast majority of those who gave written evidence believe that allowing abortion up to birth on grounds of disability is discriminatory, contrary to the spirit of the Equality Act, and does affect wider public attitudes towards discrimination.”

Members were drawn from both Houses of Parliament and included, its Vice Chair Virendra Sharma MP, Chair of the All Party Parliamentary Group on Down Syndrome, Lord McColl of Dulwich, who served as Parliamentary Private Secretary to John Major, Robert Buckland MP, Chair of the Autism All Party Parliamentary Group and Chair of the Conservative Human Rights Commission, former TV presenter and Liberal Democrat peer, Baroness Benjamin of Beckenham, Rob Flello MP, the Labour Shadow Justice Minister, crossbench peer and eminent psychiatrist, Baroness Hollins of Wimbledon, Paul Maynard MP, Chair of the All Party Parliamentary Group for Young Disabled People and former three-time paralympian Baroness Masham.

Controversially, the Commission rejected calls for a list of conditions to be published that would meet the “seriously handicapped” criteria as “such a list would inevitably discriminate, on arbitrary and subjective grounds.”

It heard that pregnancies beyond 24 weeks can only be ended on the basis of a “substantial risk” of the child being “seriously handicapped”.  However, the Commission found that the law does not define either “substantial” or “seriously”.

In 2012, according to Department of Health, there were 2,692 abortions carried out under “Ground E of the Abortion Act 1967,” a 17% increase on the previous year; 160 of these abortions took place after 24 weeks.

The Commission expressed concern that some treatable conditions were still being used to justify abortion on the grounds of disability.

They heard that potential disabilities such as cleft palate and clubfoot continue to be used in a small number of cases under Ground E, although in a majority of these cases it was suggested that there were other genetic factors present.

Professor Joan Morris  confirmed to the Commission that she estimated there had been seven terminations in the last decade for cleft lip only and estimated around five for talipes (club foot), but there were no reliable figures. 

The Committee also heard evidence that Down’s Syndrome accounted for around a quarter (512) of all Ground E abortions and that approximately nine in 10 (90 per cent) of babies diagnosed with Down’s Syndrome were aborted.

Leading disability rights campaigner, Mike Sullivan of Saving Downs, called for the law to be changed as the condition was no longer considered to be “serious handicap”.  

“The law should be amended to exclude Down’s Syndrome as it does “not meet the test of a ‘serious handicap’ since it is a mild to moderate developmental delay” and the decades of experience and research on lives lived with Down’s Syndrome prove beyond a doubt that Down’s Syndrome does not meet that criteria.”

Mrs Bruce concluded: “What quickly became clear is that there are wide discrepancies as to how the current law is being applied. Worryingly we heard evidence that the way parents are supported is widely variable across the country - ranging from the exceptional to the appalling; we heard how parents can find themselves only being given a leaflet on abortion, after being told the shattering news that their unborn baby could be disabled, rather than a support package and information on the specific condition diagnosed. Some parents told us they felt pressured into having an abortion and that they had to find out for themselves from the internet information about the condition diagnosed and any potential support for them should they choose to keep their baby.

We also heard good examples of support and counselling, and one of the most important of our proposals is to recommend that best practice guidelines are developed to ensure parents are provided with practical and balanced information from trained experts as soon as possible after discovery of a fetal disability, so they can make an informed choice.

As one parent told us, summarising what many others reported: “To give a family a diagnosis of a disability and then to immediately follow that up with the advice that they can have a termination without any other information is simply not acceptable in a civilized society.”

I hope our findings will kickstart and inform a much needed debate on this issue.

It can’t be right that nearly 50 years after abortion was legalised, we still discriminate against unborn disabled children, even on conditions that we would not describe as serious.”

NOTES  

The current law permits an abortion to take place up to 40 weeks (or birth) if tests for disability indicate that there is a ‘substantial risk’ that the child might be born ‘seriously handicapped.’ The law does not define these criteria and they are broadly interpreted.

The legal limit for all other abortions is 24 weeks.

In light of the current legal position, the Parliamentary Inquiry into Abortion on the Grounds of Disability sought evidence from parents, medical practitioners, academia, support groups, disability groups, lawyers and individuals with an interest regarding the current theory, practice and implications of the approach to abortion on the grounds of disability in the UK.

The terms of reference of the Commission were to:

·         Establish and assess the intention behind the law governing abortion on the grounds of disability.

·         Establish how the law works in practice and is interpreted by medical practitioners.

·         Determine the impact of the current law on disabled people and assess the views of groups representing their interests.

·         Assess the effectiveness of the information and guidance provided to families following the diagnosis of a disability and the impact that has on outcomes.

·         Examine how the law, guidance and support for practitioners and families can be developed going forward.

Committee membership

Fiona Bruce MP (Chair)

Virendra Sharma MP (Vice Chair)

Paul Maynard MP

Baroness Hollins of Wimbledon

Robert Buckland MP

Lord McColl of Dulwich

Stuart Andrew MP

Baroness Benjamin of Beckenham

David Simpson MP

Baroness Masham of Ilton

Rob Flello MP

Dr John Pugh MP

Baroness Knight of Collingtree

A full copy of the report can be downloaded at www.abortionanddisability.org

Fiona Bruce Speaks at Mother's Union AGM

Fiona Bruce speaks at Mother’s Union AGM

Fiona Bruce MP was the keynote speaker at the Annual General Meeting of the Chester Diocese AGM, held at St John’s Church, Hartford.

Fiona Bruce spoke of the difference a backbench MP can make on matters which rarely hit the headlines but can make a big difference to people’s lives.

She described her work calling for money management to become part of the curriculum so that young people come out of school with the financial capability to budget well and understand the implications of borrowing. The MP described how a report she produced with other MPs has been considered by Education Ministers and the Prime Minister and the recommendations within it will be implemented other the coming year including financial education as part of the maths and PSHE curriculums.

The MP also spoke about her work opposing the legalisation of euthanasia in the House of Commons and the importance of improving end of life care for everyone, emphasising that this needs to involve families much more, as exemplified by the care shown by members of the Mothers Union.

She also commended the Mother’s Union on their Bye Buy Childhood campaign which has done so much to highlight the need to reduce access to pornography on the internet by children. The Bye Buy Childhood campaign, launched by the Mother’s Union, was one Fiona actively supported in Parliament and she informed the meeting that good progress has been made in Westminster through discussions with internet service providers to ensure that greater protection is provided for children.

Susan Hawkes of the Middlewich Branch said “I really enjoyed Fiona’s address as did many other members judging by the reception Fiona got.”

Diocesan President, Angela Klabou said “I thank Fiona for coming to address to Diocesan Council and have already received many complimentary comments on how interesting and stimulating she was. I was particularly interested to hear of Fiona’s efforts to introduce financial education into school. I think this is long overdue.”

Planning Inquiry Statement

Statement by Fiona Bruce MP at Cheshire East Planning Inquiry

Appeal against Non-Determination

Land to rear of Land to the North of Congleton Road, Sandbach APP/0660/A/13/2189733

Appeals in Cheshire East affected by the SHLAA in the Congleton Constituency

The attached statement was read out, by Cllr Michael Benson Mayor of Sandbach, on behalf of Fiona Bruce MP to Cheshire East Planning Inquiry on the 16^th July 2013, the first day of the above major Planning Inquiry currently taking place in Crewe.

• Statement appears below

Appeal against Non-Determination

Land to rear of Land to the North of Congleton Road, Sandbach APP/0660/A/13/2189733

Appeals in Cheshire East affected by the SHLAA in the Congleton Constituency:-

Abbeyfields, Sandbach 2141564

Sandbach Road North, Alsager 2195201

Elworth Hall Farm, Elworth 2106044

Hassall Road, Alsager 2188001

The Moorings and Goldfinch Close/Kestrel Close, Congleton 2188604 and 2188605

Waterworks House, Sandbach 2192130

Land Adjacent to Rose Cottages, Holmes Chapel Road, Somerford, Congleton 2192192

38 Congleton Road North, Church Lawton 2193013

Land South of Hall Drive, Alsager 2196791

The following statement, by me, Fiona Bruce Member of Parliament for the Congleton Constituency, is being made at the request of and in support of my many constituents who will be affected by the above developments should they proceed and is supplementary to the objection letter which I registered with the Chief Executive of the Planning Inspectorate on 31^st January 2013, and its attachment, an earlier objection letter to the Chief Executive of Cheshire East Council dated 19^th September 2012. As stated in that letter applications for the above developments have caused concern to a significant number of my constituents. Indeed this cannot be overstated. Perhaps I may put this in context when I say that I have had a constant stream of letters, emails, telephone calls and surgery appointments from constituents since I became Member of Parliament for the Congleton Constituency in May 2010 regarding planning concerns and that in terms of my postbag, compared with concerns over planning applications, no other issue comes even remotely close to approaching the volume – or indeed the intensity of concern – of communications from residents to me as their MP. Groups of residents in two towns, Congleton and Sandbach, have launched Downing Street E-Petitions.

I appreciate that at this particular hearing the land at the north of Congleton Road site at Sandbach is your primary consideration together with consideration of the adequacy of the Cheshire East Council’s Housing Land Supply as detailed in its SHLAA.

Concerns which residents have raised with me regarding the above site are shared by residents regarding many of the other applications listed at the top of this letter including impact on greenfield and greenspace sites, pressure on schools, roads, local medical services and other infrastructure, the risk of turning strong local communities into commuter belts and the fact that many of these applications do not reflect local community views as expressed in Town Plans.

It is noted that the National Planning Policy Framework promotes sustainable development – but sustainable in terms of environmental, economic and social respects. In a letter dated 10^th June 2013 to me Nick Boles MP, Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State (Planning) stated in response to a letter I sent – one of many communications over the last two to three years to Ministers expressing the concerns of my constituents about the NPPF and its role in upholding local democratic decision making:-

‘Whilst being pro-growth the Framework does not put the interest of businesses ahead of community. The Framework is clear that the purpose of planning is to contribute to the achievement of sustainable development and that the economic, social and environmental roles of the planning system that underpin the delivery of sustainable development are mutually dependent. The presumption makes clear that the policy objectives elsewhere in the Framework provide important safeguards, against which the benefits of allowing development will need to be weighed.

Local Plans are a key element of the Government’s planning reforms. Wherever a Local Plan is drawn up, consulted on and agreed, local residents should expect decisions to be taken in accordance with it. This is a sign of true localism in action. Local Plans, Neighbourhood Planning and Community Rights to Build and Acquire are bringing planning powers back to local areas.’

My constituents have made their case clear to me, and I support them fully – that the development of the land to the north of Congleton Road would not be sustainable in economic, social or environmental terms – as detailed below.

In environmental terms, the land which is the subject of the application to the north of Congleton Road is quality agricultural land and very much part of the local countryside enjoyed by residents with two footpaths crossing it, the material use and enjoyment all of which would be lost together with the biodiversity it sustains should this land be built on. The area is not within the local Settlement Zone Line and any development on it, particularly of the height and density planned would be an inappropriate incursion into the countryside surrounding Sandbach.

With reference to economic sustainability, there is a grave danger that with a high proportion of residents likely to purchase in this proposed development being from outside the area, and this likely to be the trend should other developments be constructed thereafter, commuting to work out of the area will increase putting additional strain on the already strained road network (such as Junction 17 of the M56), and community life and cohesion, one of the great strengths of the towns in my constituency will be seriously denuded. Further, since the Cheshire East Local Development Plan proposed priorities are to focus development of Crewe and Macclesfield, with towns such as Sandbach (and indeed Congleton and Alsager) not being identified as major centres of growth, the volume of development which could proceed, should this appeal be allowed, and possibly using this appeal as a precedent would not be plan-led and therefore, my constituents argue, not economically sustainable with reference to the NPPF guidance. There will simply not be the local jobs to support this volume of house building.

In respect of social issues, my constituents fully accept that some development should be provided for within my constituency, and this is accepted in, for example, the Sandbach Town Plan, but that this should be in sustainable locations, and not to the degree which the above listed applications would involve. May I ask that you give the Town Plans developed in my constituency as much consideration as possible bearing in mind that a great deal of time and thought has gone into their preparation on the part of many of townspeople who feel, and I agree with them, that if localism is to mean anything it must mean respecting their views with regard to planning and developments in their towns. The strength of local feeling in this connection is evidenced by the fact that only last week the Mayor of Sandbach, Councillor Michael Benson, asked me to arrange for him to formally deliver to the Prime Minister at Number 10 Downing Street on Thursday 11^th July a letter expressing this from which I quote as follows:

Dear Prime Minister,

As Town Mayor and on behalf of all Councillors and residents I am writing to ask for your help to resolve a growing problem affecting our historic market town.

Sandbach currently has about 8000 homes and faces an onslaught of speculative planning applications which, if unchecked, will increase this to 14000 and change the character of our town beyond recognition.

We are not against plan-led development but our views are being ignored when appeals are heard.

Cheshire East Borough Council is working hard to complete its emerging Local Plan and this has been supported by residents through the consultation stages.  It will, however, take upwards of a further year to complete and at present carries on the status of ‘material consideration.’

I cannot tell you how disappointed and disillusioned residents are at the present system which appears to encourage growth at the expense of local communities.  The Local Planning Authority should be free to provide additional homes at a pace and in numbers which are in keeping with the expressed needs and wishes of local people and given much greater weight than at present...

In Sandbach, the Town Council is so concerned about the strength of local feelings that it has recently taken the unusual step of launching a Petition which supports the substance of the views expressed in this letter.

Yours sincerely,

Cllr Michael Benson

Town Mayor

Sandbach Town Council

A large volume of house building, even spread over the next few years, in a single town would, as mentioned above, simply not be socially sustainable by the local community and its services. The strength of concern of residents in this regard can be judged from the fact that there are well over ten Action Groups opposing unsustainable development in Sandbach alone.

I should be grateful if you would also be good enough to give as much weight as possible to the Cheshire East Local Development Plan. Local Government reorganisation, imposed upon Cheshire at short notice by the previous Government, has meant that Cheshire East has had less time than other Councils to develop its Plan. I hope that you will be able to take this unusual factor into account. Whilst Cheshire East Council may have commenced its development of its Local Plan later than others, for the reason given above, no one could gainsay that under the present Leadership of Councillor Michael Jones the utmost energy and alacrity has now been injected into this process. I am personally very much aware of this since from the moment I arranged a meeting in Westminster last Autumn between the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government and Councillor Michael Jones, at which when Eric Pickles MP made it very clear that progress with the Cheshire East Local Plan must be given the utmost priority, there is no doubt that the Council has taken this on board and made considerable headway both in clarifying its priorities and consulting with the local community accordingly.

Finally with reference to the Housing Supply Target, I understand that the Cheshire East Council’s SHLAAs annual target is 1,150 (based on the now revoked North West Regional Strategy 2008) – for the whole of Cheshire East, a large Unitary Council with a population of over 370,000 whereas Sandbach has some 17,000. It would be completely disproportionate if this appeal together with those ‘behind it,’ resulted in almost the entire annual supply of houses for the Council’s area to be accommodated by one town over the next few years, and particularly a town not identified as a key growth area. This would be neither plan-led, proportionate nor sustainable and could simply not be absorbed comfortably into the existing settlement. The Council’s recently produced SHLAA identifies many sites across the wide region Cheshire East sits within which could adequately and more appropriately supply the housing land and numbers required for well over five years to come and it would be significantly unfair to the local Sandbach community, and indeed other towns in my constituency affected by applications listed above, if simply because these particular applications have reached an appeal stage before others, construction on one or more of these sites should proceed when for the many reasons outlined above this would be wholly inappropriate and premature.

With regard to its appeal against non-determination in this case and its arguments in support of the probity of its recently produced SHLAA, Cheshire East Council has my full support.

In closing may I state my appreciation to you for the opportunity afforded to me by the reading of this statement to impress upon you the strength and depth of feeling of residents across my constituency in this matter.

Fiona Bruce MP

Member of Parliament for Congleton

16^th July 2013

MMU Alsager Sports Facilities

Fiona Bruce MP and Alsager Sports and Recreation Association obtain Sport England’s backing for retention of sports facilities at former MMU site, Alsager.

At a meeting convened in Parliament yesterday by Fiona Bruce MP, the Chief Executive of Sport England, Jennie Price, agreed to give full support for the retention of the sports facilities at the former MMU site for use by the local community, whatever development plans for the site proceed.

The meeting was also attended by Stephen Wade on behalf of Alsager Sports and Recreation Association (ASRA) which in turn represent many different sports groups in Alsager, and Stephen Irvine from the Cheshire East Council Planning Department.

Stephen Wade explained the comprehensive use of the facilities which would be made by a broad cross section of local sports and recreation clubs as well as Alsager High students and other groups such as the U3A, which has over 1000 members in Alsager.

Fiona Bruce MP said:

“This is a real breakthrough. Having the backing of Sport England and their recognition that there is real local demand for these facilities brings us one step closer to ensuring that whatever development occurs on the former MMU site, these valuable facilities are retained. There is still a long way to go, nothing is yet guaranteed, and the exact terms of any planning application have still to be settled but the backing of Sport England for the retention of these facilities in full gives real strength to the case for keeping them. The next big challenge is to source funding for their ongoing maintenance at a quality level to future proof their provision for a generation or more. Sport England has also agreed to assist with this.

Sport England have a statutory right to comment on any planning application involving sports facilities. They would normally do so on submission of an application, so to get their support in advance of any such submission is very positive.

I pay tribute to the responsible and considered way in which ASRA has approached this issue which meant we were able to put some really considered proposals to Sport England.”

Stephen Wade, on behalf of ASRA, noted:

“We are very grateful for Fiona’s continued support in our quest to retain high quality sporting provision within Alsager. There is already a recognised shortfall in the availability of formal play space within Alsager resulting in many local clubs having to travel outside the area to access facilities. We don’t oppose the development of housing on the site but we are very keen to ensure an appropriate mix of both new housing and the retention of a meaningful sporting legacy. We are delighted to have the backing of Sport England which we believe is a clear endorsement our plan.”

Notes  

• Photograph of the meeting on Thursday 11^th July. Right to left: Jennie Price (CEO, Sport England), Steve Irvine (Planning and Place Shaping Manager, Cheshire East Council), Stephen Wade (ASRA), Fiona Bruce MP and Ben Williams (Sport England).

• Their vision for the development of the site .
• The scheme would provide over 300 residential dwellings and would also contribute five full size grass pitches, four mini grass pitches, one multi user Astroturf pitch and the retention of the existing sports halls and drama studio.
• The sports halls and drama studio were both constructed in the last ten years with the benefit of significant public sector funding from HEFCE.

MEP meets Local Farmers

Fiona Bruce MP brings MEP to meet Farmers to discuss problem of Bovine TB

 

Fiona Bruce brought Sajjad Karim MEP to meet with farmers from across the constituency last week to discuss Cheshire farming and the growing problem of bovine TB in their cattle herds. Bovine TB is becoming an increasingly dire problem for farmers in Cheshire as the disease has spread from the surrounding areas and local farmers report that the worry caused in terms of the potential damage to their herd is immense.

The local farmers were able to raise these concerns with the MEP and to impress upon him the gravity of the problem in this area.

Local farmer Stuart Yarwood said of the meeting “We were extremely grateful to Fiona Bruce for giving us the opportunity to discuss Cheshire farming with Sajjad Karim MEP. He understood the serious issue of bovine TB in our cattle herds and reassured us that EU funding to control this disease would be maintained. With so much of agriculture affected by EU regulations we look forward to continuing this dialogue with him in the future.”

Fiona Bruce MP said:

“I arranged this meeting because with so much of the legislation that affects farmers and farming coming from the EU I felt it vital that our farmers were able to talk face-to-face with an MEP.

 Farming is so important to the local economy and the threat posed by and impact of bovine TB is very real. Sajjad Karim listened very carefully to the concerns of the farmers and promised to take them back to the European Parliament. I asked him specifically to obtain a response from the EU Commissioner for Agriculture as to why I hear in the UK Parliament that the EU is stopping vaccinations which would help prevent the spread of TB.”

Sajjad Karim MEP said

“I know Fiona is a strong supporter of the agricultural community and holds regular meetings with local farmers, so I very much welcome the opportunity to hear their concerns first hand and to widen the discussion to cover EU issues. It was a lively exchange, I learnt a lot from the conversation. I particularly noted the concerns regarding the spread and prevention of Bovine TB, as discussed I will raise the matter of vaccination and funding directly with the Commissioner and come back with a response.”

MPs' Pay - Comment from Fiona Bruce MP

“I consider any proposed increase in MPs’ pay at this time to be wholly inappropriate and unjustified, bearing in mind how many people are having to tighten their belts. Many public sector workers have had pay freezes and those working in the private sector have had a pro-longed difficult time as businesses have faced so many challenges over recent years.

Being an MP is a great privilege and if there is any pay rise awarded at this time I will take up the suggestions of a constituent to donate the increase to charity.”