Fiona Bruce speaks at Save Our Sandbach Rally in the Constituency

Fiona Bruce MP speaks at Save our Sandbach Rally

At the rally of Sandbach residents on 29^th September, Fiona Bruce said:

“Sandbach is a jewel in Cheshire East’s crown.

The fact is, the town has already made generous provision towards Cheshire East’s 5,500 five year housing quota, with around 1000 homes already given consent for in Sandbach   - but as yet un-built , - many on brownfield sites.

So I say to developers -  “  Build on those sites! “

Sandbach is a town of 18,000 people – whilst Cheshire East has a population of over 363,000 ,  - so even at 1000 un-built houses, we are way over our fair contribution to Cheshire East’s housing needs.

As well all know, Sandbach is an enormously attractive place to live - not only because of the lovely market town centre, but also – and very importantly – due to the strong community life here, the voluntary groups, dedicated Councillors, co mmunity groups, music groups, excellent schools and good road and rail transport links.

But, just because of its high quality of life, Sandbach is a town under siege.

Under siege from developers who threaten the town’s very character, its community and its green spaces.  If undeterred developers would undoubtedly have all of Cheshire East’s housing needs fulfilled by Sandbach for years to come.

That is totally unacceptable, unfair , and unsustainable for the town of Sandbach

No wonder the townsfolk are out in force today – young and old, business people, Councillors, the abled and the less abled and community group representatives - and I pay tribute to you all  for coming out in such numbers - and we are saying with one voice to developers:

“Enough is Enough”

Developers, have targeted Sandbach and its green spaces,

-not to add to the amenity of the town

-not to add to the community of the town

-not to add to the character of the town

-but motivated by pure profit.

And let developers take notice of this  - that we here together today will fight you  all the way if you pursue your plans to build thousands more houses on some of Sandbach’s choicest land – some of it Cheshire’s fine agricultural land- without regard to existing residents wishes, without regard to the pressure you will put on infrastructure, schools or roads and without regard to the character and amenity of the town.

Sandbach is a community - not  a commuter belt.

To ensure that the message that you, the people of Sandbach have given today, turning up, as you have done, in such numbers, to oppose further development, is heard loudly and clearly by Government, I have arranged for Michael Jones, Leader of Cheshire East Council, to meet Eric Pickles, Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government,  in Parliament. At that meeting Michael and I  will  be taking your message from today to Eric Pickles -  that  “Enough is Enough”  regarding development in Sandbach   -   and discussing with him how a long term Strategic Plan can be developed to protect Sandbach from piecemeal, aggressive attacks from developers.

Yes, the Government wants development , and yes Cheshire East Council want development – but it has to be in the right place; it has to be Local Plan led and it has to be sustainable.

It cannot take place where development ignores local people’s wishes,  where development ignores local planning advice and recommendations, where development ignores Local Town Plans, or with scant regard and little  responsibility as to how a town will absorb the numbers of new residents which thousands of new homes will bring in – and it must not  take place by developers  cherry picking some of the choicest land in Cheshire .

Today, standing together, residents, Councillors, and Member of Parliament, we are saying with  one voice - “Enough is Enough”

And one final point – we are not NIMBYs – we simply want a fair deal for Sandbach.

General Matters - Sunday Trading

4.24 pm

Fiona Bruce (Congleton) (Con): I am grateful for this opportunity to speak about Sunday trading. The point that I want to make is simple.
As Members may recall, on 30 April this year, the Sunday Trading (London Olympic Games and Paralympic Games) Act 2012 was passed. Its effect was to extend Sunday trading hours temporarily during the limited period of 22 July to 9 September.
During the debate on the Bill, I expressed my concerns about those proposals, and in particular about whether they would be used as a precedent for a further—or permanent—extension of Sunday trading hours. I will not repeat those concerns in detail as they are on the record, but they included: the potentially negative impact on family and community life; the need for us all—as individuals and as a nation—to have a recognised rest period each week for our health and well-being; and the potential consequential pressure to work on Sundays, especially for some of the lowest-paid workers in our society, and the subsequent strain on their families. I also referred to concerns raised by the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children and the Joseph Rowntree Foundation, and to the fact that for many people of faith, Sunday still has a special significance.
Ian Paisley: The hon. Lady is raising an issue that is crucial to our nation’s trade. Was she as concerned as I was on hearing the word “temporary”, which sometimes
18 Sep 2012 : Column 851
does not mean what it says on the tin? Temporary provisions in Northern Ireland lasted 30 years, but I hope that through the hon. Lady’s speech, we can obtain absolute clarity that temporary means temporary, and that the extension to the trading laws will cease on the date that was given to Parliament when this matter was first raised.
Fiona Bruce: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention because obtaining such clarity is exactly the purpose of my contribution to the debate.
My concerns—and other concerns—were shared by several colleagues during the debate on 30 April. Responding to the debate, the then Minister of State, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, my hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr Prisk), stated:

“The concern has been expressed that this Bill is somehow a Trojan horse, preparing the way for a permanent relaxation of the rules for large stores. Let me assure hon. Members again that that is not the case.”

Referring to my particular concerns about the impact on families and family time, he stated:

“I think she is absolutely right, so let me say to her that the Bill affects just eight Sundays and the deliberate inclusion of a sunset clause means that the Bill will be removed from the statute book after 9 September. Indeed, as the Secretary of State has made clear, if a future Government were to consider a permanent relaxation, they would have to undertake a full consultation and present new legislation to this House. As the Secretary of State also pointed out, we have no such plans.”—[Official Report, 30 April 2012; Vol. 543, c. 1352-53.]

I was pleased to hear the Minister’s words and I took them as a personal assurance, although for the record, I still abstained rather than vote for the proposals. I understood, however, that many of my colleagues also took those words as a firm assurance on behalf of the Government that the temporary alterations to Sunday trading hours would not be further extended or used as a precedent, and hon. Members voted accordingly on that basis.
Some weeks later, towards the end of the wonderful Olympic and Paralympic period of which our nation is so rightly proud, suggestions circulated in the press— I know not from what source they originated—that a permanent deregulation of Sunday trading hours should perhaps be considered, following the limited extension period.
Such suggestions were completely at odds with the statements expressed by more than one Minister during the passage of the Bill. Another Minister in the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, the hon. Member for North Norfolk (Norman Lamb) stated at the time:

“I want to make it clear that this is a temporary measure and not a test case for a permanent relaxation of the rules in the future”,

and the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills stated that the Bill was

“not a signal of the Government’s intent on the broader issue of Sunday trading;”. —[Official Report, 30 April 2012; Vol. 543, c. 1293.]

In light of recent press speculation about a possible further extension to Sunday trading hours, I seek today, either from the Deputy Leader of the House, or after the debate from the new the Minister of State, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, my right hon. Friend
18 Sep 2012 : Column 852
the Member for Sevenoaks (Michael Fallon), clear confirmation that the assurance given on behalf of the Government still stands, and that despite references to an extension of Sunday trading hours, the Government have no such plans. The Government’s assurance was carefully noted not only by me and many colleagues in the House, but—crucially—by many millions of people across the country.
I hope that the Deputy Leader of the House and the responsible Minister will take this point in the spirit of the utmost courtesy with which I express it, but there is an issue of integrity here. In issuing the confirmation that I seek, Ministers would put an end to continuing speculation that is a cause of concern to many. Of course, the extension of Sunday trading hours was in neither coalition party’s manifesto nor in the coalition agreement.
I turn to some comments that have been made since the summer extension of hours. The British Retail Consortium has recently announced that it does not want to lobby for permanent deregulation of Sunday trading hours. According to Retail Week magazine, momentum for a permanent change among retailers has begun to wane, which may be a result of the BRC’s announcement that retail sales fell by 0.4% in August, compared with August 2011 on a like-for-like basis, with no sign of the Olympic boost that was promoted as a reason for the temporary extension. According to the Association of Convenience Stores, independent retailers reported a loss of sales of up to 20% and a 30% drop in footfall over the Olympic period. That reported negative impact is of considerable concern to many small retailers, which often live on narrow margins, and to their employees.
Jim Shannon: Does that not knock the giant supermarkets’ feet away from under them? They said that if they opened longer on Sunday, there would be extra trade and extra jobs, but those figures prove that it did not happen.
Fiona Bruce: The hon. Gentleman makes a valid point, and I understand from answers to written questions that I have tabled on the issue that the Government are proposing to produce their own analysis of sales over the Olympic period. May I venture to suggest that any analysis would be of questionable conclusive value due to a number of variables that influenced retail sales during the Olympics, not least the fact that they were a wholly unique event? There was also the differing proximity of retail outlets to Olympic venues, the weather and the coincidental holiday period.
I remind the House that the Government have already given extensive consideration to a review of Sunday trading hours in their retail growth review and their red tape challenge. In both instances the policy was rigorously explored, and I understand that a clear view was formed that there was no need to amend the current trading hours, which represented

“a valued compromise for all parties.”

I should add that many people would welcome more protection for Sundays as a day of rest and a day for families, friends and those of shared faith. I commend the work of the Keep Sunday Special campaign, which continues to make a strong case for keeping Sunday a different and special day in our national life.
18 Sep 2012 : Column 853
If shops were open longer, that would not mean that consumers had the funds or the inclination to buy more goods. Our quieter high streets during the Olympic period showed that, including some of the Cheshire high streets about which I have inquired.
Far from being pro-growth, any proposal to further extend our already long retail trading hours may actually have the opposite impact, as work or productivity expands to fill the time allotted, as the old saying goes. I am reminded of accounts that I have heard from during the war, when factories seeking to increase their production moved to a seven-day working week and found that production actually decreased. A subsequent return to six-day production led to an increase. The day of rest proved its value.
I wish to give two quotations from senior business leaders. They were not necessarily made subsequent to the Olympic period, but they are worth putting on the record. Justin King, Sainsbury’s chief executive, has said:

“We’re content that Sunday is special and we don’t see customer demand for a change in the current law.”

The former Marks and Spencer chairman Sir Stuart Rose has said:

“The fact of the matter is you simply spread the same amount of business over a longer period, but with more operating costs. It’s a zero-sum game.”

Time with family—time to care—is important. So many people at the end of their lives say, “I wish I’d spent more time with my family; I wish I’d spent more time caring.” We have all heard the expression that not many people, if anyone, would say, “I wish I’d spent more time at the office”, and I doubt that anyone will say, “I wish I’d spent more time shopping.”
I have been encouraged to hear it reported recently that the Prime Minister, on being asked whether he would support changes to the law in this regard, responded:

“We said at the time it was a specific thing for the Olympics and that was the proposal that we made.”

I request from the Deputy Leader of the House, on behalf of BIS Ministers, clear and unequivocal confirmation of the assurance given in this House when the Sunday Trading (London Olympic Games and Paralympic Games) Bill was debated and passed that the extension of trading hours for the period of the games was limited to that period and would not be extended. In doing so, he will put an end to the ongoing speculation and concern in this connection. I look forward to his response.

Dairy Industry

Fiona Bruce (Congleton) (Con): Cheshire has a long tradition of dairy farming. Few hon. Members in this Chamber will have failed to enjoy the taste of Cheshire cheese. May I also recommend to hon. Members the delightful Cheshire ice cream and invite them to enjoy that in Cheshire, on one of our farms?
13 Sep 2012 : Column 161WH
Dairy farmers are hugely respected in Cheshire. They are appreciated not only for the essential staple foods that they put on the table, but for the contribution they make to our communities and landscape and for the hard work that they undertake all year round, at all times of the day and night and in all weathers, to produce that food, often with a smile on their face. I can testify to that because I live among the Cheshire farming community.
When a number of those farmers came to see me earlier this summer to talk about their anger, frustration and distress at the cost of milk and the fact that they were having to produce milk and sell it for less than their basic costs, I had to take that seriously. They entered the room without their usual smiles and were angry and distressed. Wendy Radley, who works at Holly farm in Congleton with her family, said:

“this situation gets worse on a daily basis. Our industry has seen yet another shattering fall in milk price which is simply not sustainable…something must be done about the need to provide protection for the primary producer. Currently vast swathes of dairy farmers are being forced to sell at around 20% below the acknowledged cost of production of a litre of milk.”

That is unacceptable, unsustainable and unjust, especially when retailers are making as much as 16p per litre of milk. Yet farmers are losing money on a litre of milk. One farmer said, “Not only can we not cover our costs. How are we supposed to provide for a pension?”
Knowing that this debate was coming up and about the concern in the community, I invited other farmers to write to me. I received a number of letters—I cannot read them all—from farmers and non-farmers and some unsolicited letters, including two from church leaders, who were concerned about members of their congregations and communities affected by this situation, and one from the leader of Cheshire East council. Although those letters were received before the most recent developments, they highlight the concerns in our local community. One recent development is the voluntary code of best practice on contractual relationships, which has been mentioned. It is important that that is effectively implemented and monitored and that the Government ensures that this happens. I hope that the Minister will deal with that point when responding.
Before dealing with the letter from the leader of Cheshire East council, I should like to mention a communication that I received from Stuart Yarwood of Lower Medhurst Green farm, who is an NFU representative in Cheshire, a parish council chairman and a great member of the community—I have hardly ever seen him without a smile on his face—just to highlight the anger among our local community. He says:

“I have attended a milk producers meeting at Stafford today with 500 to 600 other farmers. Our message to the processors who have cut milk prices again this week is clear.

30p a litre or you do not get the milk.

We are ready to either dump the milk or shut down the distribution centres… I never thought I would be distributing this type of language, but when you see how the supermarkets have ruined our industry and…government has watched, it is time to oil the plough and grub up the Cheshire Plain to plant some wheat.”

That would be a tragedy.
13 Sep 2012 : Column 162WH
The letter from the leader of East Cheshire council says that he wants me

“to raise the Council’s very serious concerns over the plight of dairy farmers across Cheshire East. By early August a significant number of our farmers have seen the price they receive for milk reduce by 15 per cent over recent months, leading to severe economic hardship and, in some cases, decisions to go out of milk production altogether, losing a heritage which goes back many generations. The impact on the wider rural economy could be devastating.

Many farmers will be receiving significantly less for their milk than it cost to produce. No business can continue to produce a product if the price they receive for it is consistently lower than the cost of production. Over the last twenty years dairy farmers across the county have striven to become ever more efficient, they have been successful…but there is a point beyond which they cannot go.”

He goes on to ask me to encourage the Government to

“Lighten the load of farm regulation to prevent unnecessary extra regulatory costs…Put pressure on all major buyers of milk and dairy products to commit to pay fair prices that cover production costs”—

not only should prices cover costs, but a fair price of more than production costs should be provided. Finally, he asks the Government to ensure that

“the Groceries Code Adjudicator Bill…currently before Parliament becomes law as quickly as possible. This is important legislation as an adjudicator could stamp out unfair practices at the retailer end of the supply chain.”

Finally, I received a letter from another local farmer, Barry Dale, who urged the Government to tackle TB, because the rules surrounding it

“have now become so restrictive and complex that even DEFRA’s own staff struggle to understand them… The supporting computer technology is also very inefficient and causes many delays and problems. Despite this I am very optimistic about the future of our dairy industry”,

and he hopes that the Government will continue to play their part.

Human Rights Violations

Westminster Hall 10.13 am

Fiona Bruce (Congleton) (Con): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for South Swindon (Mr Buckland) not only on securing this debate but on the way in which he has chaired the Conservative party human rights commission since taking up that post nearly a year ago. His dedication is shown in the high quality of the wide-ranging report and its in-depth recommendations. It is a privilege to be identified with the report and with his work.
Mr Buckland: I pay tribute to commission member Mr Ben Rogers, whom my hon. Friend and I know well. He has played an important part in bringing together the strands that form the report.
Fiona Bruce: I will augment the report by referring to additional examples of human rights abuses against professionals uncovered by a contemporaneous inquiry.
12 Sep 2012 : Column 85WH
Since April, the Christians in Parliament all-party group has conducted an inquiry into human rights abuses in Iran, and my speech will focus on professionals who have suffered human rights abuses in that country. With the help of Elam Ministries and Eighteen07, the all-party group is currently cataloguing those abuses, particularly abuses against the rapidly growing Christian community,
A range of human rights abuses has been described to us, from job discrimination and the withholding of passports to false arrest and subsequent sleep deprivation, false information being given to families while those arrested are in detention, beatings, lengthy interrogations, mock executions and actual killings. I will highlight three examples given to us by professionals.
Issa Dibaj is the eldest son of Mehdi Dibaj, who a generation ago in 1994 was killed in Iran for his Christian faith. Almost 20 years later, Issa is still suffering as a result. He explained several forms of abuse that he has experienced. Although perhaps not as major as the abuses experienced by others, I cite the example of job discrimination. He is a teacher:

“I graduated with a first class degree in English literature from Tehran university, the country’s best educational institution. Despite being highly qualified, despite the fact that the university was in desperate need of instructors in English, and despite having the full support of the academic members of the board of the English department, my application for a teaching position in Tehran university was rejected with the vague explanation that ‘at present we cannot offer you this position’.”

I turn now to the evidence gathered for our report from the alarming testimony of another professional, Hossein Jadidi. A lawyer, Mr Jadidi was a devout Muslim who converted to Christianity. In our hearings, he reported enormous resistance from the authorities to his attempts to provide professional services to his clients, many of whom are also Christians. He discussed two clients in detail as an example.
On reporting to the Iranian intelligence ministry to be registered as his clients’ lawyer, Mr Jadidi experienced intimidation and threats and was not permitted to visit his clients, in contravention of Iranian law. Eventually, his clients were granted bail, but once the bail had been paid they were not permitted to leave the prison. The prison authorities then refused to receive Mr Jadidi’s written protest on their behalf. Mr Jadidi reports that he himself eventually became the subject of human rights abuses and persecution, which began with monitoring by the Government. He became aware of telltale sounds on his phone calls that indicated a third person was listening in, and he noticed that people were always watching him when he got out of his car.
In December 2010, the Iranian Government organised a large-scale programme of human rights abuses against Christians, taking hundreds of people into custody and questioning them. On their release, many reported back to Mr Jadidi that he had been the repeated subject of their interrogations. One said that an interrogator had told him, “We know what Hossein is up to, and he’s playing with fire.” Another interrogator used the interrogation to threaten Mr Jadidi indirectly by asking, “Isn’t he afraid that when he drives his car he will have an accident?” As a lawyer, Mr Jadidi knew the authorities needed to gather substantial evidence before arresting
12 Sep 2012 : Column 86WH
him, and because of the number of people detained who had reported back to him that he had been the subject of interrogations, he realised the authorities were putting together a file on him.
Mr Jadidi was a member of Iran’s religious minority committee of the human rights commission of the lawyers’ centre. He learned that other members of the committee were also being systematically arrested and taken into custody. At that point, he felt compelled to leave his profession and flee Iran to avoid his own arrest.
My third example involves a journalist and is equally disturbing, as it relates to BBC employees. We heard highly disturbing evidence from Sadeq Saba, editor of BBC Persian, which is part of the World Service. Other witnesses told us that an enormous number of people in Iran listen to BBC Persian. It carries great authority, as we all appreciate.
Mr Saba testified about what he termed a

“campaign of harassment and intimidation against BBC Persian staff and their relatives”.

He stated that although reports are widespread of journalists being persecuted throughout the world, it is extremely unusual to hear of journalists working in Britain being attacked through the intimidation of their families in another country. That is a particularly disturbing approach and creates serious worry for BBC staff based here, far away from vulnerable relatives who have no connection with the work of the BBC other than through a family member.
One journalist was instructed to report for interrogation via the internet, and was told that if they did not comply, their family members in Iran would be in danger. Most alarming in Mr Saba’s testimony was the number of people who had been approached in that way, or whose families had been approached. Over a six-month period, no fewer than 30 to 40 of Mr Saba’s staff on the BBC Persian service told him about such threats or intimidation. Their families had been contacted by the authorities. The regime suggests to family members, for example, that it might be best if the journalists give up their jobs or give information about the BBC to the Iranian Government. Families report being extremely scared of grave consequences if they do not comply. I put on record my admiration for Mr Saba’s staff and his leadership role. It is remarkable. He told us that to his knowledge, no journalist has succumbed in response to threats to them or their family.
I am pleased to have had the opportunity to highlight those additional examples of the sufferings of professionals for their role in society. It is critical. I look forward to the Minister’s response, particularly to the recommendations of the report that my hon. Friend the Member for South Swindon discussed. We in this country are in a unique position to make a difference.