Congleton Link Road

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle): On her birthday, I call Barbara Keeley.

6.33 pm

Barbara Keeley (Worsley and Eccles South) (Lab): Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker.
(...) I will end by wishing a happy birthday to my hon. Friends the Members for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy) and for Nottingham South (Lilian Greenwood) and my right hon. Friend the
26 Mar 2013 : Column 1579
Member for Wolverhampton South East (Mr McFadden). I do not know whether any Government Members have birthdays today, but if they do I wish then a happy birthday, too.

6.38 pm

Fiona Bruce (Congleton) (Con): In fact, today is also my birthday! I am grateful for the opportunity, on this jolly occasion, to draw the House’s attention to proposals for a Congleton link road that would run from Sandbach road to the west of the town, past the north of the town centre and on to Macclesfield road to the east. The potential benefits have been excellently summed up in an appropriately titled document, “The key to unlocking Cheshire East: Securing jobs and a future for the local economy”, which has been compiled by a forward thinking partnership of Congleton business people and the East Cheshire chamber of commerce, collectively called the Link2Prosperity group—L2P.
The road would improve connectivity right across east Cheshire by improving links to Manchester airport, the M60 and the M6, the latter being just 10 minutes away at Sandbach, junction 17, in my constituency. It would also improve connectivity to the rail network, particularly the inter-city connection at Crewe, and would help alleviate heavy traffic problems that the people of Holmes Chapel have endured for 40 years.
David Rutley (Macclesfield) (Con): On my hon. Friend’s birthday, she is making a characteristically powerful speech. I agree wholeheartedly that the Congleton link road will be vital in improving connectivity in east Cheshire and to stimulate economic growth. Does she agree that it is also important to have a similar road—the Poynton-Woodford relief road—to help to improve connectivity in the north of our borough?
Fiona Bruce: I absolutely do agree. It is interesting to note that both these roads are priorities in Cheshire East council’s draft development strategy.
The Congleton link road would reduce the daily traffic congestion in the centre of Congleton that impedes businesses, residents and school pupils and has been described by Siemens, the town’s biggest employer, as “chronic”. It would also reduce the consequential high levels of nitrous oxide at pollution hot spots in the town.
The benefits of this road involve far more than traffic improvements alone. Its route north of the town would open up much-improved access to industrial and business park sites that are small, land-locked, in poor condition and under-occupied, which means that existing businesses looking to expand are being forced to relocate. Moreover, the sites offer minimal opportunities for inward investment by new businesses. All this could radically change with the investment in these sites that improved connectivity both locally and regionally would justify. The benefits of opening them up are cited not only in the L2P document but in Cheshire East council’s draft development strategy, which states in its foreword that the council has

“a jobs-led development strategy, supported by improved connectivity through sustainable infrastructure such as the…Congleton Link Road”.

26 Mar 2013 : Column 1580
It goes on to say that the strategy

“seeks to promote the right conditions for jobs growth—by boosting the delivery of existing major employment sites, improving connectivity and identifying new areas for future investment and expansion.”

The Congleton link road will do just that.
Let me give a case study. The L2P document talks about Senior Aerospace Bird Bellows, which is based at Radnor Park estate, one of the business sites to the north of Congleton. SABB manufactures key aircraft components, and it is Congleton’s second largest employer. Key visitors to SABB include Boeing, Airbus and Rolls-Royce. Sadly, as the L2P document states, the condition of Radnor Park estate does not reflect its status as the home of a high-tech, world-class manufacturer. SABB is set to grow; indeed, 100 jobs are about to be attracted to the company very soon. However, if it is to remain in Congleton, it is crucial that Radnor Park estate is improved. Improvements to the Radnor Park site, and indeed to other business sites in the area, could provide knock-on benefits in terms of attracting additional new businesses and much-needed employment opportunities, particularly for young people, that cannot be overestimated. That is why over 60 local companies listed in the L2P document support the link road proposal, including the town’s biggest employer, Siemens, which says that

“this new artery has the potential to pump new levels of economic activity into this town.”

The proposals are also supported by Congleton town council, Congleton Partnership and the retail arm of Congleton Business Association, which say that there is a need to focus on contemporaneous support for the town centre’s public realm and retail sector to ensure that that part of the town flourishes, in conjunction with this redevelopment, just as much as the business parks. I believe that with appropriate creative thinking and investment, the town centre will indeed benefit, not only as a result of the improved traffic flow and access to the town centre, but because it will provide a more pleasant shopping and leisure experience, and, one hopes, increased footfall as a result. Other key supporters include Congleton high school, Eaton Bank school and Congleton Town football club, all of which have ambitious aspirations to develop their facilities—something that could be facilitated by the link road development, with its improved connectivity and release of land.
In association with the link road, there would be additional housing developments. These must be sensitively planned, taking into account the existing communities’ views. That is a very important consideration that we must continually be aware of.
I ask the Minister to raise this important local proposal with his colleagues in the Department of Transport in the hope that I, and others, will be able to meet Ministers there in the near future to discuss this project in greater detail.

Fiona Bruce Budget Debate Contribution

Fiona Bruce (Congleton) (Con): I refer to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.
I welcome the Budget on behalf of the almost 4,000 hard- working small and medium-sized enterprises in my constituency—companies such as Dutton Contractors in Middlewich, which I visited on Friday and had the privilege of opening two new warehouses for. It is a
25 Mar 2013 : Column 1346
family business that was started in 1974 by the father, John Dutton, who is a farmer. It sells and transports building construction materials. The son, Richard Dutton, has so developed the business recently that it now has 80 employees. The decision in the Budget to further stop Labour’s planned fuel rises is worth £7 to every family each time they fill up a family car, but it is worth considerably more to companies such as Dutton Contractors, which has a fleet of vehicles, so it very much welcomes the Budget.
Dutton Contractors also welcomed the £2,000 national insurance allowance. It was also welcomed, in particular, by Neon Freight Ltd, which is based in Holmes Chapel. Honours go to Ian Mallon, the proprietor of that freight forwarding company, and currently its sole employee, for giving the fastest response to the Budget. He sent me an e-mail at 1.28 pm—the Chancellor can barely have sat down. The e-mail’s subject was, “Employers tax/Budget”, and it reads:

“Great news… please send my thanks to G.O… I will be taking on staff this year.”

That is what I call a result.
Having said that, however, I am disappointed that the Government appear once again to have done nothing to honour their manifesto commitment—it is a coalition commitment and certainly a Conservative manifesto commitment—to recognise marriage in the tax system through transferable tax allowances for couples where one partner stays at home. Many people are genuinely bemused that such an important commitment should remain completely untouched well into the second half of this Parliament. They are increasingly bemused by the announcement of the introduction of tax-free child care worth up to £1,200 every year for children aged up to 12, but obtainable only by either single parents working or couples where both partners work. The Prime Minister said:

“This is a boost direct to the pockets of hard-working families in what will be one of the biggest measures ever introduced to help with childcare costs.”

But do families with one parent who stays at home not work hard, too? That has not sent out a positive message to mothers and fathers who stay at home and commit themselves to parenting; it does not say to them, as I think we should, “We value you.”
Mr Leigh: One advantage of the child tax allowance announced in the Budget is that it makes it almost inevitable that we will have to fulfil our coalition promise on a transferable tax allowance for married couples.
Fiona Bruce: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I am not criticising the Government’s decision to support child care costs; I am saying that they have got the balance wrong by doing that while not at the same time honouring the coalition commitment for transferable tax allowances for married couples.
I have massive respect for those mothers and fathers who stay at home. I have never stayed at home to work and have always worked outside the home, but many parents do so sacrificially, and many parents in one-earner families, as Department for Work and Pensions figures clearly show, stay at home because they have to. Many have significant child care responsibilities for very young children, or care for sick or disabled relatives. It is interesting that the Government quoted OECD figures
25 Mar 2013 : Column 1347
in support of its decision last week. Let me quote some OECD figures: the tax burden on a one-earner, married couple family on an average wage in the UK is now 42% greater than the OECD average.
I have raised this issue in respect of every Budget since I have been in this House. Two years ago, having tabled an appropriate amendment to the Finance Bill, I received from my hon. Friend the Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury a letter that said:

“Dear Fiona

I am writing to about the new clause on transferable personal allowances for married couples that you have tabled for the Finance Bill. I agree entirely that marriage is a positive institution and it is clear from our manifesto that we believe this should be recognised in the tax system.

We are keen to send a clear message that family and marriage matters and that strong and healthy families help create a strong and healthy society. We must do more to support families and the tax system is one way in which this can be achieved…you can rest assured that our commitment to bringing forward these changes remains firm and that we are assessing various options with a range of different costs and will bring forward proposals at the appropriate time.”

I believe that that time is now. If we genuinely believe in choice—a word much trumpeted last week on the announcement of support for child care costs—we should not be making it more difficult for mothers to stay at home but should give them that choice, too. The Prime Minister has said:

“If we are going to get control of public spending in the long term…we should target the causes of higher spending, one of which is family breakdown. We should do far more to recognise the importance of families, commitment and marriage”.—[Official Report, 2 June 2010; Vol. 510, c. 429.]

This year, I again call on the Government, at the third time of asking—it sounds a bit like calling the banns of marriage, but that is quite appropriate—to insert a provision into the Finance Bill, this time by way of their own amendment, to introduce transferable allowances for married couples. That is quite simply the right and honourable thing to do.

Post - 2015 Development Agenda

Fiona Bruce (Congleton) (Con): I congratulate the hon. Member for York Central (Hugh Bayley) on securing this important debate and his contribution to the whole issue, which I and many of our other colleagues on the International Development Committee value. I am still a newish member of that Committee, so I am on a learning curve with regard to these issues, which I hope that hon. Members will bear in mind as I make my contribution.
I shall concentrate on one of the points that the hon. Gentleman raised: job creation. MDG target 1.B was:

“Achieve full and productive employment and decent work for all, including women and young people”.

However, in evidence to the Select Committee, Michael Anderson, the special envoy to the Prime Minister on the UN development goals, said that one of the points that the Prime Minister had made was that

“that goal has probably not captured the collective imagination. Part of the task is to get the goals right, but also to get a narrative so that the world mobilises around that with the same passion that they mobilise around maternal mortality and infant mortality.”

I think that the whole Committee would agree with that.
We took evidence on the subject and were informed that employment, whether salaried employment or self-employment, is critical for development. The issue is of fundamental importance to poor people. After they have a road, a school, a health centre and, of course, sufficient to eat, a job is what people want. That is based on household survey data from sub-Saharan Africa, east Asia and Latin America that were reported to us by the organisation ONE.
One of the International Development Committee’s recommendations was therefore:

“Job creation is one of the most crucial of all development challenges. Whilst the issue of employment was included in the original MDG framework, it was insufficiently prominent and failed to capture the public imagination. In the post-2015 framework, the task will be to design an employment ‘goal’ which captures the imagination of people around the world.”

That is critical, difficult as it is. If we are to facilitate developing countries to get out of, or at least to reduce, their donor dependency, as so many of them aspire to do, the only way we can do so is to help them to develop their own private sectors, and we must do that in a way that enables them to move from micro to SME—and then even larger—from informal to formal sectors, and
21 Mar 2013 : Column 339WH
from individuals who are self-employed to those who employ people in their local community. All those businesses can then contribute to not only their local communities, but the revenues of their national Governments through tax receipts.
It is essential that we prioritise working with the private sector in these countries, and that we involve our private sector and the expertise of the private sector in those developing nations in doing so. I know that that might not be a familiar relationship for many of those in the aid community—it is not one that they are used to—but I congratulate DFID on now being a pioneer in this. There are now individuals working in DFID who have a private sector background. I think that we have started, just within the last week, a DFID private sector project in Ethiopia that will examine how to strengthen certain sectors in that country, such as textiles, horticulture and leather, and try to unlock the problems to ensure that businesses there can strengthen and develop. We need to look at such projects.
Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con): May I utterly reinforce what my hon. Friend says? My wife, who, as an International Committee of the Red Cross delegate, started a camp for 100,000 people in South Sudan—and ran it from scratch—has told me repeatedly that the biggest problem arises if we give aid and thus just make a problem, because people are attracted to it. She pleaded with me, saying, “If you are a Member of Parliament, ask repeatedly for us to set up businesses so that people can get the means for employment, rather than setting up camps, which attract people, and then there is nothing for them to do but exist on aid from outside, because that is an appalling model.”
Fiona Bruce: I entirely agree, and I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention.
One of the first things that I think we need to do—I reiterate that I am very much feeling my way here—is to ensure that there is joined-up thinking on the other millennium development goals. For example, I have been involved with a school in Tanzania for some 10 years. At the start, there were five primary-school children, but today there are 400 children in the school, which now has both a primary and a secondary element. The real challenge now is that it is saying, “We have spent years educating these young people, but where are they going to work? What employment will they go into?” We must consider tertiary education in developing nations and work so that there is a progression from the education that we are providing. I totally applaud the support that DFID is giving in many countries, such as through teachers’ salaries, but unless we consider what will happen when young people come out of their school environments, we will be failing them and, indeed, the communities in which they live.
These children have aspirations. During our recent trip to Ethiopia, we found that many young children in remote villages wanted to be doctors—they wanted to contribute to their communities and they had ambition. Many of the young people I have met, for example in Rwanda, are aspiring entrepreneurs. They want to develop businesses, but we need to give them the tools to do that so that they can run with the idea. At the moment, only
21 Mar 2013 : Column 340WH
5% of Africans are educated at tertiary level, although the global average is 25%, so we need to consider, in the post-2015 MDG framework, the importance of tertiary education.
Also with regard to Rwanda, I would like to talk about building entrepreneurs’ capacity to do business. I shall relay an experience that my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Jeremy Lefroy) and I had when we first went to Rwanda in 2010, under the Conservative party’s Umubano project, to teach entrepreneurs how to run their businesses. We went for a week: on Monday, we taught how to write a business plan; on Tuesday, we taught how to write a marketing plan; on Wednesday, we taught how to set a budget; on Thursday, we taught how to recruit and interview staff; and on Friday, we taught how to review it all. No self-respecting management consultant would have entertained doing that in a week. We taught 14 businesses, and after day one, we thought, “If they’re interested, they’ll come back.” They all came back day after day.
At the end of the week, the head of the Rwandan chamber of commerce came to see us and said, “This has really been of interest. Could you come back next year to teach some more businesses?” We said, “How many more would be interested?” She looked at us and said, “About 74,000.” They could not get basic help in Rwanda about how to develop businesses, so there is real potential for people in this country’s private sector to help to build business capacity. People with experience of developing businesses—perhaps those who are semi-retired or have taken early retirement—could be matched with businesses in developing countries and give them mentoring and support. Perhaps they could use technology so that they do not need to go out there to visit. There is a hunger for that kind of help, however.
Businesses that want to create jobs in the developing world have problems accessing finance. For example, on the International Development Committee’s recent visit to Ethiopia, we met the Nile Edible Oil Manufacturing Industry plc, which is a co-operative of about 32 small companies that produce edible cooking oil, often in little more than backstreet shacks. The group got together with some support from the UN. It produced an action plan, formed a business association and found a site where it wanted to build a business park, which would have involved individual units and a central processing plant. The plan was very exciting. Through the co-operative, the farmers had been helped to produce better crop yields and the producers were enhancing their productivity with better machinery and better technological support, and they were all delivering to markets at a better price. The group has a site for a business park and a plan, but it cannot get funding. I am sure that that situation is typical of many companies, organisations and associations in the developing world that cannot access finance. We think that accessing finance it is difficult here, but imagine how much harder it is there. As part of our job creation aspiration and prioritisation for the developing world, can we look at access to finance?
I wish to make a few additional points before I conclude. It is right that there are many aspects to enabling businesses to work. For example, there needs to be better land registration and security of land tenure for businesses. If someone is setting up a business, they want to feel secure, and we can help with that. Good community governance is also important, because when
21 Mar 2013 : Column 341WH
a local community understands that if local businesses flourish, local rates will improve, it is a win-win for the community’s support for local businesses. That understanding still needs to be developed.
Aid conditionality with regard to transparency, such as tax transparency and so forth, would be helpful, as would support for developing a “Companies House” in some developing countries. Businesses could then be registered and they would deliver annual accounts, which would lead to some sort of recognition in the business community to help them to move from an informal to a formal footing. Businesses should be given incentives to do that—whether through advice, or access to funding or grants—to ensure that the business community in developing countries has structural support.
I was encouraged when I read a read a communication from the European Commission—I do not often say that—to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions about the post-2015 discussions. The communication was called “A Decent Life for All”, and I shall read some brief excerpts to hon. Members because they articulate what I have been talking about better than I can. The document refers to the need for an “overarching framework” for millennium development goals, which would cover, among other things

“drivers for sustainable and inclusive growth and development that are necessary for structural transformation of the economy, needed to ensure the creation of productive capacities and employment”

It goes on to say:

“Goals should provide incentives for cooperation and partnerships among governments, civil society, including the private sector, and the global community at large”

Implementing the framework would involve “domestic resource mobilisation” within each country,

“legal and fiscal regulations and institutions supporting the development of the private sector, investment, decent job creation and export competitiveness”,

which are essential to making the ambition of developing strong economies achievable for all countries. Interestingly, that is true of all countries at all levels of development.
The Commission held a public consultation in summer 2012 to which around 120 organisations and individuals contributed. There was a consensus that although the MDGs had rallied many and different actors behind the same development objectives, there needed to be common views on future priorities. There are six views, and it is interesting that several highlight the importance of sustainable economic development. In particular, one says that priorities must

“Foster the drivers for economic growth and job creation including by engaging with the private sector”.

I hope that I have contributed to highlighting the hunger for, and opportunities to support, economic development in developing countries, particularly through the involvement of the private sector.

Re-Opening of Middlewich Railway Station to Passengers

Fiona Bruce (Congleton) (Con): I rise to present a petition from the Middlewich rail link campaign, supported by more than 2,000 residents from people in the towns of Middlewich and Sandbach in my constituency and from Northwich, in the constituency represented by my hon. Friend the Member for Weaver Vale (Graham Evans), who is in the Chamber and also supports the petition. The petition asks for the reopening of the Sandbach to Northwich branch line and the reintroduction of passenger services at Middlewich station along the line.
The humble petition of the Middlewich rail link campaign and its supporters says:

The Petition of residents of Middlewich and the surrounding area,

Declares that the Petitioners call for and fully support the reopening of the Sandbach to Northwich branch line to passenger traffic and the vital reopening of Middlewich railway station.

The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Department for Transport to consider the reopening of the Sandbach to Northwich branch line to passenger traffic and the reopening of Middlewich railway station.

And the Petitioners remain, etc.