| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
10.39 am
Mr. Anthony Steen (Totnes): As the hon. Member for West Lancashire (Mr. Pickthall) spoke for 15 minutes and time is short, I hope that hon. Members will understand if I do not give way or comment on the speeches that have been made--or even the excellent choice of debate of the hon. Member for Forest of Dean (Mrs. Organ).
As a social worker and former youth leader, and during the nine years that I represented Liverpool, Wavertree, I dealt with grinding poverty and widespread social deprivation. Those problems--represented by decaying tower blocks, graffiti and boarded-up shops--are often viewed as belonging exclusively to the inner city. However, there are many similar problems in the constituency that I now represent, which is 301 miles away in rural south Devon. Certainly there are no tower blocks in the area's idyllic setting, but single mothers, the handicapped and those unable to find work face the same problems as their counterparts in the city.
The principal difference between poverty in the inner cities and in the rural communities is a matter not so much of intensity as of concentration. In many inner-city streets, the majority of people have no job, poor housing and are dependent on benefits. In rural areas, poverty may not be so concentrated, and the beauty of the landscape may mask the problems, but the problems exist none the less.
In cities, a variety of employers offer a diversity of opportunities for people with different skills, whereas, in the countryside, employment is principally agriculture-related. There are many threats to the rural way of life and standard of living, but none is more acute than the crisis in British farming. The proposed enlargement of the European Union to include the agriculturally dependent economies of central Europe will inevitably reduce EU support to British farmers, and the UK will probably be flooded with cheap imported food, which will put further pressures on British agriculture.
The Government's attitude to the rural economy seems at best unsympathetic, and at worst indifferent. That view is illustrated by the recent rate support grant settlements, in which rural England is disadvantaged in comparison with urban areas.
Mr. Burnett:
Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Steen:
I shall not give way.
The Government's attitude can perhaps be explained by the fact that the majority of their support comes from predominantly urban areas. [Interruption.] Their support also comes from a few rural areas.
Mr. Peter Bradley:
Where are the Conservatives?
Mr. Steen:
I accept that a few Conservative Members are missing today.
Farmers are at the epicentre of everything that happens in the countryside; they are the custodians of the landscape, the major employers, contractors and customers for rural businesses. Without agriculture, the countryside does not work. We must consider the Government's policy on agriculture against that background, and the wider goal of reducing poverty in rural England.
Although the Government have offered farmers £85 million compensation from European funds, they have taken away £129 million in cuts to the much-needed
over-30-months scheme, in extra charges for cattle passports and in payments for the Meat Hygiene Service. They have refused to use the underspend on sheep premium and set-aside to aid the lowland beef producer, the dairy farmer or the hill farmer, who are all being squeezed by the strength of the pound.
Those policies are having a detrimental effect on agriculture, which is why so many farmers have been driven to protest outside Parliament and elsewhere--I have joined them on the docks and ports. Farmers do not ask for Government or European handouts; they want the proverbial level playing field and adequate Government support to enable British agriculture to overcome its current difficulties.
The effect of the Government's lack of interest is serious enough in relation to agriculture, but it goes much wider than that. If a farmer goes bankrupt, the effect on the rural community will be dramatic. It is important that clearing banks are mindful of the difficulties that farmers from all sectors face, and that they provide them with sufficient support to weather the current situation.
Dozens of farmers in my constituency have been forced to lay off temporary milkers or cancel contracts with local builders. The builders are then forced to lay off staff, who in turn spend less on fuel and at the village shop.
In south Devon, tourism plays a major role in the local economy. Indeed, many farmers can make both ends meet only by offering bed and breakfast--if they did not, they would not survive. Farming is not about bed and breakfast, however. If the farming community can no longer afford to look after the fields, the hedgerows and the trees, there will be no bed and breakfast, as there will be much less to attract tourists. Without farmers, tourism could go into serious decline, and another major source of rural employment would dry up.
Many people think that poverty is an inner-city phenomenon; they do not believe that it can exist among green fields and countryside. If people are prisoners in their council houses because they cannot afford private transport and public transport is infrequent and expensive, they are locked into a situation every bit as bad as that facing people in the inner city. It makes little difference whether one is in Toxteth or Lee Moor when one is suffering from loneliness, depression and poor housing.
Throughout the world, when people cannot find work--or when available employment does not pay--they flock to the towns from the countryside. In many developing countries, that has resulted in massive overpopulation in the cities and a neglect of the land. Global institutions are constantly trying to persuade people to move back to the countryside, to repopulate rural areas and work in agriculture. In Europe, the migration to the cities mainly stopped after the war. In Britain, farmers have traditionally preserved the countryside, where they have created employment and sustained and improved the rural way of life.
Mr. Stephen Day (Cheadle):
I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes (Mr. Steen) for his contribution. I shall attempt to keep my comments as brief as possible, as there was an agreement on the duration of speeches. I congratulate the hon. Member for Forest of Dean (Mrs. Organ) on choosing this important subject for debate, which is of great concern to many people, especially in the countryside.
Conservative Members recognise the importance of what the hon. Member for Forest of Dean said, but, like other Labour Members, she should look not just to the past, but to the future. She should try to find solutions and consider whether the Government's proposals for the countryside would improve the situation that she so eloquently described.
The previous Conservative Government introduced a number of measures to help the countryside--unfortunately, I do not have time to list them now.
Mr. Burnett:
Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Day:
I really cannot, with all due respect.
The most important measure introduced by the Conservative Government was the introduction of discretionary rate relief for rural shops and businesses, including pubs, which are still very much at the heart of village life. Other measures included the Agricultural Tenancies Act 1995, which simplified the legal framework for rented land.
In the couple of minutes left to me, I want to stress our concern about the Government's proposal to create regional development agencies. Obviously, Labour Members whole-heartedly support the proposal, but the Opposition fundamentally disagree with it--we especially deplore the abolition of the Rural Development Commission, to which the hon. Member for St. Ives (Mr. George) referred. The fact that the commission's chairman resigned solely because he believed that the abolition of that body and the establishment of RDAs was a threat to the countryside says everything about the Government's proposal.
If Labour Members are not concerned about the abolition of the Rural Development Commission, they ought to consider the solutions that the Government are proposing for the countryside. The Government have said that the social exclusion unit should have a rural strand to its work, but, at the moment, the unit is concentrating almost exclusively on urban areas. They have said that official indicators of deprivation and resource allocation systems such as the index of local conditions should be improved to take more account of rural conditions. I could list many such points that favour the countryside--but they will all go when the commission is abolished. Regional development agencies cannot provide the same functions.
Cornwall and Devon have been mentioned in the debate. We talk about the south-west as a region. One would think that the south-west was an identifiable region more than most, yet there is immense rivalry between Devon and Cornwall, and perceived distinct and definite needs. A single regional development agency for both counties will not be able to provide for their needs. It will lead to conflict between one urban area and another, and between urban areas and the countryside. That is not the answer for the countryside.
I wish that I had more time to make more points, but I want to be fair to the Minister.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |