Previous SectionIndexHome Page


28 Feb 2003 : Column 554—continued

Remaining Private Members' Bills

HOUSING (OVERCROWDING) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Second Reading deferred till Friday 4 April.

CROWN EMPLOYMENT (NATIONALITY) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Second Reading deferred till Friday 7 March.

HUMAN FERTILISATION AND EMBRYOLOGY AMENDMENT BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Second Reading deferred till Friday 16 May.

28 Feb 2003 : Column 553

28 Feb 2003 : Column 555

Village Halls

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Kemp.]

2.30 pm

Mr. Oliver Letwin (West Dorset): I should begin by warning the Minister that this debate, if we are successful in the forthcoming ballots, is merely the beginning of a sequence of similar debates that will emerge from Members of all parties in Dorset, and increasingly, I hope, from rural Members around the country. Our rough intention is to keep holding debates until the point at which the Minister, who I know has a considerable amount of patience, nevertheless eventually loses patience and urges his officials to do something about the problem.

We do not intend to pursue this campaign, however, in any of the vigorous ways that some other campaigns that currently afflict the Minister are being conducted. I assure him that there will be no demonstrations to which he will be subject, other than the occasional and regular Adjournment debate.

The Minister for Rural Affairs and Urban Quality of Life (Alun Michael): I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving good warning of his intentions. In the same spirit, will he recognise in his remarks the increased support that this Government have been giving to village halls, and the way in which we have initiated discussion with those who promote the work of village halls to see what more can be done in future?

Mr. Letwin: Oddly enough, the answer to that is no, as that is not the impression that we have on the ground. I shall certainly welcome the second part of the Minister's remarks, however, in relation to improvements that may come about through discussion.

First, I should explain why we seek to raise the issue of village halls at such a time, when we are faced with the exigencies of the Iraq situation and terrible problems for the Government in law and order, public services and public spending. Why should we concentrate on such an apparently minute issue as village halls? The reason is extremely clear. There is always something that is ostensibly more important and more urgent than village halls. On that principle, over many years, Britain's sewers declined—there was always something more important than dealing with the funding of Britain's once splendid Victorian sewer system. Chancellors of the Exchequer always found something more pressing, and, with the effluxion of time, after about 100 years, the sewers were in a most dreadful condition, as nobody had done anything about them. Village halls stand in danger of being treated in the same sort of way. They are never the most urgent item, so there is a dreadful possibility that they will receive no attention at all.

The second question that I need to address is this: why do village halls matter? Someone might reasonably ask: why do we not concentrate on the dreadful problems of our inner city estates, where drugs are rife, gangs control the estates, pimps organise young girls into prostitution and many people find themselves virtually imprisoned in their high-rise flats as a result of the horrors that afflict them when they go out? Why do we concentrate on villages and village halls when the average village is in so

28 Feb 2003 : Column 556

much better a condition than the average inner-city estate? Even the worst village is in much better condition than the worst inner-city estate.

Those of us who care about the promotion of the neighbourly society—as I have preached for the past 18 months in another capacity, it is critical that the nation take steps to reintroduce the neighbourly society in inner-city estates, where it has all but crumbled—know that it is important that we do not allow a slow erosion of that society in places where it still vibrant. It is important that we do not create, slowly and unwittingly, problems in areas that are not at present a problem while we solve, at great expense and with great difficulty, the severe problems in areas that are a problem. Villages fall into the category of areas that, on the whole, display a vibrant neighbourly society, and we must not let it diminish or disappear.

To have a neighbourly society in a village, it is important that the inhabitants know and talk to one another, and understand enough about one another not to fear one another but to regard one another as good neighbours. To encourage that kind of society it is important that there are places where people can naturally meet and talk. The tradition in most villages in my constituency in West Dorset and many other rural areas is that such conversations go on in the pub, the village shop, outside the church and in the village hall. The Minister is as aware as I am—I do not blame him for this any more than he will blame me—that pubs have often disappeared for want of custom as habits have changed. Pubs that serve food survive, but those that do not broadly do not. The Minister will also be aware—neither he nor I is responsible for this either—that church attendance has diminished greatly in the past 50 to 100 years. There is nothing that the Government can be expected to do about that.

There is however something about which the Government could have done something, although I do not blame the Minister personally or his Department. Some Departments have disregarded the policy of Peter Lilley—I am sorry, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I mean my right hon. Friend for Hertford and wherever.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): I think that the right hon. Gentleman means the right hon. Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr. Lilley).

Mr. Letwin: I am most grateful, Mr. Deputy Speaker. When my right hon. Friend was Secretary of State for Social Security, he steadfastly refused to remove the arrangement whereby benefits were paid through post offices. The disregard of that long refusal by the relevant Departments under the present Government has led to an accelerated collapse of rural post offices and the shops associated with them. As footfall has diminished, those shops have become increasingly non-viable. I blame the Government for that, but not the Minister.

Steps have now been taken to improve that situation, yet we all know that in many cases, alas, they will not be successful. In too many cases, we are therefore left with only one village institution, at least in villages that do not have a primary school—the village hall. It plays a special role, because it is the place where social capital is built, as it is a site of active participation. People do not go there to be passive recipients as if they were in front of

28 Feb 2003 : Column 557

a television set, but go there to act together, sometimes literally—they may act together in a play—or sing together, engage in auctions to raise money for good causes, have meetings about mutual concerns, or allow their Member of Parliament, as I have been allowed in various villages, to hold a surgery and meet people with particular concerns.

In all these respects, the village hall functions as the centrepiece of the neighbourly society of the village. Its importance has risen rather than declined with the other changes that I mentioned, so it is of the utmost importance that village halls should be supported.

The Minister said he hoped that I would acknowledge the massive efforts that the Government have made to support village halls. For quite a long period, village hall renovation was the order of the day, because lottery funding was available in significant quantities to support bids for the renovation of village halls. I am sure the hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole (Mrs. Brooke) will echo that, as will the Minister's hon. Friend the Member for South Dorset (Jim Knight), who would have liked to be present and who shares our concerns. Each of us would recognise that for quite a long period, many of our villages were able to obtain funds from the lottery to renew village halls. All over West Dorset there are village halls that testify to the success of that enlightened regime, which persisted into the early years of the present Government.

Now, alas, we find that although it has never been officially acknowledged, the lottery has been virtually closed to applications for the renovation of village halls, at least in my constituency.

Alun Michael indicated dissent.

Mr. Letwin: I hope that the Minister will explain why he dissents from that. I shall send him a record of the applications that have been made and the responses—

Mrs. Annette L. Brooke (Mid-Dorset and North Poole): Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that with the shrinkage of funds, the applications have become more complicated, and there is a feeling that the goal posts are continually being moved? Perhaps businesses can cope with that, but for volunteers in villages, with all their other activities, that is enormously off-putting for them to carry on. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will agree that we are looking for incentives for people to keep going and keep their villages alive, as they want to do.


Next Section

IndexHome Page