| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
28 Feb 2003 : Column 557—continued
Mr. Letwin: The hon. Lady is right. There is undeniably huge complexity. The goal posts do seem to change; the criteria seem to change. In part, that causes a problem because of the difficulties to which she refers—those of keeping up with the need to change the nature of the applications. In part, I fear, the criteria have been altered precisely to push money towards the inner cities. Although I utterly recognise the claim of the inner cities to public funds, I do not believe that measures that effectively exclude many village hall applications are justified.
Alun Michael: I can deal with those points in my response, but it would be unfair not to point out to the right hon. Gentleman that there has been an increase in the amount of finance available to village halls over recent years. I am concerned about targeting and assisting with the quality of applications, which is sometimes a problem. However, the amount of money available to village halls has increased.
Mr. Letwin: All I can tell the Minister is that this is one of those strange events in which the appearance that he presents and the reality as we observe it on the ground appear to differ. There may be many explanations for that, but people who make applications have been informed by officials of his Department and by staff at the lottery that those applications are not likely to succeed, as they are no longer the flavour of the month. If the right hon. Gentleman is not aware of what is being said, he needs to be aware of it. I will present him with a full dossier of evidence about what happened some years back, when village hall applications were repeatedly successful in Dorset, and what has happened in the last year or two, when they have not been successful. He will find it difficult to reconcile that with the general picture that he has probably genuinely been presented with. I do not know what the explanation for the difference is, but whatever it is, the upshot is that in Dorset today it is extraordinarily difficult to raise money. The message coming back to us has been, "Let local funds provide."
In the couple of minutes before I sit down, I wish to point out that that strikes people, at least those in Dorset, as a strange and ironical response. Because of the exigencies of the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the decisions of the Deputy Prime Minister and of the Minister for Local Government and the Regions, Dorset is among those shire counties throughout England that have been forced to raise council tax by an enormous proportion simply to tread water—a matter about which the hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole and I have both lobbied Ministers.
There is no local money currently available for village halls, except in tiny quantities, and it cannot be a substitute for the lottery. I believe that the lottery is an appropriate funding source for village halls. If the Minister knows something about the amounts available and if he can do something to change the situation so that that money can be available once again in Dorset, at least, and perhaps other rural counties too, we would be profoundly grateful—it is certainly needed.
2.45 pm
The Minister for Rural Affairs and Urban Quality of Life (Alun Michael): I am grateful for the opportunity to respond to the debate, partly because I feel passionately about the issue but not least because the right hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) always brings a serious and mature note to debates in the Chamber. I always find it a pleasure to respond when he initiates an Adjournment debate. It is not the first time that I have had the pleasure of responding to him.
I therefore chide the right hon. Gentleman more gently than I would some of his colleagues for not paying tribute to the Government for the increased help that is being given to village halls. I cannot resist pointing out that it is a bit rich for someone who is a member of the shadow Cabinet of a party that wants to cut public spending by up to 20 per cent. to seek an increase in funding for village halls. The leader of the Conservative party endorsed that as "a rational target"—I think that those were his words. If that £80 billion cut were made, there would be little room for increased spending on village halls.
Mr. Letwin: I certainly shall not prolong things—I do not want to turn this into a cat and dog act—but I should point out that there has never been the slightest suggestion by the Conservative party or, indeed, the Labour party that the total amount available from the lottery should be reduced because, of course, the Government do not control that amount, and the only question is how is it distributed.
Alun Michael: The right hon. Gentleman naturally wishes to narrow his remarks to the lottery, but if that massive £80 billion cut in public expenditure were made there would be precious little left for anything else.
I have recently met Diana Britten, the chairman of the Community Fund, and we discussed how to involve the fund in a series of meetings, led by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, to quantify the funding needs of village halls and to determine how best to meet those needs. My concern is that, although a lot of money is being spent, there are certainly problems locally with individual village halls.
That is why, when I attended the annual general meeting of the association representing village halls a few weeks ago, we were speaking through the opposite ends of a telescope—perhaps I that is not the right phrase, but the right hon. Gentleman will understand what I mean. It was almost as though we were communicating in two languages. The issue is how to ensure that real need can be recognised, that applications are of a high quality, that financing can be targeted and that the job is done properly.
As the right hon. Gentleman has asked me to refer specifically to lottery funds, it is worth pointing out that, in 1996–97, less than £1 million in Community Fund grants went to village halls—£956,397 to be pedantically precise. By 2001–02, the figure had gone up to £17,365,436, and, to be slightly less pedantic, that is roughly a 1,800 per cent. rise. I acknowledge that the amount in 1996–97 was less than the previous year. I have chosen that year simply because it is the pre-election year and it is a reasonable comparison. In 1995–96, the figure was just over £2 million, so even if that year is chosen for the comparison, a massive increase in finances is going in. Despite the fact that smaller sums are available to be distributed from the lottery, the amount going to village halls is about 7 per cent., which remains as it has been since the earliest days of the lottery. The Government support greater expenditure on village halls than has ever been provided from national financial resources in the past. I refer to my experience as a county youth and community officer some years ago on the old South Glamorgan council. The amount of money then available for village halls was minimal, which led to problems of targeting.
To put the matter in context, the Government are doing more than any previous Government to help rural communities and economies. We have not only published the rural White Paper but created the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, with its focus on rural affairs, rural communities and rural economies. For the first time this year, we have a specific public service agreement target that focuses on improving economies and services in rural areas. We are making great progress on rural proofing, which engages Ministers and officials across Whitehall to ensure that the needs of rural areas are targeted. That is an example of co-operation across government.
Mr. Letwin: The Minister has moved off the subject of village halls—briefly, I hope, but I wish to bring him back to the topic. No one denies that the sums increased in the years up to 2001–02. For all I know, they may even have increased in 2002–03. That will be the result of applications that were made some years ago. The question is not the level that is being disbursed at present, but the extent to which people making applications now find that their applications have no prospect of success.
Alun Michael: The fact that far greater finance is going into village halls and has done consistently at an increasing rate over the past few years is certainly a salient point in responding to the claim that village halls are somehow being strangled of funds. I will be quite happy to examine any evidence that the right hon. Gentleman can provide from his area. Dorset may face a specific problem. Perhaps it did rather too well in the past—I do not know. However, we should consider the matter objectively so that we agree about the facts and can then debate policy in an informed manner. That was the flavour of my discussions with the association representing village halls.
Although I want to focus on the position of village halls, I merely wanted to place in context how much the Government are doing to treat seriously the difficult issues of helping the economies and communities in villages across the country. I was at an academic seminar this morning that examined how we identify the social problems of rural areas. That is a big challenge. There are about 8,700 parish councils and about 15,000 parishes, some of which do not have councils. That is an enormous number of small communities, given that, in an urban context, one can target a comparatively small number of highly visible, identifiable and concentrated aspects of social exclusion. The problem of targeting rural areas is different and somehow more challenging even if the concentration of problems in urban areas makes their position appear more problematic.
We certainly recognise the vital role that village halls play in rural communities as multi-purpose community centres and as hubs for village life. However, I should repeat that the village hall is not the only body to play that role. The right hon. Gentleman referred to church halls, and some places have a local British Legion and a number of community meeting places. Indeed, there may be over-provision in some small communities,
which may lead to competition for funds. That is why targeting becomes an important issue. Village halls must be considered in the context of wider community provision at the most local level.We support the development of active local communities and parish and town councils in a variety of ways. The idea that the village hall is a hub for social activity and social provision fits well with our policy objectives. There is an increasing need for village halls to link their provision with that of commercial and voluntary organisations. There should be joint provision of services across public, voluntary and commercial services.
The available evidence suggests an increase in the number of village halls and meeting places. The Countryside Agency's rural survey of 2000 reported that 85 per cent. of parishes had one in that year, while 72 per cent. had one in 1997. That is probably mostly due to the impact of lottery-funded grant programmes. The statistics must, of course, be treated with a degree of caution, as there have been definitional changes. I am not convinced that we are entirely certain of the picture across the country.
It is difficult to generalise about funding needs—although there is a tendency to do it, as the right hon. Gentleman did in his introduction. The Countryside Agency's research identified a need for less expenditure on the buildings themselves and more on the services and activities involved. Through the community services grant, we are focusing our support on what goes on inside village halls. The right hon. Gentleman will not be surprised to learn, however, that some of the correspondence I receive expresses the opposite view.
The Government are helping to support community activity, but buildings matter too. We are aware of widespread concern about the lack of funds for rebuilding or renovating village halls. I do not think, though, that the problem is entirely a national one. While I have no means of knowing the position in Dorset, in some areas local authorities have withdrawn their support, thinking "This can be left to the Community Fund and the lottery." Traditionally, local
finance from local authorities, parish councils and voluntary subscriptions has constituted the most important element of support for village halls.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |