| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
10.42 am
Mr. David Heath (Somerton and Frome): I wish to draw attention to a number of concerns that have been expressed to me by constituents in Somerset, which I know to be matters of concern to a great many people. There is growing discontent--one might almost say resentment--at the emerging discrepancies between the rhetoric of the Government on so many issues and the reality of what is happening in rural counties such as Somerset. As is often the case, the issues are not at the forefront of the political debate in this country, but nevertheless they are important to me and to my constituents.
I would not ascribe particular motives to Somerset electors a year ago, but I well understand their feeling that things had to change markedly. They had certainly lost confidence in the Conservative Government's ability to provide the sort of services and quality of life that they wanted and to which they aspired. The feeling of optimism at a change of Government has quickly been overtaken by a feeling that we have simply had 19 rather than 18 years of Conservative government. That is a shame. I am not ungenerous to the Government, who have done a number of admirable things in their year of office. There are areas in which I would whole-heartedly support them, but I feel I must draw attention to the patchiness of the outcome of their performance.
The first and most pressing reason for my addressing the House this morning is the vexed question of household numbers. That has been a contentious issue, and there have been strong expressions of concern from both sides of the House about the rationale and methodology used to calculate those numbers through structure plans and the degree to which that is putting unwarranted pressure on green-field sites and rural counties such as Somerset. Our debates have largely been constructive and I applauded the change of policy indicated by the Deputy Prime Minister in his statement a couple of months ago.
That statement was widely welcomed in my area. We recognise that we have a major difficulty, with which the county and district councils, as well as local people, have been wrestling for the best part of a year or more. The methodology indicates a level of housing requirement that simply cannot be met in a rural county without vastly expanding villages, extending the fringes of small market towns, eating into the countryside and creating an environment different from that which we have enjoyed historically--in other words, suburbanisation. We do not want that, and for good reason: it is not nimbyism or simply a reluctance to embrace change. We certainly want the houses that are needed for the local community, but we do not see the need to destroy the rural environment simply to accommodate aspirational developments to provide more and more high-cost housing so that people can move into the area, with no benefit to the local economy. That is a proper concern.
We thought that we had made progress. I entered a caveat when the Deputy Prime Minister made his statement, asking how it would change what was happening since a draft structure plan was being discussed and, having considered the matter carefully, the county council had rejected the idea that 50,000 homes was a sustainable level of development in Somerset and cogently argued the changes to the methodology that we believed were required. The council had brought the number down to 44,300, which was still too high to be accommodated within a rural county, but nevertheless was nearer to what people felt was appropriate. That proposal had still to be considered at an examination in public, however, and no change in Government policy had yet happened, despite the declaration of intent by the Deputy Prime Minister. I suggested that one way out of the dilemma would be to freeze the structure plan to enable the Government to put in place the policies that they wanted before they became locked into a forward structure plan that would extend to 2011 and lock in place unacceptable changes in the structure of the county.
Sadly, my plea fell on deaf ears. The examination in public has proceeded and, to our astonishment--I think the astonishment is shared by members of all parties in Somerset and independent observers of the scene--the inspector has not only rejected the view strongly expressed by all representatives of the local community that the 44,300 figure in the structure plan was too high and would have to be changed to accommodate the Government's new policy, but has replaced that figure with a new one of 51,600, which is higher than the number first thought of, and an increase of 16 per cent. How can that be reconciled with the Government's change of policy? What is the point of having debates in this Chamber and of Ministers making statements if the reality on the ground is that unsustainable increase? Whatever their political backgrounds, Members of Parliament who represent Somerset constituencies--and, indeed, members of the local authorities--want to press that point strongly. The argument is not yet over, but I ask the Leader of the House to consider how we can change the course of the policy juggernaut that seems to be out of the Government's control.
The simmering discontent that I mentioned is also felt about education. I believe that the Government have changed the rhetoric on education and have genuinely sought to provide additional resources, although it is a matter of political debate whether those resources have been sufficient or allocated quickly enough. However, the reality in some parts of the country is that there has been no change--teachers are still being laid off and class sizes are still being increased. The patchiness of provision means that, in some areas, it seems as though the Conservative Government have not gone away.
There are technical arguments about why rural counties lose out under the current formulation. We call the iniquitous area cost adjustment the tax on the west, although I suspect that the right hon. Lady regards it as a tax on the north--
Mr. David Kidney (Stafford):
And on the midlands.
Mr. Heath:
The hon. Gentleman rightly includes the midlands. I see no reason why, simply because of where they live, our children should be funded at a substantially lower level than children in the home counties. We face
Agriculture is facing the greatest recession that I can remember. In the south-west, the incomes of dairy farmers have fallen by 35 per cent., and those of sheep and beef enterprises have fallen by 65 per cent.--that is a colossal drop. Again, I do not lay all that at the Government's door, but the Government should respond positively. The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food does his cause no good by failing to turn up, for the second year running, to the Royal Bath and West show, where he would have been able to talk directly to west country farmers about their plight.
Mr. Todd:
The hon. Gentleman says that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food should respond more positively. Will he give an insight into what that actually means?
Mr. Heath:
I should happily do so at length. We are debating the common agricultural policy tomorrow, when some of the issues can be discussed, but I am particularly concerned about agrimonetary revaluation--I first mentioned the subject in the House last July, I think. There is a serious problem with the green pound. I accept that the Government have moved some way on upland farmers, but they seem to reject the idea that there is any difficulty in the lowlands. The small farmers on the Somerset levels are not rich--they have smallholdings and are struggling to make ends meet with relatively few cattle--yet they are not included in the schemes because they happen not to live high enough above sea level. There is no logic in that. The Government seem to think that the lowlands can look after themselves, but I am saying that they cannot--people in those areas face real difficulties.
I make a small plea--I would have it made on Monday evening, but, unfortunately, I was representing the House elsewhere--about the Somerset and Cornwall Light Infantry. I know that, in the lead-up to the strategic defence review, all hon. Members will want to mention the territorial regiments in their constituencies--it is a commonplace--but I make no apologies for doing so. The Somerset and Cornwall Light Infantry was formed by the amalgamation of two proud regiments, the Duke of Cornwall's Light Infantry and the Somerset Light Infantry, which goes back to the stormy days of 1685, with which hon. Members who know their history will be familiar. It is the only Army presence in the county, and I believe that it does an extraordinarily good job.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |