Provision for Young People in Rural Areas (Hansard, 27 March 1985)

§ Mr. David Penhaligon (Truro)

I beg to move, That leave to given to bring in a Bill to make further provision for facilities and amenities and to extend the rights of young people living in rural and remote parts of the United Kingdom. The intention of the Bill is to help our younger constituents who live in rural areas. We live in an overwhelmingly urban country, with an urban-dominated Parliament and Civil Service. Therefore, it is not surprising that many of our laws and practices tend to reflect that fact. The solution to rural problems simply cannot be to make our rural areas urban. Therefore, the intention of my Bill is to outline a number of ways in which some of the greater disadvantages can be alleviated. The sectors to be covered are employment, transport and housing.

The real solution to rural employment problems is simply more jobs, because, sadly, unemployment is not just an urban problem. The statistics for high levels of unemployment in the travel-to-work areas show that five out of six of the worst areas can be described as more rural than urban. They are Newquay, Cardigan, Irvine, Sutherland, Skegness and Whitby. Some of the problems experienced by those in the remoter parts are unique, and Parliament could do something to alleviate them if it were to apply its mind.

For example, if a jobcentre is 10 miles from one's home, it is simply impossible to visit it every day because of the obvious problem of the cost of transport. Therefore, is it not possible for a system to be developed in rural areas whereby sub-post offices are equipped with telex machines so that information on available jobs is brought much closer to the people seeking employment?

For example, it is clear that the success or failure of the youth training scheme will depend to a large extent on quality monitoring. In urban areas, 20 trainees may work together in one factory, and that means that there is no problem in monitoring. However, in rural areas, 20 trainees may be on 20 different sites, and those sites may be miles apart. Already, YTS managers are saying that they do not have the resources satisfactorily to monitor the quality of the courses.

For those on the YTS in rural areas, travel costs of over £3 are repayable. However, even £3 represents a substantial proportion of the small allowance, and it is worth remembering that the trainees in these rural areas are usually in workplaces that do not have a subsidised work canteen in which they can eat.

Many problems revolve around transport, and even where it is available full fares apply after the age of 14. We are moving towards a point at which most will be in either full-time education or in Government-sponsored training schemes until they are 18. Therefore, this 494 imposition seems monstrously unfair and inappropriate to the times in which we live. Very often, the effect is to keep the young from any any social life revolving round their work or education.

Recently, the Government imposed a flat rate assistance for travelling costs for those attending university. This is a typically urban solution to the problem. The nearest university to my home is 90 miles away, the second 150 and the third 180. I have not checked the matter in great detail, but I have reason to believe that Londoners may have a slightly better choice than that.

No real harm would be done if we allowed people under the age of 17 to take professional driving lessons. The available car may be only the family's spare Mini, and not everyone can afford a car, but in rural areas it is amazing how many do. Small concessions such as this would help the affected communities. The new Transport Bill may change the whole basis of transport in rural areas, but that is not the matter for this Bill.

In housing, in percentage terms the position is worse in rural areas than in urban. There is no such thing as a hard-to-let council house. The young marrieds have no chance and the single do not even ask. Without doubt, a major cause of this is the phenomenon of second homes. In my county, in a dozen parishes over a fifth of all housing is used in this way. We are aware that there are parts of Wales where the statistics are substantially worse.

This phenomenon is sustained by letting these properties by the week, fortnight or month during the summer—what are called summer lets in my area. This is a trade and business, and there is nothing wrong with that, but I do not understand why the Government will not make it subject to change of use planning consent. Such controls would put back into local hands some control over housing for the community. Uncontrolled, it is destroying communities and annihilating the hopes of the young who want to live in their district. Intolerable is the politest word that I can find to describe the housing prospects of the young in many rural areas.

I seek the support of the House for this Bill and the ideas contained in it.