§ Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Malone.]
11.42 pm§ Mr. Anthony Steen (South Hams)The purpose of this debate is to highlight one of the most significant and allembracing dilemmas relating to land use that has been faced by any Government of this country for many years. What will the British countryside look like in the 1990s? What will be there? Will there be more towns, more fields under cultivation, or just waste land, more derelict land, more factories? I believe that we are at the dawn of a new era—a new agricultural revolution. For many of us it is so close that perhaps we cannot see what is happening.
I am delighted that my hon. Friend the Minister for Environment, Countryside and Planning has thought this a sufficiently important debate to come here tonight to reply to it. It shows that the Government are seriously considering the issues that I shall raise. I also welcome my hon. Friends the Members for Torridge and Devon, West (Sir P. Mills), who is well known for his expertise in agricultural matters, and for Mid-Staffordshire (Mr. Heddle) who, as the Conservative Chairman of the Environment Committee, is an expert in planning and other matters. I thank the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, the National Farmers Union, Strutt and Parker, the well-known surveyors, and the South Hams Society, among others, for writing to me with their views on this debate.
The nature of the problem is that, with the temporary exception of sheep, all agricultural produce is in surplus. Advances in technology, bio-engineering and veterinary science have resulted in an enormous speeding up of production, more crops, more milk and bigger and better animals. We can produce more than ever before on less and less land. The parallel is, perhaps, with the microchip. More energy is being created in smaller and smaller spaces.
In just 13 years— in the year 2000— according to John North, an agricultural expert at Cambridge, the current levels of agricultural production can be maintained but using 10 million acres less land. Even allowing for the current take-up rate of land, which is about 15 per cent. a year in new forests and woodlands, Mr. North estimates that in 13 years there will be a net surplus of 8.25 million acres of vacant land which was formerly used for agriculture. In geographical terms, that is equivalent to four times the area of the entire county of Devon. That land will be redundant for agricultural use in 13 years' time. Put another way, 35,000 productive agricultural holdings currently in use will become surplus to requirements. That means 65,000 farmers and agricultural workers, presently employed on the land, becoming redundant by the year 2000. Of course, there is a knock-on effect.
The countryside is more than a food factory. A farmer is not just a food producer but part of the rural economy and rural society. For that reason, the Government must make preparations. Just as Joseph caused Pharaoh to make provision for the lean years during the years of plenty, so, too, must we plan how to restrict our food growth before we find that it is too late. We must also plan what we must do with the land saved.
Never before in our history has this situation existed. Successive Governments have told farmers to produce 394 more and more. Now there is so much food in surplus that the EEC spends $203 million a week on food storage, subsidy and destruction. The surpluses are fast getting worse. The ever-growing food surplus is adding approximately $13 a week to every household food bill. It is no good telling farmers that they should be grateful for EEC subsidies. Few farmers make fortunes, and most just manage to make a living. The land, which was their most important and valuable asset, is beginning to waste away.
The Government's Alternative Land Use and Rural Economy Committee rightly recognised the problem. The announcement two weeks ago attempted to suggest ways in which alternative sources of income for farmers could be provided. But will they? To what extent can the Government make up the shortfall that is lost by quotas? If the proposals are supposed to cope with the effect of reduced farm incomes from a small milk quota, what must the Government do when quotas hit every foodstuff—not just milk—and not just by 10 per cent. or 13 per cent., but by 50 per cent?
What will the countryside look like? What will Britain look like from the air, from a road, or from a train? The answer is intimately connected with what the Government will do to help farmers. The key to land use is how farms will be kept viable. How will farmers be kept solvent?
The countryside could remain largely as it looks today. There is no reason why it should not, provided a different system of subsidy is created by the European Community. If the Commission said to farmers, "Look, we shall pay you a good sum of money, and all you need to do is to mow your fields, but please do not produce any food," it would solve the problem. But at what cost? Another approach could be to pay off the 35,000 agricultural holdings which will be surplus to requirements and make redundant the 65,000 farmers and agricultural workers. But what would happen to the land if that were done? Who would look after and tend it? What would it look like?
The Government's draft circular suggested ways of switching land use to provide farmers with alternative wealth creation, but forestry will be no panacea for the problem of over-production. It is cheaper to import timber than to grow it domestically. Of course, it takes many years to grow trees. We can limit the number of forests, but can we limit the number of golf courses—that is another of the Government's proposals—and camping sites? Does the Minister suggest that a dramatic growth in the number of golf courses will solve the problems facing our farmers? The only way to create golf courses is to build at least 50 houses around the proposed sites to pay for their construction. Is that what my hon. Friend the Minister has in mind?
Will the courts sentence young offenders to so many hours on the golf course rather than to so many hours of community service? Camping and caravanning require plenty of time, leisure and money. Do the Government intend to reduce the retirement age and, instead of the 10 Christmas bonus, provide a free tent? Is the landscape to change from wheat fields to caravan parks? Are areas of outstanding natural beauty to be covered with tents? That would not, however, make up the farmers' shortfall or loss of income from agriculture.
Are we to see marginal land, especially on the urban fringe, covered with line after line of houses? What will happen to the 300,000 acres of dormant, derelict land in public ownership in the inner cities? Will it just be ignored? 395 These are very real planning problems. With the issue of these two circulars the Government have embarked on a very dangerous and difficult journey.
What is to be done about land use and land surpluses? Farmers must have an alternative use for their land and buildings to supplement their incomes, but what will the landscape look like as a result? There will be a direct connection between the extent to which the Government subsidise unproductive farms and the new look of the countryside. The extent to which the Government permit new development on land formerly used for agriculture and how that is spelt out to planning authorities is crucial. Planners have a habit of doing their own thing. Liverpool, for example, could hardly have looked worse if there had been no planners.
Despite every conceivable designation to protect the environment, the planners will be recommending to a district council in south Devon next Tuesday that a 90-van caravan site be approved in one of the 36 areas of outstanding natural beauty in this country— itself on one of the 39 heritage coasts and in an area of great landscape value. The Government may despair of planners and councils and say that it is not the Government's fault. But it is for the Government to spell out exactly what is permitted and what they will encourage and to tell their inspectors, on appeal, what they will not have.
The better use of redundant farm buildings by small business enterprises and starter workshops would help to augment farmers' incomes. The Government must be far more liberal in their planning regime with regard to the use of redundant buildings. All those who cherish the unique qualities of the English countryside have a duty to involve themselves in the debate. The Government's responsibility is to protect our heritage and countryside. But the farmers must not be abandoned in their hour of need, nor should we delude ourselves that golf courses, a clump of trees here and there, a nature trail, or a caravan park will solve the problem. It will not. A long-term strategy is needed to protect the finest parts of our environment from the threat of tasteless development and the ruination of this green and pleasant land.
The conflict is between pensioning off the farmers—making some of them into museum pieces, subsidising them to keep their fields neat and tidy, bringing in busloads of tourists to visit a genuine English farm, meeting the farmer with his slippers and pipe— and exploiting the rapidly growing land bank so as to augment the farmers' depleted income and put off the evil day when 60,000 farmers will have to be made redundant. It is an entirely new problem. I do not pretend to have a solution, but I can air the grievance and point out the dangers which, if not sympathetically handled by the Government, could cause loss of support among a wide cross-section of people— farmers and farm-related people— who are dedicated to the preservation and conservation of our environment and the national parks.
It is strange tht we should be raising this critical matter so late on a Wednesday night, but I believe that our countryside is at risk. The whole nation looks to my hon. Friend the Minister and the Government to find a solution to this inolerably difficult problem.
§ Sir Peter Mills (Torridge and Devon, West)rose—
§ Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker)Order. I see two hon. Members rising. Do they have the consent of the hon. Member for South Hams (Mr. Steen) and of the Minister to take part in the debate?
§ Sir Peter Mills (Torridge and Devon, West)I wish to thank my hon. Friend the Member for South Hams (Mr. Steen) for raising this important subject in the House.
We should consider three points. In making plans for diversification or new policies for agiculture or land use, we have to remember that farming is a business. It is not there just for other people's pleasure. We have to consider the bank manager, the returns on investment and the support of the farmer's family. It is too easy for some people to forget those. Many people would be horrified if farmers said to them that their businesses shoud be treated simply as things of beauty or as places for recreation. It is important in all these matters to get the right balance. Excessive movement one way or the other is not the way forward. We must remember that farming is a business.
Secondly, farmers and others must beware of what I call false trails. My advice to farmers is to stick to what they know best and to introduce alternatives gradually by planting up a few acres, growing new crops or doing some of the other things that the Government have suggested. We have to consider what is needed, grow it well and, above all, see that it is marketed properly.
Thirdly, as my hon. Friend said, this is a difficult time for farmers and the rural scene. We must allow farmers to use old buildings and, indeed, the whole group of buildings which are no longer necessary for the modern farming that they practise. Rural industries can be developed tastefully in those buildings. We must set up industries to help rural people to live and work in their own villages. I say this not unkindly because I am about to become a retired person. A village is not just for retired people; it is for people to work in. Let us stop the continual drift into the towns. The measures that the Government have suggested will help. They are only a start. Much more needs to be done. I hope that on all sides those who wish to conserve the rural areas, the farmers and the politicians will take a balanced view of all these matters and move forward together. As my hon. Friend said, I believe that we are at the beginning of a period of great change in the rural scene.
§ Mr. John Heddle (Mid-Staffordshire)I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for South Hams (Mr. Steen) for allowing me to speak. I shall take up just one point that he made, the third point referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Torridge and Devon, West (Sir P. Mills)— the use of redundant agricultural buildings. Reference has been made to the flexibility that should apply to the use of these buildings for the benefit of rural industries.
I believe that the Department is considering the long overdue revision of the use classes order which was introduced in 1972. There are 10 use classes ranging from very heavy industry to very light industry and to warehousing and servicing. In the 15 intervening years the changes in industry, with the decline of the manufacturing base and the rise of service industries, have made the revision of the use classes order necessary.
397 When it comes to the alternative use of redundant farm buildings in the context of the revision of the use classes order, I must put to the Minister my fear that sweeping away classes 1 to 10, and making it easier for buildings to be converted for use by heavy industry to light industry and vice versa, will allow an unwelcome free for all in the use of some agricultural buildings and could herald the introduction of heavier and intrusive industry into village communities. That is my concern, coupled with my belief that the revision of the use classes order is absolutely necessary.
I look forward to my hon. Friend's comments on the matter, if not tonight, perhaps by correspondence later.
§ 12 midnight
§ The Minister for Environment, Countryside and Planning (Mr. William Waldegrave)I believe that my hon. Friend the Member for South Hams (Mr. Steen) has done the House a service by giving us the first opportunity to discuss this topic. I gather that there was some discussion following the statements made by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment and my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. Unfortunately, I was ill in bed at the time and therefore I am grateful for this opportunity to join in discussions, belatedly, on this matter.
If I may make a physical comment about my hon. Friend the Member for South Hams, he is slim and far from the fat boy in the famous novel by Dickens. However, just like that fat boy, my hon. Friend did try to make my flesh creep tonight as he reminded us of a whole range of catastrophes that may occur if the Government get everything wrong. My hon. Friend was correct when he said it is no good for us to pretend that an historically important and, in many respects, irreversible shift is not under way regarding the contribution of agriculture to rural employment. The response of the Government and local authorities to planning applications is also important. It is no good for us to believe that we can bury our heads in the sand and that things can go on as before.
We must get that point across to people. I hope that we do not concentrate too much on the disasters that may befall us, because change is inevitable. If we remain shivering on the brink and do not strike out with policy initiatives— even though each policy carries risks— events will take their course and we shall be swept aside. As a result, the outcome may be worse than if the Government had adopted the proposed policies. I am sure that my hon. Friend was not urging the Government to be so terrified of the possible mistakes that we do not enter the game as a player. It would be a grave dereliction of the Government's duty to the rural communities if we did not rise to the events.
§ Mr. SteenI was not suggesting that the Government should do nothing, but whatever the Government do they should make it clear that the planners and the politicians at the local level understand the Government's intentions. It is even more important that the inspectors within the Minister's Department do not have misapprehensions about the Government's policies.
§ Mr. WaldegraveThat brings me on to the second point that I wish to make. I do not believe that anywhere in the United Kingdom, even within the walls of the Department 398 of the Environment, where is to be found much wisdom, anybody knows what the British countryside and the structure of the rural economy will be as a result of the great transition period. We must go step by step and not try to lay down a blueprint that may be swept away.
The impetus for change, as always, must come from the people at the bottom. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Torridge and West Devon (Sir P. Mills) that one of the great groups of players in the transition, the farmers and the others in agriculture, should not think that their historic role is finished and that they must try to become something different.
We must take steps to widen the base of the rural economy and various inputs to that economy are important. One is the planning system— I shall come back to that shortly in relation to the comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Staffordshire (Mr. Heddle) and the initial comments of my hon. Friend the Member for South Hams but other Government agencies are involved. Some are directly responsible to the Minister of Agriculture, such as the Agricultural Development and Advisory Service. Other agencies include the Council for Small Industries in Rural Areas, which is responsible to my Department, and the Small Business Services of the Department of Employment. In some of our west country areas there is a crucial player on the board—the tourist authorities and tourist boards—but above all there is private and individual ingenuity and hard work. We shall not be able to predict the outcome. My hon. Friend the Member for South Hams is right to make my flesh creep. We can see some of the things that can go wrong. We must try to guard against them.
I should like to make a few comments about the planning aspect of the package that was announced the week before last. I thoroughly agree with what my hon. Friend the the Member for Torridge and Devon, West said. What we have announced so far is not the end of the matter; it is hardly the beginning. We are beginning to fit pieces into the jigsaw puzzle. We are beginning to see some of the things that need to be done. This is the beginning of the turning round, of a great shift, which will need much more effort right across Government to see that we get it right in the years ahead. It did not start just a couple of weeks ago.
There have been some things that we have done, which are right, over the past couple of years. An example is the first circular, on the critical point referred to by all three of my hon. Friends— the Members for Torridge and Devon, West, for South Hams and for Mid-Staffordshire. The sensitive conversion of redundant farm buildings is crucial to the provision of income for the farmers who so often are the leaders of the local business community, as well as the provision of jobs, particularly semi-skilled and craft jobs in the rural communities. We are still not getting that message across to many district councils, but when we published the first circular a year ago we took a deep breath and said, "even in green belts." Normally that would bring the roof down about our ears. Even a mention of green belts would do that. But that did not happen this time. We were supported by the Council for the Preservation of Rural England and hon. Members who are sensitive on green belt matters, and rightly so. We said that even in green belts we must have sensible reuse of buildings. It is to nobody's advantage, environmentally or in any other sense, to have derelict buildings that could be used to create real jobs in the villages. How I agreed with 399 my hon. Friend the Member for Torridge and Devon, West when he said that we must not let the villages become just retirement homes or dormitory areas for the local economic centre somewhere else.
Some powerful trends are running our way. If we can use them correctly, they will give us some of the muscle power with which we can get all this right. The most recent census showed that for the first time perhaps for half a century or more the population of the rural areas, except in the remotest areas, is recovering; it is increasing. That is not just because of retirement homes and so on, although that is part of it. It is also because some of the trends in modern technology are running in our direction. One does not now have to work in a great warehouse of people in a city to conduct a wide range of what traditionally would have been office-based jobs, because of the techniques of modern information technology. I know people who, with their telex machine in their front hall in the country, are running good little businesses, which, once upon a time, would have been inconceivable except in the town.
One should look at what the Development Commission and English Estates can describe in the range of activities that their efforts can produce in the rural areas. There is a capacity to spread the economic base away from great concerted centres, which is one of the great hopes for the maintenance of the small towns and villages. I can see it well in those in Somerset, which I know well from my family background.
Let me be clear about what the new planning circular did. It was a marginal change. It is correct. Even those who were anxious about it to start with are coming round to see that it is correct. It said that when we look at applications for development in the countryside in future, we should, as we always have done, do the difficult balancing of environment versus development, with agriculture in the agriculturally important areas still a material consideration. We have retained protection for the best land, which is a national resource, like mineral resources and so on.
When the district council has come to the conclusion that a development is right, and is needed in a particular area, the extra bias of the steer is now not necessarily away from the most productive agricultural land. The fields of rye grass which sadly, have lost their ecological and environmental interest, may be the right place to put the development for the local community. Those fields may be of less overall interest in social terms than the agriculturally scruffy piece of land that may be full of 400 heath fritillaries and so on. It seems to create the right balance to put environment and agriculture and development alongside each other. That will not make decisions any easier—they will often be agonising—but we must not give that final push and say, "I am afraid this is highly productive land, so this is out of it; you have to go down the road where it is only old gorse bushes." Sir Derek Barber, the chairman of the Countryside Commission, was right to say last week that he knows of developments which have gone like that, where we have lost environmentally and ecologically interesting things because we were still following the agricultural production imperative in a way which we have to admit now was out of date.
This can be of some help to those farmers in terms of looking at environmentally sound developments which are non-farming developments. Development includes all kind of things other than building bricks and mortar, as my hon. Friend the Member for South Hams rightly said. He was slightly scathing about golf courses. The CLA was making a little joke when it said that 20,000 golf coursess would solve the problem. I do not think that the economics of golf courses work on that basis. However, there is a range of recreational and other uses for land which can be sensible environmentally. An interesting study was carried out by one of the London environmental trustees which showed, encouragingly, how many of the golf courses around London had done good work in preserving the ecological land that they had used. Golf courses cart be environmentally satisfactory, and so can a range of recreational functions, which can provide local jobs and pleasure to local people and visitors.
Some of the hostility to development in recent years has been because of the constraints which have been put on those developments and which have made them shoddy, over-dense and unsatisfactory in terms of the way that they fitted in with settlements. Perhaps a little more land taken to give people slightly bigger gardens, a little better landscaping and perhaps some more trees would have saved the hostility that people felt to so many new developments that have fitted, in a rather urban way into the sides of the small towns and villages and created this great hostility—
§ The Motion having been made after Ten o'clock on Wednesday evening and the debate having continued for half an hour, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
§ Adjourned at eleven minutes past Twelve o'clock.