RPM number 9
News
and Reviews
‘provides information
on the extraordinary concentration of land ownership in Britain with such gems
as the fact that 0.28% of the population own 64% of the land’
Labour Research Department magazine, July 2002
‘this timely booklet
puts foxhunting in the broader context of land ownership and rural oppression’
Labour Left Briefing May 2002
‘it lists those
who fund the alliance, including the Duke of Westminster, who has a fortune
of £4 billion, and adds to it with £3 million in subsidies for his
farm in Chester’
TGWU Landworker June/July
‘this excellent
little book’
Green Anarchist
‘put it in your
rucksack when your exercising your ‘right to roam’
Scottish Socialist Voice
‘illuminating reading’
Direct Action Summer 2002
‘read this well-researched
book’
Y Faner Goch Summer/Haf 2002
‘as far as I am
aware this is the first attempt top do any serious research on that organisation’
[the Countryside Alliance]
Lobster Magazine, Summer 2002
‘well-produced’
FREEDOM, June 29th 2002
The Countryside Alliance is boasting they will mobilise 500,000 people on its September 22nd central London demonstration. Just why are so many people taking part?
Incredible as it may seem on Sunday September 22nd ‘The Countryside Alliance’ is hoping to organise what they claim will be “the largest civil liberties demonstration in the UK’s modern history” [1] in defence of foxhunting with hounds.
According to newspaper reports ‘more than 500,000 people’ [2] are expected on the ‘Liberty and Livelihood’ march through Central London, in a repeat of earlier demo’s in July 1997 and March 1998 which attracted 50 and 250 thousand people respectively. This is a massive number of people and will dwarf by some distance any demonstration this year.
The demonstration was called after the Scottish Parliament voted by a massive majority on February 13th to ban foxhunting with hounds. This was followed, on March 18th, by a House of Commons ‘indicative vote’ of 386 to 175 for similar legislation in England and Wales. Three days later, to the great annoyance of some on the Government’s own MP’s Alun Michael, the rural affairs minister, announced a six-month consultation on a proposed new Bill.
Nine days after the vote in the Commons, the Countryside Alliance warned of a ‘Summer of Discontent for Government over hunting, leading to a major London march’, because ‘the Government has lost the trust of the countryside over hunting’. [3]
However, the organisers
now claim that “This March is not just about hunting”[4]. There will
be some demonstrators raising other ‘countryside’ issues, such as
the closure of post offices, the lack of public transport and public services.
In addition, some small farmers who have suffered catastrophic falls in their
incomes, and are increasingly under the control of the supermarkets and big
business, in general, may take part. [Ironically as these farmers are being
squeezed out of business the beneficiaries are likely to be the large landowners,
who will be able to buy up land at knock down prices.] But it is an abuse of
the ‘Trades Descriptions Act’ for those who run ‘The Countryside
Alliance’ to claim they care about Liberty and Livelihood as none of them
have a record of defending anyone else’s.
Unfortunately, the absence of an effective challenge to the group has meant
they have come to be seen as the spokespersons for ‘the countryside’
and to employ words that should be, by rights, ours.
In truth, The Countryside Alliance should be faced with the impossible task of justifying, in the name, of sport the chasing of a poor defenceless creature and it being ripped to bits. The task would however be impossible; if the issue of land ownership or rather the imbalance in who owns it had been much more widely agitated around by socialist and anarchist organisations in the recent past. Or even now!
The fact is that foxhunting continues to exist because a very small number of people own the vast majority of land in Britain, they believe they should be able to do whatever they want on ‘their land’ and they got it by stealing it from our forefathers. I don’t know about you, but I think its time they were made to hand it back.
Due almost entirely to the efforts of a small number of academics and researchers we know that around 189,000 families own 40 million acres, which is 88% of the land in Britain. How they got such large amounts is not a pleasant story. Sadly, lack of space means that it is only possible to highlight the three main periods when the land was transferred, from ‘the people’ in the form of common ownership, to a one where there is such massive inequality today.
These periods were 1066 when William the Conqueror’s successful Norman invasion allowed him to carve out most of England for himself, his close friends and the Church. William put aside a considerable part of his land for his private pursuit of deer fox hunting hadn’t even been thought of at the time, and it was to be another 700 years before it started to come in to fashion. Fox hunting is an invented tradition.
In the 16th century Henry the 8th dissolved the Catholic Monasteries and distributed 10 million acres of land to 1,500 families. Many of these families’ descendants are today major landowners. During the Industrial Revolution, which started in the 17th century, the various ‘Acts of Enclosure’ prevented people from using common lands and waste to graze their cattle, forcing them to choose between starving, emigrating or moving to the cities and towns for work.
Today 59 million live on just 4.4 million acres and whilst each household pays on average £550 a year Council Tax, the major landowners enjoy subsidies through hand-outs in the form of the Common Agricultural Policy to the tune of £4 billion each year. This is the equivalent of £12,169 for each family every year.
Faced with the knowledge that you own most of the land, never mind how you got it, and you’re getting a decent whack in subsidies from Europe, you’d think that you’d keep quiet when the elected Government decides to consider banning a practice which is deeply unpopular with most people. Far from it. Faced with the knowledge that the party that has traditionally represented their interests looks unelectable, these well-bred Tories are also angry that in 1999 the Blair Government took away the rights of many of them to sit in ‘The House of Lords’. It is a mute point, but I would argue that this has been the only ‘revolutionary’ act undertaken by a Labour Party with Parliamentary power since 1997. If foxhunting is banned, what next, will people start to question ‘their rights’ to hold so much land? Why do they need it?
So who is behind ‘The Countryside Alliance’, or should that be the ‘British Field Sports Society Investments Ltd’, as this is the name which appears in the annual accounts alongside the more popular and attractive name. The Countryside Business Group provided £550,000 as part of its start-up costs; this was founded by American-born corporate lawyer Eric Bethlehem. The offices of the Alliance are ‘The Old Town Hall’, 367 Kennington Road, London SE11 4PT although a visit to the premises would reveal the organisation is coy to advertise they are based in such an impressive building, as there is no sign on the door.
They are run by a Board of 12 Directors, with Bill Burge as its Chief Executive. Also on the board is Lord Mancroft, a Tory Peer, and Sam Butler whose apparent concern for the plight of the Countryside has not prevented his firm of estate agents from selling extremely pricey homes to rich folk in the Cotswolds. This was revealed when Nick Cohen from the Observer posed as a buyer worried about hostility from locals about buying a house there. He was told ‘oh no, everyone round here’s a townie’ [5] Two of the commercial directors, Christopher Sporborg and Michael Hoare are Bankers and Nick Bannister is a stockbroker from London.
Financial support has come from Britain’s richest man, the Duke of Westminster. The Duke, the beneficiary of £3 million a year in grants from the EU’s CAP, was reported to have helped out with a £1 million loan [6]. The Duke is well known for his strident defence of the principles of ‘Liberty’ and ‘Livelihood’, as was revealed by Alan Rimmer in the Sunday Mirror on February 24th 2002 in his interview with the Duke’s sacked housekeeper who reported that “working for Britain’s richest man was hell.. we were even told how to fold his loo paper”. She likened life at the 11,000 acres Eaton Hall to the Middle Ages. See also the Daily Express of January 12th 2001, which revealed that Lord Kimball, who has been in charge of the Countryside Alliance’s campaigns in the House of Parliaments, and his wife unfairly dismissed a worker from their country mansion.
Others who have financially assisted the Countryside Alliance include Prince Charles who lent his house for a cocktail party and Sir Robert McAlpine. On August 24th the Duke of Northumberland is allowing the family home, Alnwick Castle, to be used for a £50 a head fund-raiser. The Duke owns land and property worth £800 million. In the northeast of England press releases are being sent out from a Brettanby Manor House in Richmond in North Yorkshire.
The Countryside Alliance’s choice of PR and lobbying company in Political Planning Services Ltd is significant as the company’s web-site once boasted about helping Pfizer get planning permission for a new UK headquarters on greenbelt land. [7] Past clients have included McDonalds, Morrisons, Orange and Tesco’s. [8]
‘Horse and Hound’ magazine is the bible for hunting people. It has been going since 1884 and its early editions it spoke freely of ‘the niggers in Ceylon’ [May 10th 1884], nonsense which it has never retracted. It is busy promoting the march to its readers and urging them to participate. Others who are keen to see a large turn-out include ‘The Daily Telegraph’ who in the lead up to last year’s General Election claimed that ‘It’s not just foreigners who find Britain a foreign land’. [Minette Martin 10.3.01], whilst ‘The Shooting Gazette’, another march supporter, stated ‘Deport all illegal immigrants’ on page 75 of its March 2001 issue. Clearly, racism and nationalism forms one part of the ideology of those due to turn out. Recent newspaper reports have highlighted the development of racism in the countryside and Northumberland, a rural county in more senses than one, claimed the title of ‘the most racist’ in England.
Meanwhile, the Countryside Alliance has benefited from last years ‘foot and mouth’ and the Petrol/fuel protests the year beforehand that saw an emerging direct action right wing movement, which blockaded roads and petrol refineries and almost brought the country to a standstill. There has emerged amongst some people in the countryside a view that they are a persecuted minority and the Countryside Alliance has attempted to tap in to this sentiment. At times it has also tried to encourage it.
The Countryside Alliance’s legalistic approach of lobbying MP’s, holding meetings, pickets and demonstrations has brought criticism from some foxhunting supporters who feel they have not been radical enough. Some would like to see much more direct action.
In July Countryside Action Network [CAN], held three motorway go-slow protests and it was reported by ‘The Guardian’ that four Labour MP’s offices in Yorkshire had been plastered with posters advertising the march in September. The women identified as organising the action, which included damaging a mini-bus used by disabled people was caught and given ‘a caution’.
Chris Mullin, MP, also drew attention in ‘The Sunderland Echo’ of July 26th 2002 to an article in ‘The Field’ which threatened more go-slows and mused ‘suppose someone were to pull the plug out of a reservoir in Wales and run Birmingham short of water… anger breeds chaos.’ Mullin passed on the article to the Home Secretary, to date the police have been slow to react and no prosecution can be anticipated for what is clearly a case of incitement.
‘Horse and Hound’ has also got in the mood, with Lucy Higginson, editor, writing in the July 18th issue that ‘If the government ignores the CA’s message, it does so at its peril. Force people to shoot their hounds and horses what kind of protest would it see then?’ And as has been well documented by hunt saboteurs various members of the foxhunting fraternity, and the thugs they regularly employ, are not beyond brutally attacking saboteurs. [9] So the scene is set for events to turn very nasty if the Government doesn’t turn back on its pre-Election commitment to ban foxhunting.
That however is for the future. For now up to 500,000 people are going to march in London on September 22nd. This is in spite, or rather because, of the politics and people behind ‘The Countryside Alliance, and in defence of a barbaric practice.
Clearly, not all of them who turn up are going to be incredibly wealthy, but they are clearly going to be led by those who are. Unfortunately, breaking the grip that the gentry and land-owning classes continue to have on a considerable body of people is a task that has still to be tackled, never mind achieved.
Foxhunting is barbaric, it should be banned, the massive inequalities in land ownership need reversing and the hold that the gentry and landowners continue to exercise over many people lives must be ended. It will not be easy.
Mark Metcalf
[1] Richard Burge, chief
executive of the Countryside Alliance, page 5 of ‘Horse and Hound ‘
July 18th 2002
[2] ‘Pro-hunt march to pull in 500,000 protestors’ The Times
Thursday March 28th 2002
[3] www.countryside-alliance.org/news/02/020327soda.htm press release
date March 27th 2002
[4] Richard Burge, Horse and Hound July 18th 2002
[5] ‘Is it Hair or Blague?’ The Observer, 31st December 2000
[6] ‘Back in the Hunt’, The Guardian, 4th October 2000
[7] www.ppsgroup.co.uk, this claim was removed from their web-site following
a re-vamping in early 2001
[8] www.pps.group.co.uk
[9] ‘Thugs, wreckers and bullies the truth about hunt violence at
http://arrs.envirolink.org/HAS/features/twb.html
Amongst the huge media speculation that Britain may itself suffer a terrorist attack in the not too distant future, one group of people who earlier this year threatened to disrupt water supplies has escaped attention. I refer to those engaged in defending ‘fox hunting with hounds.’
Following a central London march which attracted over 400,000 people in late September, its organisers, the Countryside Alliance, announced they were moving on to forming a Rural Council claiming it would give ‘the same power and influence to the countryside as the TUC gives to the unions and the CBI to business.’
They have announced that they are ‘seeking an independent chairman who would create and lead a conference to establish the council.’
These moves are a mixture of pragmatism and an assertion of the continuing power of the landowners in Britain. The landowners have recognised that the medium through which they have traditionally asserted their political power, the Tory Party, is unelectable in the near future so whist not ‘ditching it’ they hope to establish a body which gives them access to the ‘corridors of power.’ Hence a Rural Council iwhich they believe they are guaranteed, because of their immense wealth, to dominate and control.
This will make it easier to defend foxhunting with hounds and the massive imbalance in land ownership which allows the practice to continue.
At the same time, however,
the group has declared though its spokesperson, Sam Butler, that any moves by
the Government to impose a hunting ban will lead to “some very serious
unrest” and “civil disobedience” in the countryside. No doubt,
fully aware of the laws on incitement, Butler was at pains to point out that
it would be the “grass-root movement which will dictate… the degree
of unrest.”
This approach of ‘talking up’ the threat that fox-hunters may pose
to the rest of society, if they don’t get their own way, is a traditional
one by hunt supporters.
In the July 18th issue of ‘Horse and Hound’ Lucy Higginson, editor, wrote that ‘If the government ignores the Countryside Alliance’s message, it does so at its peril. Force people to shoot their hounds and horses what kind of protest would it see then?’ Higginson, would probably deny that she personally supported breaking the law.
In July Chris Mullin, MP, drew attention in ‘The Sunderland Echo’ to an article in ‘The Field’ which threatened more go-slows and mused ‘suppose someone were to pull the plug out of a reservoir in Wales and run Birmingham short of water… anger breeds chaos.’ Mullin passed on the article to the Home Secretary, who forwarded it to the police. No prosecution has been instigated, in what is clearly a case of incitement.
Such threats have now re-emerged, as we await the Government’s announcement into its lengthy enquiry into fox-hunting with hounds. In a little noticed or reported article in ‘The Sunday Telegraph’ of November 17th 2002 Edward Duke from the Real Countryside Alliance, formed in response to criticism of the legalistic approach by its larger sister organisation, admitted that at a recent secret meeting, members “are talking about highly criminal acts.” These apparently included targeting “gas and water supplies” as well as “lorries carrying food for supermarkets.”
Mr Duke, who remains at liberty, claims he is “not sanctioning what the Real CA are doing.” Perhaps.
However, it would appear that whilst the British public has, rightly, been alerted to the threat of al-Qaeda, they have yet to be alerted to our own bunch of potential terrorists.
© Mark Metcalf,
November 25th 2002
Paintings and pictures of fox-hunters in their red blazers and black hats, astride a moving horse and accompanied by a pack of hounds are regular features of a typical British pub.
If art really does imitate life, a stranger would think that fox-hunting has been a regular pastime of many British people for centuries. This view would have been re-enforced, when the body set up to defend foxhunting, The Countryside Alliance, mobilised 400,000 people to its September 2002 march in London.
This followed the Scottish Parliament banning foxhunting with hounds in February. A month later the House of Commons voted by 386 to 175 in an indicative vote to do the same throughout the rest of Britain, following which the Government announced a six-month consultation period before bringing forward legislation.
The Countryside Alliance promised a ‘Summer of Discontent for the government over hunting.’ [1] However, with opinion polls, regularly showing large majorities opposed to foxhunting they later claimed “this march is not just about hunting”. [2]
By naming the march ‘Liberty and Livelihood’ the organisers clearly hoped to attract people concerned about other ‘Countryside’ issues such as poor public services. They had some success, a MORI opinion poll amongst the marchers showed that only 27% of those on it felt the Alliance should have hunting as its main campaign issue.
Mobilising a good crowd of people may be one thing, getting them to defy a possible ban would be another, especially when they’ve got more important issues to consider, none of which, to date the Alliance has taken up vigorously. Not surprising really as those who set it up include some of Britain’s wealthiest land owners.
In fact, it is the massive imbalance in land ownership throughout Britain which makes fox-hunting with hounds possible. Researchers have only recently been able to uncover the fact that just 189,000 families own 88% of the land. Three periods are important, the arrival of William the Conqueror in 1066 who parcelled out the land to himself, his friends and the Church. He set aside huge tracts to go hunting deer.
Later Henry the Eighth dissolved the Catholic monasteries and distributed 10 million acres to 1,500 families. Many of these families’ descendants are today major landowners. In the 17th century, the Acts of Enclosure prevented people from using common land to grave their cattle. They had to choose between starving, emigrating or finding work in the developing industrial areas.
The very small numbers who own most of the land believe they have the right to do whatever they want on it. Chasing a fox is made all the better by the knowledge that the land your running over is yours, whilst invited guests, following on foot or by car, can glory in the opportunity to mix with their social superiors.
Major landowners have invented the idea that foxhunting is a real countryside tradition, the pub paintings helping to maintain such illusions. If it can be shown that foxhunting is a long standing practice the hope is that people will support its continuation.
Yet the Master of Foxhounds Association only dates from 1856 when 24 masters got together to form a Committee. Sir W. Beach Thomas, a pro-foxhunter wrote in 1936: “it is true enough in essentials to argue that hunting as we know it began in the eighteenth century and belongs to modern England….in 1799…[there were] fewer than a dozen regular hunts”. [3]
Foxhunting started because of the diminishing numbers of wild deer. A wealthy country gentleman, Hugo Meynell specially bred hounds to chase foxes and started the ‘sport’.
When the Prince of Wales gave foxhunting his patronage in 1793, after giving up hunting stags in Hampshire, this royal seal of approval guaranteed foxhunting a future amongst other aristocrats and major landowners.
Although the animal being hunted changed, and has remained the fox, there were no changes in principles, namely that the private pleasure of the privileged few was a legitimate basis for determining the allocation of land in Britain. The landowner could do whatever he wanted on his land, not matter how it affected others. It is this that lies behind the defence of foxhunting with hounds and the culture which goes with it.
[1] Press release March 27th 2002 www.countryside-alliance.org/news/02/020327soda.htm
[2] Richard Burge, Chief Executive, July 12th 2002 www.countryside-alliance.org/news/02/020712llr.htm
[3] Sir W Beach Thomas “Hunting England: A Survey of the Sport and of its
Chief Grounds” London: Batsford ltd, 1936
‘You'll be pleased to know your book was an invaluable source for my contribution to the debate at the IUF’s land reform global conference in Cape Town and certainly opened a few eyes amongst the delegates who came from the developing world. There were also delegates from Russia.’
The Agricultural and Allied Workers Trade Group of the Transport and General Workers Union (UK) Approach to Land Reform Land reform has not been a major issue in the UK for many years though land nationalisation has been part of the programme of the union.
In 1945, the Labour Party won the General Election and was heralded the most radical Government we had seen before or since. This was due to pressure from the workers returning from the Second World War that wanted a better life for all. Part of the Labour Party manifesto called for land nationalisation and stated that it "believed in land nationalisation and would work towards it." I cannot see Tony Blair accepting this particular demand!
The Government took the first step and gave the State and local authorities wider and speedier powers to acquire land for public purposes whenever it was required in the public interest. This was so that social housing, hospitals, schools, universities, etc could be built.
The second step of full nationalisation of the land was not taken up and was unlikely to be taken up when one looks at who owns and controls the land.
William the Conqueror established the structure of land ownership over 1000 years ago. Having conquered England in 1066 he then divided the spoils amongst his friends. Some of those who own the land today are direct descendants of the friends of William the Conqueror. In fact the Duke of Westminster, who owns nearly 130,000 acres worth 11.5bn pounds and is the richest man in England, is a direct descendent of one of William's closest companions and chief huntsman. Huge tracts of land were handed over specifically for the hunting of deer.
Society had been unequal prior to this invasion but these actions cemented those inequalities. The poor lost their land for growing crops and for grazing.
In 1670 an Act was brought in that said the Lord of the Manor and anyone who had a substantial income from landed property had the right to kill a hare on that land. Anyone else was seen as a poacher and suffered heavy penalties if caught.
This also puts the whole debate on fox hunting into perspective particularly when we find the Duke of Westminster was a founder member of the Countryside Alliance and Prince Charles allowed his home to be used for a cocktail party to raise funds for the Countryside Alliance. It ties the ruling class and the aristocracy very firmly into the right to hunt.
The landed gentry maintained their land by handing down their enormous estates to the eldest son rather than divide it amongst all their children thereby continuing the control of that land generation after generation.
Between 1700-1845 six million acres were enclosed. Thousands of people lost their land and were forced to work on the estates or had to go into the towns. This was also the background to workers seeing the need to organise. The Tolpuddle Martyrs are a reminder of this. They tried to organise and found themselves transported to Australia as a result. It did not stop agricultural workers from the need to organise and they were at the forefront of that struggle.
The Industrial Revolution saw a new elite develop with bankers, brewers and lawyers buying land in order to enhance their status. This was a very small percentage of the land and only those sympathetic to hunting were often the only ones allowed to buy the land from the aristocracy.
Unlike England, Scotland and Wales re-distribution of land has taken place in Ireland since the 19th century. In the 1950's large families were taken from in the West of Ireland to the East where the land was of much better quality and they were able to establish a good living. Today, there are no major landowners and parts of agriculture are booming, inspite of smaller subsidies.
It has become almost impossible to find out who owns the land today. In 1872 parishes kept records but when land taxation was abolished records ceased to be kept. In 1925 land that was transferred was recorded through the Land Registry. That meant that between 1872 and 1925 there were no records. It is estimated that between 30% and 50% of the acreage in the England Wales and Scotland is unregistered.
Fortunately, some academics have looked into the issue. According to them 189,000 people own 88% (40 million acres) of the land, receive 4 billion pounds in EU subsidies and pay 103 million pounds in Council Tax. Whereas 59 million live on, but do not necessarily own, 4.4 million acres and pay 10.4 billions pounds Council Tax for that pleasure.
The Queen and eight members of her family own the same amount of land as 11 million people in England.
This is the main reason why land nationalisation has not happened. Instead, since the War, successive governments have encouraged a 'property owning democracy.' with people encouraged to buy their own homes.
In the 1980's Margaret Thatcher, in her attempt to win the working class vote, brought in the 'right to buy' policy. This gave people who lived in social housing the opportunity to buy their houses at greatly reduced rates. As a result 100,000 council houses, representing 2/3 of that stock, disappeared in rural areas. This had a catastrophic effect as council housing was not as plentiful in rural areas as councils tended to be run by Conservatives who did not see the need for social housing. During the 1990's they were replaced with 20,000 new council homes when it is estimated that at least 10,000 are needed each year over the next decade to stand still.
Tied housing is also disappearing as older workers retire and are replaced with contract labour. The union has always fought against tied housing as it gave the farmer the excuse to keep wages low as well as feeling he owned and controlled that worker 24 hours a day 365 days a year. We recognise that even tied housing is better than nothing. Farmers have sold these houses for inflated prices to the middle classes who have moved into the rural areas. In fact 100,000 people move into rural areas each year. Between 1971 and 1996 there has been a 25% increase compared to 6% in the country as a whole.
In the meantime the rural poor are forced into the towns because there is no social housing and they cannot afford to buy. In fact all eight regions in rural England are worse off for affordable housing. Statistics show that 60% of the rural population spend over 50% of their income on mortgages compared to 30% in urban areas, yet rural wages are 12% lower.
Agriculture in the UK is in crisis as a result of BSE, FMD but also the opening up of markets and the domination of the supermarkets and retailers who insist on the best quality products for the lowest prices.
One third of agricultural land is rented to 125,000 tenant farmers. 2000 of those are barely existing at the present time. They cannot even afford to buy a house on retirement having lived in tied accommodation on the land they rented from their aristocratic landlord. Although tenant farmers do employ labour they are ending up no better off than their workers.
Listening to the debate I recognise that Land Reform is not as critical in the UK as the developing world, as there is a smaller percentage working on the land. When they are made redundant they usually find jobs to go to even if it is in the town.
One of the most fundamental questions is compensation to landlords for their land. I would argue that this should be on the basis of proven need. They should not receive market prices as it has already been demonstrated that often the price of land increases greatly when it is known that the land is needed.
Once the land is given to the workers or peasants they must have financial help in the way of interest-free loans. They should also receive training if they are to succeed.
We have to come to some conclusions and recognise the need to adapt to different countries with their different problems. It is also in the interest of governments to pull the masses out of poverty. Rural trade unions can lead that campaign with others within society.
The excellent Land Reform document raises issues in relation to South Africa. Issues such as 'willing buyer, willing seller ……….. growth through redistribution or distribution through growth.' All this means is the land hungry and poor receive nothing. In the words of the document, 'Land cannot be treated as a commodity as it has a social function in providing the rural poor and the landless with a reliable mechanism through which to improve their livelihood.'
When the landless poor have occupied the land and forced governments to legalise the holdings there have been costs involved - compensation, legal expenses and essential credit. According to the Social and Economic Research Institute of Brazil, the total cost to the State to maintain the same number of people in shanty towns, including services and infrastructure, exceeds in just one month the annual cost of legalising land occupation. Even the World Bank development economists take the view that re-distribution of the land to small farmers' leads to greater overall productivity.
Part and parcel of this question has to be the role of the food processors, retailers and supermarket who dictate the prices paid for all goods. We have to address this issue as well.
We also have to look at the bigger question of who owns and controls society. Remember, we cannot control what we do not own. Workers create the wealth and are given crumbs. We do not want the crumbs, we want the whole cake.
Teresa MacKay
October 2002