Rural Communities (Recession) debate
Philip Dunne highlights the problems facing rural areas during the recession but especially 'unintended consequences' of Government legislation which put an unbearable burden on small businesses.
Mr. Philip Dunne (Ludlow) (Con): I am grateful to have been called slightly earlier than I expected. It is a pleasure to participate in such an important debate. As others have said this evening, it is a long time since we have had the opportunity to discuss the impact of the recession on the rural economy, and I am pleased that my colleagues selected the topic for an Opposition day debate.
I think that one of the reasons why we have so little opportunity to discuss such issues in Government time is that the Government simply do not get it. That is not entirely their fault. Although there are far more Labour than Conservative Members, very few of them represent rural constituencies. The hon. Member for North-West Leicestershire (David Taylor) is a regular Labour champion of rural affairs, but he is a pretty lonely voice. As for local government, following last week's election results there is not a single Labour-controlled rural shire authority. Indeed, many such authorities have no Labour representative. In a number of our constituencies, Labour representation has been all but blown away at local level: my constituency has only one Labour councillor. It is therefore not surprising that Labour representatives are not willing to put rural affairs at the top of their agenda.
I represent one of the most sparsely populated rural areas. I should add that I have the pleasure of chairing the all-party parliamentary group on rural services, which exists to champion, in particular, the least well-populated parts of the country, where the cost of supplying services-whether in the public or the private sector-is highest. I find it very depressing that such an important sector of the economy receives so little attention in this place. Part of the attention that it does receive, along with the focus of Government efforts to help the rural economy, is strongly driven by a perception that rural areas serve as the playground of the nation. However, although tourism is an increasingly important diversification for those who have engaged in more traditional primary activities in rural areas, it is not the be-all and end-all. It is not the only activity that Government should seek to encourage.
Many areas of active industry in the rural economy are now perceived by Government as there to provide entertainment for the masses. Forestry is an example. The second largest landowner-after Her Majesty the Queen-is the Forestry Commission, which under the current Government has been transformed from a primary producer of timber products whose purpose was to provide construction materials and other building products for the nation to, essentially, a playground. There has been an appalling failure to accept that responsibility for the nation's forests lies with the Government. The forests owned by the Government are seen as being there purely to divert the people. That is all very well in one sense: we should be encouraging access to our forests. However, if we do so at the expense of the industry itself, in a few decades' time we will no longer have forests. Instead, we will have scrubland areas which will not be attractive places to visit, and which will not provide the biodiversity that is at the heart of the Government's argument for allowing forestry to regenerate naturally rather than being planted.
David Taylor: I think that the hon. Gentleman would generously acknowledge that in the Government's forestry policies the national forest is an exception. That project was started in the early '90s under a Conservative Government, and it has been tremendously successful. It covers 200 square miles and straddles three counties and two regions, and it has been very helpful to economic development, environmental restoration and sustaining the communities that lie within it, many of which are rural. The Government have supported that project over a 12-year period, as the hon. Gentleman's party supported it at its inception.
Mr. Dunne: I look forward to learning more about the national forest to which the hon. Gentleman refers.
I wish now to touch on certain Government measures that are having unintended consequences-at least I hope they are unintended-for many of the businesses that are so vital in maintaining a vibrant economy in rural areas. As other Members who represent constituencies with small towns and villages have said, many such settlements are at present experiencing the loss of some of their last public, and indeed private, services. Members have mentioned that jobcentres, pubs and shops are closing throughout the country as a direct result of the recession, but they are not closing only as a result of the recession; they are closing partly as a result of Government policy.
We face the prospect of a tobacco display ban in shops. Many of us-myself included-are not keen on encouraging smoking, but that proposal is based on poor research from international comparisons and a poor level of evidence, and its effect will be to put at risk the survival of many of the small convenience stores and corner shops which, in many villages in my constituency and elsewhere, are the only retail outlets left. Such shops rely for their footfall on the many people who go there to buy tobacco. The National Federation of Retail Newsagents predicts that some 2,500 such shops will close. If that is the case, their closure will be a direct consequence not of the recession but of a Government measure. It is intended to achieve a desirable public health aim, but it will have the unintended consequence of depriving communities of their main source of purchasing other goods, as such shops are often also the convenience store where people can buy their food.
Let me offer another modest example from my constituency. Over the past year, I have been besieged-that is not too strong a word-by operators of small bed-and-breakfasts. Many former farmers or people whose houses have spare rooms choose to diversify their income by opening their home to visitors who love the beautiful scenery of south Shropshire. Bed-and-breakfasts are now subject to the same fire regulation inspection regime that applies to much larger commercial institutions such as hotels, yet the proprietors of bed-and-breakfasts typically do not have the available capital to meet the standards that might be imposed on them by fire officers. If they cannot meet the standard imposed on them, they have no option but to close. No appeal mechanism is available to these people, who might have been operating a bed-and-breakfast for 10 or 20 years. They cannot explain that, for instance, there have been no fires and that there is limited fire risk, yet regulation imposed by central Government tells them that such steps are necessary.
Mr. Roger Williams (Brecon and Radnorshire) (LD) rose-
Mr. Dunne: I am sorry, but I will not take an intervention, as I am conscious that another Member wishes to speak, and he has been present for the entire debate.
That is just another small example of the pernicious consequences of Government direction. They believe that businesses are capable of absorbing that considerable added burden, but there is no benefit to the business in that. Consequently, the local economy can suffer.
My final example, which is very much a live issue in my constituency at present, is the scrapping of the empty property rates relief. Again, this affects people who have been encouraged to diversify their activities, such as farmers who have developed workshops out of redundant barns, or, especially in my area, people who have developed their garage premises into light industrial premises but find that there are not any light industrial users. There are now increasing numbers of empty premises. It is almost impossible to secure the granting of a change of use from the planning authorities despite the current housing crisis. As a result of the reduction in rate relief, owners must suffer significant tax on empty properties, and it would not surprise me if a number of them were to decide to make their premises uninhabitable in order to avoid the tax. That is, I think, an unintended consequence; I am sure the Government do not want properties that could be put to economic use to be pulled down, but that will, I fear, be the direct result of a Government measure.
