Government policy ‘penalising’ rural communities

Rural dwellers face higher council tax bills and house prices along with poorer infrastructure and access to public services and a lack of affordable housing.
Yet predominantly rural local authorities received £147.81 - 52 per cent - less per head in Government grants than their urban counterparts last year.
The critical report, from the cross-party Commons Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, said: “The Government needs to recognise that the current system of calculating the local government finance settlement is unfair to rural areas in comparison with their urban counterparts and take action to reduce the disparity.
“This ‘rural penalty’ is not limited to public services, it is also acute in many areas of infrastructure, not least the provision of high-quality broadband.”
A quarter of England's population live in the countryside which is also home to over half a million businesses, that together contribute more than £200bn to the economy.
The Government has pledged £150m to the Mobile Infrastructure Project to improve coverage in rural areas, along with an injection of £250m into the superfast broadband scheme, which aims to provide 90 per cent of properties with speeds in excess of 24Mbps.
Despite this the committee said that a lack of mobile coverage in rural areas was unacceptable as was the funding made available to encourage and support broadband in rural areas.
The increased costs of running a rural school were also highlighted in the report, which said that smaller class sizes resulted in a higher running cost per pupil.
Committee members also labelled changes to the way in which schools are to be funded as “a backward step” and recommended that the Government reverted to its previous position of allowing local authorities to vary funding according to need rather than using a centrally derived formula.
Members also called for greater transparency of rural proofing, which requires policy-makers to consider the rural impact of policies and to ensure they apply fairly to rural areas.
The report welcomed Defra’s intention to refresh rural proofing but said some areas, such as funding for schools, were not as strong; saying, “The evidence we heard suggested that Defra were not aware that changes to education funding policy might disadvantage small rural schools.”
The MP for Newbury and minister for rural affairs, Richard Benyon, claimed many of the issues raised were being addressed by government.
“I talk regularly with colleagues in the treasury and other departments and I have been developing rural proofing because from past experience at a local level it was never effective - it was pretty hopeless to be frank. We now have new thinking on rural proofing which is being implemented across Government,” he said.
“When it comes down to money it will always be more expensive to educate a child [in rural areas] and government funding must reflect that but it’s extremely difficult to do that overnight.”
The report’s revelations were met with disappointment by the Liberal Democrat parliamentary spokeswoman for Newbury and West Berkshire, Judith Bunting, who said that she was “genuinely shocked” that rural areas received less money.
“In West Berkshire our rural communities are great places to live, to go to school and to find work. We cannot let the interests of rural communities be forgotten or ignored by policy makers in Whitehall.
“The minister needs to realise that certain policies are hurting rural communities and he should be doing more to stand up for them. I would want to see the allocated money divided more fairly and applied to the needs of the constituency. I will be petitioning my side of the government for more local authorities to receive a fair share of government grants.”