There has been much discussion about the Business, Enterprise, Technology and Science (BET&S) Minister, Edwina Hart’s approach to economic development sectorally – through the sector panels – and more recently through regeneration in Enterprise Zones. However, we need to be mindful of not neglecting rural businesses when looking at our approach to a well-rounded economy.

The rural economy faces many particular economic and social challenges which need to be recognised when, for example, looking at which infrastructure projects to invest in. Operating a business in a rural environment has always been a struggle, and things aren’t set to get any better in the near future.

For example, the issue of transport is an important one for all of us, and many businesses argue transport is vital to their operations. Private transport is allowing the highest degree of access the countryside has ever known, from the ability to transport goods to a wider choice of labour market.

Drivers from rural areas make 21% more trips per year than the national average, as public transport is unable to meet the needs or expectations of those living in rural communities.

However, car-based transport brings its own problems, with almost two-thirds of rural employers unhappy with the cost of fuel and the impact this has on their business. The state of roads also remains a greater concern for rural businesses than their urban counterparts.

Rural employers are at an automatic competitive disadvantage as transporting and taking delivery of goods generally requires longer distances and higher fuel costs.

A growing trend, particularly in the countryside, is the rise of home-based businesses: there’s a higher proportion of rural people in self-employment when compared to their urban counterparts.

The impact of these businesses may alter the dynamics of the traditional rural economy. Working from home generally indicates less commuting, which relieves congestion. Further, most of these businesses are sole traders in the professional services sector. Such businesses may well choose to obtain supplies from the local village high street, leading to greater income for local communities.

However, home businesses will also require access to public services, such as banks and post offices. An even greater priority is access to telecommunications. A robust telecommunications infrastructure is vital to the development of the home-based business and potentially, a more sustainable countryside. Government statistics estimate that 2.2 million people in the UK are home workers. From this number, 1.8 million cannot work without a computer and telephone.

Business growth in rural areas is also being hampered by a lack of housing. People are unable to buy in the communities where they grew up, resulting in a loss of labour.

But the problem goes deeper. The urban to rural migration of wealthy commuters and retirees is driving up prices, and the limited supply of appropriate land in areas with both housing needs and appropriate planning policies is resulting in difficulties in securing access to finance for both occupants and developers.

Rural tourism makes a valuable contribution to the national economy, with the total value spent by UK residents being £9.7 billion per year. A revitalised tourism campaign will assist this process. The particular assets of the countryside will always be in demand. But increased tourism can only be successful within a healthy physical environment, where economic and social benefits are maximised.

More decisions affecting the countryside should be taken at a local and regional level, where businesses are best placed to identify the potential of their area and how it can be successfully developed. We want to see more business engagement at a local level when deciding Local Development Plans, local authority budget setting, etc.

There also needs to be consistency between decisions taken at a local level, with the economic value of developments taken into consideration, and national policies to be filtered through more effectively to this grassroots level.

The opportunities for businesses in the countryside are endless. However, the correct infrastructure must be in place for employers to best exploit the economy, wherever they are located.

The financial crisis in Europe has become so severe that it has put the future of the euro, and indeed the future of the EU itself, in doubt. If the financial system in Europe collapses, it is going to plunge the entire globe into chaos.

If the financial system in Europe breaks down, we are all doomed. An economic collapse in Europe would unleash a financial tsunami that would sweep across the globe. The nightmarish sovereign debt crisis in Europe could potentially bring about the end of the euro. The future of the monetary union in Europe is being questioned all over the continent. Without massive bailouts, there are at least five or six nations in Europe that will likely soon default.

So it might seem a bit odd to write an article looking on the ‘bright side’ (so to speak), but that’s what I thought I’d do. I wanted to pen something that worked on the assumption that we all got through to the other side in – relatively – one piece.

I’d actually like to rewind to March 2004 when the heads of state of the EU member states met for the European Council and set the strategic goal for the EU “to become the most competitive and dynamic knowledge-based economy in the world, capable of sustainable economic growth with more and better jobs and greater social cohesion”.

However, these admirable objectives fell woefully short of realisation, even before the economic turbulence of 2008. Much of this was down to a lack of action in reducing regulatory burdens.

The European Charter for Small Enterprises identified ten key areas of action to help small businesses prosper and was adopted by the European Council in Feria, Portugal in 2002 and followed on from the Lisbon Agenda. The overarching principle of these various accords was to recognise the important role that small businesses played in the European Economy.

Whilst this was a step in the right direction, in reality that was pretty much all it turned out to be. Enterprise policy continued to be made in a vacuum and these agendas were rarely adopted throughout the various Commission Departments and across all EU institutions.

So should the EU get the other side of its current nightmarish scenario, it needs to outline a ‘New Deal’ for its dealings with the private sector. Previously, for example, there has been much debate and criticism of the way the European Union has consulted with stakeholders, and in particular the fact that SMEs are not well represented and their views are all too often ignored.

In future, the EU needs to consider the needs of SMEs in four key areas: firstly by organising periodical SME round tables with the TUC also being present, and to organise market research of SMEs on issues that the Commission is consulting on prior to a formal invitation to the Social Partners to negotiate an agreement.

Secondly, it should improve the conduct of the social dialogue by making it more transparent and accountable. This would be achieved by direct market research of SMEs and a longer time being allocated for consultation and an increased number of organisations being consulted.

Thirdly, it needs to create a new SME forum at the EU level with advisory status which would be restricted to Employment and Social Affairs in order to give substance to Article 137(2) of the EU Treaty that states Directives “Shall avoid imposing administrative, financial and legal constraints in a way which would hold back the creation and development of SMEs”, a principle that is often ignored.

And finally, a new social dialogue committee should be established where, unless a piece of legislation passes through this forum, SMEs in the European Union would not be bound by that piece of legislation.

There has long been a wide recognition of the need to improve dialogue with SMEs. The European Commission has developed several policies most notably: the European Small Business Charter, The Green Paper and the follow up Action Plan on Entrepreneurship, and the Better Regulation Action Plan.

These policies have all devised ways of improving dialogue with SMEs including the appointment of an SME Envoy, and the introduction of Impact Assessments to inform policy options.

Yet in spite of these efforts SMEs were still being ignored in favour of social and environmental lobbies. Rather than pay lip service to these concerns, politicians and policy makers need to enter the private sector mindset at all stages of the policy process.

For example, pre-2007 the burden of red tape had greatly increased. While individual laws may not be over burdensome on their own, the cumulative effect can be overwhelming. This is particularly the case with laws relating to health and safety, employment and the environment. Compliance costs can be enormous and have a disproportionate impact on small businesses that are invariably placed at a competitive disadvantage to their larger competitors.

Moreover, there were huge inconsistencies within legislation that made it impossible for businesses to know what there rights and responsibilities were. Therefore, it is about time that there is a review of all existing EU legislation to remove the burdens and inconsistencies. In future, legislation should contain review and sunset clauses and Regulatory Impact Post-Implementation Assessment (RIPIA) should be completed to check that the legislation is doing what it set out to do.

Beware this dangerous weapon...

ONE business in Wales was shocked earlier this year to find out that his company’s health and safety provision was not adequate and that bringing it into line would cost £8,000.

The owner of a small engineering company was given 24 hours’ notice that his health and safety records were not up to scratch and that his firm’s annual insurance policy could not be renewed. Without it, his firm could not function.

At the heart of this story is the new and almost-obsessive health and safety culture that has developed in recent years, whereby company bosses are asked to dream up theoretical situations where anything that could go wrong would go wrong.

This includes issues such as the somewhat-bizarre state of affairs where a pencil sharpener becomes a pretty dangerous piece of kit in the (theoretically) wrong pair of hands. And while many are happy enough to blame this state of affairs on the Health and Safety Executive, it appears that there are many other factors at work.

This particular firm had for years been using the same old health and safety document: it was about four pages in length and had a two-line or three-line assessment of each piece of equipment used in his business. It had been designed based on the recommendations of the Health and Safety Executive but now, it seemed, the document was no longer valid. The insurance company insisted that the firm call in a team of health and safety consultants to compile a new document. This seemed ridiculous enough – the £8,000 bill made matters worse.

The new document was drafted and the firm was astonished to see that it contained several hundred pages. Inside were risk assessments on 150 items of equipment, some as mundane as fax machines – and each assessment was up to three pages long. To make things worse was the fact that just about every piece of equipment in the company now had to be treated almost as if it was a potential weapon. They were expected to make the assumption that each member of staff was suicidal. Every item in the office was viewed as a means of ending someone’s life: in fact, there had been just two injuries at the company in the last five years – a couple of cut fingers.

Many other businesses are in the same boat. Another one reported having to write six pages of health and safety text about the ammonia used in the office photocopier, while another, a company servicing oil rigs in Scotland, was forced to produce a risk assessment for a pencil sharpener.

But although the Health and Safety Executive had been much maligned over the issue, the new culture of obsession has been largely brought about by insurance companies rather than the HSE itself. In fact, the HSE is generally opposed to much of the pressure from the insurance industry to bring in new rules and regulations, which it sees as largely irrelevant.

The HSE’s requirements, as far as risk assessments go, are usually very reasonable and it is generally insurance companies that are demanding ever-more complicated and comprehensive assessments. Many insurance companies now have their own assessors, who are creating more and more regulations each year. They are always asking for more than the HSE legislation requires, whereas they should be looking at the overall way in which the organisation manages itself.

If the management is acting responsibly and is aware of the risks connected with its line of business, there should be no cause for concern. Unfortunately, a rather different culture has developed in recent years.