The phrase “second home” still conjures up images of wealth normally associated with movie or rock stars. In modern Britain, however, second homes are not the unique preserve of the exceptionally affluent. They are also held for a wide variety of reasons — sometimes in preparation for retirement; often as a stopgap; perhaps as an attempt to balance working in London with living some distance away; or also for the sheer pleasure of having a bolt hole. There is not a single explanation for why they are bought, let alone is there a uniform sort of dual homeowner.

Which is why ministers would be wise to think carefully before taking part in a policy crusade on this question. As we report today, the Commission for Rural Communities is encouraging the Government to introduce a special category of council tax to deal with those who, in its opinion, do not live in their homes enough of the time to contribute properly to the health of their local economies. Other sanctions being considered include a register for second homes or a new business rate for sensitive locations. The message is second homes ought to be discouraged through taxation.

This is a dubious initiative for several reasons. The first is that it is a misuse of local taxation. Council tax is essentially a charge for services received, adjusted for wealth via property valuations. It has not hitherto been regarded as a tool for social engineering. It would also lead to the perverse result that people “accused” of demanding the least from local services would be asked to pay a surcharge towards them.

It would also produce many practical difficulties. How would it be assessed whether a second home was being visited often enough to count as a decent contribution to the local economy? Would owners have to show that they had slept a certain number of days in the country, or spent enough in the village shop? Or would it just be assumed that anyone who had a second house was automatically an “absentee” unless they could somehow indicate that they were not? It is a certain bureaucratic quagmire.

There is no doubt that the lack of affordable homes is a pressing issue in rural communities. This is in large part because very few new homes are being built. Yet it is often the same people who protest against “outsiders” who argue against even sensitive development. A more realistic housing policy is required. This has been recognised by the Conservatives who have rightly dropped their “not one more brick” stance on construction in rural Britain in favour of a more pragmatic position.

The tax treatment of those who own second homes was changed substantially two years ago when the 50 per cent council tax discount was abolished and replaced by a tougher 90% rate. It would be harsh and unreasonable to expect second-home owners to pay more in than their neighbours. All that would be achieved by such a campaign is that even more people looking for a rural retreat would enrich the coffers of France or Spain.