Forest debate report

I’ve just subjected myself to watching two and a half hours of the forest debate in the House of Commons. I didn’t watch all of it because I had to eat dinner, but I watched most of it. Firstly, the opposition motion was defeated (260 to 310) and the Prime Minister’s amendment carried (310 to 253).

Encouragingly, there was a high turnout and a number of government MPs expressed serious concerns about the proposed sale and safeguards. Hopefully, this will mean that the consultation process will have some meaning. I wonder who will be consulted and how.

There was a very strong focus on access rights. Assurances were given that all existing access rights will be protected and possibly enhanced (don’t hold your breath on that one). It was recognised that cyclists and horse riders need to be included.

Numerous pledges were given on maintaining biodiversity.

Incredulity was expressed over the idea that charities or trusts might be able to buy forest. Charities, trusts or local people are supposed to be given preferential treatment, but no details were given. If forest is sold at market value, there’s no way that private bidders can be outbid.

Even some government MPs expressed grave doubts about the financial wisdom of any sales.

Concern was expressed about the degradation of expertise within the Forestry Commission as it was downsized. Its three divisions are interdependent and the public benefit works are subsidised by the commercial operations. Indeed the FC makes a loss overall, so how can private companies make a profit out of the forests sold? It suggests cherry picking. Also Forestry land is a valuable tax dodge for private investors (again how can charities etc compete in an auction?).

There was some debate on democratic accountability. Obviously if forests are sold privately, that will go out of the window. It is also an issue in charities and trusts. I would suggest that the FC ought to be more democratically accountable as well.

A thorny issue of what is a “heritage forest” is emerging with no hard and fast definitions. The Forest of Dean and the New Forest appear to be designated but Cannock Chase? Even the minister didn’t know. I can see a rush to get forests designated as heritage. This would prevent a sell-off to commercial interests and should provide other protections.

That was a flavour of the debate. It is clear that MPs have had a lot of emails on this, so it’s worth keeping up the pressure.

It’s clear the legislation is a bit of a dog’s dinner and hasn’t really been thought through. Let’s hope the government has the courage to acknowledge people’s concerns. Unfortunately, this government has continued the practise of the previous government of trying to slip through far-reaching changes in the small print of bills. This time they’ve been caught out.

What with Iraq, Afghanistan, the Lockerbie bomber’s release and various other subterfuges from the previous administration, it’s not surprising that people are losing all faith in governments of whatever political party.

Advertisements

10 thoughts on “Forest debate report”

  1. “A thorny issue of what is a “heritage forest” is emerging with no hard and fast definitions. The Forest of Dean and the New Forest appear to be designated but Cannock Chase? Even the minister didn’t know. I can see a rush to get forests designated as heritage.”

    Are Skiddaw Forest and the Forest of Bowland included in this scheme? If so, what status will they have?

  2. It’s all deeply depressing. I’m not sure anyone has ever had faith in politicians to represent the best interests of the country rather than their own political agendas but time and time again I am disappointed. Thanks for watching and reporting – we all owe you a beer for that prison sentence.

  3. I know there are more important issues but this is important. We have inherited great areas of forest thanks to our forefathers inspiration in founding the Forestry Commission and the work it has done. We must somehow encourage others to really push this issue. We must not throw aside their foresight and sense of care. These are important values which cannot not be allowed to be thrown aside by ‘here today and gone tomorrow’ politicians with no sense of protecting the future. They should have to fight for every inch.
    Thanks for your coverage and the excellent report which imparts the spirit of the debate as well as the facts.

    1. The proposal now goes to “consultation” for three months. It’s worth contacting your MP to register your opposition.

  4. With reference to Ann Welch’s remark about the Lords saving us – in fact they are our ONLY hope of defeating this whole sell-off. Please see the link below for Save Lakelands Forests website where Lord Clark of Windermere (former Head of the Forestry Commission) supplies a draft letter you can send to any Crossbencher in the House of Lords in order to amend or delete clauses in the Public Bodies Bill which if it goes through will result in the remaining 85% of England’s forests being included in this sell with no further consultation at all:

    http://www.savelakelandsforests.org.uk/public-bodies-reform-bill.html

    I urge all of you who oppose this sale to write to a couple of Crossbench Lords as soon as poossible.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s