I had a meeting with the Prime Minister on Monday and I emphasised to him the need to reassure the public that this is a genuine consultation and that the Government really is listening and is open to the ideas and arguments that people come up with. He was very receptive, indeed he has already said as much himself twice at Prime Minister’s questions.
To assist with this transparent approach I publish below my own submission to the public consultation. In addition I am holding a public meeting on Friday 4th March at 7pm at the New Milton Memorial Centre, Whitefield Rd, New Milton BH25 6DE.
DS
Jim Paice Esq, MP,
Minister of State,
DEFRA,
Nobel House,
17 Smith Square,
London, SW1P 3JR
15 February 2011
Dear Jim,
Future of Forestry
I wanted to give you notice of my own contribution to the consultation: as far as the New Forest is concerned the proposals present a great opportunity, but also a significant danger. It is my eagerness to grab the opportunity that makes me evangelical in my attempt to persuade doubters about the possibilities presented by these proposals.
The Opportunity:
As you know I am not uncritical of the Forestry Commission’s stewardship of the New Forest, although I hold the staff employed in the Forest in the highest regard. At the beginning of the 20th century, the New Forest was much more than the heathland and woodland that it now comprises. It was a great national estate, which included farms, mansions, shops and businesses all under the Crown Estate. The Forestry Commission sold off many of those assets, until it was checked, partly by the Illingworth report in the mid-1980s. My fear is that this process has started again. In 2005 we saw the proposals for the sale of Swan Green, and in 2006 Shrike Cottage and Holmsley Lodge were disposed of notwithstanding an enormous protest that stretched well beyond the Forest. My fear is that, as the Forestry Commission inevitably comes under greater financial pressure, this trend will accelerate. In addition, I fear that in order to make savings the Commission will dilute the role and responsibilities of the keepers, concerns from within the Commission have already been raised with me in this respect.
Notwithstanding the guarantee that has been made by the Secretary of State with respect to the £3 million subsidy to support the Forest, no part of our national life can be shielded entirely from harsh economic reality. Decisions will have to be made about where additional revenues can be had and where savings can be made. Given the history and the warnings I have received, I am not confident that the Forestry Commission, as currently constituted, is best placed to reach decisions of this sort. The New Forest is merely a part of the Forestry Commission - its main effort, its priorities and preoccupations lie elsewhere. I want to reverse the relationship and make the Forestry Commission part of the Forest. I want the Forest to be its only priority. I have no doubt that any new management created under the Government’s proposals will employ the dedicated expertise of the Forestry Commission employees now headquartered in Lyndhurst and it is for this reason that I am enthusiastic about the proposals.
The Danger:
The Government has suggested that the responsibility for management of the Forest might be taken on by a charitable trust. Inevitably there has been speculation regarding the National Trust which already owns Hale Purlieu and Bramshaw Commons. Equally, other national organisations like the RSPB have been mentioned. I do not favour these possibilities at all (and they have shown no enthusiasm themselves). These large national organisations, like the Forestry Commission, have other fish to fry. We need an organisation whose only focus is our Forest. Let me be brutally frank: we don’t want a bunch of busybodies with their own agendas muscling in on the New Forest.
My Submission:
It seems glaringly obvious to me that we already have an organisation fit for the purpose of taking on the responsibility of running the Forest. From the outset, the forest law, the ‘vert,’ was enforced by the Verderers. They represent the Commoners, the wider national interests and the Crown. Their record on defending the Forest from all sorts of threats is exemplary. Currently they have some influence over the Forestry Commission and a role in holding it to account. My estimate, however, is that the Verderers should be firmly in control of the management of the Forest and employ the current servants of the Commission to carry it out.
I believe I might persuade my constituents that this solution is in their interests, despite the understandable prevailing view that any change is usually for the worse.
In the interests of transparency I will make this submission public.
Yours sincerely
DESMOND SWAYNE TD MP
Desmond Swayne TD MP
House of Commons
London SW1A 0AA
www.desmondswaynemp.com
From: desmondswayne@hotmail.com
To: stories@grahamrogers.co.uk
Subject: RE: Our woodlands shouldn't be for sale
Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2011 19:27:54 +0000
Desmond Swayne TD MP
House of Commons
London SW1A 0AA
www.desmondswaynemp.com
Nothing is quite as reported. I hope the minister's letter below is of some reassurance. DS
Nobel House
17 Smith Square
London SW1A 3JR
Telephone 08459 335577
Email helpline@defra.gsi.gov.uk
Website www.defra.gov.uk
29 October 2010
From Jim Paice MP Minister of State for Agriculture and Food
Dear colleague
Forestry in England: A New Strategic Approach
In view of recent speculation I am writing to explain the reason behind the inclusion of powers for modernisation of the forestry legislation in the Public Bodies Bill, which has just been introduced into Parliament.
Contrary to some beliefs, the Forestry Commission’s estate covers only 18% of England’s wooded areas. Nevertheless it is of great importance in the provision of access, biodiversity, carbon storage and many other public benefits. Some of it is producing much of our domestic timber, other areas are almost entirely devoted to public benefit and others are a mix of the two.
We are committed to shifting the balance of power from ‘Big Government’ to ‘Big Society’ by giving individuals, businesses, civil society organisations and local authorities a much bigger role in protecting and enhancing the natural environment and a much bigger say about our priorities for it.
By including enabling powers in the Bill we will be in a position to make reforms to managing the estate. We will consult the public on our proposals later this year, and will invite views from a wide range of potential private and civil society partners on a number of new ownership options and the means to secure public benefits. We envisage a managed programme of reform to further develop a competitive, thriving and resilient forestry sector that includes many sustainably managed woods operating as parts of viable land-based businesses.
We will not compromise the protection of our most valuable and biodiverse forests. Full measures will remain in place to preserve the public benefits of woods and forests under any new ownership arrangements. Tree felling is controlled through the licensing system managed by the Forestry Commission, public rights of way and access will be unaffected, statutory protection for wildlife will remain in force and there will be grant incentives for new planting that can be applied for. When publishing our proposals we will explore further the options for securing and increasing the wide range of public benefits currently delivered by Government ownership and how they might be achieved at lower cost.
This will be a new approach to ownership and management of woodlands and forests, with a reducing role for the State and a growing role for the private sector and civil society. At the same time, it reflects the Government’s firm commitment to the continued conservation of the biodiversity and other public benefits which forests and woodland provide. These aims are not incompatible with alternative models of ownership, or our commitment to the natural environment.
JIM PAICE MP
> Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2011 15:31:36 +0000
> To: desmondswayne@hotmail.com
> From: stories@grahamrogers.co.uk
> Subject: Our woodlands shouldn't be for sale
>
> From:
> graham rogers
> 60 whitsbury road
> fordingbridge sp6 1la
>
> Dear Mr Swayne,
>
> Some British forests are already in private ownership, but why is it thought necessary to sell off public property? This seems a long term loss for a short term gain!
>
> I believe in the preservation of a good amount of woodland in public ownership for future generations.
>
> Please tell me where you stand on this issue?
>
> I, along with the 85% of people polled recently, want to keep our New Forest and other national woodlands in public hands. Will you be willing to promise me that you will vote to keep the forests public?
>
> I look forward to hearing from you,
>
> Yours Sincerely,
>
> Graham Rogers
>
> Fordingbridge Hampshire
