Forests
Posted by Craig Whittaker, MP for Calder Valley, at 19:52, Tue 1 February 2011:
I, like many people, regard this issue as of paramount importance with regards to protecting the public’s access rights and enjoyment of our forests, and securing our natural heritage.
The Government has published a consultation paper which sets out a range of options for ownership or management of the forests in England which are currently run by the Forestry Commission. The Commission is currently responsible for a fifth of England’s woodlands. The consultation itself can be found at this web-link www.defra.gov.uk/corporate/consult/forests/index.htm) and I would strongly encourage you to take part in this process.
Over the last thirteen years, the Labour Government sold over 25,000 acres of forestry land with few protections. This has been done also with successive government's. By contrast, the new Government’s consultation paper guarantees protections on rights to access – our ability to take the dog for a walk, go cycling or horse riding in the woodland we know and love – and maintaining and improving biodiversity. The paper also sets out how heritage forests could be transferred to charitable trusts, while commercial land could be leased, with strict protections build into its clauses.
The Government’s key commitments in the consultation include:
· Enshrining in law the commitment that no Heritage Forests such as the New Forest or Forest of Dean, can be sold to the private sector
· Offering first refusal to community groups or civil society organisations in sales of local woodland
· Guaranteeing access and benefits in any sales of commercial forests by only selling land on a leasehold basis
· Preventing the sale of any site in which more than 10 per cent are Planted Ancient Woodlands.
The consultation has been shaped by these over-riding principles:
•To protect and enhance biodiversity •To maintain public access for recreation and leisure for activities such as horse riding and cycling; •To ensure the continuing role of the woodlands in climate change mitigation •To protect nationally important landscapes. The types of woodland held by the state, in the form of the Forestry Commission, generally fall into the following categories; heritage forests, small scale local woodlands and large commercially valuable forests. Clearly local people will have a strong view as to what category woodland near them falls into – heritage, local woodland or commercial sites – and they will have an opportunity to get involved. Any land transferred to a new ownership or management will be subject to the same strict legal controls that are already in place including country rights of way protection, planning restrictions, wildlife conservation laws and felling licence requirements.
I would strongly encourage you to take part in the consultation process. The Government’s response to this will be published in the summer.
Having spoken to the Secretary of State and to Ministers they assure me that we will not see what has happened under previous governments where land sold on has then been closed by the new owners for public access. In fact, the new government has already stpooed this process with sales after March 2011 so we will not see a repeat of what happened under the last government and access denied to the public. Thank you for your continued support and letters on this subject.
Craig Whittaker MP - Calder Valley
Comments
If you are subscribed to HearFromYourMP in this constituency,
log in to post a reply.
Otherwise, if you live in the UK,
sign up in order to
HearFromYourMP.
Posted by Michael Piggott, 09:37, Wed 2 February 2011: (Is this post abusive?) #
Absolutely not.
There is absolutely no good reason to sell off any publicly-owned forests.
The only reason the government wants to do this is ideological: they want to foist full-on capitalism into every area of our lives, including where it is detrimental to do so: the utilities (that particular heinous policy being started by Thatcher), the railways (privatisation continued by a very right-wing Labour government) and the Health Service. These policies are socially harmful, they will hurt people, they are wrong and they are evil.
The government does not have a mandate for such policies and is therefore an illegitimate government. I am in favour of bringing the government down, with mass demonstrations and a general strike. Egypt is showing the way!
Posted by Dr Andrew Warstat, 10:55, Wed 2 February 2011: (Is this post abusive?) #
Dame Fiona Reynold, the director of the National Trust, has described the government's plans as "a watershed moment in the history of the nation" - what Craig Whittaker is describing is, in fact, the biggest change in land ownership in eighty years.
What the Conservative led government is proposing is not, therefore, just a continuation of existing procedures for managing English forestry - what this government is doing is privatising public woodland.
On a more basic level there are massive uncertainties in the government's proposals:
Where does the money go from any land sales? Not, I suspect, back into woodland management.
what is there to stop commercial interests/private companies 'cherry picking' the most financially choice sites, and leaving local charities to 'pick up' the rest?
Also, what measures are being put into place to stop private landowners using any new purchases as a way of avoiding tax?
Any revenue generated by this sale of land will probably also be quite negligible, however, but the disappearance of publicly owned forestry will be irreversible - we cannot ever expect to get any of the land sold by this government back into the public sphere.
Craig Whittaker's support for these measure is very sad and shows a lack of empathy for what real voters want - listen to your constituents, Craig, and don't sell our woods!
Posted by Ian Whitehead, 12:18, Wed 2 February 2011: (Is this post abusive?) #
"We aren't doing it as badly as the Labour Government did" - this not a reason for selling our forests.
I do understand putting restrictions on the lease is better than perhaps what has happened in the past.
I am however completely opposed to the selling of these forests, you do not have a mandate from the British people to do this and they are not yours to sell, they belong to the 60 million of us.
The Forestry Commission manages these well already and also has the expertise and tools to do so, charitable trusts are likely not to have this infrastructure.
I am disappointed with you as my MP Craig, I feel as a new MP you are only interested in your career and will be toeing the party line for the foreseeable future.
Posted by Dr Andrew Warstat, 12:36, Wed 2 February 2011: (Is this post abusive?) #
Further to my previous post about how the sale of public forests will be financially 'negligible:
A recent Department for Environment Farming and Rural Affairs (Defra) and Forestry Commission study shows that the financial 'benefit' from the sale of public forests will be £655m; compare this figure to the anticipated cost: £679m over 20 years.
If the government is going to make practically no money from this sale, what's the reason for selling the forests?
What's your answer Craig?
Posted by John Turnbull, 16:50, Wed 2 February 2011: (Is this post abusive?) #
What I would object to is commercial farming of large tracts of same species trees, making the landscape boring, if not ugly, like the Forestry Commission has already spoilt many areas. Commercial operations should be requred to make plantations more visually appealing and have a selection of species farmed in any one area. Giving a local voice to operating them is on balance, probably better than the current situation.
Posted by Alistair Kimpton, 19:06, Wed 2 February 2011: (Is this post abusive?) #
How did you get my email address. Take me off this database immediately. I don't want to hear anything of what you have to say.
Posted by Craig Whittaker, 20:35, Thu 3 February 2011: (Is this post abusive?) #
Thanks for the replies and indeed discussion. Let me see if I can answer some of the points;
Michael: What about the fact that it just may ensure the long term sustainibilty of our forests? Successive Governments (not just the last one) sold swaithes of forest land, freehold with no ties attached at all. This just may stop that happening
Andrew: Nobody has ever said that this is a money making excercise! The proposals guarantee funding continues. In fact some of the smaller sites which local people will 100% be given preference over anybody else to take over, can even be asset transfered (like we recently saw with Hebden Bridge Town Hall). As for 'Cherry Picking', well the 18% of woodlands that are in public ownership are classified into many areas. Commercial, Heritage etc. so of course private companies will bid for those which are run on a commercial basis. Is it right that the Government grows and sells Christmas trees for example? Ok, I know these commercial sites do more than that, but still sometimes the government are not the best people to run commercial enterprise. These proposals are not for selling off the freehold they will be leasehold with the Forestry Commission still ensuring all current and extended access rights remain as will be part of the lease agreement. Not quite sure how these will be used as a tax avoidance scheme for business, but I dare say there won't be much of a profit in most of them.
Alistair: I didn't get your email address! You signed up!
Posted by stephen king, 19:51, Sat 5 February 2011: (Is this post abusive?) #
DO NOT SELL
No good reason to sell off any publicly-owned forests.
Posted by Ian Whitehead, 12:06, Tue 1 March 2011: (Is this post abusive?) #
Craig,
"I'm sorry. We got this one wrong, but we have listened to people's concerns." - Caroline Spelman
Just out of interest, do you also now feel you got this one wrong?
Posted by Craig Whittaker, 12:49, Wed 2 March 2011: (Is this post abusive?) #
Dear Ian
As always it is good to hear from you
I believe it is vitally important we get better access protection and better wildlife habitats in the future. All of us have seen or read about the legacy of forest sales which took place under the previous Government with inadequate protections that led to reduced access to our woodland, and I know Ministers are determined not to let that happen again. However, that important discussion was drowned out by the considerable public anxiety over access rights and sadly at times the exploitation of people’s unfounded fears by our political opponents.
The Government has listened to the feedback on this important issue, and it is acting on that feedback by doing three things, which I hope you will join me in welcoming: • Removing the clauses from the Public Bodies Bill which would permit publicly owned forests to be transferred into different ownership • Closing the consultation on the Future of the Public Forestry Estate (sadly I think prematurely) • Setting up a panel of independent experts to consider how we can better protect our woodlands for the future as part of broader forestry policy
I very much hope that now the Government has responded to these concerns, removed the relevant powers from the Public Bodies Bill and given its clear assurances over the questions of access and ownership, we can get on with the important discussion about how to improve the quality and quantity of our woodlands. To that end, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has asked a panel of independent experts to consider how best we can meet the challenges of improving access to woodlands, improving the wildlife habitat offered by our woodlands and safeguarding our woodlands for future years.
Craig
Posted by Ian Whitehead, 12:15, Fri 1 April 2011: (Is this post abusive?) #
Dear Craig,
I love hearing from you. I'll interpret this as a yes.
Kind Regards,
Ian