Forestry Commission

I heard on the radio about Government plans to sell off the whole of the National Forest. I was a little concerned myself and there were a lot of people quite angry at this, understandably. However, I thought I'd dig a little deeper into the story...

Public Bodies Bill, Sections 17-19
First I wanted to check which piece of legislation was claiming these powers and what the exact detail of those powers were. I was surprised to find out that the furore was caused by three sections in the Public Bodies Bill. I had expected there to be a separate bill for such a large change, but the sections amend existing legislation, so I guess that's why it's set up like it is.

The sections do give the Secretary of State the power to transfer the powers and competences of the Forestry Commission to other entities. It also allows the Secretary of State to impose conditions on the entity that becomes responsible for the forest.

Public versus Private Ownership
I don't automatically believe that public ownership is better than private ownership or vice versa. I believe that there's a case to made for each situation and, after debate and the reaching of a consensus, we should then proceed as agreed.

With respect to forestry I am in two minds.

On the one hand if the forests are owned by the public then we can set the rules and there's a level playing field across England.

On the other hand if the forests are owned privately then what will be in it for the owners? The assumption everyone is seemingly jumping to is that selling to private companies or individuals automatically means that the owner will want to make a profit out of the land (by a variety of means) or keep it selfishly for themselves.

But why does this have to be the case? The National Trust is a private entity. A local charity is a private entity. What is stopping, for instance, the people who use and are campaigning in support of the Wyre Forest coming together and buying the property themselves? They would then be the custodians of that property and would be in the position to ensure nothing changes!

Proper Protection for Public Use and Access
What you can't do though, in my opinion, is automatically expect any entity (public or private) to behave morally in perpetuity. There needs to be a set of 'ground rules' imposed on any purchasers of National Forest land.

These could include:

• maintaining the forest to an appropriate standard so that the levels of wildlife do not dwindle.
• allowing access to the public either for free or for a small sum to cover overheads
• allowing the public to horse ride, cycle etc.
• no profiteering etc.
• probably many other things that a regular user of the Forests would be able to list of the top of their heads but that I can't

The relevant sections in the Public Bodies Bill seem to give the Secretary of State the ability to apply such conditions but there is no obligation to do so and I think there should be.

So I can't really say that I'm sure where this change is going. Yes it gives the Secretary of State the power to sell off the entire National Forest but it doesn't necessarily follow that he/she will do so.

At present we appear to have been promised a consultation on what happens to the remaining National Forest after the currently planned sale of up to 15% of it goes ahead. That was supposed to be in January [see section 2.1 iii. b) and milestone B of the DEFRA business plan] but we're fast approaching the end of the month and still no word - perhaps they're running late?!

In Conclusion...
I look forward to that consultation.

I accept a sale of up to 15% of the land to raise some much needed revenue.

On balance, under the present arrangements and my current understanding of the situation, I'm closer to being in favour of retaining public ownership (at least for the time being).

Further Reading
The Bill continues it's discussion in Parliament. At time of writing the bill is in it's first committee stage in the House of Lords. It has yet to go through the House of Commons so there is still opportunity to pressure our MP's to make any changes we feel necessary.

There are many petitions up and running if you feel the need. Here is one such petition though I must say that I find the rhetoric on the website to be bordering on scaremongering.