Submission statement on the Future of the Forestry Commission - 15th February 2011

I had a meeting with the Prime Minister yesterday 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. 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