THERE are plenty of divisive issues in the Forest at the moment – boar, Asda, the Northern Quarter, Five Acres, but the one thing we were and must continue to be united on is the future of our Forest as a whole.

Save the Forest – that is sooooo 2010/11! Surely the government wouldn't try it on again? I believe the assurances from the government that it has no intention to privatise the Dean and other English public forests. What politician would want to cause such a furore after what happened a few years ago?

But when a fundamental change is proposed to the way our Forest is run and owned – with the management, land and 'assets' of our Dean all vested in a public corporation (British Rail, British Telecom and Royal Mail were all public corporations), with the chair appointed by the Secretary of State, with no one except the Secretary of State having the power to overturn decisions over land sales or commercial leasing - it's time to sit up and take notice.

I quote from the excellent debate in the House of Lords from February 12, called by HOOF's champion, Jan Royall, who encapsulated HOOF's concerns. She said: "There are rumours that the body will be a public corporation with an executive board.

"If this were to be the case, there would be much anxiety about the future of our forests and the potential threat of future privatisation. I well understand that the government have categorically said that the public forest estate must remain in public ownership, and I am grateful, but it is imperative that the necessary safeguards are in place to ensure that our public forests are truly secure.

"Establishing a body that could be prey to future privatisation does not provide that security. Indeed, I suggest that the setting up of a public corporation could facilitate rather than inhibit future privatisation of the estate, in whole or in part.

"I believe that the role of the guardians is fundamental to the protection of the public forest estate but also to public confidence.

"The independent panel was clear that their role was vital, but I fear that the government are intent on watering down their envisaged role.

"A right to appeal to the Secretary of State against decisions taken by the board of the new public body is simply not enough. They need powers to intervene when decisions are taken by the board which are detrimental to the public forest estate, for example in relation to land sales.

"Will the Minister confirm that it is currently the government's intention that the Secretary of State will be the only person with the power of veto on land disposals or change of land use?"

The reply from the Defra Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, (Lord De Mauley): "The noble Baroness suggested that a public corporation might be a halfway house to privatisation.

"Public corporation classification has no bearing whatever on whether or not a public body might be privatised.

"I can confirm that we have no plans to privatise the public forest estate. We are designing the new body to own and manage the estate within the public sector for many years to come.

"The noble Baroness asked about land sales. The body will need to be able to buy and sell land as part of its day-to-day management role, as I have mentioned.

"We intend that there should be appropriate checks and balances to ensure that land sales decisions are in line with the body's responsibility for maintaining the quality of the estate and that income generated from sales should be reinvested in the estate.

"We certainly do not intend for it to sell any part of the estate to raise revenue to sustain itself.

"In answer to her specific question, the Secretary of State will have a veto on land sales. There are no plans for anyone else to have such a veto."

He also said: "No government can bind future governments, so no government can promise that the estate will be protected in perpetuity, but we can put the right safeguards in place to ensure that it is less vulnerable to short-term political demands and ensure that any plans to dispose of it in future will require further primary legislation and be subjected to full parliamentary scrutiny."

I would like to see the government put all its cards on the table. We need to see the draft legislation before we make a decision.

As it is up to all of us to decide what happens to our cherished and free land, we should be able to see the small print.

Everyone who lives in and visits forests in England – that's 20 million people per year –should be able to scrutinise them.

Surely this issue of a fundamental change to the future of our forest is bigger than the issues which divide us?

– Owen Adams, Ruardean.