MARK Harper talks about the "exciting opportunity" for

the Forest of Dean offered by the Government's plans to

sell-off our woodland heritage.

For developers it may well be exciting. For everyone

else it is a matter of great concern. Let's not be fooled or

diverted by the idea that this is part of 'Big Society':

shifting the balance of power from 'Big Government' to

the people. The idea that residents might all stump up a

few pounds to own a share of the Forest – when they own

it already through the state – would be a complete con.

At the moment qualified professionals in the

Forestry Commission oversee the woodland and

ownership is ultimately exercised by everyone through

Parliament. They have the expertise to manage the

woodland and have obligations to maintain it as a public

amenity.

Far from expanding ownership the Government's

plans will actually reduce it to a select few.

Mark Harper is in a corner. He is a competent and

ambitious politician who will feel forced to support sell-

off plans despite the massive opposition that will erupt in

the Forest. He is at the heart of a Government driving

through massive cuts not because the economy demands

it but because they want the bad news done quickly and

because the Tories are thrilled at the opportunity to slash

the public sector and blame the deficit.

Cutting this deep and this fast will probably lead to

any even higher level of debt as jobs are lost in public and

private sectors. Rural communities will be badly hit with

bus services, post offices, small or remote health, social

services and small schools under threat.

Selling off the Forest won't raise a lot of cash unless

developers see bigger long-term profits through strip-

mining or lucrative leisure facilities.

Promises that planning laws will protect the public

interest won't wash. People will only trust full public

ownership and democratic control with their most

treasured asset.

To pretend that this is an exciting chance for a

voluntary group to run the Forest is fatuous. Who would

such a group be accountable to? Only those with more

cash than sense would invest in such a scam: the chance

to buy what you already own. A so-called 'not-for-profit'

organisation would still have to be viable. A charitable

owner could only hope to cover costs by cutting out what

the Forestry Commission currently does such as

encouraging public access, managing the woodland

actively, bio-diversity conservation, etc. But it would lose

the added value of the Commission's size in employing

professional staff.

In any event a sell-off can only be bad news for the

Forest community. Anyone who values the Forest for its

environment, its amenity, its heritage, its ancient rights

and traditions and its beauty will fight this plan.

At some point Mark is going to have to choose

between his parliamentary career and his constituents on

this issue. For all our sakes I hope he makes the right

choice.

– Nigel Costley, Regional Secretary, South West TUC,

Flaxley.