BEFORE the Hands Off Our Forest (HOOF) Rally at Speech House on Monday January 3, it is salutary to read the words of Jim Paice, Minister of State for Agriculture and Food, who gave evidence to the House of Lords Select Committee in November. He said that 'The Forestry Commission is in the Public Bodies Bill to provide us with the opportunities for changes which, I am more than happy to admit, are not fully formed in our minds.'

He followed this with 'Part of our policy is clearly established: we wish to proceed with very substantial disposal of public forest estate, which could go to the extent of all of it...'.

'Well, that's perfectly plain and refutes MP Mark Harper's advice to 'wait and see'.

If a government minister admits that he is unsure about changes then surely there should have been very wide-reaching consultation before the Forestry Commission was included in the Bill.

This is the reason for a Green Paper, usually the prerequisite to a Bill.  We may well ask, why was there no Green Paper in this very important instance? Moreover, in a letter dated October 25 2010, Jim Paice assured Mark Harper that the public would be consulted later this year. There are only a few days left of 2010 and still no sign of consultation. The probable answer is that the Coalition was well aware that there would be a strong adverse reaction to selling-off our forests and wished to avoid ensuing publicity. However, it would be quite possible to discuss changes to the Forestry Commission without the extreme option of forest sales. One is therefore led to the conclusion that it is these sales that are intended and have been from the beginning as Jim Paice's second comment to the Select Committee clarifies.

The actions of the Conservative ruling group in the District Council give some credence to this supposition. They would not support a unanimous motion to Parliament and the Leader is not included in the deputation to the House of Lords on January 10. He appears to forget that he is not merely the Leader of the Conservatives, but the Leader of the Council.

As the motion to send a deputation was carried, even by a majority of only one caused by a single Conservative jumping ship, then surely it is the duty of the Leader to attend, representing the District Council.

He may well be in a dilemma because he is put under pressure by the local party to follow the party line. Nevertheless he was elected Leader and should represent the view of the majority of the Council and by extension that of the voters. Democracy is government by the people exercised through their elected representatives and the voters of the Forest have made their views crystal clear.

Re-consider, Cllr Amos, and jump on that mini-bus to London. Failure to do so may be reflected in the local elections next May as Foresters have long memories and it is a mere five months to polling day. – Daphne Pearson (Dr), Redbrook.