An open letter to Mark Harper MP

'The Public Bodies Bill and the Forest of Dean:

When you met the council delegation in London on January 17 you made a point of saying that we would be "pleasurably surprised" when we saw the Consultation Document and I have to say that I am pleasantly surprised by the extent to which the Government has departed from the alarmist pronouncements of the Forestry Minister last November.

However, I am by no means pleasurably surprised by the contents of "The Future of the Public Forest Estate in England."  It proposes that the Forest "could be passed (to a charity) either freehold or leasehold through a trust arrangement".  Defra will know that that must necessarily require the repeal of Section 39(2A) of the Forestry Act and, thus, the loss of the Forest's exemption from disposal.  How could such a proposal please anyone who loves the Forest of Dean?

When representatives of HOOF met you on the December 10, 2010 you recognised the need to treat the Forest as a special case; it was, you said, the message above all others that you would take away from the meeting.  You will understand then my disappointment at the absence from the document of the distinctive voice of the Forest of Dean. It is described merely as a "heritage forest" and coupled with the New Forest. 

You have read the 1981 debates on the Forestry Bill and will know that both Houses saw distinct differences between the two forests; they treated the Dean as a special case and it is a source of bemusement to me why if Mrs Thatcher's Government was able to recognise our Forest's unique character and make appropriate provision for it, your colleagues remain blind to it.

The document recites the mantra that there is no place for a "one-size fits all" solution no less than five times but it is precisely such a solution that it proposes for the Dean.  If, as Parliament confirmed in 1981, we are unique and a special case we deserve to be treated as such.

The Consultation Paper entirely fails to reflect the views of the community and puts me in mind of a 19th century attempt to inclose the Forest and to abrogate all commoning and freemining.  A Bill to this effect was introduced in 1875 following the report of the Kingscote Committee, appointed "to enquire into the laws and rights affecting the Forest of Dean".  In the words of Cyril Hart, the committee witnessed "a remarkable unanimity of evidence that the Crown would meet no opposition in doing away with commoning".  Unfortunately the witnesses from whom they deduced this remarkable conclusion "comprised coal-owners, magistrates, verderers and clergymen [all clearly less in touch than their modern equivalents].   Despite what the Committee had been made to believe, it was not the general feeling of the working populace" ('The Commoners of Dean Forest' 2002 ed. p.130). Commoners and freeminers united to oppose the Bill, "indignation" meetings were held and petitions presented. The Bill was withdrawn. Are there any parallels with today's events?

You will know from HOOF's statement that our central demand is that the continuing protection of the Dean must be maintained and that the Public Bodies Bill should be amended accordingly.  I am confident that the vast majority of your constituents and those from elsewhere who love the Forest support this stance.  It will not be compromised.

Given the nation's reaction to the Government's proposals we appear to be at an impasse.  How to break it?  You have promised a public meeting "after the White Paper" and I imagine you will be as good as your word.  But I don't expect it to be a productive meeting.  What is needed is a sensible discussion to secure the Forest's long-term future.  New ideas need to considered and hopefully Parliamentarians will be in discussion as I write.  

With this in mind I trust you will not mind if I make a suggestion.

The Forestry Commission is proposed to be reduced to the role of statutory regulator, manager of grant schemes, provider of expert advice; it is to undertake research, be responsible for plant health and be custodian of the UK Forest Standard.  It cannot do these effectively from an Ivory Tower, it needs a forest base.  What better place can there be than the Forest of Dean where by managing our woodlands, as it has done for 90 years "to current high standards" (the words of the consultation document), it can acquire and maintain the expertise and experience necessary to carry out these functions and have immediately to hand mixed plantations of a variety of species in which to undertake research?  All of this can be carried out locally, from Bank House, to the enormous benefit of the Forest and our community.

Is my suggestion in conflict with the concept of the "Big Society"?  It would appear not given the Secretary of State's evidence to the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee meeting of November 16, 2010.  She said that the people who would give forests the best protection were "the people who enjoy access and benefit from nearby woodland and forestry" and went on to suggest that "the people who live near the Sherwood Forest or the New Forest, or other heritage forests, will have a particular interest in keeping them just as they are today for the sake of their children and their grandchildren. ... I think that is entirely consistent with the coalition agreement's approach to the big society benefits of involving people in the protection of the environment where they live." 

And who might be amongst those people with such an interest?  Well, firstly, the Verderers.  Their court is a venerable institution dating back to King Canute which, curiously, has found no consideration or mention in the Government's proposals.  Other members of our community who benefit from the woodlands and have an interest in safeguarding the Forest for future generations can also play a part in its management.

Contrast this with the suggestion that, say, the Woodland Trust might acquire the Dean.  Firstly, their chief executive has said that "we don't believe that the charitable sector can be the solution to future care of all of the publically owned heritage woodlands, as it will not have the resources to manage these for decades into the future without substantial and sustained Government funding. We don't believe the Government has properly considered the feasibility of this option."  This, no doubt, will be the view of many such charities. 

Secondly, it is curious that the Woodland Trust's headquarters at Grantham are almost exactly the same distance from the Forest as is Whitehall!  I believed the vision was of a society where individuals and communities have more power and responsibility for their own area, not that they should be administered by a remote organisation.

There will be the opportunity for discussion before the Public Bodies Bill is introduced in the Commons. Meanwhile, however, because the Bill was introduced in the House of Lords three months before the publishing of the Consultation Document, we have no alternative but to strive to assign to Section 17 of the Public Bodies Bill the same destiny as befell a Bill introduced into the House of Commons in the reign of James I which "upon the first reading thereof in a very full house, without one negative voyce  did reject the Bill; and in detestation thereof, ordered and caused the same to be torne in pieces in the open house then sitting in full Parliament"

. – Alan Robertson.