It was a great shame that the District Council could  not bring itself to inform Parliament that it endorses the local HOOF (Hands off our Forest) campaign with a unanimous vote. In spite of a plea for unity by Cllr Andrew Gardiner at the outset of the adjourned full council meeting on December 8 it was, in essence, a re-run of the original. Indeed, in some ways it was even more bitter, as councillors descended into argument over the meaning of the single word 'privatisation'. Argument over amendments to motions on the status of the Forest raged for so long that eventually the business of the meeting was again incomplete and there was a second adjournment until January 12. Two brave Conservatives did jump ship, however, and allowed Cllr Gardiner's motion and a further one put forward by Cllr Bruce Hogan, to be carried. As we were assured, yet again, by the Leader that his party does not whip its members we must trust that the recalcitrant lads will not be disciplined.

The Leader was also insistent that there is no need to rush to action on the status of the Forest, as the White Paper following the Public Bodies Bill will not be published until January. However, as Cllr Hogan pointed out, a White Paper is the prelude to the final legislation. It usually follows consultation initiated by a Green Paper which stimulates discussion but contains no commitment to action. In this case there has been no Green Paper, so no prior discussion.  The White Paper's purpose is to state government policy and only allow discussion on ways to implement this so it would appear dangerous to delay and wait to see what it includes, as it will be followed by legislation.

At the Community Scrutiny Meeting on December 16 Kevin Stannard, Deputy Surveyor and Operations Manager for the Forestry Commission, gave a presentation on the wild boar but inevitably the ensuing debate descended into a further discussion on the threat to the Forest. Although he attempted to elucidate the position and explained that DEFRA is publishing an explanatory paper sometime in January, this did not placate the Committee or elected members present as observers because it appears that clauses in the Public Bodies Bill may either override or conflict with the DEFRA report. 

Meanwhile councillors are still barred from asking questions at the monthly Cabinet meetings, although members of the public may, as long as questions are submitted two days in advance. As the outcome of Agenda items is currently a foregone conclusion and the meeting is a set piece of theatre, I suggest that a New Year's Resolution for the Leader could be to reinstate councillors' questions. The Leader's defence that councillors can question portfolio-holders at any time does not stand up, because this questioning would not be in public. Reinstatement of the facility would be a welcome step towards transparency.

– Dr Daphne Pearson, Tinman's Green, Redbrook.