How dramatic! The Prime Minister kills off his own policy in a brutal and public manner (BBC, Guardian, Independent).
The RSPB is quoted as follows in the Independent: "If the Government abandons the policy, that is fine by us. This whole debate has shown the public care about forests and how we are going to have better ones in the future.".
The consultation on the future of forests will be scrapped (does that mean government is not interested in our views on the subject any more?), some of the clauses from the Public Bodies Bill will be removed (but it remains an awful Bill) and a panel of experts will be set up to look at access and biodiversity issues within publicly owned woodland (and presumably non-woodland areas owned or managed by the Forestry Commission).
This story has a long way to go. After such a public outcry the status quo is no longer an option, but government no longer wants to know what you think on the subject. Hmmm.
This is a defeat for Big Society as an idea - isn't that the Prime Minister's big idea? If a forest sell-off is no longer going to happen then the State is going to remain as a major player in the business of growing commercial timber crops. What happened to Small Government and what are the implications for all other aspects of the Government's Small Government/Big Society programme?
The Public Bodies Bill will be amended - but remains a fundamentally awful Bill which would allow any future government huge powers to abolish, merge or amend public bodies, many of them Defra bodies, into the future. At least Defra was consulting on its radical Big Society plans for forests - the Public Bodies Bill would allow many equally dramatic and controversial measures to be made without public consultation.
Are forestry sales now halted? I'm not sure we know. Will those sales that were put on-hold be allowed to proceed now? They were put on hold because it was thought foolish to go ahead with sales when government was consulting on the added safeguards that were thought to be needed to protect their wildlife, and access to those woods. Government is no longer consulting on that issue. So...?
And what does this mean for Defra's budget? Were the projected income figures from forest sales built into Defra's CSR settlement with the Treasury? I suspect they were. So is there now a hole in Defra's budget? I suspect there is. What will be the knock-on environmental impacts of that budgetary shift?
And the status quo is rarely good enough. The mixing up of making a buck and delivering a public service that is the current Forestry Commission is too peculiar to last. We welcome the setting up of an expert panel, and the RSPB would be keen to play a part in its work, but we will have to see what is its remit. It should be allowed to look at the role of the Forestry Commission and see whether its current remit is well-suited to the delivery of public access and a richer wildlife in our publicly owned forests, heaths and grasslands.
And what does this mean for National Nature Reserves? What is their future now?
As I say, this issue has a long way to go. How many people will stick with it for the long run? The RSPB will.
A love of the natural world demonstrates that a person is a cultured inhabitant of planet Earth.
“This is a defeat for Big Society as an idea”
Now who’s talking rubbish?
Just a shade over-excited methinks – young Mark!
BATS, BADGERS, BIRCH OR BANKRUPTCY?
“Bats scupper big wheel plan” - York Press
“PLANS to build a big wheel behind York Art Gallery have been dramatically abandoned - because of bats.
York Museums Trust has withdrawn its plans for a 53-metre wheel, because it couldn't guarantee that the scheme wouldn't destroy possible bat colonies in the existing buildings on the site.
Full bat surveys can only be carried out from mid-May onwards, so although the Trust may resubmit the plans, their hopes of operating by Easter are now quashed.”
THE MOB RULES AGAIN
Roll on Christmas!
PS - Wasn’t it Robbie Burns who said ‘if a bat can’t miss a slow moving ‘Big Wheel’ - what’s it doing flying about at night?
This whole unfortunate process came to public knowledge with the Forest Minister basically saying that the Govt could sell 100,000 acres of forests under current legislation but to sell off the rest would require a change in legislation. "That's the reason for it" he said. I am over the moon that the Govt appears to have halted the major element of this but there still remains that 100,000 acres (15%) that appear to be part of a sell off without consultation. According to the BBC, the opposition are saying that starts in April. As you say Mark, that is now without consultation. So 85% there. Now is the time to sit round the table and discuss 100% of the forests, Forestry Commission and everthing you refer to above.
The Cotswold Water park sightings website
My Flicker page
The Conservative party has a history of selling off forestry commission land . I wonder if this change of policy is just unfinished business.
DC
I think your proposals (and my comments ) on your earlier blog this morning Mark are just as valid in all this temporary turbulence and I knew the RSPB would stick in there and be playing its part.
Regarding the Public Bodies Bill which seeks to grant much too much power in the hands of just one, or a few ministers, without proper consultation, or the opportunity to publicly debate each important change, I gather there is now a Government web site where the general public can comment on any bill or bills proceeding through Parliament. However, I am not sure of its web site address. As you say Mark, at least DEFRA consulted on the forest issues much to their credit. Lessons should be learnt from the "forests" and the Public Bodies Bill scraped, preferably, or as minimum at least be subject to full public consultation in a similar way. With the debate about forests there is the danger this bad bill will sneek through without much public notice.
redkite