I feel a bit for Defra over the subject of flogging off the family trees - the nation is up in arms over it. But it's not clear what 'it' is yet.
Every now and then Caroline Spelman produces reassurances in the media or parliament which actually look quite reassuring - see here, here and here. and yet the subject does not go away (see here, here, here and here). Let's wait and see what the consultation says - and then look to fix anything that is wrong with it. Or maybe I'm getting soft?
Back in October this blog set out the RSPB's view that there may be some sense in the state selling off some purely commercial, intensive forest plantations and yet we would be worried if forests of high nature conservation value are not protected. That remains our overall take on the subject.
I can understand why the residents of the Forest of Dean do not want their forest destroyed - but as I understand it, the Forest of Dean is Crown land and can't be sold. Am I wrong?
What we may see is that some forest land is sold - let's make sure they are the right areas. It isn't unreasonable for government to look at selling off some assets or to look at different methods to get those forests managed. But let's see what government proposes. Maybe we in the RSPB will hate the proposals - and if so then we'll say so, and be as bolshy as everyone else!
And I have just noticed that the article in the Independent over the Christmas break about NGOs and NNRs prompted a very nice letter from a Mr Crocker from Gloucestershire and a slightly blustering letter from Defra Minister James Paice. Mr Crocker - nice letter though it was - is wrong to say that the RSPB is rich and wrong to say that we don't know much about all those species that are not birds - but all the nice things he says are completely true. And Mr Paice seems to say that the Independent article is wrong and then confirms much of what it said! That's clear then.
A love of the natural world demonstrates that a person is a cultured inhabitant of planet Earth.
Hi Mark,
Thanks for the positive response; I do nt want to dominate this board but last point is that Woodland is Inheritance Tax free. I noticed a Vidal article in The Guardian the other day that had a Tax Justice analysis (trade union sponsored) that suggested nil benefit from this Sell Off to the Treasury. This would seem important in any real analysis of this "lamentable" Sell Off. I very much hope that NNR's and FC will be tackled together as one by the nature conservation and environmental alliance. Re FC I am happy to see some of the big upland tracts blanket conifer forests "let go" but on the whole that we fight a coherent and reasoned analysis that the Sell Off value is potentially almost nil because of the Inheritance Tax loophole and the cost to maintain them both; perhaps 20 million. I know FC is 10 million I am not sure of NNR cost. Damn Good Value. Maybe you could stimulate some work around the core value in terms of recreation and bio diversity while respecting that landscape scale management needs to coherent strategies and to reflect local sensitivities such as the integrity of the New Forest and Forest of Dean (for example).
Sooty I can't resist one final jig ! Would nt you say that there were a lot of wealthy retired people that simply have nt paid in nearly enough for their longevity ! They retired too early by far and we can't afford them. In fact society has been way too generous with them ! I fact I would argue that a whole range of the upper pensions should be cut; the fair way to get these rich pensioners to contribute is of course to raise income tax.
Peter Plover
petercrispin---we are all in the same sinking boat together and you seem no different to anyone else ref do not cut what I want leaving alone,the reality is that cuts have to be made everywhere.I suspect you are the relatively younger generation and I am not knocking you for that but my point would be that houses have always been more or less a certain X salary and the difference now is that whereas the pre 1960 generation put their salary into house buying present day generation priority is all technical stuff and cars etc etc,that is their choice but you can be sure it was always difficult to buy a house and my guess is that in actual fact with interest rates at all time low it would be easier now than at any time if the same effort was put in and of course that generation worked 10 hours more a week so if present generation did that their salary would of course be quite a lot greater.Another point would be they started work at 15 instead of somewhere between 20 and 25 so this twaddle about unaffordable housing is a lot of rubbish.anyone determined to get on housing ladder is quite capable of getting on it today as at any time in history.
petercrispin - welcome. Excellent comments. Plenty for me to think about in what you say - thank you.
Sooty;petercrispin can put whatever slant he likes on it but Gordon Brown spent above what the country could afford.
Facts not opinions are important Sooty; Price Waterhouse Cooper is my source on private and public debt re GNP. The fact that an entire generation is Priced Out of the housing market should say something to you about our overpriced and unaffordable housing sector that has distorted our economy post 1980. Please remind me Sooty how many trillions our housing debt is; this was the cause of the Bank Bail out. That was Brown's failure but also the failure of Monetary Policy Committee of the Independent Bank of England who set interest rates and supervise banks.
The cost of the Forestry Commission and NNR management is probably less than 20 million; money well spent to conserve our key nature conservation and forestry sites both as recreational green lungs and wells of strategic biodiversity vital to our international commitments. I reiterate to you that this should be debated on the floor of the House of Commons and nowhere else. It has not and therefore the Lords should return it to the lower House for a view.
hi,
I have slept on the various remarks and just find myself astonished at the constitutional complacency displayed. let us be clear that these NNR and FC proposals should have been put before the House of Commons and debated on the floor of the House. It is totally unacceptable that proposals on the management our finest wildlife and forest sites should be unclear after the 2nd Reading in the House of Lords. RSPB seems to be content to wait further while these proposals are hammered out.
I am calling on the environmental movement to ensure that the Lords return these proposals to the floor of the House of Commons where they be debated by the elected members of the House of Commons.
I reiterate that this proposal was not in either Conservative or Liberal manifesto; it was not in the Coalition agreement, it was not consulted on at the appropriate point in the legislative sequence. Therefore let it return to the floor of the House of Commons where it may be debated by our elected Members.
I assert that it is likely that the estates of the Conservative landed Lords who sit in their by hereditary right may be in receipt of more state subsidy than either the Forestry Commission or the National Nature Reserves and thereby should have the integrity to diqualify themselves from any future vote on this matter.