SAVE DELAMERE FOREST

Wednesday, 16 February 2011 12:40

Caution Hazardous Consultation!

A dishonest proposal

Anyone approaching the consultation document for the first time could be forgiven for thinking that it is just what the title suggests: an account of the government’s proposals to sell off the Forestry Commission followed by a simple questionnaire.

The problem lies with the questionnaire. It comprises 15 innocent-looking questions all related to the planned sell-off. Only when the reader begins to examine the questions does it gradually become apparent that there is a carefully laid trap. Anyone responding to the questionnaire will find him/herself being lured into agreeing with the proposals.

Take, for example:

Question 1a) Do you agree or disagree with each of these key principles which Government proposes to abide by when making decisions on new owners for the public forest estate?

Protect and enhance biodiversity to contribute to a network of wildlife corridors across England.

____Agree _____Disagree

Maintain public access for recreation and leisure.

_____Agree _____Disagree

Ensure the continuing role of the woodland in climate change mitigation and adaptation.

_____Agree ____Disagree

Protect nationally important landscapes

_____Agree ____Disagree

Question 1b) What changes would you recommend making to this list of principles?

How very reasonable all this seems. Hardly anyone would disagree with the worthy objectives which the document proposes. But what if you’re one of the half a million or more people who’ve made it clear that they don’t want there to be any "new owners" of the forests in the first place? The "questionnaire" arrogantly presupposes that everyone of course must accept the decision to sell off the forest as an inescapable fact. It brooks no dissent.

Even the seemingly helpful Question 1b is based on the premise that we accept the document’s basic assumptions.

However, at the bottom of p.45 (the page on which this question appears) is the reassuring footnote: You do not have to respond to every question if you do not wish to. Very well, then, you might think, we’ll skip this question and go on to the next one. Here at least there is an opportunity to disagree with passing ownership to charitable organisations, or community groups, or commercial operators. The next three questions offer little room for criticism of the plans, but by Question 6 the compilers are up to their tricks again. This question is all about “the transfer of the public forest estate to a charity” and how this might be implemented. Once again there is a presupposition that everyone is of course in favour of the proposal.

It unfortunately overlooks the fact that to date no such charity has been found. The Woodland Trust can’t afford to take on a forest; the National Trust has made it clear that it has no wish to do so. Apparently it wasn’t even consulted on the matter. Not surprisingly, no other body charitable enough to relieve the government of its embarrassing burden has so far materialised.

Granted the non-existence of these charities only became clear after the document was published. This in turn, however, merely highlights the government’s failure to carry out the proper research before it rushed through this wretched piece of bungling to begin with.

Questions 7 & 8 proceed on the assumption that the selling off to charities idea is now a fait accompli. Questions 9, 10 & 11 deal with “the sale of the public forest estate to community or civil society groups” in much the same way that the previous three questions dealt with the charity sell-off.

Question 12 considers “the leasing of productive forests” and provides four ways in which the leasing will be implemented. Once again there is an assumption (continued in question 13) that these forests are going to be leased anyway: no provision is made for raising a dissenting voice.

Question 14 - “Do you agree that the proposed approach is the right approach for managing the residual estate” – at first sight seems to offer an opening for disagreement, until, that is, one realises that it refers only to the productive timber forests and therefore makes it appear that, by responding, you have already accepted the disposal of the other two categories of forest.

And so we come with some relief to the final question. What a masterstroke Question 15 is! “Do you agree or disagree,” it goes, “that Forestry Commission should focus on the delivery of forestry policy through”…and there follow five principles with which no reasonable person could possibly disagree (though I was a little surprised to find that there was still a Forestry Commission left by this stage). And so we tick all the right boxes and so the statisticians whose job it will be to announce the findings of the enquiry will be able to inform an unsuspecting public that there has been “a large measure of support for the government’s proposals”.

Reading through this document has for me been an eye-opener. Is this how governments always behave? Is it always through such “by-paths and indirect crook’d ways” that they subvert democracy and seek to impose their will on an ingenuous electorate?

Heaven help us!

Robin Ackerley
Delamere.

Add Comment