Wednesday 2nd February 2011

(13 years, 9 months ago)

Commons Chamber
Read Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Caroline Spelman Portrait Mrs Spelman
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

The concern has in large part been whipped up on the back of ludicrous speculation in the media. I am confident that, when our constituents have the opportunity to read the consultation document, we will have a much more meaningful discussion about the best way to protect our heritage, woodlands and forest, but of course I would be happy to meet the hon. Gentleman.

Some of the woodlands that we are discussing will be viable and some will not, but I can give the House this assurance: there will be no change in the status of woodland sites unless we are convinced that the access right and public benefits have been protected, and that those wanting to own or manage have the ability to do so. We will not accept second best on that.

Barry Gardiner Portrait Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab)
- Hansard - -

The Secretary of State said that there would be no transfer of woodland unless the protections that she has just mentioned can be put in place. Is she aware that not an hour ago, in Committee Room 18, Simon Hodgson, chief executive of the Forestry Commission, advised the all-party parliamentary conservation and wildlife group that it would not be possible to insist that the same management regime conducted by the Forestry Commission to protect biodiversity would be passed on to any new owner?

Caroline Spelman Portrait Mrs Spelman
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

Simon Hodgson is not the chief executive of the Forestry Commission, he is wrong and his fears are misplaced.

The difference in expressions of interest is perfectly logical because of the diversity in our woodland. There is no one-size-fits-all approach. We will look at what works best for each individual site. Our mixed model approach considers what works best for the different woodlands and how we can apply it in a way that gives greater public benefit.

Our proposals will mean that the nationally important heritage forests will continue to be managed for the benefit of the nation. By pursuing charitable ownership for our most valued heritage sites—for example, the New Forest and the Forest of Dean—the Government are making it clear that they are not for sale. They are secure for future generations to enjoy, and we will give that force of law with amendments to the Public Bodies Bill.

--- Later in debate ---
James Paice Portrait Mr Paice
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

On the issue of—[Hon. Members: “Give way!”] No, I am not going to give way.

On the issue of funding, the reality is open for us to see in the Forestry Commission’s accounts. It costs £17 million a year to run the Forest Enterprise in England, excluding research and regulatory costs.

Barry Gardiner Portrait Barry Gardiner
- Hansard - -

Will the Minister give way?

James Paice Portrait Mr Paice
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

No.

We get just a £1 million surplus from commercial logging activity. That is one of the drivers of the change. The commercial timber sector tells us that if it could have access to our commercial forests, not the recreational ones, it could do better and would return the improvement to us through the lease.

Barry Gardiner Portrait Barry Gardiner
- Hansard - -

Will the Minister give way?

James Paice Portrait Mr Paice
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

No, I am not going to give way.

Barry Gardiner Portrait Barry Gardiner
- Hansard - -

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I tabled a parliamentary question for named day answer on 31 January, seeking to elicit information from the Minister. My office phoned the Department today only to be told that it was waiting for the Minister to—

John Bercow Portrait Mr Speaker
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

Order. That is not a point of order for the Chair, and it is not a matter to be dealt with now.