Proceeding contribution from Mary Creagh (Labour) in the House of Commons on Wednesday, 2 February 2011. It occurred during Opposition day on Public Forest Estate (England).
Public Forest Estate (England)
Yes, we risk a cross-infection of job losses across the Forestry Commission estate with these proposals. It is not only Forestry Commission staff who are worried. David Sulman, executive director of the UK Forest Products Association, called the proposals"““a recipe for disaster. If these leasing plans go ahead, thousands of jobs in the forestry and forest products sector will be put in jeopardy; many businesses could be starved of their wood supply and would face closure as a consequence.””" There is no plan for rural jobs and growth here. The consultation is full of holes. The Government talk about the big society, but the Forestry Commission and its communities are the big society. The Department's impact assessment shows that the costs will outweigh the benefits. There is no mandate for this. The coalition agreement promised"““measures to…promote green spaces and wildlife corridors in order to halt the loss of habitats and restore biodiversity.””" How will these sales achieve that?
Secondary information
- Type
- Proceeding contribution
- Reference
- 522 c931
- Session
- 2010-12
- Chamber / Committee
- House of Commons chamber
- Subjects
- Staff Access Conservation Biodiversity Finance Forestry Commission Forests Ownership Privatisation English Nature Sales Rights of way Tree felling Cuts Woodland Trust
- Link
- View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk
Librarians' tools
- Timestamp
- 2026-05-28 12:14:13 +0100
- URI
- http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_710023
- In Indexing
- http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_710023
- In Solr
- https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_710023