Skip to main content

Comment on Forests Votes yesterday

In the end I did not support the government in the vote although I did oppose the Labour Party.

I opposed the Labour Party because in power they sold 25,000 acres of forest land without any protection for public access. The first time people realised that Labour had sold the forest was when padlocks were placed upon access routes and traditional permissive paths shut off to the public without warning. Labour’s record on defending our forests is poor, hence I could not support Labour's proposals.

I did, however, rebel on the government vote and did not support the government. I do think government policy is an improvement on the existing policy left by Labour. Forests were already being sold under the previous Labour government, the government is improving existing law by proposing to change the law to ensure that if any commercial land is leased off then rights of access are maintained.

At the same time the government is proposing to treat the important (Heritage) forests differently and to ensure that they never end up in commercial hands. I, however, believe that the government needs to go further in protecting the forests. As well as meeting Caroline Spelman I have also written to her suggesting that the model for maintaining the Heritage Forests is improved so that charities can manage the forests on a lease with a peppercorn rent. This is the model that is used for the Westley Vale Millennium Green. It allows the government to stand behind the charitable trusts to ensure that our forests remain for the public benefit and actually keeps ownership of all nationally owned forests in public hands.

Personally I think the idea of organisations such as the RSPB and National Trust being more involved in managing forests is a good idea. The RSPB, for example, have a lot of experience in managing land for the benefit of biodiversity. However, I think the government should strengthen this part of their policy which is why I rebelled on this occasion and will lobby them to strengthen this policy.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Statement re false allegations from Esther Baker

Statement by John Hemming
I am pleased that the Police have now made it clear that there has been a concerted effort to promote false criminal allegations against me and that the allegations had no substance whatsoever.
I would like to thank Emily Cox, my children, Ayaz Iqbal (my Solicitor), my local lib dem team and many others who supported me through this dreadful experience. There are many worse things that happen to people, but this was a really bad experience.
It is bad enough to have false allegations made about yourself to the police, but to have a concerted campaign involving your political opponents and many others in public creates an environment in which it is reasonable to be concerned about ill founded vigilante attacks on your family and yourself. Luckily there was a more substantial lobby to the contrary as well, which included many people who were themselves real survivors of abuse, which has helped.
I am normally someone who helps other people fight injustice. …

Homelessness vs Selling Books

Candidates in elections tend to find themselves very busy with lots of things to do.  It is, therefore, necessary to prioritise things to ensure that the important things are dealt with.

To me the issue of homelessness and rough sleeping is an important issue.  Therefore, when Birmingham's Faith Leaders group contacted me to ask me what I would propose and whether I would work with them to make things better I was pleased to respond with my views and indicate that I would work with them after the election.

The Faith Leaders Group (Bishops and other religious leaders in Birmingham) have now sent out their report.

Sadly, according to their report,  I was the only candidate for Yardley to respond.  The group in their report said:

"Particularly disappointing was the lack of response from some of those candidates seeking re-election as MP for their respective constituencies."
It is worth looking at the priorities of my opponent.
Interestingly today she has decided to be at th…

Millionaires and politics

The Labour Party spent most of the last election criticising me for being a successful businessman (aka millionaire). That is business in the private sector employing over 250 people. It is worth looking at the situation for the Labour Candidate now:

For the year 2016-7 Annual Income from Parliament74,962Specifically for her book51,250Other media income etc5,322.82Total declared income131,534.82

Traditionally anyone with an annual income of over £100,000 has been considered to be a millionaire. I did not use my position in parliament to increase my income.


I have been asked for sources for this. This BBC piece looks at how one should define rich. It was written in 2011 so the figures will be slightly out of date. There are perhaps 2 relevant pieces:
"In 1880 a rich person would have had £100,000 in assets or an income of £10,000 a year, he says. About a hundred people a year died leaving £100,000 and by 1910 this was 250 - "a microscopic fraction of the number of death…