MARK Harper talks about the "exciting opportunity" for the Forest of Dean offered by the Government's plans to sell off our woodland heritage.

For developers it may well be exciting. For everyone else it is a matter of great concern. Let's not be fooled or diverted by the idea that this is part of Big Society: shifting the balance of power from Big Government to the people. The idea that residents might all stump up a few pounds to own a share of the Forest – when they own it already through the state – would be a complete con.

At the moment qualified professionals in the Forestry Commission oversee the woodland and ownership is ultimately exercised by everyone through Parliament. They have the expertise to manage the woodland and have obligations to maintain it as a public amenity.

Far from expanding ownership, the Government's plans will actually reduce it to a select few.

Mark Harper is in a corner. He is a competent and ambitious politician who will feel forced to support sell-off plans despite the massive opposition that will erupt in the Forest. He is at the heart of a government driving through massive cuts not because the economy demands it but because they want the bad news done quickly and because the Tories are thrilled at the opportunity to slash the public sector and blame the deficit. Cutting this deep and this fast will probably lead to an even higher level of debt as jobs are lost in public and private sectors. Rural communities will be badly hit with bus services, post offices, small or remote health, social services and small schools under threat.

Selling off the Forest won't raise a lot of cash unless developers see bigger long-term profits through strip-mining or lucrative leisure facilities. Promises that planning laws will protect the public interest won't wash. People will only trust full public ownership and democratic control with their most treasured asset.

To pretend that this is an exciting chance for a voluntary group to run the Forest is fatuous. Who would such a group be accountable to? Only those with more cash than sense would invest in such a scam: the chance to buy what you already own. A so-called 'not-for-profit' organisation would still have to be viable. A charitable owner could only hope to cover costs by cutting out what the Forestry Commission currently does such as encouraging public access, managing the woodland actively, bio-diversity conservation, etc. But it would lose the added value of the Commission's size in employing professional staff. In any event a sell-off can only be bad news for the Forest community.

Anyone who values the Forest for its environment, its amenity, its heritage, it's ancient rights and traditions and its beauty will fight this plan. At some point Mark is going to have to choose between his parliamentary career and his constituents on this issue. For all our sakes I hope he makes the right choice.

Nigel Costley

Regional Secretary

South West TUC