I WAS inspired to write to The Forester after reading the excellent reports about the future of the Forest of Dean in the edition of October 2.

'We're not out of the woods yet' was about the future status of the Forestry Commission and protection of the Forest and 'AONB status would bring in jobs' told of a professor's attempts to obtain additional protection. Both stories are linked.

Both of these excellent reports expose one political motive: a strong, long-running desire by the current government, and the previous government, to gain control over the future economic and environmental use of the Forest of Dean and Severnside area.

Rich Daniels, chairman of Hands Off Our Forest, raised concerns about the lack of powers vested in proposed 'guardians' of the Forest.

Mr Daniels' warning of these new government proposals should be of great concern for all who love the current heritage and environment of the Forest of Dean.

Professor Lawrence Moseley, research officer for Friends of the Forest, is reported to say that since 2000 there have been 25 reports on the economic effects of having a protected status like Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty for the Forest of Dean.

Having AONB status, the professor adds, would be required to safeguard that heritage.

These twin reports reveal a shocking political indifference to the long term status of the Forest of Dean.

How under these circumstances can the Forest be protected economically and environmentally in future years?

In 2010 / 11, as many constituents found, our local representative in Parliament was extremely negative in his support for the Hands Off Our Forest campaign.

Mr Harper is consistent. That is, he continues to be less than helpful about the economic and environmental future of the Forest he represents on all of our behalves in Parliament.

Lack of political support for a suitable economic and environmental future for the Forest from our MP is no longer a surprise.

He is, after all, a known supporter of nuclear industry because of his strong support of the decision to go ahead with the Trident nuclear weapons renewal programme which is totally reliant on nuclear industry.

Back in 2008 the previous government, anticipating the need for more nuclear reactors, produced a DEFRA white paper and approached local authorities to bury some of the ever increasing nuclear waste.

The Forest of Dean District Council was approached in 2008 and Tim Perrin, former CEO of the Forest of Dean District Council, confirmed the proposal to store nuclear waste in the local authority area had been declined. But the intention has not ended there.

Since 2008, the need for increased nuclear waste storage has become even more urgent with the proposal to greatly enlarge the Oldbury nuclear power site to become a huge complex of three to four huge new nuclear reactors to be built by the same company responsible for one of the failed Fukushima reactors.

This development would significantly increase the long term need for nuclear waste storage for many years to come.

At enormous cost to the tax payer, expensive electricity is planned to be sourced from the new nuclear reactor complex at Oldbury to add to Hinkley Point in the Bristol Channel.

In addition to licensed emissions, some of the radioactive elements of nuclear process remain lethal to human health for thousands of years.

Despite attempts to find a site for long term safe storage of this highly toxic nuclear waste, nowhere has yet been found to be geologically safe even after 60 years of accumulation.

As Professor Moseley says: 'The Forest is a nice place to live , but if you destroy the local environment, people will not want to move here.'

My own view is that if you destroy the heritage and the environment of the Forest many, who can afford it, will wish to move out and suitable, environmentally friendly new companies will not wish to move in.

If the Forestry Commission becomes a self-financing corporation with directors appointed by government, nothing will be done to prevent the selling off of woodland to the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority, British Nuclear Fuels Limited or any of their contractual partners responsible for nuclear waste storage.

There would be very little that could be done to prevent woodland being sold to these commercial interests because government ministers would enforce a well–worn cold war caveat: this policy is in the 'national interest'.

At this stage, no amount of protests would be able to prevent the process.

The Prime Minister commendably said recently that we, as a nation, should not be ashamed of having a profit motive. However, the government and previous governments' long hidden agenda for the economic and environmental use of Severnside and the Forest of Dean is becoming clearer every month that passes and it is an agenda that puts profit before the interests of local residents.

It is an agenda that will not find support from the majority of the electorate across the community and appears to be an agenda that is being bulldozed through at our expense and at the expense of future generations.

The Severn Estuary and the Forest of Dean are in ever increasing danger of becoming an enlarged nuclear industrial complex and long-term nuclear waste storage depository, second only in size to Sellafield.

Is this the bleak, economic and environmental future we would wish for our children and grandchildren?

Dennis Hayden

Lydney