Proposed all-party parliamentary group for the protection of ancient woodland

[Austin Spanners]

This really saddens me. Having been in conservation for over thirty years I have witnessed, first hand, how many ancient woodlands, chalk grasslands, ponds, meadows, streams, hedgerows and a plethora of other habitats have been lost to development. I, obviously, hold successive governments in contempt for their empty words regarding protection of our natural habitats but sadly, I have to say, government (national & local) and third sector conservation organisations have contributed to the rapid demise of our once diverse landscapes through their non-action. I have lost count of the workshops, meetings, consultations and strategies I have been involved with where fine words are spoken but action is thin on the ground. There are far too many people in these organisations who are willing to stand up and be counted. they are more interested, it seems, in retaining their position and status, fat pensions and reputations as conservationists. The whole business is rotten. There is an excellent video, by a bloke I admire, that says it better than I ever could.

 

[ame]

[/ame]

[David Humphries]

Todays House of Commons debate on the 'Protection of ancient woodland and trees' at Westminister Hall

 

Parliamentlive.tv - Westminster Hall

 

 

.

[David Humphries]

Todays House of Commons debate on the 'Protection of ancient woodland and trees' at Westminister Hall

 

Parliamentlive.tv - Westminster Hall.

 

If your suffering from insomnia, the transcript to yesterday's debate can be read here....

 

House of Commons Hansard Debates for 10 Dec 2015 (pt 0001)

 

The upshot being that "the 'House' has considered protection of ancient woodland and trees".........then the sitting was ajourned.

 

 

 

.

.

[10 Bears]

Excellent - thanks for finding these David. I couldn't access the transcripts the last time I tied for some reason.

 

MI5 must know I'm such a dangerous political activist that they curtail the information I have access to...

[the village idiot]

Todays House of Commons debate on the 'Protection of ancient woodland and trees' at Westminister Hall

 

Parliamentlive.tv - Westminster Hall

 

 

.

 

It's no Breaking Bad but I'm working my way through it in bitesize chunks.

 

Thanks for posting David:thumbup:

[David Humphries]

I missed all this first time around. Being in Scotland I am aware that Wetminster has scottish MPs but has no jurdistiction over scottish policy that might affect AV trees. So I could hassle my MP to get involved but it would be pointless, unless (and hopefully) someone can tell me otherwise.

 

Interestingly Jules, there was a healthy proportion of Scottish MP's extolling on the virtues of Ancient woodland and Trees north of the border.

 

Although there was a 'relatively' small turn out for the the actual debate about 20 (i think), the members below made their collective Scottish voice well heard.

 

John McNally (Falkirk) (SNP)

Richard Arkless (Dumfries and Galloway) (SNP)

Calum Kerr (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (SNP)

 

 

.

[Kveldssanger]

Watching this right now.

[Kveldssanger]

Wonderful comment by the Scottish MP at 14:05:45, where he says the NPPF contradicts itself when it says that building on AW can be justified if the gains of development clearly outweigh the loss of AW. Considering we can never get AW back once it is gone, he is right in saying it's an absolute farce of a statement in the NPPF.

[Gary Prentice]

I haven't the facilities to view it properly arm, but did watch the opening few minutes.

 

I've never asked a single thing from my local MP in 32 yrs, so was a bit disappointed that she hadn't attended.

 

I'll reserve comment until I get the opportunity to watch and read the links

[Kveldssanger]

I admit it's a shame how many empty chairs there are. I wonder if the debate had been on something more directly related to the UK populace (such as getting more jobs created out of thin air) whether the chairs would all be occupied.

 

One concern I do have with regards to this discussion was the request to consider putting a valuation on AW. Frankly, the constant pursuit of monetising an 'asset' (as if we ever 'owned' it anyway!) is ludicrous, as there should simply be a focus on the inherent, intrinsic value AWs (and woodlands in general) provide. If people cannot see the default importance of woodland, and instead require a monetary valuation be put on the woodland to be able to grasp their importance, then that very much pains me.

 

By placing a monetary value on something, we forcefully drag it into the bounds of the very same economy that seeks to exploit the natural environment for profit.

 

I do realise that there are many financial benefits provided by trees that can be measured with the right techniques, though I do sometimes wonder why (in the philosophical sense) we even need to provide a monetary value for trees. The only reason I can think of is to bulldoze through the intentional dissonance of people and organisations who'd rather bury their heads in the sand and pretend that removing trees and woodlands (and refraining from planting trees) isn't a bad thing.

Edited December 19, 2015 by Kveldssanger