Baroness Royall of Blaisdon – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Communities and Local Government

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Baroness Royall of Blaisdon on 2014-06-17.

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what effect they consider that the provisions contained within clause 21 of the Infrastructure Bill will have onthe policy stated in their response to recommendation 27 of the Independent Panel on Forestry’s Final Report.

Baroness Stowell of Beeston

There has been some uninformed and misleading speculation on this issue, as I am happy to make clear that the Infrastructure Bill’s provisions will have no impact on the Public Forest Estate. This point was also made by my noble Friend, Baroness Kramer, during Second Reading on 18 June 2014, Official Report, Column 899.

Clause 21 of the Infrastructure Bill is completely unconnected to the Government’s stated policy to establish a new public body to hold the Public Forest Estate.

The Government has no intention of transferring land from the new body to the Homes and Communities Agency, as the Public Forest Estate is currently in use and not declared surplus. As such, the powers will not be used in relation to this body and will therefore have no effect on it.

Instead, Clause 21 simply enables surplus land to transfer directly from named public bodies directly to the Homes and Communities Agency, rather than being transferred into the ownership of a Whitehall department first, saving unnecessary bureaucracy. The underlying policy intention is to make it easier for surplus and redundant brownfield land to be sold and help build more homes.

The Clause 21 arrangements will only apply to public bodies included on a list set out in secondary legislation. I can confirm that this list will not include the new body to hold the Public Forest Estate.