HERE is a copy of part of a email I have sent to members of the House of Lord outlining my concerns over the government's latest attempt to line up all public land, including the Forest, for future sale:

I have become aware of certain parts of the proposal that are deeply troubling to me, namely the mechanism for disposal of public land.

I can understand that from time to time there is a need to sell public land or change it's purpose for the common good and I guess there is already a way this can take place openly and in a democratic way.

It seems that the government wants to do away with this and be able to pass on our land as and when it pleases without any recourse to public opinion or any real scrutiny or impact assessment.

My interest in all this is focused mainly but not entirely on our wonderful forestland and woodland which this government has already attempted to place in line for sale via the Public Bodies Bill.

I live in the beautiful Forest of Dean which is currently run by the Forestry Commission, which is a proper public body fully accountable and running in the black.

There can be no good reason for changing this state of affairs if your aims are to preserve our forests and woods for future generations and the general well-being of our nation.

To look for short-term financial gain through changes to control over our public land is to erode and diminish the future, our public land should generally stay public and not be lined up for a quick buck.

The Queen's Speech announcing the Infrastructure Bill was on June 2, and gets its second reading (and first debate) this Wednesday, (June 18).

Last time I looked, only a handful of Peers are due to take part in the debate. I believe if more were aware of the contents of the Bill, and its massive enabling powers, many more Peers would be taking part – as they did in the Public Bodies Bill debates in late 2010/ early 2011.

The Bill is designed to fulfil a number of functions, so many in fact it's easy to only concentrate on that hot potato, fracking, and possibly also the HS2 railway line.

There is also the issue of the need to build more houses. However, is it right that all these developments should take place on the precious little public land there is?

Isn't it our land the people's and shouldn't we have a say in what happens to it?

As about three-quarters of the acreage of Britain belongs to 0.6 per cent of the population – can't they spare any of their land to be built on?

What the Bill proposes is that the Secretary of State can hand over any amount of public land to the arms-length, non-departmental government body, the Homes and Communities Agency.

The HCA can then dispose of it to developers. There will be no need to go through local authority planning processes – the Secretary of State can give the green light without any local politicians or planners' involvement, just by consulting a panel of two people.

As for public rights of way, the proposed law allows any of them to be extinguished. There is no need for permission for easements (ie roads, powerlines, railways. drilling, tunnels, etc).

Any existing laws that protects land and prevents it being built on, appear to be overridden by one simple enabling clause.

While the Public Bodies Bill came to the attention of forest campaigners because it specifically mentioned the Forestry Commission and forests and proposed changes to the Forestry Act 1967, for the Infrastructure Bill there is no need to list this act or others (such as Rights of Way and other protections for other pieces of land), because in one fell swoop, it enables every statute to be ignored and overridden

– P Carter, Cinderford.