An open letter to Forest MP Mark Harper:

You work hard for your MP's salary. Since your party came to power in 2010 you have had three ministerial jobs, and have rolled up your sleeves and worked tirelessly for the government.

You and your staff have a good reputation for addressing issues brought to you by individuals at your Friday surgeries.

In Parliament, you have intervened at least 10 times regarding cross-border NHS arrangements, an issue which affects 6,000 of your constituents, you have also intervened on behalf of Forest businesses who may have unfair disadvantages compared to incentives offered by the Welsh Assembly to businesses in Monmouthshire.

On several occasions you have called for a third Severn Bridge (while arguing that high tolls on the existing crossings are inevitable).

You have supported farmers on the issue of bovine TB and culling badgers and have supported a boar cull.

You have used your Parliamentary position to criticise the Co-op in Cinderford and also lambasted the elected, independent Gloucestershire Police and Crime Commissioner, Martin Surl, on two occasions for raising council tax by two per cent.

But – and this is a huge but – you have failed consistently to address the most fundamental concern of your constituents, the threat to our Forest from sell-off, disposal, transfer or whatever jargon is being used in government policy and legal documents.

Hands Off Our Forest represents the broadest swathe of your constituents. HOOF is a completely non-party-political organisation, and we would be writing this letter to any MP, of any party, who we felt was letting down his or her constituents by failing to protect the Forest of Dean.

We have had numerous meetings and correspondence with you, calling on you to get behind us all. All we receive in reply from you is a parroting of government assurances – assurances that our Forest is safe from sell-off, disposal or the 'transfer schemes' involving the Homes and Communities Agency when you are well aware that these assurances do not measure up to the safeguards identified by the Independent Panel for Forestry as necessary to secure the long-term future of the public forest estate.

You have told us there is no need for an exemption from the Infrastructure Bill as it is not this government's intention to dispose of the public forest estate in any way.

The former forestry minister Jim Paice told the European Union's Agri­culture, Fisheries and Environment sub- committee's Inquiry on Forestry on November 24, 2010 that the government had a 'clearly established' policy 'to proceed with...very substantial disposal of the public forest estate, which could go to the extent of all of it.'

Bearing this in mind, the assurances given by Baronesses Kramer and Stowell, and you, are insufficient.

We understand the government's assertion that Parliament cannot bind a future parliament, but the axiom has not prevented the government from including an exemption for Crown lands within the proposed Section 53A of the Infrastructure Bill.

Additionally, this inability to bind future parliaments is no reason to facilitate future actions – including disposals of public forest estate assets – to which your government is now opposed.

In the hands of a future government, Clause 21 can be used without the need for primary legislation and proper Parliamentary scrutiny to undermine the government's stated policy of January 31, 2013 entirely, particularly in the absence of the promised forestry legislation.

It is not just a few of us on the HOOF steering group demanding an exemption in Clause 21 of the Infrastructure Bill for the public forest estate – it is the bulk of your electorate, including people who voted for you in 2010.

In the past few months, representatives from HOOF have visited parish and town councils and received overwhelming support.

We have handed out thousands of leaflets and again the support has been near universal. From St Briavels to Kempley, Lydney to Ruardean, Coleford to Cinderford, the response has been the same.

There is no excuse for you not to take up this call for an exemption on our behalf – the Forest of Dean Conservatives website clearly states: "Our local MP, Mark Harper, believes that as your elected representative, it is his job to be the voice of the Forest of Dean in Westminster, not Westminster's voice in the Forest of Dean."

And yet you have failed to support us all every step of the way – unlike your Conservative counterpart in the New Forest, you did not speak in the February 2011 debate on Forestry in Parliament, and you voted for a sell-off not against as the New Forest MPs did.

In 2012, you – like HOOF – welcomed the recommendations of the Independent Panel for Forestry, but you failed to support us in getting these same recommendations implemented in a Forestry Bill.

You said nothing when, to our great disappointment, no draft legislation was announced in the Queen's Speech on June 4 this year.

The Infrastructure Bill was introduced to Parliament on the following day. Clauses 21 and 22 – as the Bill is currently written – will allow any public land to be transferred to the Homes and Communities Agency and then passed on to developers with all rights of access suspended.

There are also no given parameters within the legislation detailing which type of developments can take place on 'transferred' public land, and also no distinctions between which types of public land will be included or excluded.

In 1981, when our Forest was under threat of privatisation from Mrs Thatcher's government, our Conservative MP Paul Marland threw his weight behind concerned Foresters.

He told Parliament: "We want more than a gentleman's agreement that the Forest of Dean will not be sold off.

"It is a sad fact that Ministers... come and go, Forestry Commission officials come and go, and Members of Parliament... undoubtedly come and go, so more than a gentleman's agreement is needed to ensure the freedom of the Forest of Dean for future generations.

Mr Marland helped gain an exemption in the Forestry Act, as he was asked to do by his constituents. In other words, he did his job as an MP.

In 2011, it was revealed how vital it is that definitions of what can and can't be disposed of are written into law when Bircham Wood, near Coleford, was sold to a faceless investment trust fund because the extent of the Forest of Dean was not defined in this same Act.

Therefore it is absolutely essential that the public forest estate as a whole is exempted from Clause 21 of the Infrastructure Bill to ensure all our forest, its outlying woodlands and other public forests in England are protected.

If Baroness Royall can back us – as she is doing, with help from the Bishop of St Albans and all the support among Lords they can muster, why can't you, as our elected Parliamentary representative, strive to build similar cross-party support for an exemption in the House of Commons?

Do your job, Mr Harper – represent us, your constituents.

– Hands Off Our Forest Steering Group.