I HAVE recently written to our MP the following text. I am sharing this with you now in hope that you might also write to him with your own reasons for questioning this dreadful sell-off. Of course if I receive a response of unique note, I will share it with you.

'Dear Mr Harper MP: I note you have the misfortune to be Minister for Policy and Constitutional Reform, the very Cabinet office responsible for the Public Bodies Bill. My condolences.

Sir, I have three questions on this vitally important Bill which has both national and, in particular, pertinent local ramifications, as I am sure you are all too aware.

Firstly, how would you counter the statement made by The Guardian newspaper when it observed that "...the Public Bodies Bill seeks to bypass parliament, giving the power to change, transfer or abolish these public bodies straight to ministers."?

Secondly, the House of Lords Select Committee on Constitutional Reform itself considers, in a report from November this year, the Public Bodies Bill 'unconstitutional'. It concludes: "The Public Bodies Bill [HL] is concerned with the design, powers and functions of a vast range of public bodies, the creation of many of which was the product of extensive parliamentary debate and deliberation. We fail to see why such parliamentary debate and deliberation should be denied to proposals now to abolish or to redesign such bodies."

How do you respond to this conclusion?

Thirdly, if – as your website clearly states – you aim to "be the voice of the Forest of Dean in Westminster, not Westminster's voice in the Forest of Dean. I will do my best to represent the constituency's interests in Parliament." will you be holding a local referendum on the issue of the sell-off of Forestry Commission/ state-owned Forest of Dean land?

Previously, although I vehemently opposed your position, you gained my respect for holding a public meeting in Newnham on the Trident renewal debate and for taking a vote on your proposed motion in favour of renewal.

At the time you chose to ignore the overwhelming results which ran counter to your view, citing the meeting did not represent all your constituents. So this time, will you give us a chance to be that voice you say you represent? Will you hold a local referendum on the matter? If not, why not?'

– C. Spiby, St Briavels.