IN response to a letter received from Mark Harper?MP.

Thank you for your letter dated January 7, 2011 in reply to ours of December 23, 2010 regarding our concerns over government plans for the Forest of Dean. We appreciate your heroic efforts to persuade us that the intended changes contain nothing that we need worry about. To respond that we were already aware of all the points made in your letter and its attachment does make us sound uncharitable – sorry, but it is nevertheless true! To help you to prepare a better response, we spell out our concerns in three parts, below:

First, no attempt has been made to explain why any change in the status or ownership of the public forest estate is necessary or justified. We questioned whether the disposal of some or all of the English estate would raise a worthwhile net profit or avoid a significant future net drain on the public purse. There was no evidence of either. We considered whether fragmenting large areas of woodland would offer any social, estate management, tourism, wildlife or other biodiversity benefits. Based on our own practical experiences and training we could see none. Any half-decent management team, private or public, would start by establishing and defining the need for change. Why have neither you nor your colleagues done it?

Second, the present clauses in the Public Bodies Bill would provide ministers, present or future, with the mechanism for implementing massive structural and ownership change to a whole raft of public assets, without reference to parliament or the public. In a democracy significant changes, such as the sale of public assets, should be tested publicly. Justice should not only be done, it should always be seen to be done, should it not?

Third, to provide convincing evidence that no problems would arise from the possible futures for the public forest estate, particularly the Forest of Dean, which can be envisaged from government statements to date, we need more than comforting words. Assertions like "public rights of way and access will be unaffected" (does our Forest currently have many anyway?) and "firm commitment to the continued conservation of the biodiversity and other public benefits which forests and woodlands provide" simply echo statements like "we have no plans to increase VAT". Without tangible safeguards, arm- waving promises that intended changes carry no risks are valueless. So, where a credible case has been made out for a given change, let's see the public checks and balances first, whether parliamentary or judicial, before the change is made.

We do feel compelled to point out that as mature, professional adults we are mildly insulted by you telling us that "there never have been any plans to sell off the Forest of Dean to developers who would cut down the Forest to replace it with recreation parks". Treating your constituents like naïve children is not a smart move for an MP under pressure!

And finally, if we're to believe that all the fuss has arisen over "whether a local not-for-profit organisation, a charitable trust say, might be able to involve local people more closely in the ownership or management of the Forest of Dean" is really "all that has ever been proposed", why haven't you just suggested that a local committee is appointed to work with the professionals in the Forestry Commission office in Coleford? Wouldn't that save an awful lot of upheaval and public expense?

– David and Morag Norman, Mill Lane, Longhope.