IT WAS interesting to read Aelfric accuse me of mud slinging from behind the shelter of his pseudonym when much of his own letter was intemperate abuse.

I have made public, more than once, my own criticisms of the information given to councillors about Crinkley Bottom in 1994. Aelfric's accusations of obfuscation are thus wide of the mark. The facts surrounding the whole issue do need to be independently investigated. However, unlike Aelfric, I want to see an independent report before I start blaming individuals.

I firmly believe the District Auditor is the best person to provide such a report. He is independent of the council; he has legal powers given by Parliament; and he will decide the scope of his own investigations. Does Aelfric really believe that an inquiry appointed by the council, with terms of reference written by the council and having no legal powers would do better or would command the same confidence in its conclusions?

Neither do I seek to blame Councillor Heath for the Blobby fiasco even though she was one of the councillors most closely involved throughout the whole sorry saga. I am, however, entitled to ask for some consistency from her.

If she believes a public inquiry is the best approach as she says in the newspapers, then why did she withdraw her call to that effect in council? Why, a few weeks ago was the Independent Group calling for the District Auditor to investigate when their leader now appears to believe he has insufficient powers?

Ian Barker

Deputy Leader

Converted for the new archive on 14 July 2000. Some images and formatting may have been lost in the conversion.