IN recent weeks I have deliberately said very little about the ongoing Mr Blobby argument for two reasons. Firstly the council's chief executive has prepared a comprehensive report based on all documents in the council's possession and I have personally written to the District Auditor urging him to take rapid action in dealing with the council's accounts and issuing any appropriate report. While most people will wait to hear from the District Auditor, a minority have sought to continue the public debate - often in highly personal terms. There can be absolutely no doubt that this orchestrated campaign has been politically motivated. Some of the attacks against me can only be described as vicious. I recognise that being in public life necessitates a thick skin but I believe I am entitled to set the record straight.

1. Immediately after the settlement with Unique I issued a public apology on behalf of the council. As I understand all Labour, Conservative and Lib Dem councillors who were on the council in 1994 and who are still members identified with that apology. The MBI councillors who along with the vast majority (59 out of 60) had supported the project in 1994 have not, at any time, joined that apology.

2. The initial proposal to locate Crinkley Bottom in Happy Mount Park was made by a small group of councillors and officers. They persuaded the vast majority on the council that this would be good for Morecambe. I too was persuaded, although I never enjoyed the TV programme. 3. Officers negotiated the agreement with Unique and were responsible for carrying out the project. Negotiation and administration are the responsibility of officers not members. Officers are required to report to committees. In between meetings they keep in touch with leading councillors. Since in 1994 no party had a majority, officers had to keep in touch with spokesmen from all four groups.

4. I only became involved with the project in late 1994. By November a small, all-party group of five members had been appointed to liaise with the officers. Only two of the five are still members (myself and Councillor Heath). It rapidly became apparent that the council was exposed financially. The side-letter had not been signed and that the Unique group were under no legal obligation to help the council out of its predicament.

5. At that time my sole concern was to try to find the best way forward in the interest of the council. Spending time apportioning blame seemed pointless. Given that all but one member had supported the project.; that the relevant decisions had all been taken through properly constituted committees; that no one party had overall majority; that it was the job of officers to advise on legal issues and to administer the project. I certainly did not accept that I should be held specially responsible for what was going wrong.

6. During what were in effect crisis discussions, Councillor Heath never mentioned the side-letter. It was reasonable to assume that she, like the rest of us, realised it had not been signed. Her claim that she did not know for another three years is ludicrous. Had she thought in November '94 that the side-letter was in force, she would surely have suggested invoking it to help the negotiations. She did not and the only reasonable explanation is that she actually did know it had not been signed. Continued insistence that none of the Independents knew for a further three years about the non-signature looks - to put it politely - like a case of conveniently selective, political amnesia.

7. Some weeks ago leaders of all parties met the District Auditor and we did informally discuss aspects of the Crinkley Bottom affair. I was present together with the leaders of the Conservatives and Lib Dems. The leader of the MBIs was not there claiming afterwards not to have known about the meeting... there is of course no way of checking this claim.

8. Since that meeting the MBIs have argued that there should be a separate, independent inquiry over and above the District Auditor. This is total nonsense since the DA has statutory powers and responsibilities for council accounts. It also insinuates that the office of District Auditor is somehow not independent - a serious allegation! 9. Since the settlement the council has discussed the issue on various occasions. All decisions have been taken unanimously. At no time have the Independents voted against the other parties. At last week's council meeting several Independents were absent and others left before the debate was concluded. Those remaining joined others in voting for the Labour resolution to receive the chief executive's report and to learn the appropriate lessons. In conclusion I have no problem accepting my share of the responsibility for what went wrong. I know this applies also to the great majority of councillors of other groups. However none of us should be exposed to vilification from the small minority who are not prepared to accept their share of responsibility. The District Auditor is now investigating the matter and no doubt there will be some kind of report at the end of the process.

Until then there is no value to the public speculation mostly fuelled by those who would seem to to be more interested in attacking individuals than finding out the truth.

Cllr Stanley Henig

Council leader

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