PETER ROGERS: RIGHT TO REPLY FROM LAST WEEK

I am responding to a news item in last week’s Holyhead and Anglesey Mail. I am writing as my right of reply to a number of points in that article which I claim are inaccurate.

This is to confirm that Lesley Griffiths had responded to me in a way someone rejects an invitation to afternoon tea.

Also to make it clear that I have not received a response from the First Minister other than the standard acknowledgement from the Welsh Assembly.

He needs reminding that during my many previous dealings with him in a different role I would have expected him to have realised that I would not have suggested the term criminal investigation lightly!

I have been dealing with the Ombudsman’s Office for in excess of two years in fact our relationship is such we may well be swapping Christmas Cards this year!

They, like the the Adjudication Panel for Wales are fully aware of most of the details of the reasons why I claim a criminal investigation may now be necessary over another matter, and yet have decided to completely ignore it .

My wife and I have just sat through two days in the highly intimidating Llangefni County Court before the Adjudication Panel for Wales where for some reason I was prevented from calling any witnesses.

A case that revolved around a sealed bid for council owned land which Anglesey council had decided to dispose of, a decision taken after a 12 month deliberation.

They had decided not to build on it themselves because the Environment Agency had advised them that it was on a flood plain.

The successful sealed bid was nearly £10,000 above the only other bidder.

My breach was to suggest a “Clawback” agreement to Senior Council Officers in a meeting, without first declaring an interest, in that I knew the purchaser.

Although to any enlightened person a Clawback clause would have secured extra revenue in the future for the Authority - should the successful bidder have ever been able to negotiate the planning process with regards to the flood plain.

In fairness to myself I have always praised the Anglesey Standards Committee for their diligence in fully understanding the case and in particular the term Clawback.

My appeal was based on the one month suspension for the failure to declare an interest on which the Ombudsman has recently decided he will no longer investigate unless there had been a been prejudicial interest or gain. Peter Rogers,

Anglesey