The question arose as to who had briefed him. To accept briefs from other than his council or his committee would be improper. It was impossible to obtain a straight answer from him, his committee chairman or the council chief executive.
When asked in public (Assembly House 20th May 1996, Cringleford Church Hall 15th July 1996) about this by local council tax payers he would only say that it was a private communication between himself and his MP and he was not obliged to discuss the matter further.
If his brief was entirely innocent why not say so and forestall suspicion?
A complaint to the Ombudsman was made in June 1996 but he replied that he would not become involved in this matter.
In a letter dated 19th April 1996 Mr Haslam at last writes "My brief comes from the Council who have approved the Norwich Area Local Plan and charged me with the general duty of securing its implementation."
If indeed he was briefed by the Council then there is no problem. Why did he not say so at the outset? Why attempt to hide behind parliamentary priviledge? Why evade legitimate queries from council tax payers at public meetings? Why use the word 'brief'? Why? Why? Why?
We must all take his word. Integrity in our public servants is a precious commodity. Best to be open right from the start lest suspicion be given a chance to mature.
| Top of Page | Home Page | Mail KOHIN | Index | The Takeheart Health Check |