I AM replying to comments on the Stanley Henig for honorary alderman' debate.

As I have said, my concern was based on two debacles when Mr Henig was leader of the largest group and claiming to be leader of the council.

Of the two, I am more concerned about Lancaster market than Blobbygate', as it is a bigger ongoing problem.

The summary of the market situation is that the city used to own a site about double the size of the current market. It employed large numbers of small businesses and was always bustling and busy.

The council, under Mr Henig, sold off the site to developers and then signed a 100-year contract to rent the new building back. When the city owned the market site, the rent was of course £0.

Last year, the rent paid was £297,000. Over the 100 year period this is £30 million of local money going into the hands of developers for a market that is significantly worse than it was before. This makes Blobby look like loose change.

The current council is trying to sort this situation out, but it is clearly not going to be easy. So at £300,000 a year for a site that used to be ours, maybe readers can see why I feel passionately about this!

I think it is bizarre that some councillors think that a decision to appoint somebody to be an honorary alderman should not be debated or not be based on merit. If this is a tradition of the council then it is a bad tradition and one that should change.

Cllr Jon Barry, Lancaster.