IT is interesting to see the usual suspects using the Audit Commission's CPA report, which branded Bury a "weak" council, to justify their usual complaints (Your Letters, Jan 10).

Yet again, it has to be said that the decision to take out surplus school places and reconfigure elderly people's services was a direct response to the Audit Commission's criticisms. They also make common sense if we are to use council tax-payers' funding and limited resources to best effect.

While I am resigned to prejudice, they could add credence to their comments if they had taken the trouble to read the report which is on the council's and the Audit Commission's websites. A copy could be obtained from the council.

We are objectively scrutinised and every year are praised for obtaining value for money from our services, surely a major criterion for judging members and officers. They also comment on our attention to local priorities and the way we respond to their suggestions for improvement. These are not traits of a weak council.

We have never denied having weaknesses, but in the Audit Commission's report the lists of strengths far outnumbers the weaknesses.

So what are we doing? On November 6, the executive committee, which includes the leader of the Conservative group, agreed a programme to deal with the identified weaknesses. This included actions proposed, a time-scale, and which councillors and officers are to be responsible, hardly the action of a complacent council.

The Audit Commission concluded that "Bury MBC is ambitious to improve and evidence in this area shows more strengths than weaknesses. The council has developed a clear set of aims and objectives. There is clear political leadership within the council". Hardly the characterisation of an inept and weak organisation.

So what are we really concerned about?

Councils can not be properly ranked because they are so diverse in composition, size and geography; measures used are too crude, not judging outputs against inputs and taking no account of local priorities which should respond to local concerns. They judge only those issues which the Audit Commission chooses, often the easiest to measure. As an example, in their "environmental" block, they comment on some waste and highways issues, but on most environmental schemes where Bury has a first-class record, they say nothing.

Finally, the whole CPA process crucially ignores the council's financial situation. A study of the 13 similar sized, unitary councils deemed as "excellent" within CPA, shows only Richmond-upon-Thames receiving less government support than Bury. Furthermore, 11 receive additional monies through Neighbourhood Renewal Funding, a specific government grant aimed at improving a council's performance.

The final ignominy is that the Audit Commission itself has acknowledged that on its own scoring system, it can not and does not intend to treat all councils alike! Surely, common justice demands that if councils are to be categorised, there must be a reasonable level of comparison and they must be treated equitably.

It is worth pointing out that the House of Commons Select Committee raised many similar points with the Audit Commission, objecting to the whole procedure and the fact that there was no right of appeal. They also said they were "frustrated by the difficulty in getting a straight answer from the Audit Commission about the value and necessity of a single Comprehensive Performance Assessment".

In response to Mr Calrow (Jan 10), I have two questions: if Bury has suffered under Labour, why is it the only district in Greater Manchester to have increased its population since the 1991 Census? Why not come to the council meetings and see Bury's greatest weakness, the Conservative councillors? They hadn't got enough wit between them to devise a motion for the extraordinary council meeting which they asked for.

COUNCILLOR JOHN BYRNE,

leader of the council.