Anthony Barrett from the Wales Audit Office has issued a clutch of public interest reports, reminding many of the legal confrontations of the 1990s.

Look at the Pembrokeshire and Carmarthenshire pensions issue.  Both thought it was reasonable and legal to agree a pay supplement for senior officers who left the pension scheme, in place of employer's contributions. 

The officers were affected by tax changes, and would benefit, and there was no extra cost to the authorities.  

Mr Barrett says that the payments are unlawful.  Pembrokeshire and Carmarthenshire disagree, although Carmarthenshire have rescinded their decision because of procedural failings.

First, Mr Barrett says that the reports failed to deal with all the relevant issues.  They have not been published, so who knows? 

Then he says that the authorities have no legal power to make the payments.  Obviously local authorities have power to pay their staff, if the payments are ‘reasonable', but Mr Barrett says a power must be exercised for the purpose for which it is given and that purpose does not include the mitigation of the impact of tax changes. 

The problem is that the officers' tax position was the reason why they asked for the change, but not the reason why the authorities agreed it.  They just agreed to pay the same money in a different way to help retain their senior staff. 

Third, Mr Barrett says that the payments are discriminatory, because they are only available to senior people, who will be older (and quite likely more male) than the rest. 

Any decision treating senior staff differently from junior staff is likely to be discriminatory, of course. 

The question is whether it can be justified as ‘a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim' – which takes you back to the purpose question. 

Mr Barrett's fourth argument is that the decisions were unlawful because officers who might have benefited wrote the report, in one instance presented it, and were in the room when the decision was made. 

The officers had a personal interest and in legal terms were ‘biased'. 

But over the years, across the country, officers have made recommendations to personnel committees, and sat through the debate, on terms and conditions issues that might affect them personally, so again there are arguments on both sides.

There are more questions.  The authorities will give the reports formal consideration.  If they dig their heels in, Mr Barrett is likely to start court proceedings: more expense, but to what purpose? 

And there is a tricky point about the payments already made: nearly £80,000 to three officers by the end of this financial year, and their pension scheme membership. 

Logically there should be an attempt to unscramble this, but the law on unlawful decisions, void contracts and restitution is in a state of flux. 

Finally, why is Mr Barrett, who is not a lawyer, but whose reports have plainly been drafted by lawyers, taking us back in time with such a hard line on uncertain and obscure points of law?  

Graeme Creer is a Consultant in the Local Government Group at national law firm Weightmans LLP