SIR – Thank you very much for reporting the shambolic decision the Faithful City’s council has made regarding the requirements for triggering a debate among our oh-so-self-important councillors.

It feels undemocratic and it does fly in the face of the local accountability objective the coalition Government is pushing. For once I find myself agreeing with Roger Knight – what a load of old tosh.

However, responsibility for this travesty of democracy should be placed fairly and squarely at the feet of the previous Labour government. The Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act was passed in 2009.

Section 12 of theAct allows councils to make the decisions our council has made. Section 14 of the Act appoints the council final arbiter of whether a petition is active or not i.e. one they need to take action on.

Might I suggest that one of the first petitions they debate is one to reduce the signature limit required? The second one they should debate is the one suggesting a restriction on the number of councils a councillor can sit on, and perhaps a third one should be putting a restriction on the allowances they can receive if they do sit on multiple councils. Perhaps the Worcester News could ask readers to decide? Or perhaps at the next council elections Worcester voters could decide?

Bob Norfolk
Worcester