I WAS hoping to report that meetings of full council have improved under the new administration but, as a number of members of the public will have noticed last Thursday, they have deteriorated.

The meeting can only be described as a shambles and, if the trend continues, it will bring the council into disrepute.

Some of this, namely the failure of the electronic voting system, was due to outside forces, but it would seem a simple precaution to test it before meetings begin.

Most of the agenda was devoted to a discussion (again) on car parking charges, following a public petition presented to and accepted by the council. The upshot of the prolonged and heated discussion was that the scrutiny committee will look again at the proposals as quickly as possible.

But this had already been decided at the previous scrutiny committee itself, so the debate on Thursday was unnecessary and politically motivated. What needs to be debated, and is barely mentioned, is what is to replace parking charges if they are finally rejected, in order to balance the budget. Travelling up and down and backwards and forwards around a subject does not achieve this.

Such a meeting as last Thursday's needs strong control and leadership exerted by the chairman to keep members to the subject in hand. He is in charge and should impose his authority on the meeting from the start.

There is no room for appeasement either of a political party or of individual members. Sadly, some of the debate was allowed to deteriorate into an entirely irrelevant discussion on CCTV in the market towns.

If the rules were adhered to and members discussed only the agenda item without needless repetition and straying from the point, then debates could bowl along merrily and the business would be finished within the allotted time. The nearest comparison one can draw with Thursday's meeting is to a class of unruly children. Once again there was the confusion over a successful amendment becoming the substantive motion that has become a feature of full council meetings, with some members voting for an amendment but against the same motion when

it became substantive. Again, strong, clear leadership is needed to make the necessary explanations if members find this difficult to understand. It was not apparent.

A member of the public visiting the council chamber for the first time last Thursday would have been bemused. "Is this the much-vaunted English democratic system at work and are these the people we have elected to represent us?" he might rightly think. I doubt he would wish to return but should he do so, the adjourned meeting is on Wednesday October 12 at 7 pm.

– Dr Daphne Pearson, Tinman's Green, Redbrook