YOU report the "Future safe for town markets", and that the council have five options to deal with the reduction in users.

None of the options seem to me to be the answer to the problem.

I recall being a member of the Market's Committee of the old Farnworth Council before the tragic day when responsibility for council services moved to Bolton.

I accept that this was in the more democratic past, before dictator prime ministers deprived councils of their power and the money to provide public services they would like to provide.

The Farnworth Council policy at the time was to provide cheap shopping by subsidising the market out of the rates, and also attracting people to Farnworth to use the shops. We looked on this as a service to the public.

I sat on the Finance Committee of the new Conservative-controlled council when it was considering the amount to set for its first rates. A member of the Committee (a Liberal), pointed out that Farnworth Market ran at a loss to the ratepayers. It was resolved that the rents of the stallholders should be increased, not only to cover the market costs, but to make a profit.

I was the only member to oppose the decision. The result was that shoppers had to pay more for their goods, stallholders went out of business, and shoppers ceased coming to the town. Was this a service to ratepayers?

I accept that Bolton Council have improved the structure of the market, but people do not visit markets to admire the architecture they go for cheap shopping. Indeed when the market was at its most successful, some stallholders merely laid tarpaulin sheets on the floor with their goods on top.

I suggest if the council has money to spend on markets, they should reduce the costs to the stallholders.

Incidentally, I find it difficult to understand the mentality of councillors and council officials who could, after 100 years plus, deprive market users and indeed "Bus station visitors" the use of a public toilet.

George K Brown

Barncroft Road

Farnworth, Bolton