THE editor evidently wishes to know the reasons why councillors in Bury get an allowance, other than as a means of attracting people into local politics.

As chairman of the Independent Remuneration Panel for Bury, I would wish to assure him they are many and varied. The principle of allowances has been established since 1974 and the reasons for giving them then is as relevant today. There is evidence of councillors losing income from their jobs and losing promotion prospects. These issues need to reflected in any scheme of allowances.

Local government is a big and complex set of businesses. Bury employs 9,000 staff and has an annual budget of more than £200 million. The services are many, complex and frequently sensitive. These are big responsibilities to rest on the shoulders of 48 men and women. There is no reason why they should not receive recompense for these duties.

Additionally, the executive and other senior posts consume a considerable amount of time, meaning their absence from other types of employment. They should also be compensated for this.

Bury wants the best council representatives, now and in the future. Why exclude those who have careers? Bury must attract the best councillors and part of the allowance is designed to overcome any barriers which may discourage the best from putting themselves forward for election.

The Panel recommended that Bury councillors receive the average of other Greater Manchester authorities. Is that unreasonable?

COLIN SMITH OBE,

chairman, Independent

Remuneration Panel.