A DECISION over the level of allowances payable to district councillors will be taken later this month, after the overview and scrutiny committee debated an independent report which recommends a rise in the level of payment.

The three-member independent remuneration panel produced a report which proposed increasing the basic allowance from £808 to £1,260, with staggered increases until 2005-06.

The move follows a change to the council's format which sees a cabinet of ten councillors who have greater responsibilities than under the previous committee structure.

set-upamount paid to the councillors.

The overview and scrutiny committee is recommending to full council that the present scheme should remain in

place. The committee voted 6-6 and commitee chairman Di Collins, under council rules, issued a casting vote for the status quo.

Mrs Collins, a Conservative councillor, said: "The proposals of the independent panel would have meant that the budget for members' remuneration would have increased from £77,000 to over £316,000 per annum.

"In the current climate this simply is not acceptable, particularly when services such as pest control have been scrapped by the previous Independent, Liberal and Labour administration.

"At a time when a number of difficult decisions are having to be made to cut expenditure it would be absurd for councillors to vote themselves a large increase in their allowances."

Guardian editor David Jackman, the Bank of England printing works' head of personnel and security, Stephen Lye, and nd Mike Donn, the managing director of several software-personnel companies, make up the three-member panel.

In a statement they said: "The panel's prime objective was to look at the role of councillors, and their workloads, and try and assess a way of putting a monetary value on the time and effort they put into the work of the council under its new cabinet-style format.

"The new make-up puts greater responsibility on some members (the portfolio holders). Their work and that of councillors with other special responsibilties was judged to warrant greater remuneration than is currently paid.

"The panel's recommendations followed interviews with various councillors and comparisons with the allowances paid by other like local authorities, in the same 'family group' as Epping Forest.

"While the panel is conscious of the financial implications, the members of the panel felt the current level of allowances were not a fair return for the time and effort put in by councillors."

July 9, 2002 11:30