I NOTED with interest the editor's comments beneath my letter (August 2) on the subject of councillors' allowances. They contained even more inaccuracies than those about which I originally complained.

The Bury Times did know of the meetings. You did know of the proposals. You did not attend the standards committee meeting despite the fact that the Bury Times was aware that it was taking place and what was to be discussed.

As an "adopted" person in the community of Bury all I want is an open, honest, transparent local administration. My view is that if the people of Bury wish to have a council which delivers what they want then they must be prepared to meet the costs of that process, which is minimal in the context of the overall budget.

Other councils in the region have given their members much more generous allowances than Bury. The independent remuneration panel gave a considered opinion based upon this information, taking a middle road in doing so. Whilst some members of the council may benefit from the increases, the Bury Times has not acknowledged that some members will, in essence, receive less as a result of the new allowances.

I would, for example, point out that a councillor in Bury travelling within the borough on council business has not been able to recoup their bus fares, let alone other out-of-pocket expenses, under the current allowances protocols.

Might I point out that the eventual resolution passed by council was drafted by myself, an independent member of the standards committee, and that independent members do not receive any financial recompense for their overseeing of the council's activities.

I have previously stated that I am not a supporter of the majority party on Bury MBC. I am, however, a firm supporter of democracy and the freedom of the press. If we are going to attract people of the right calibre to stand at the local elections then there has to be a mechanism in place to recompense them for the time and effort that they put into the job and to re-imburse them for their out-of-pocket expenses.

Bury Council, like many others, has an age profile skewed towards the older sector of the population and there is apathy among younger voters. If we want to mobilise them we need younger people standing for council seats, and if we want younger people involved in local democracy then we cannot expect them to subsidise the wider population.

Being a good local councillor, of any political persuasion, demands time, and lots of it, commitment and dedication. For the average councillor, without additional responsibilities, under £7,000 per year remains an unattractive proposition and is unlikely to attract "gold-diggers" wishing to live off the remainder of society.

JAMES LODGE,

independent member,

Bury MBC standards committee,

and audit sub-committee.

Yes, we did know of the remuneration panel's proposed increases. Indeed we published a lead story quoting the figures in our issue of July 12. However, we have no record of any notice about the hastily arranged standards committee meeting on July 16 and knew nothing of its recommendation to councillors, a proposal drawn up only a couple of hours before full council met to consider it. Regardless of who proposed what and when, the fact remains that it was, as we said, ultimately the councillors who, at a sensitive time of public concern over closures and during industrial action by employees, voted themselves substantial increases for next year. Editor.