A PANEL of seven councillors is to be set up by West Somerset District Council to decide whether or not they should receive an allowance of at least £2,000 a year.

During the summer, an independent panel was selected to carry out a report on behalf of the council but members will now wait until January 19 for a further report by their own panel.

The current basic allowance stands at £276 a year while the new figure of £2,000 incorporates the attendance allowance as well.

During the 1998-99 financial year, district councillors received just over £36,000 but this figure will treble if the recommendations of the report are implemented.

The five people on the independent panel included Mrs Jaqueline Edwards, wife of Conservative county Cllr John Edwards, a former ombudsman, a senior civil servant and a clergyman.

It was concluded that every member should be allocated an allowance of £2,000 a year while the deputy leader and chairman will pick up £4,000 and the leader £8,000 a year.

Leader of the council Cllr Steven Pugsley is set to benefit most by landing £8,000 as leader, another £2000 for being a cabinet member and an extra £2,000 as a councillor.

His allowance will work out at £230 a week, which is just £57 short of the average person's earnings in Somerset.

The report stated that Cllr Pugsley carried out between 24 and 30 hours of council business every week.

It added: "The leader of the council carries a heavy responsibility that is both onerous and time consuming.

"The leader is expected not only to look after the interests of all back bench bench members but to ensure his party members performed the elements covered by the basic allowance. This is a heavy task".

It was recommended that the planning committee chairman should receive £4,000, the scrutiny committee chairman £2,000 and the licensing committee chairman £1,000.

The findings suggested that councillors, especially back bench members, were spending less time in the chamber at meetings and more emphasis was being placed on a constituency role.

Three key elements were highlighted that should be reflected in the basic allowance.

They were constituency work, attendance at meetings of committees or panels and the representation of the council on an outside organisation.

It was stated in the report that under the attendance allowance scheme members were "penalised" for not attending meetings.

A Government White Paper expressed the view that attendance allowances should be scrapped as they led to an "attendance culture".

A questionnaire was given to the councillors and the results showed that on average they spent 11 hours per week in meetings.

This figure discounts the chairman and the leader and ignores the attendance cabinet meetings.

Constituency work amounted to five and an half hours and other duties connected with the council worked out at four hours per week.

The subsistence allowance payable to councillors remains unchanged as this was not part of the panel's powers.

Cllr Pugsley said the panel's report was "extremely thorough and well written", and added: "It suggests a very significant movement from what we currently do and there is a potentially significant increase in the costs of allowances to the authority.

Cllr Pugsley said the allowances had by no means kept pace with inflation: "I would suggest that a small group of members look at the recommendations in more detail and report back to the next meeting.

"This would give us time for anything to be operative from May and the annual meting.

"This is a potentially delicate subject and I would like to see the recommendations from the members' perspective."

Cllr David Banks was against deferring the decision saying: "What was the point of appointing the independent panel in the first place if we are going to ignore what decision they make?

"This debate is turning into a farce if we can so over-readily overturn their verdict."

Cllr Pugsley said the council might ultimately follow the report but he thought it was right for the new panel to consider the options.

He added: "It needs to be considered properly and I think we have the chance to do this once and we haven't got the time to fiddle with this afterwards. It is once and once only."

Cllr Mike Gammon branded the allowances as "ridiculous" and "awful"

and suggested to the council that he would like to take the role of leader, chairman and deputy leader.

He agreed with Cllr Pugsley that the matter should be looked at again and a decision made at the next meeting.

Cllr Stan Taylor said: "It is quite easy to accept the report but it is not so easy when we have accepted it to start changing it now or in the near future."

Cllr Christine Lawrence commended the report but made the point of the difficulty of this issue and that the general public would prefer the council not to make a "messy" decision.

Cllr Peter Humber said: "The panel are people of quality and experience and you call this report messy.

"There is really no point in having this report if we are not going to listen to it."

Cllr Pugsley said he felt that the district council would soon be approached by other authorities in the country because of the quality of the report produced by the independent panel.

Nineteen members voted for the setting up of a new panel on a proportional basis while Cllr Hugh Davies, Cllr David Banks, Cllr Peter Humber and Cllr Keith Turpin voted against the decision.