I was one of the many candidates who stood for election to Kennet District Council in 2003. I was appraised of the commitments needed and the allowances payable if elected.

It was stressed that the allowances are not a salary per se, but are intended to pay for postage and telephone costs and other expenses.

Presumably all other candidates who were not sitting councillors were aware of the facts and satisfied.

I am therefore surprised to read that some of those councillors who are self-employed are losing money. Did they not take the trouble to work out just how much they stood to lose?

If so, why did they stand for election?

No matter how much extra work has been placed on to the council by Government, is it not insensitive that such a large increase has been implemented at a time when the Government grant is very low?

Who will bear the brunt of the cuts to make up the £60,000 needed? Or will the council tax payers be expected to find more?

Is a financial incentive the real issue in attracting candidates from a wider background?

The problem is more likely to be the timing of meetings at Browfort in Devizes.

Many potential candidates have school age families to consider whilst others are unable to have time away from work to take up council duties fully.

Is it fair and reasonable to expect employers already burdened with mandatory leave allowances to give their key workers the necessary time to become councillors?

Requests to alter meeting times to evenings have been made by opposition parties and others in the past and dismissed.

Is the Conservative majority on Kennet District Council now prepared to enter the real world and listen?

J Partt

Bromham