COUNCILLORS are set to give themselves an 11 per cent pay-rise and pension rights in a move that will cost York council tax payers tens of thousands of pounds extra a year.

Proposals put forward by the four party leaders on City of York Council will see all 47 councillors on the authority get an extra £700 a year.

A babysitting allowance and the opportunity to join a pension scheme mean the total additional cost to the public purse is an estimated £94,000 a year.

The move, which comes only days after city leaders asked for residents' help in plugging a £1 million shortfall in their budget, has sparked local and national condemnation.

Matthew Elliott, chief executive of the TaxPayers' Alliance, said: "Councillors really should be in it for the public service rather than the perks and when they go round expecting 11 per cent pay rises, babysitting, and gold-plated pensions, it suggests it's more to do with money than the good of the city."

All councillors, many of whom have other jobs, currently receive a basic allowance of £6,300 but this will now be increased to £7,000. It will be the first rise in York since 2003/04, but Mr Elliott said it was "astounding" and added: "Most people are struggling with bigger and bigger council tax bills and they should not expect to fund higher expenses and allowances for councillors, especially when York council has a big deficit at the moment."

Ben Drake, the Unison rep at the council, said councillors should receive the same percentage increase as whatever council employees will receive.

He said: "It would be fairer if they accepted the increases they give to their own staff. It's understandable if there is an element of catch-up in what they award themselves but I think they should stick to what they are giving their employees."

The party leaders' proposals are a modification of those by the Independent Remuneration Panel, set up to review councillors' allowances.

All councils have a legal duty to review members pay, but the panel sparked fierce criticism when its recommendations were revealed by The Press last November. It proposed increasing the basic allowance from £6,300 to £8,880 and also advocated large increases in the special responsibility allowances paid to councillors.


Three out of four leaders will take increase

ALL four of the party leaders support the proposal to increase the basic allowance of councillors although Steve Galloway, leader of the council, is honouring a commitment he made in November not to accept the rise.

Coun Galloway said: "I personally won't be taking an increase. My view is that I am adequately paid for what I do. But I don't believe other members of the council are necessarily in the same position and I fully support increasing the allowances of other councillors who have other commitments like to their families."

He added that councillors should also be entitled to join the pension plan.

Coun David Scott, leader of the Labour group said the increase that had been agreed equated exactly to the increases in council workers' pay over the last four years.

He said: "We thought that could be justified but we didn't agree with the independent remuneration panel. They recommended we receive more than £8,000. The basic allowance is a manageable part of the budget and I personally will be taking it."

Conservative group leader Ian Gillies will also be accepting the increase in the basic allowance. He said: "There has been no increase for four years, and I would regard the recommendations as reasonable. We also need to attract people to stand as councillors. I will be taking the increase in the basic allowance."

Leader of the Greens, Coun Andy D'Agorne, said he too would accept the increase but added that the other political parties were large enough to receive funding for political assistance while he must pay for that out of his own pocket.

He added: "I think the compromise we've come up with is the fairest that we could in the circumstances. The independent review compared the allowances in York with similar authorities elsewhere and recommended very large increases proportionately that, at this time, we can't afford."