Forum Topic

What do The Cllrs get as expences

Below is the list of what the Cllrs get the first figure is the basic whicl all memebers get the second is the special responciblities ie chairing a committee and last is subsistance or child care or dependent care..as published by the civic centre this is for the years 2008 to 2009, there will of course be changes since the AGM of the council but that covers 2009 up to 2010, this is what your Cllr was paid 2008-2009MemberBasicSRASubsistence / Dependant CareAndrews CJ9,763.001,500.001,327.64Andrews P9,763.0015,999.96669.95Barwood F9,763.008,000.04276.10Bath L9,763.006,881.7589.76Bath RS9,763.007,559.5594.55Bowen RM9,763.0020,000.04Cadbury R9,763.002,166.0015.96Carey PF9,763.009,999.96Chaudhary MH9,763.00Connelly J9,763.002,166.00Cooper JH9,763.00500.04Dakers AS9,763.001,089.0052.00Davies LA9,763.0015,999.96Davies ST9,763.00500.04Dhaliwal SS9,763.00Dhaliwal SS9,763.00Dhillion AS9,763.00500.04Dhillion GS9,763.007,256.79Dhillon P9,763.00Fisher BM9,763.002,471.13Fisher PA9,763.0014,881.70Fisher PE9,763.0015,999.96136.20Fisher SL9,763.008,172.11Gill MS9,763.004,763.5379.19Gill SS9,763.00500.04Grewal A9,763.006,881.75Grewal DS9,763.00430.14Grewal PS9,763.004,596.85Hardy J9,763.009,321.77199.46Harmer MJ9,763.00Harris BE9,763.003,799.16Hearn S9,763.00Hibbs GM9,763.0012,499.96Hills PR9,763.008,000.0494.15Howliston JA9,763.00500.04Hughes EP9,763.003,625.04Hutchison G9,763.00Jabbal P9,763.00500.04Lal GS9,763.00Lee AH9,763.0015,999.96Lynch PKJ9,763.0015,999.96Malik N9,763.008,000.04Mann AS9,763.00McGregor9,763.0015,999.96Morgan - Watts DM9,763.00Morgan Watts A9,763.0012,165.96148.01Nakamura L9,763.008,000.0471.82O' Reilly S9,763.008,000.04265.33Oulds R9,763.008,000.04Pitt P9,763.00574.56Reid BA9,763.0015,999.96563.29Sangha SS9,763.00Sharma JR9,763.002,709.96Stewart R9,763.002,166.00Thompson P9,763.0033,999.961,011.83Todd J9,763.008,000.04Vaught PV9,763.00430.14Virk JK9,763.002,166.00Williams BS9,763.00Wilson A9,763.00500.04Total585,780.00355,200.535,669.80Rounding difference-1.28500.00abw totals585,778.72355,700.53

Dave Hughes ● 6208d46 Comments

I'm not quite sure what was it that maddened you apart from having to pay tax, in which you are not alone.Your main job will have had a tax code giving you your tax-free allowance and causing the rest to be taxed at first the now-abolished lower rate, and the balance at first basic and then, if you were lucky, higher rates. As the council allowances were a second source of income, the presumption of the council will probably have been to tax them all at basic rate, though if this was your only source of income, a coding allowance was possible. Now you mention it, yes I was charged NIC also even 15-27 years ago, I now recall. If you claimed all your allowances in one go, that put you into the top rate of NIC (there were 5%, 7% and 9% bands); if you spread your claims equally over 12 months, you got the benefit of the NIC bands to which you were entitled. Now that councillors get a basic allowance that is paid in monthly instalments, that happens anyway.The tax people were not, I hope, a law unto themselves - what makes you say that?

Dan Filson ● 6204d

I can confirm that NI contributions were made by councillors as I remember complaining bitterly at the time, now I have reached the dreaded pension stage - I am delighted. I was also subjected to self assessment tax - drove me mad! I could never find out why as I worked full-time too and had a PAYE tax code, the tax people seem to be a law unto themselves.

Vanessa Smith ● 6204d

I hope so.

Phil Andrews ● 6204d

I don't make false allergations, unlike Paul I write what is fact and what has been in the media, and unlike these missfits itry to verify before posting. I do not post blatent lies like Paul and I man enought to retract statements if I have the wrong facts.

Dave Hughes ● 6204d

I don't make false allergations, unlike Paul I write what is fact and what has been in the media, and unlike these missfits itry to verify before posting. I do not post blatent lies like Paul and I man enought to retract statements if I have the wrong facts.

Dave Hughes ● 6204d

You need to prove your statement is true Paul since the challenge is to you not the other way round put up or shut up or face a serious complaint of distrbuting falsehood agaist a fellow cllr. In a public space.

Dave Hughes ● 6204d

Dave, your postings ritually include untruths.

Colin Murphy ● 6204d

Please explain which part was untrue?

Paul Fisher ● 6204d

You know full well you tried to libel and slander my wife,  retract your post as you know the statement you have made is untrue or face the consequence.

Dave Hughes ● 6204d

DavidWe could argue all day on who sits on more committee`s etc and who is supposedly a better councillor but I am still puzzled why you believe I should retract my statement?It is a matter of Public Record that in both 2006 and 2007 your wife Cllr E Hughes claimed the full basic allowance and also £8000 a year as Vice Chair of the Heston and Cranford Area Committee making a toatal of almost £35,000.She was removed and then replaced as Vice Chair in June 2008 by Cllr Raj Bath again a matter of Public Record.You have also stated on another thread that she donates most of her allowances to charitees.So what actually do you wish me to retract?

Paul Fisher ● 6204d

They used to be treated for tax purposes as income received from an office or employment, in this case an office. I don't recall the NI contributions bit, but you as a current recipient would certainly know! They are all taxed at source usually at the basic rate, though it is possible for a councillor with no other taxable income to get a tax code allocated as with any employment.In Hammersmith and Fulham, the councillors up to age 70 can now join the council pension scheme. If they join, I'm not sure what contributions they make nor what, if any, the "employer" makes, presumably it is 6%/12% or whatever; the Council is the bottom-line guarantor of the fund, so this unusual provision gives the councillors a curious vested interest in the fund. If this provision applied in LB Hounslow also, it would significantly add to the cost and the benefit of councillor allowances. But possibly the LBHF councillors are deeper in the trough than the LBH ones, or at least first piglets to the teats.

Dan Filson ● 6204d

Councillors' basic allowances and responsibility allowances are treated as paid employment and are subject to income tax and employer/employee national insurance contributions. As such, the figures published understate the cost of the system to council taxpayers by omiting the employer contribution.

John Connelly ● 6204d

Are they paid net or gross or are they indeed subject to tax?

Colin Murphy ● 6204d

Dave (and indeed all)I do hope that if donations are made to charity, they are given under GiftAid which makes them tax efficient - very simple to do and adds a lot to the value of the donation.DaveYou do no favours to yourself or your wife by not checking what you write as to grammar, syntax and spelling. It reads like a stream-of-consciousness rant. I don't doubt it is difficult contending with these clever-clever posers, but it is worth a try. I am sorry you and your wife have both had poor health in recent years, perhaps you were stretching yourselves across too many activities too thinly. It is a besetting sin of councillors of many persuasions that, instead of looking outside the group of councillors to fill seats on public bodies, they take them themselves and can only give limited time to these bodies as a result, besides exhausting themselves. To fight for Parliament as your party's standard-bearer is an honour. I campaigned for several days 30 years ago for a friend standing against Bernard Jenkins' father, who was also a buffoon. It cost me - I fell down some steps on an estate and tore my suit, totally ruining it.

Dan Filson ● 6204d

It sounds like she's very busy - too busy to be a councillor, perhaps?

Colin Murphy ● 6204d

If you also care to remember I had a serious accident in 2005 quick left me bed bound for over a year unable to walk she contiued forfulling her role as well as having to deal as a nurse to me she has also been a parlimentry candidate and stood against a front bench Tory Bernard Jenkins she spent only 500 pounds at that election but paniciked poor Bernard into spending 32.000 pounds on an election. Liz works full time unlike many on the coucil and has to travel to europe often again she is a parlimentry candidate and a friend of Charles Clark in Norfolk this last year she has worked with residents groups and has managed to get a diss used doctors surgery for the use of resisdents sorry but I am on an iPhone hence mistakes, so Paul justify the double the amount you have taken.

Dave Hughes ● 6204d

Payments as where stated in cllr expences she has been paid as a back bencher. She has chaired one main committee, she has taken the unpaid positions on sdc for 2 years running she has taken unpaid school goversships unlike many of the junta. She has had aperiod of sickness to which the chief whip of the coucil was informed of and get well was read at council, she did not stand down from any meetings or committee as alledged this matter will be reported to the coucil unless Paul wishes to retract the statement if he wishes to carry on he should state his proof of acertion.she has used her money and given to many charities in Hounslow but she would also be to modest to tell you yes and it iicludes HAWS the cat charity. Since you raise the issue of giving there is a collection for the soldier from Hounslow you can make a donation at Hounslow barracks welfare office please help the family.

Dave Hughes ● 6204d

Payments as where stated in cllr expences she has been paid as a back bencher. She has chaired one main committee, she has taken the unpaid positions on sdc for 2 years running she has taken unpaid school goversships unlike many of the junta. She has had aperiod of sickness to which the chief whip of the coucil was informed of and get well was read at council, she did not stand down from any meetings or committee as alledged this matter will be reported to the coucil unless Paul wishes to retract the statement if he wishes to carry on he should state his proof of acertion.she has used her money and given to many charities in Hounslow but she would also be to modest to tell you yes and it iicludes HAWS the cat charity. Since you raise the issue of giving there is a collection for the soldier from Hounslow you can make a donation at Hounslow barracks welfare office please help the family.

Dave Hughes ● 6204d

Dave, it's libel if it's written, but only if it's not true. Perhaps you can enlighten:What were Mrs. Hughes' payments? Was she really ejected due to non-attendance? Should the comparison with MPs stop or would they continue because of diversion of any fees?FWIW, I think the fee levels look about right, assuming that some work is actually undertaken for them...

Colin Murphy ● 6204d

You need to get your facts right first before you post slander

Dave Hughes ● 6204d

Please do not forget the fact that Cllr Hughes wife claimed almost £35,000 during 2006-2008 until being removed by her own group for never attending meetings though he does claim she donated most of it to a local cats home or similar!!

Paul Fisher ● 6204d

Thanks for the info about councillors' allowances, Dave.I think it's astonishing that the total bill is now £1m. Other people are really suffering in this recession but it seems that the Tory/ICG alliance have their snouts well and truly stuck in the trough.I wanted to calculate how much in allowances the 22 Tory councillors have creamed off the public purse since they came to power in 2006. Thanks for giving me the 2008/9 figures (I've already got the equivalent data for 2007/8) - but any idea where I can get the same information for 2006/7 ...?

Robin Taylor ● 6205d

Well for once it created a debate where no one could hide, its funny reading some of the justifications ie I abstained..umm..but I think we have some genaral consensus about the problem of deciding the expence issue and no matter which party is in power it can be use by all sides to have a pop which is just cheap politics and not worthy when there are so many issues we should be addressing..The system weather it be local or national needs to be addressed..finger pointing is not a solution.

Dave Hughes ● 6206d

PhilApart from the dig at me, I actually agree with most of what you say which, as often, is well argued. I don't know anything of the history of Vanessa's politics. I think there is no comparison between indefensible allowances claimed in secret for inexcusable items and the allowances claimed by councillors at publicly stated rates. There is something not quite right about an incoming administration of councillors setting their own allowances. This is quite different from setting a budgetary allowance before the elections for an amount from which increased allowances could be paid after it. The election intervenes and there is therefore the opportunity for a public debate on the issue. Indeed I would rather allowances were like the old Civil List for the Royal household which was fixed for the duration, i.e. I would rather the proposed allowances were set out in a resolution pre-election, not implemented until after it and not changed until the next election. In these days of inflation (not this year of course), that is perhaps a pipe dream but not an unsound concept.The debate about whether councils would function better on the American model is worth having when the dust settles on this row. What I would query is the loading towards the SRA special responsibility allowances - I don't think it is healthy for us to have two separate breeds of councillor - the part-timers on their £8k or £9k and the others on amounts running up to a total of £40+k. If a Leader is full-time, there is a risk he/she will try to micro-manage the Council, rather than issue decisions through the officer machinery. This trend was accentuated by the development of the lead officer or Cabinet member system rather than the collective decision-making implicit in the committee system.As to the motives of opening this thread - without stopping doing this reply, I cannot see who it was, though I think you say it was David Hughes - the information is rightly put in the public domain and clearly the SRA do inevitably distort who gets money and who doesn't. Is it an attempt to divert attention from the MP expenses row in general or the Keens in particular? I don't see that as David Hughes' motive and it certainly isn't mine.  But councillors who have voted themselves decent rates of allowances should watch that they are not humbugs.

Dan Filson ● 6206d

Now how would you be familiar with a tactic like that?  I fear the mask has all but slipped now, has it not?  That's what happens when things get desperate, Dan.Actually I wasn't going to contribute to the "let's deflect attention from the MPs' expenses scandal" thread but as it took the double-act, nay treble-act, seventeen posts to get to the point I kind of felt sorry for the OP so just this once I'll step wilfully into the trap laid for me by a superior intellect and offer my two penn'orth for all it's worth.The purpose of this thread, clearly, is to imply a moral parallel between councillors being paid an allowance to perform their work, and Members of Parliament claiming hundreds of thousands of pounds for the purchase of a second home a few miles from their constituency abode which it now transpires is probably their first home and for one of them to then simultaneously claim travel expenses to and from a property that he cannot cannot travel to and from due to the pressures of his work.  I'll leave others to decide whether such a comparison is a fair one.Whether councillors are paid too little, too much or about what they should be is of course a matter for legitimate discussion.  There is a strong argument on either side - the ethos of public service should never be lost and a point should never be reached where somebody aspires to be a councillor for the money.  Conversely, those who are not either retired or well-heeled should not be discouraged from performing public service by the prospect of being heavily out of pocket in real terms, which undoubtedly would be the case if there was no remuneration offered.  It seems to me that an outside body with no vested interest involved, rather than councillors themselves, ought to be taking that decision.The issue has been further distorted by the introduction of the Executive structure - a regrettable development in my view because, as John Connelly rightly says, it effectively disenfranchises the larger part of the council.The original posting was, in my view, a rather clumsy invitation for others to go onto the offensive by pointing out that some members of the administration receive more by way of allowances than members who are not part of the administration.  I say clumsy, because most other people would understand that this is a rather obvious consequence of said members actually being part of the administration, and thus holding Executive and other senior posts.In a previous debate on this topic I invited the OP, who had criticised Hounslow for increasing its allowances, to extend his criticism to Labour-controlled authorities elsewhere which had raised their own allowances by similar amounts, and in some cases by more.  After weeks of obfuscation he finally delivered himself of the view that whilst Labour-run councils which paid allowances at these levels should not be condemned for so doing, non-Labour councils in the same position should be.  Such a stupidly partisan view is, in my opinion, undeserving of serious discussion.Paul Fisher then pointed out that the recent increases had actually been budgeted for by the previous Labour administration.  The Labour/ex-Labour/wannabe-Labour-again Obtusemobile then went immediately into overdrive by reminding us that the current administration did not have a gun pointed to its head when it voted for the increase.  Which of course it didn't, but the point which was being cynically sidestepped was not the rights or wrongs of the increase itself, but the fact that Labour was being hypocritical, shameless and opportunistic by condemning a decsion that it had itself intended to take after it had won the 2006 local election!For the record I abstained from the vote on councillors' allowances, not because I do not feel I can justify them but because the package put before the council was in my view a fudge which didn't settle this ongoing dilemma in one direction or the other.  It has been suggested that I and three of my ICG colleagues did so in the knowledge that it would be passed anyway, which in my view tells us more about the mentality of the critics than about ours.  The plain truth of the matter is when I cast my vote I had no idea at all whether the recommendation would be passed or not.  We are a minority administration.  The Community Group does not operate a whip.  I was aware that one or two of the Tories would vote against or abstain, as turned out to be the case.  I think I'm right in saying that the recommendation was finally approved on the Mayor's casting vote.  How many Labour councillors were absent on the night?Speaking personally I do not believe there is a moral parallel between councillors receiving allowances which are displayed for the world to see on the local authority's website and MPs fleecing the public for the cost of moat-clearing, duck islands, unnecessary second homes and mortgages that have already been paid off.  If others take a different view then I'm happy to have that debate.  But the naked cynicism of this thread and of the three main protagonists who are conspiring to keep it, rather than MPs' expenses, at the top of the agenda is to be condemned.

Phil Andrews ● 6206d

Trying to deflect from your own humbug again?

Dan Filson ● 6206d

I do wonder why residents from out of the Borough of Hounslow such as yourself and Robin Taylor take such an interest in our matters and both suddenly appearing from out of the blue.I think it is you who protests too much and I am wondering what your agenda is here though I am sure it is not too hard to work out considering you wish to stifle any debate regarding the Keens!!

Paul Fisher ● 6206d

Methinks you do protest too much - you're bang to rights on the humbug charge.

Dan Filson ● 6206d

I was of course referring to the Keens as I am sure you are well aware Vanessa and as it happens I have a lot of respect for some members in the local Labour Party.I am certainly not taking any "moral high ground" at all and have just been addressing David Hughes points in general.

Paul Fisher ● 6206d

I really have doubts that any of the Labour party members in the borough of Hounslow can be classed as 'champange socialists' - they wish! That's just another daft phrase picked up from somewhere to throw at people, however, it is still the case that even if the Labour Group took the increases you can hardly take the moral high ground when you took them too.

Vanessa Smith ● 6206d

I don't know if that is the Liz and Vanessa to whom you refer or the Keens. I have made my views on the Keens abundantly clear already. But your mentioning champagne socialists doesn't wash. The simple fact is that you and other ocuncillors of a variety of parties are pocketing a generous amount of allowances. You put foreward the defence:-- that you didn't bring in the budgetary provision,- that other councillors were claiming them too, and- that what you claim is within the rulesI simply observe that this is just what so many MPs of all parties have been saying to defend the indefensible. So less of the high horse from you please in future. The Keens are in the wrong, and I suspect will be gone within a year, but you no doubt will carry on unabashed.

Dan Filson ● 6207d

Mr FilsonPlease do not compare me to the two Champagne Socialist parasites you so obviously wish to defend because of your party loyalties.

Paul Fisher ● 6207d

"We did all have a choice to take the money Vanessa as did your old Comrades including Liz Hughes and all the other Labour councillors who could did and have"It was wtihin the rules, and anyway everyone else was claiming it.  Now where have I heard that before recently?Perhaps Councillor Fisher, a little less of the moral high gorund on MP expenses for a period is called for in view of your own humbug.

Dan Filson ● 6207d

We did all have a choice to take the money Vanessa as did your old Comrades including Liz Hughes and all the other Labour councillors who could did and have.

Paul Fisher ● 6207d

Labour may well have budgeted for the increase but who was holding the gun to your heads to make you take the money? You had a choice presumably.............

Vanessa Smith ● 6207d

"yah! boo! sucks!" seems quite strong in Brentford and LBH form what I read - it doesn't make for good reading and I have to say that as someone living just outside LBH borders I am not greatly impressed, nor I suspect are many Forum readers (those that have the stamina).Conduct of caseload - almost impossible to evaluate but, boy, you got to learn who of your fellow councillors was not pulling their weight as their constituents made their way to your surgeries!I can see the case for a much smaller council - 10, say, members - but it would end local government as we currently know it and put it more into the hands of self-promoting shucksters (look at the London Mayoralty)

Dan Filson ● 6207d

Linking payments to the length of meetings often encouraged members to speak long enough to ensure the meetings reached the point where payments were triggered. It also produced a tendency for extra meetings to be generated to ensure more payments.Under the current Executive model (with delegated powers) attendance at most meetings for ordinary councillors is largely pointless. For example, there are virtually no decisions of consequence taken at Council meetings any more. Most of the time in Hounslow is wasted by pointless questions, and motions that are mostly of the "yah! boo! sucks!" variety.For backbenchers scrutiny is supposed to be the main vehicle to challenge the decisions of the Executive. However, the Hounslow model, under both Labour and Tory, is one where the committees are dominated by hacks from the controlling party and any attempt at effective challenge is controlled by partisan chairing. Only the Area Committees, with minimal delegated powers, offer any scope for real decision making.Given the money Hounslow now spends on allowances there is certainly a case for a much smaller council elected on a full time basis. At present many of the allowances merely serve to supplement incomes from full time jobs or state and occupational pensions. I do not believe that they have made any contribution to the quality of the typical councillor in the 27 years I have been on Hounslow Council.The most difficult measure of councillor effectiveness is the way each of us conducts our casework load. I doubt if there is an effective way of monitoring this.

John Connelly ● 6207d

PaulOn your first point you are almost suggesting returning to the pre-Basic allowance system where you got an allowance for turning up to a meeting, or for sticking it out beyond 2 hours as Vanessa describes. But a fair bit of councillor work is not done in formal meetings but beforehand and in contacts with officers and constituents. Given the paperwork saved I think I see the case for the basic allowance v the meeting attendance allowances.On "Allowances will always be an attractive target for any opposition party and the fact that Labour actually budgeted for the increases when in the last year of Administration presumably because they still believed they would hold power after 2006 is of course conveniently forgotten when this subject is discussed" - there seems to be a contradiction in your logic. Either they thought they were going to lose or they didn't. Making budgetary provision for the overall spend, and for an inflation-matching increase in it, is prudent. Making provision for an increase in what goes to those on the Administration side after the election but not for what goes to those on the Opposition side after an election seems imprudent and taunting and tempting the Gods. Either way, the general pattern pre-existed the local elections, as I understand it, even if it was the current coalition that voted in the precise changes after the election and so allocated the budgetary provision made before it. If I have the facts right, then the David Hughes comments are a little simplistic. But I might tend to agree about the overall impact of councillor allowances on distacing councilllors from their electorates

Dan Filson ● 6207d

One major overhaul I would welcome with the system in Hounslow is that the basic allowance is paid in proportion to meetings that are actually attended somehow rather then being paid regardless if the cllr is extremely hardworking or as in some cases past and present simply not really interested in the job but love the status. Hounslow is still way behind many Boroughs in its allowances but I believe it is just about right though in hindsight I think I should have kept my full time job as I am now seriously out of pocket since leaving but accept that was my personal choice and it does of course give me much more time to devote being a councillor. Allowances will always be an attractive target for any opposition party and the fact that Labour actually budgeted for the increases when in the last year of Administration presumably because they still believed they would hold power after 2006 is of course conveniently forgotten when this subject is discussed.

Paul Fisher ● 6207d

When I first went on Hounslow Council in 1986 there were no allowances but mileage allowance and a flat attendance fee if a meeting went over a certain amount of time, being a councillor was seen as a civic duty and a privilege. I always worked at a full time job as did Dan and used the time my employer allowed me only towards the end of my time. Prior to thatI used my own flexi-time and annual leave. The allowances came in towards the end of my 16 years, and I do think they are a double-edged sword, there is no doubt all parties have the do sod-all brigade who just want what they see as the status of being a councillor, and there is no doubt you can put in a fair few hours if you are doing the job properly. I agree having a proper job in the real world keeps your feet on the ground, seeing being a councillor as an occupation and a living seems to me to be entirely wrong. Interestingly Jerry Springer of all people was making this a valid point about politics the other morning on BBC TV, he said the trouble with it being an only job meant that you had to get yourself re-elected to earn your living and this leads to dangerous compromises and losing sight of what you originally wanted to stand for election for just to hang on to what you had. Food for thought I think. I know there has been talk of some payment for other voluntary positions such as school governors which I do not think is feasible, the whole point is that you volunteer, again this might lead to questions about the motives of people who would do this only if there were a payment involved, as a volunteer you have no other motive than the support and experience you can offer.

Vanessa Smith ● 6207d

DanYou are quite correct that only one SRA can be claimed by a Hounslow Cllr and that is the highest one regardless of how many meetings you may happen to Chair or attend etc.There is of course the opportunity to not take any allowances at all though I am unaware of that ever happening.

Paul Fisher ● 6207d

I only used the daytime for London and national meetings. Locally the only daytime meetings I sat on were Housing Benefit Review BoardsI'm told that in Hounslow you cannot double claim SRA for being chairman of two committees etc.By the way Dave, in the first of your two posts you hit us with a 110-word sentence. It makes for hard reading. Try breaking up into shorter sentences, and the odd spot of punctuation.

Dan Filson ● 6207d

As another point Dan, you where very lucky to have an understanding empolyer, in my first term I did not and was basically hounded out of my Job every day became a new harrasment untill I left, I was called into the office I dont know how many times to argue over the points of being a councillor, the fact was that I did not take time off from my empolyer to attend day time meetings I used my holidays to cover the day time meetings which meant for 3 years I failed to get a break while on the council, I finally took a holiday in the last year and it was the first I had in nearly 10 years of doing community work.

Dave Hughes ● 6207d

Being able to join the pension, thats not bad Dan, the first term I did we where given about 2.500 and in the second term the goverment put the move to increase the allownces but stop short of saying what would be the ideal or helping take off the pressure of what most see as deciding what councillors should be paid and as you can guess this has lead to cheap political point scouring as it easy in opposition to deride the process, we are all guilty of that even the so called independents, I could go on and explain more but it will on start the muppet show off.We may even get a sencible debate here for once.

Dave Hughes ● 6207d

We got what we voted for in our respective boroughs. Though this is made more complex by floor-crossers.Both of your posts, Colin, *Is that all?" and "we got what we paid for" seem to suggest that if you pay peanuts you get monkeys or words to that effect. Do you advocate better paid (but fewer?) councillors like the Boards of Supervisors in the USA?Personally I think local government should be run by paid officials supervised by elected councillors who are, for the most part, not full-time and who are not, for the most part, paid. Contact with real people in your workplace keeps you in touch with the realities of life more than trooping to the Town Hall as your main and only job. Not having highly paid councillors will not make it a preserve of the rich or middle-class, but it may deter the place-seekers who are only after the allowances, and do sod all.

Dan Filson ● 6207d

In fairness, we got what we paid for.

Colin Murphy ● 6207d

Is that all? As if amounts running beyond £30k for what used to be a part-time or voluntary activity is par?When I was a councillor, which was only 15 years ago, my expenses were no more, as I recall, than £4,200 including travel and subsistence (and even that was relatively high because I had a heavy load of meetings both at the Town Hall, and also at London-wide and national level - I was involved in national pay negotiations for local government on the employer side), but perhaps the whole structure of special responsibility allowances had either not come in then or, if it had, I didn't benefit from it.In Hammersmith and Fulham, and I suspect the figures are roughly the same in Ealing and Hounslow, the allowances for 2009-10 are as follows:All councillors get a basic £8,940 per year, paid in monthly bitesSpecial Responsibility Allowances, which are paid in addition:Leader £35,763Deputy Leader £29,796Other Cabinet x 6 (what a pretentious title) £23,838Chief Whip £23,838Deputy Whip £5,000Chairman of Overview and Scrutiny Committees x 6 £5,000Leader of the Opposition £17,874Deputy Leader of the Opposition £6,183Opposition Whip £6,183Chairman of Planning Applications Committee, of Personnel Appeals Committee, Appointments Panel, Audit Committee, Licensing Committee/Sub-Committee, and Councillor member on Adoption panel £6,183The Mayor £11,992Deputy Mayor £6,183Lead Member of Tenants Residents Association Liaison £3,000Lead Member for Arms Length Management Organisation value for money scrutiny and Leaseholder liaison £5,000Lead Member for Customer First £5,000In addition there is:(a) a Dependent Carer Allowance of £4.18 per 30 minutes (pre 10pm) or £5.31 (post 10pm) for care of councillor's children or dependents when the councillor is attending meetings(b) Travel and Subsistence - public transport at cost, car allowance at 46.9p per mile, cycle allowance @ £36.93 per month, subsistence "at same rates and conditions as employees" and only payable for out-of-Borough and subject t £5 max per claim(c) Sickness, maternity and paternity allowances are paid "in the same way as employees" for holders of special responsibility allowance when sick etc.Councillors may also join the Council pension scheme up to age 70 - I am not sure what contribution they would make, as it is a contributory scheme, and what contribution the "employer" makes. Previously, in my time, you could buy your own pension retirement policy, and I was nearly tempted to do so with Equitable Life - what a lucky escape!When I was a councillor I was in full-time employment and my employer allowed a certain number of days paid absence per year for public service duties like councillor, jury service etc. When I became chairman of the Education Committee I dropped my hours to 30 per week and forewent 1/6 of my salary to make doing the job more possible. I declined promotion early in my councillor career. I took it for read that most evenings and some weekends would be spent on local government work, and lost most of one entire summer working on a cuts package when the Government capped the poll tax forcing £7million cuts in our education budget.My current salary (FTE) is below the allowance paid to the Leader, excluding the basic allowance, and I suspect some of the other councillors wear more than one hat and so double up their SRAs and they too will be taking home nearly more than my salary. If councillors can pocket these amounts for what is a voluntary activity, does it not remove them from some of the realities that ordinary people face?

Dan Filson ● 6207d

Is that all?

Colin Murphy ● 6208d