Almost £900,000 in expenses and allowances was paid out to councillors during the last financial year, according to information released this week.
The £885,472.14 total for 2023/24 is slightly lower than the previous year when the 54 councillors received allowances and expenses totalling £912,640.37.
The latest figures include the final month of allowances for former councillors who either stood down or were not re-elected in May 2023, and the first 11 months served by new councillors.
Each councillor receives a basic allowance of £13,593.36, with more for those with special responsibilities such as the leader of the council, the deputy leaders, those chairing committees and other party leaders.
The council’s political leader receives the largest additional allowance of £24,813.33 for 11 months to councillor Bella Sankey.
Her total allowances and expenses for the year came to £38,609.39. She claimed £64.40 in travel costs and expenses, and was the only councillor to claim dependent carer’s allowance of £411.60 for her two young children.
Councillors can make claims up to a maximum of £9 an hour for each child for the duration of meetings, plus one hour of travel time to and from meetings.
Councillor Sankey also had a £273.30 deduction for either a bus pass or parking permit.
Councillor Leslie Pumm was the only other councillor who claimed for travel and subsistence expenses of £38.45.
Twenty-eight of the 54 councillors had money deducted to cover the cost of bus passes and parking permits totalling £7,274.67.
Councillor expenses were published later than the June deadline, two months after the end of the financial year, promised by former council leader Phélim Mac Cafferty in 2022, after the council took five months to reveal the details.
A spokesperson for Brighton and Hove City Council said: “As a local authority we pride ourselves on being open and honest with residents about our finances.
“This includes publishing details of member allowances and expenses claimed by councillors.
“We recently introduced a new system to help streamline this process, which required some additional time to validate the information, but member allowances for the financial year ending 5 April 2024 have now been published on our website.
“It is important residents see the council being transparent about issues like this and we are committed to being just that.”
A drop in the ocean compared to the loss yet to come from the collapse of the i360
Also a drop in the ocean compared to the more than £124 million 30 year Veolia PFI contract the council took out around 2003, it’s limited what can be recycled in the city, and from everything I’ve heard, it’s been dreadful value for money for decades. Easy to criticise the i360, but poor decision making runs deep at the council, it has a long history, and it is cross party.
Jason KitKat and his ship of fools settled the people of Brighton and Hove with the i360. I pointed out at the time the massive conflict of interest with him being on the board of Coast to capital at the same time as being the leader of Brighton and Hove Council. This was ignored and now you see the mess. As far as I’m concerned we should #sendkitcatthebill
I believe in our run the IT department at The cabinet office So we know where he is.
Kitcat should be in prison
I have absolutely no problem with expenses. The basic isn’t enough to live off, and these expenses paid allow a much greater variety of people into positions like Ward Councillors.
I don’t have a problem with expenses as a whole because councillors need to be paid an income or equivalent for the work they do. But I do have a problem with the openness and transparency of what’s declared. I’ve heard Bella Sankey say at council meetings that all Labour councillors are members of trade unions (I have no problem with union membership – unions do lots of great work), but not all councillors have recorded this on their declaration of interests – this becomes a problem when issues like City clean are discussed, and there have been donations made, sometimes directly, sometimes indirectly, to Labour councillors and local Labour election campaigns.
I never found myself agreeing with former cllr Robert Nemeth much, but when he made the point a few years back that he was not allowed to vote and take part in a debate on allotments because his partner was an allotment holder, he questioned how can it be right for Labour councillors to vote and decide issues linked to City clean, like the bullying and harassment linked to the GMB in various reports, when multiple councillors are not only members of the GMB, but they have received financial support from them. He was making the point that this is a clear conflict of interest which should not be allowed to happen.
Until there is openness and transparency on issues like political donations and more scrutiny of conflict of interests that might arise from them, any statement from a council spokesperson about openness and transparency feels a bit baseless to me.
It’s a very well-articulated point, Cathy.
The relationship between trade unions and The Labour Party in the UK is deeply intertwined and historically significant. Trade unions played a pivotal role in the founding of The Labour Party in 1900, aiming to represent the working class in Parliament. This relationship has evolved but remains strong, with trade unions providing substantial financial support and influencing party policy, particularly on workers’ rights and social justice issues. Despite occasional friction, it is rooted in shared goals of promoting fair labour practices and social equality.
Your example of an allotment hold is different, as his decisions could have a personal benefit to him. But I do take your point that memberships and interests should be declared, so at the very least, there is transparency and clarity on influences.
Thought the council were broke? It’s OK they’ll cut services to the limit to keep their expenses.
No, they were in heading towards a bankrupt situation IF they do nothing, according to the last report. Which they haven’t been not doing anything.