Just when it seems that the political summer recess arrives to give us a break from the expenses scandals in parliament, our local Conservative controlled council decide to ignore any comments made before the executive committee makes their decisions and thereby steamroller through their own views. (Bury Times article, August 20).

Comments in this article condemning this approach were made by councillors from all parties and the possibility of boycotting council meetings was even suggested as a means of protesting against the ruling local Conservative party.

The leader of the Labour group, Councillor Mike Connelly also reflected this opinion in the letters page in the same Bury Times edition. So just how are our local councillors scrutinised when spending our money.

Having seen the allowances paid to elected councillors during the year 2008/2009 (Bury Times, July 9, 2009) it seems not all councillors claim for travel and subsistence. Most noticeable of these claims were made by Conservative councillors (Bibby — £4,164.38, Taylor — £1,100.10, Walton — £543.13, and Wright Y.S. — £677.24).

On further examination of these allowances it appears that these claims consist of payments made to these councillors for attendance at council meetings and their own group meetings.

As not all councillors claim for travelling to these meetings, one wonders if the remainder of the councillors attend group or council meetings, as they do not appear to claim travel expenses.

We obviously know they do attend full council meetings, I have seen them from the public gallery, so why is it only certain councillors claim travel expenses? Are we back to the “parliamentary debate” that it is “within the rules” and therefore acceptable or are there moral grounds for not claiming which may explain why the majority of councillors don’t appear to claim this perk.

Another point: when someone stands for election as a councillor they must either reside in or have a business within the borough of Bury boundaries. So why do councillors claim for travel to their home residence when they live outside the Bury boundary? Is this a “Second Home” for claiming expenses?

Surely expenses should only be claimed for and paid to the residence or business address that allows someone to stand as a councillor.

If not, then anyone can stand for election to Bury Council whilst living or having a business in Bury then claim travel expenses to any address in any part of the country when they attend council and/ or their group meetings.

Perhaps one of the councillors named would explain why their claim shows payments of £2.81p for a three mile journey each way (home to town hall and return) every time they visit the town hall especially when they are served by public transport with a bus stop only yards from their own residence and they have a “free bus pass”.

Surely expenses should only be paid when a councillor has to attend any meeting outside of their own meetings in Bury Town Hall.

After all, councillors are paid these days, and most people who work for a living have to pay their own travel expenses to get to work.

Isn’t it time councillors stopped claiming these extra perks as this is our money? Shouldn’t these questions be scrutinised or is raising issues of this nature also going to be ignored by the executive members of the council?

John Nally Bolton Road Bury