Perth and Kinross Council expenses: What did your councillor claim last year?
Councillors can claim for travel and other costs connected to their official duties.
The 2024-2025 total was shared between the 40 serving members, and two former councillors.
The highest expenses total – £4,750.50 – went to Perth and Kinross Provost Xander McDade.
The council's SNP deputy leader Eric Drysdale did not claim a penny.
Nor did independent councillor Colin Stewart and Conservative Crawford Reid, one of the two who stepped down last year, sparking a by-election in September.
There were no overseas trips, and no claims for accommodation or meals.
And only one payment was made in connection with training and conferences – £475 for Liberal Democrat licensing board convener Peter Barrett.
Perth and Kinross Council leader Grant Laing's expenses amounted to £504.90 for the year.
The SNP councillor says that mostly paid for travel to an event in London, where he was pitching for investment in Perth.
And he puts his comparatively low claim down to public transport and advancing years.
'I'm in the office 95% of the time and I travel by bus,' Mr Laing told The Courier.
'I'm fortunate with the bus service where I stay. And I use my bus pass. I'm 63.
'It's not just that it's free,' he added.
'People will sit down and speak to you on the bus. You get a good sense of what's happening on the ground.'
Provost Xander McDade attends a large number of events in his role as the civic head of Perth and Kinross.
As an independent councillor in the Highland ward, he also has further to travel than other members.
However, his £4,750.50 expenses compare favourably to his predecessor's.
The oldest breakdown of councillors' expenses on the Perth and Kinross Council website is for 2018-19 when then provost Dennis Melloy totalled £18,951.50.
Ten other councillors ran up expenses running into thousands of pounds last year.
They include John Duff, another Highland ward councillor and leader of the opposition Tory group, whose expenses came to £3,264.60.
The total bill for Perth and Kinross councillors' salaries and allowances amounted to £1,007,533.29 in 2024-25.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Herald Scotland
an hour ago
- The Herald Scotland
Smacking ban urged amid growing belief child physical punishment ‘unacceptable'
But it is not completely outlawed in England and Northern Ireland. Ten-year-old Sara Sharif's murder previously prompted renewed calls for a smacking ban (Surrey Police/PA) According to the Children Act 2004, it is unlawful to hit your child, except where it is 'reasonable punishment', and this is judged on a case-by-case basis. New polling for the NSPCC, carried out by YouGov, suggests around eight in 10 people (82%) aged between 18 and 24 believe it is unacceptable for a parent to use force, however slight, against a child. This is an increase from 64% of young adults who thought it was unacceptable when polled in 2023. Among parents specifically, the figures have remained high in recent years, with the latest polling showing 81% felt this way, up slightly from 80% last year and from 76% in 2022. YouGov surveyed 3,800 adults across England in July, of which 749 were parents with a child under 18 and 198 were aged 18 to 24 years old. Of all adults surveyed, 71% said they believe physical punishment against a child is unacceptable, up from 67% in 2023. Earlier this year leading health experts came together to urge parliamentarians to give children the 'fundamental right to safety and protection' by backing a smacking ban. The children's doctors and psychiatrists said decades of research showed the 'detrimental effects of physical punishment'. On the latest figures, NSPCC chief executive Chris Sherwood said: 'Parents and young people are telling us loud and clear that they don't want physical punishment to be a part of anyone's childhood. 'Parents know their children and what works best for them. It is therefore crucial their experiences and opinions are not ignored or undermined, but act as a wake-up call. 'As parliamentarians continue to debate the Children's Wellbeing and Schools Bill, we urge them to change the law to better reflect public attitudes to violence against children and ensure no childhood has to be tainted by physical punishment again.' In June, as part of debate on the Bill, Conservative peer Lord Jackson of Peterborough warned that introducing a smacking ban in England would be 'disproportionate and heavy-handed'. He argued 'reasonable chastisement' was harmless and calls to abolish it as a defence for punishing a child risked 'criminalising good and caring parents, as well as overloading children's services departments'. But, in the wake of the murder of 10-year-old Sara Sharif in Woking in 2023, the UK's four children's commissioners jointly called for a wholesale smacking ban, describing the current situation where there is a legal defence in some nations as 'outdated and morally repugnant'. Sara's father – jailed for life in December 2024 alongside her stepmother for the little girl's murder – had claimed in a call to police after fleeing England that he 'did legally punish' his daughter and that he 'beat her up too much'. The children's commissioners insisted 'loving, well-meaning' parents have no need to be concerned about a change in the law. Lynn Perry, chief executive of Barnardo's, said: 'Violence against children is unacceptable – and yet children continue to have less legal protection against physical assault than adults. That cannot be right. This new data shows that most parents agree. 'Physical punishment like smacking is harmful to a child's health and development, and there's strong evidence that it influences their attitudes toward violence. At Barnardo's, we see first-hand how vital it is for children to feel safe and nurtured by those around them and to develop positive, healthy relationships. 'We have long campaigned for a change in the law to give children equal protection from assault and continue to call for action. It's time for all children to be legally protected from all physical punishment everywhere in the UK.' Commenting on the poll, Professor Andrew Rowland, officer for child protection at the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health, said: 'This latest research makes it clear that physical punishment has no place in modern parenting. 'Health professionals stand firmly with parents and young people in recognising that physical punishment is not only outdated and unjust, but also harmful to children's health and wellbeing. 'We urge the Government to listen to parents, young people, health professionals and the wider public and to finally remove the outdated and unfair 'reasonable punishment' defence.' A Department for Education spokesperson said: 'The landmark Children's Wellbeing and Schools Bill, a key part of our plan for change, represents the most transformative piece of child protection legislation in a generation, including wholesale reform of the children's social care system and better information sharing between education, health, and social workers to stop vulnerable children falling through the cracks. 'While we are looking closely at the legal changes made in Wales and Scotland in relation to smacking, we have no plans to legislate at this stage.'
Spectator
an hour ago
- Spectator
Where have all the upper-class Tories gone?
A currently fashionable conservatism is militantly against Ukraine and, by more cautious implication, pro-Russia. We who disagree are, I quote Matthew Parris in these pages last week, 'prey to the illusion that the second world war was a template for future conflict, and Hitler a template for Putin'. Others put it more unkindly, speaking of 'Ukraine brain' as a mental affliction among the Cold War generations. One should not project the entire second world war on to now, but some similarities with the 1930s are undeniable. Dictator exploits resentment at what he says is an unequal treaty after defeat; claims land in various places as the true property of his people; occupies some of it, changing borders by the threat of force, later by direct force; keeps demanding more; keeps threatening. The European democracies mostly dislike what is happening, but understandably wish to appease. As it all gets nastier, some incline to criticise the behaviour of the victim nations and their leaders (Benes then; Zelensky now) and downplay the sins of the aggressor. Matthew, for example, wants Zelensky to 'get off his high horse' without noticing that Putin's horse is much, much higher. The United States wants as little to do with it as possible. Dictator has a much firmer purpose than his democratic opponents, so he wins. At first, only the direct victim suffers. Later, all of us do. This argument is not exact, but it is not idiotic either. Elsewhere in this week's issue, Ursula Buchan writes about her grandfather John Buchan's time at The Spectator, the grounding for his career in political life and as a celebrated novelist. His very first article for the paper (20 January 1900) was called 'The Russian Imperial Ideal'. Buchan identified 'the two parties in the [Tsarist] government… both vigorous, one demanding internal reform, the other seeking external empire. At present she seems to have chosen for the latter, but… an Empire and commercial supremacy can only be built upon a genuine and healthy national life, and Russia, while she has the materials for such a life, has hitherto neglected to use them. Militarism and economic reform, where the former is so triumphant and the latter so urgent, are the lion and the lamb which will never lie down together.' They never did, though Gorbachev tried. The lion ate the lamb long ago. Tom Gordon, a Liberal Democrat MP, is leading a campaign to recruit more working-class people for parliament. He praises the few 'salt of the earth guys who are making it all happen' in his part of England (Harrogate and Knaresborough: not, it must be said, a super-working-class area). Mr Gordon does not confront the problem that nowadays the working class has been almost abolished, partly by the largely good trend of upward mobility and partly by the largely bad one of a welfare system which pays the poorly educated not to work. Looking at the 2024 intake of MPs, I would say that by far the greater problem is that so many, whatever their family roots, came into politics through politics/activism/politicised charity work, and know about nothing else. Looking at the question in class terms, I would say the more noticeable absence is members of the upper class. Nearly 40 years ago, I commissioned a scholarly piece (The Spectator, 3 May 1986) by the late Hugh Montgomery-Massingberd called 'The Descent of Tory Man'. It analysed the social class of all Conservative MPs at that Thatcher high tide and found 19 (including William Waldegrave, Nicholas Ridley, Lord Cranborne and Nicholas Soames) in the top social class, 33 in the second highest, 86 in the third, and the majority (there were 392 Tories at that time) in classes four to ten. Trying to apply that analysis to the present 121 Conservatives, I can think of only one – the wise and public-spirited Jesse Norman – who could be described as upper-class, and even he might have reached only class 2 according to Massingberd's exacting criteria. What applies to the Tories applies, a fortiori, to all MPs. So when parliament is more despised than at any time since the Great Reform Bill, it is also the least aristocratic it has ever been. Are these two phenomena related? I wish all the argument about pronouns had been raging when I was a teenager. That was the time when it first became commonplace to address God as 'You' in the liturgy and in translations of the Bible. I was against the change then because it sacrificed beauty, but I could never quite answer those who said it was better to speak to God less formally and more intimately. In my then ignorance, I did not know that 'Thou', as is the case with the second person singular in many other languages, was historically the more intimate and loving form, and so I did not understand that the plural 'You' was the more distant one. The use of 'You' is also theologically inaccurate, since it grammatically implies that there is more than one God. The Trinity, after all, are not some things. It is one thing. Recently, I booked a hotel room in the north of England. We could have 'de luxe' or 'superior'. It was explained to me that superior, in this context, meant inferior: de luxe had been recently 'refreshed'; superior had not. We were inclined to take 'de luxe', but then I asked whether de luxe had baths. No, it had only walk-in showers. Superior, however, had baths. So we took superior, thereby saving more than £100. This must be the first generation in human history which has paid less for a room with a bath than for one without. Why the change? I can think of four possible reasons: 1) Americans prefer showers. 2) Showers save water, and therefore the planet. 3) Showers save space, and therefore property cost. 4) Many customers are too old or fat to get out of baths. In another generation, will baths be objects only of historical interest, like mangles?
Western Telegraph
an hour ago
- Western Telegraph
Lucy Connolly set to be released from prison following jail term for hate tweet
Connolly, the wife of Conservative councillor Raymond Connolly, will be released on Thursday after being sentenced last year to 31 months in custody, the Telegraph reported. She had posted on X on the day of the murder of three children by Axel Rudakubana in Southport: 'Mass deportation now, set fire to all the f****** hotels full of the bastards for all I care… if that makes me racist so be it.' I am equally against incitement to violence against other people Sir Keir Starmer She pleaded guilty to inciting racial hatred by publishing and distributing 'threatening or abusive' written material on X and was jailed at Birmingham Crown Court in October last year. Her sentence has been criticised as being too harsh, but Sir Keir Starmer defended it earlier this year. The Prime Minister was asked in May about Connolly's case after her Court of Appeal application against her jail term was dismissed. Asked during Prime Minister's Questions whether her imprisonment was an 'efficient or fair use' of prison, Sir Keir said: 'Sentencing is a matter for our courts, and I celebrate the fact that we have independent courts in this country. 'I am strongly in favour of free speech, we've had free speech in this country for a very long time and we protect it fiercely. 'But I am equally against incitement to violence against other people. I will always support the action taken by our police and courts to keep our streets and people safe.' Connolly's post was viewed 310,000 times in three-and-a-half hours before she deleted it. Lord Young of Acton, founder and director of the Free Speech Union, said: 'The fact that Lucy Connolly has spent more than a year in prison for a single tweet that she quickly deleted and apologised for is a national scandal, particularly when Labour MPs, councillors and anti-racism campaigners who've said and done much worse have avoided jail. 'The same latitude they enjoyed should have been granted to Lucy.'
