Review of Standby
Argyll and Bute Council · 26 November 2025
Back to Argyll and Bute Council — 26 November 2025 and its agenda
Text extracted from the council's PDF. Layout and reading order may differ from the original.
Page 1
ARGYLL AND BUTE COUNCIL COUNCIL CUSTOMER SUPPORT SERVICES 26 NOVEMBER 2025 REVIEW OF STANDBY 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1 The Council operates standby arrangements across a range of critical services, including Roads & Infrastructure and Property Services. These arrangements ensure emergency response and service continuity outside normal working hours. A review of standby arrangements was previously considered in October 2024, when a paper was presented to DMT by the Roads & Infrastructure service to review the existing standby rate. At that time, a decision was made to undertake a full, in-depth review of standby arrangement across relevant services to ensure consistency fairness and long-term sustainability. The current standby rate in Argyll & Bute Council is £115.03 per week, at the lower end compared with other Scottish councils. 1.2 As part of the full review, feedback was gathered through workforce engagement and from service managers. Concerns were raised regarding fairness of payments, wellbeing risks, and increasing difficulties sustaining rotas. Managers have highlighted that the current arrangements pose risks to service sustainability, with challenges in consistently covering shifts, growing reliance on overtime, and the potential for staff fatigue. The review examined these issues with reference to policy, legal requirements and operational benchmarking with other councils. 1.3 As part of this review, an assessment of service sustainability risks has been undertaken, drawing on feedback from workforce engagement, management input and benchmarking. The key risks are summarised below: 1.4 This paper recommends an increase to £130 per week that would bring the Council more closely into line with the rates applied by other councils. The current cost of standby payments across these services is approximately £301,049 per financial year, and the proposed increase would result in additional cost of approx. £39,267 per year, bringing the total annual cost to approximately £340,316. 1.5 It is proposed that the agreed uplift be implemented across all services with effect from the beginning of December 2025, subject to alignment with payroll
Page 2
processing. A supplementary estimate of £9,225 will be sought from the unallocated general fund reserve to meet the cost for 2025/26. It is further proposed that the revised standby rate be index-linked to future nationally agreed awards, ensuring the rate remains aligned with overall pay progression and continues to reflect fair and sustainable remuneration in future years. Communication and engagement plans will ensure that managers and affected employees are kept informed of timescales and that the expectations are managed. Risk Likelihood Impact Rating Difficulties sustaining rotas/ covering shifts High High High Staff wellbeing and fatigue, leading to absence and Health & Safety issues. Medium High High Recruitment and retention pressures Medium High High Perceived unfairness of payments Low Medium Moderate • The report sets out findings from: national and local benchmarking • A staff survey of standby participants. • Workforce planning analysis. • Options appraisal. 2.0 RECOMMENDATIONS 2.1 It is recommended that Council: 1. Note the assessment of service sustainability risks set out in this report, and the time-critical nature of addressing these risks to ensure continuity of essential services; 2. Approve an increase in standby rates, aligned with benchmarking and the National Agreement on Pay & Conditions of Service for Local Government Employees (Red Book) with implementation from beginning of December 2025; 3. Approve a supplementary estimate of £9,225 from the unallocated general fund reserve to meet costs in the 2025/26 financial year and agree that this increase be incorporated into future service budgets and reflected in salary templates for subsequent years as part of the Council’s budget setting process;
Page 3
4. Approve the aspiration to move towards a 1 in 3 rota frequency for critical services, where operationally feasible, to improve service sustainability and staff wellbeing; 5. Instruct service managers to lead consultation with trade unions, with HR providing support. 3.0 DETAIL 3.1 Background & Scope The review covered all standby arrangements across Council Services, except for Social Work Out of Hours, which had been subject to review in 2022. The scope was to evaluate fairness, wellbeing, service resilience and legal compliance. 3.2 Legal Framework The proposed standby uplift remains aligned with the SJC Red Book, which distinguishes between standby duty (availability) and call-out duty (attendance). The Councils arrangements all take account of Working Time Directive (WTD) case law, which confirms that standby counts as working time only where significant restrictions are placed on staff (e.g. immediate response set within a set radius). By increasing standby payments, the Council will improve fairness by aligning Argyll & Bute’s rates more closely with other Scottish councils through benchmarking, and by addressing staff concerns that the current allowance does not adequately reflect the disruption and responsibility involved in standby duties, while maintaining compliance with existing collective agreements and employment law. 3.3 Service Context Standby duties are carried out across a range of Council services. However, participation is highly concentrated within Roads & Infrastructure, which accounts for the vast majority of standby activity - 207 staff out of 236 overall (87.7%). Standby participants by service (2024/25) This distribution explains why Road’s feature most prominently in the survey findings
Page 4
3.4 Benchmarking A benchmarking exercise was carried out across Scottish local authorities. The findings show that Argyll and Bute’s current standby rate of £115.03 per week is at the lower end of the range when compared with other councils. 161.62 143.07137.88137.88131.11125.88125.88125.64119.67118.48115.03 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 Benchmarking Rates Weekly Rate Average
Page 5
Council Weekly Rate (£) Scottish Borders 161.62 Perth & Kinross 143.07 Angus 137.88 Edinburgh 137.88 Fife 131.11 North Lanarkshire 125.88 South Ayrshire 125.88 East Dunbartonshire 125.64 Orkney 119.67 Highland Council 118.48 Argyll & Bute 115.03 • The average weekly standby rate across these councils is £131.10, placing Argyll & Bute around 15% below the average. • The highest rate, Scottish Borders (£161.62), is around 40% higher than Argyll & Bute. • The lowest rate, Highland Council (£118.48) is closest to Argyll & Bute, but all other benchmarked councils are higher. • Several councils (e.g. Angus, Edinburgh, Perth & Kinross (are consistently in the £137-£144 range, suggesting this is becoming the standard benchmark. This analysis shows that Argyll and Bute is positioned towards the lower end of local government standby rates. An increase would better align the Council with other local authorities, improve fairness for staff, and support the ability to recruit and retain skilled employees in critical services. 3.5 Staff Survey Findings A staff survey was undertaken to gather views on current standby arrangements. A total of 61 responses were received, representing a 25% response rate from those participating in standby rotas. While not all staff responded, the survey provides valuable insight into the experiences and concerns of those affected. Satisfaction with current arrangements • The average satisfaction score was 2.74 out of 5. • The lowest satisfaction scores were reported within Roads & Infrastructure (2.34/5) and Commercial Services (2.75/5) where rotas are most frequent and disruptive to personal time. • By contrast, the highest satisfaction was reported within Legal & Regulatory Services (4.67/5). This suggests that in services with less frequent rotas and lower disruption, staff are more content with current arrangements.
Page 6
• Overall, the findings highlight a mixed picture across services, with satisfaction levels closely linked to rota frequency and the degree of personal disruption experienced. Impact on work-life balance and wellbeing • Respondents reported an average impact score of 3.67/5 on work life balance and 3.02/5 on wellbeing. • The most negative impacts were reported in Roads & Infrastructure and Commercial Services where rotas are frequent and can be unpredictable. • Frequent disturbance during standby duties and the requirement for many staff to be on standby every other week (1-in2 rota pattern) were identified as the most significant pressures. • Staff highlighted stress, fatigue and low morale as key wellbeing concerns. • These issues are also reflected in absence figures, with higher absence levels in services that operate the most frequent standby rotas. Appendix 2 provides detail of absence levels by service for the last quarter. • By contrast staff in Legal & Regulatory Services reported lower impact scores, reflecting lighter standby demands in that service. Staff feedback on improvements • 54% specifically stated that an increase in remuneration would improve their satisfaction with standby arrangements. • A further group highlighted the need to reduce rota frequency, with many noting that the current 1-in-2 pattern is unsustainable. • Several respondents suggested greater flexibility after callouts (e.g. later start times the following day). • Some staff requested clearer guidance on responsibilities while on standby. • A small minority (3 respondents) reported that they were satisfied with current arrangements and felt the frequency was “about right”. Taken together, the survey results show that current standby arrangements are negatively impacting both wellbeing and morale, particularly in services with high standby frequency. Staff are supportive of change and expressed a desire for clearer, fairer and more consistent arrangements. 3.6 Options Appraisal A range of options have been considered in response to the issues identified through benchmarking, staff engagement and management issues raised. These options are summarised below. Option One: Do nothing No change to current standby payments or rota arrangements. Benefits • No immediate additional financial cost. • Simple to maintain existing arrangement.
Page 7
Challenges and risks • Does not address low satisfaction, well-being concerns identified through the staff survey. • Leaves Argyll & Bute at the lower end of standby rates compared with other councils. • Ongoing staff dissatisfaction, retention difficulties and increased resilience risk during winter standby. • Managers report continuing difficulties in sustaining rotas, growing reliance on overtime and the risk of staff fatigue impacting service delivery. Option Two: Increase standby rate • Uplift standby payments across Council services, aligned with benchmarking. Benefits • Improves fairness and competitiveness compared to other councils. • Directly addresses one of the main staff concerns raised by staff. • May support recruitment and retention in critical services. Challenges and Risks • Additional financial cost to the Council of circa £39,267 per year. • Risk of cost pressure without wider workforce improvements. • If rotas remain at 1 in 2 frequency, wellbeing concerns may persist despite higher payments. • Managers note that while an uplift would support fairness and retention, without changes to rota design there will still be operational challenges in covering shifts and maintaining resilience during peak demand. Option Three: Reduce standby rota frequency • Review standby rota frequency with an aspiration to move from 1-in-2 to 1- in-3. Benefits • Reduces fatigue and burnout risk. • Improves wellbeing, morale and engagement. • Strengthens service continuity through a better rested workforce. Challenges and Risks • May require training / recruitment of additional staff to cover rotas. • Possible service cover gaps during transition. • Managers highlight the risk of reduced resilience in the short term, as rota challenges may take time to bed in and could stretch limited staffing resources during winter period. Option Four: Combined approach • Implement an increase in standby rates alongside rota redesign (where feasible), supported by consultation with trade unions. Benefits • Balanced response addressing both fairness and wellbeing. • Supports recruitment / retention while improving staff morale. • Aligns with benchmarking, reducing competitiveness gap with other councils. • Strengthens service continuity in critical services.
Page 8
Challenges and Risks • Requires financial investment and detailed workforce planning. • Needs strong engagement with Trade Unions to ensure fairness and consistency. • Risk of increased costs, mitigated by long-term gains in retention and service continuity. • Possible sort term pressures during transition to new rotas. • Most managers support this option as the most sustainable in the long term, as it combines fairness for staff with operational resilience, however, represents and additional cost pressure that would need to be managed closely. Preferred Approach The evidence indicates that the most effective approach is a combined approach. • Uplift standby rates to improve fairness, align more closely with other councils and support recruitment and retention. • Review standby rota frequency with an aspiration to move from 1 in 2 to 1 in 3 where feasible, to support wellbeing, reduce fatigue and strengthen service continuity. This balance option addresses both the financial fairness of standby arrangements and the workforce sustainability challenges raised through staff feedback. 3.7 Financial Implications The proposed uplift to £130 per week will result in an additional annual cost of approximately £39,267, bringing the total cost to standby payments to around £340,316 per year. A supplementary estimate of £9,225 is proposed to be met from the unallocated fund reserve to cover the cost in 2025/26. From 2026/27 onward the uplift will be incorporated into future service budgets as part of the Council’s budget setting process. 3.8 Equality & Socio- Economic Impact A preliminary assessment has been undertaken to consider the equality and socio-economic implications of the proposed changes. • Standby payments represent a greater proportion of income for lower paid staff, who are often those most affected by rota frequency and call outs. • An increase in payments therefore has a positive socio-economic impact. • No adverse impacts have been identified across the protected characteristics under the Equality Act 2010
Page 9
• The proposals are expected to have a neural impact in terms of equality as they will improve fairness without disadvantaging any particular group 4.0 CONCLUSION 4.1 The standby review has confirmed that current arrangements are out of step with other councils and are impacting staff satisfaction and wellbeing, particularly where rotas operate in a 1-in-2 basis. A package of measures is proposed to address these issues, and a move towards more sustainable rota patterns. Trade Unions will be updated and formally consulted to ensure fair and consistent implementation. Together these actions will improve fairness, support recruitment and retention and strengthen the Council’s ability to maintain reliable service delivery during peak periods of demand. 5.0 IMPLICATIONS 5.1 Policy - Aligns with Red Book and WTD, supports consistency 5.2 Financial - A supplementary estimate of £9,225 will be sought from the unallocated general fund reserve to meet the cost for 2025/26, with the increase to be reflected in salary templates for future years 5.3 Legal - Compliant with Red Book and case law, reduces litigation risk 5.4 HR - Positive for wellbeing recruitment and retention 5.5 Customer Service - Improve resilience of emergency response 5.6 Risk - Addresses resilience risks, introduces financial risks 5.7 Climate Change – No direct impact 5.8 Fairer Scotland Duty - Positive socio-economic impact 5.9 Equalities - protected characteristics - No adverse impact across protected characteristics 5.10 Consumer Duty - Not applicable 5.11 Island Communities Not applicable 5.12 Children’s Rights and Wellbeing - Not applicable Kirsty Flannagan
Page 10
Executive Director with responsibility for Customer Support Services Policy Lead Councillor Mark Irvine 16 September 2025 For further information contact: Jane Fowler, Head of Customer Support Services, jane.fowler@argyll-bute.gov.uk Laura Finlay HR Business Partner laura.finlay@argyll-bute.gov.uk APPENDICES Appendix 1 Staff Survey Results Appendix 2 Short Term Absence Levels
Page 11
Appendix 1 – Staff Survey Results The survey was issued to 246 employees. 61 responses were received with a 25% response rate. Response rate broken down by service. Key Findings Frequency of standby • 40% of respondents are on standby every 2 weeks or more frequently. • 60% of that group reported that they felt this was too frequent. Impact on work-life balance & wellbeing • 36% reported that standby has an impact or huge impact on their work-life balance. • 21% reported that standby has an impact or huge impact on their wellbeing. • Absence figures suggest a correlation between frequent standby and higher absence levels. Satisfaction with standby service • Roads & infrastructure: lowest satisfaction (2.34/5, highest negative impact on wellbeing 3.39/5) • Legal & Regulatory Services: highest satisfaction (4.67/5, lowest impact on wellbeing 1.33/5) • Commercial Services: satisfaction below average (2.75/5, high work life balance impact 4.0/5) 23% 75% 57% 50% 0% Roads and Infrastructure Services Legal and Regulatory Services Development and Economic Growth Commercial Services Children, Families and Justice
Page 12
What service do you work for? Average of on a scale of 1-5 how satisfied are you with the current standby arrangements (1 Being extremely dissatisfied and 5 being extremely satisfied) Average of on a scale of 1- 5 (with 1 being no impact and 5 being a huge impact) how much impact does standby have on your work life balance? Average of on a scale of 1- 5 (with 1 being no impact and 5 being a huge impact) how much impact does standby have on your wellbeing? Commercial Services 2.75 4.00 2.50 Development and Economic Growth 4.50 2.50 1.75 Legal and Regulatory Services 4.67 2.00 1.33 Roads and Infrastructure Services 2.34 3.96 3.39 Grand Total 2.74 3.67 3.02 Suggestions for improvement • 57% of respondents said the pay was too poor. • 30% suggested reducing the frequency of standby, particularly in Roads & Infrastructure.
Page 13
Appendix 2 – Short Term Absence Levels This appendix sets out absence levels across service areas for the last quarter. The data provides context for the assessment of risk related to staff wellbeing, fatigue and service sustainability highlighted in section 3.4 staff findings.