Agenda reports pack
Argyll and Bute Council · 24 September 2025
Back to Argyll and Bute Council — 24 September 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 Comhairle Earra-Ghàidheal Agus Bhòid Executive Director: Douglas Hendry Kilmory, Lochgilphead, PA31 8RT Tel: 01546 605522 DX 599700 LOCHGILPHEAD 17 September 2025 NOTICE OF MEETING A meeting of ARGYLL AND BUTE COUNCIL will be held ON A HYBRID BASIS IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBER, KILMORY, LOCHGILPHEAD AND BY MICROSOFT TEAMS on WEDNESDAY, 24 SEPTEMBER 2025 at 10:30 AM, which you are requested to attend. Douglas Hendry Executive Director BUSINESS 1. APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE 2. DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST (IF ANY) 3. MINUTES (Pages 3 - 14) Argyll and Bute Council held on 26 June 2025 4. MINUTES OF COMMITTEES (a) Policy and Resources Committee held on 21 August 2025 (Pages 15 - 22) (b) Community Services Committee held on 28 August 2025 (Pages 23 - 30) (c) Environment, Development and Infrastructure Committee held on 11 September 2025 (Pages 31 - 38) 5. LEADER'S REPORT (Pages 39 - 48) Report by Leader of the Council 6. POLICY LEADS REPORT (Pages 49 - 76) Report by Policy Leads 7. 2024/25 COUNCIL ANNUAL REPORT (Pages 77 - 146) Report by Chief Executive 8. SINGLE AUTHORITY MODEL (SAM) - UPDATE (Pages 147 - 192) Report by Chief Executive Public Document Pack
Page 2
9. AUDITED ANNUAL ACCOUNTS FOR YEAR ENDED 31 MARCH 2024 - TRUST FUNDS (Pages 193 - 232) Report by Section 95 Officer 10. COUNCIL CONSTITUTION REVIEW 2025 (Pages 233 - 236) Report by Executive Director with responsibility for Legal and Regulatory Support 11. POLITICAL MANAGEMENT ARRANGEMENTS (Pages 237 - 240) Report by Executive Director with responsibility for Legal and Regulatory Support 12. CHIEF SOCIAL WORK OFFICER ANNUAL REPORT 2024/25 (Pages 241 - 290) Report by Chief Social Work Officer 13. CHILD POVERTY ACTION PLAN REVIEW 2024 - 2025 (Pages 291 - 362) Report by Chief Officer, Argyll and Bute HSCP 14. ARGYLL AND BUTE COUNCIL VISITOR LEVY CONSULTATION REPORT (Pages 363 - 656) Report by Executive Director with responsibility for Development and Economic Growth 15. FUTURE OF THE RURAL ECONOMY - A MANIFESTO FOR RURAL CHANGE (Pages 657 - 664) Report by Executive Director with responsibility for Development and Economic Growth 16. HOUSING EMERGENCY - FEASIBILITY OF TIREE SELF BUILD PLOTS; CONTRIBUTION TO INCREASED CONSTRUCTION COSTS AT OCCUPIED PHASE 3 DUNBEG; FEASIBILITY OF GLENCRUITTEN ROAD FOOTPATH IMPROVEMENTS (Pages 665 - 674) Report by Executive Director with responsibility for Development and Economic Growth 17. HOUSING ANNUAL ASSURANCE STATEMENT 2025 (Pages 675 - 682) Report by Executive Director with responsibility for Development and Economic Growth Argyll and Bute Council Contact: Hazel MacInnes, Senior Committee Officer Tel:01546 604269
Page 3
MINUTES of MEETING of ARGYLL AND BUTE COUNCIL held ON A HYBRID BASIS IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBER, KILMORY, LOCHGILPHEAD AND BY MICROSOFT TEAMS on THURSDAY, 26 JUNE 2025 Present: Councillor Dougie Philand (Chair) Councillor John Armour Councillor Gordon Blair Councillor Jan Brown Councillor Math Campbell-Sturgess Councillor Garret Corner Councillor Maurice Corry Councillor Audrey Forrest Councillor Kieron Green Councillor Amanda Hampsey Councillor Daniel Hampsey Councillor Graham Hardie Councillor Anne Horn Councillor Fiona Howard Councillor Willie Hume Councillor Mark Irvine Councillor Andrew Kain Councillor Jennifer Kean Councillor Paul Donald Kennedy Councillor Reeni Kennedy-Boyle Councillor Jim Lynch Councillor Luna Martin Councillor Tommy MacPherson Councillor Liz McCabe Councillor Dougie McFadzean Councillor Julie McKenzie Councillor Yvonne McNeilly Councillor Ross Moreland Councillor Gary Mulvaney Councillor Gemma Penfold Councillor Alastair Redman Councillor William Sinclair Councillor Andrew Vennard Councillor Peter Wallace Attending: Pippa Milne, Chief Executive Douglas Hendry, Executive Director Kirsty Flanagan, Executive Director Evan Beswick, Chief Officer – Health and Social Care Partnership Carolyn Earl, Interim Head of Financial Services David Logan, Head of Legal and Regulatory Support Fergus Murray, Head of Development and Economic Growth Shona Barton, Governance Manager 1. APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Ian MacQuire and Iain Shonny Paterson. The Provost advised that Councillor Andrew Vennard had submitted the following question in terms of Standing Order 15. The question is for the Policy Lead for Finance and Commercial Services (Councillor Moreland) and is as follows:- "Can the policy lead for Finance and Commercial Services confirm whether he has had any discussions, meetings, or exchanged any correspondence since the last Harbour Board meeting on 20 March 2025 in relation to obtaining any alternative funding for the Council's Harbour Investment Programme with any of: (i) the Scottish Ministers; (ii) Transport Scotland; (iii) any other public bodies? If the policy lead for Finance and Commercial Services has had any such discussions, meetings, or exchanged any such correspondence in relation to alternative funding for the Council's Harbour Investment Page 3 Agenda Item 3
Page 4
Programme, what details of any such discussions, meetings, or correspondence, can he provide?" The Provost advised that in terms of the Order of Business and having regard to the Standing Orders it was his intention to deal with this question as the final item of business for the meeting. 2. DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST Councillor Reeni Kennedy Boyle advised in relation to item 6 of the Agenda (Policy Leads Report), specifically the Update from the Policy Lead for Business Development, Councillor Math Campbell Sturgess, that she was the General Manager for Fyne Futures. As there was no substantive decision being taken on this item of Business, Councillor Kennedy Boyle remained in the meeting during the consideration of this item. 3. MINUTES The Minutes of the meeting of Argyll and Bute Council held on 24 April 2025 were approved as a correct record. Councillor Maurice Corry joined the meeting during the consideration of the following item of Business. 4. MINUTES OF COMMITTEES (a) Policy and Resources Committee held on 8 May 2025 The Minutes of the meeting of the Policy and Resources Committee held on 8 May 2024 were noted. Arising from item 7 of these Minutes (Corporate Plan 2025-2027) the Council approved the new Corporate Plan 2025-2027 which contained the new Council priorities. Arising from item 8 of these Minutes (Artificial Intelligence Policy) the Council approved the new Artificial Intelligence Policy. (b) Community Services Committee held on 5 June 2025 The Minutes of the meeting of the Community Services Committee held on 5 June 2025 were noted. (c) Environment, Development and Infrastructure Committee held on 19 June 2025 The Minutes of the meeting of the Environment, Development and Infrastructure Committee held on 19 June 2025 were noted. Item 10 on page 6 of this Minute (Temporary Traffic Regulation Orders Charging and Advertising) asked the Environment, Development and Infrastructure Committee to “agree that the current Fees and Charges in relation to TTROs for events are suspended and the loss of income estimated to be up to £45,000 in 2025/26 is funded from the Priorities Investment Fund”. The Council agreed that the current Fees and Charges in relation to TTROs for events are suspended and the loss of income, estimated to be up to £45,000 in 2025/26, be funded from the Page 4
Page 5
Priorities Investment Fund. 5. LEADER'S REPORT The Council gave consideration to a report providing an update on the activities of the Council Leader, Councillor Jim Lynch, for the period 10 April 2025 to 6 June 2025. Decision The Council noted – 1. the content of the submitted report; and 2. that any reports, briefings or copy correspondence referred to in the report could be requested as appropriate, through the Leadership Support Manager, noting that some confidential reports provided by external organisations such as COSLA may be restricted. (Reference: Report by Leader of the Council dated 11 June 2025, submitted) 6. POLICY LEADS REPORT The Council gave consideration to a report providing an update on key areas of activity for each Policy Lead Councillor covering the period 24 April 2025 to 13 June 2025. Decision The Council noted the content of the report. (Reference: Report by Policy Lead Councillors dated 13 June 2025, submitted) 7. YEAR END REPORTING PACK 2024/25 (a) 2024/25 Unaudited Annual Accounts The Council gave consideration to a report providing an overview of the unaudited annual accounts for 2024-25 and a summary of the significant movements from 2023-24. The report sought approval of the unaudited annual accounts for 2024-25 for issue. Decision The Council – 1. noted that the Unaudited Annual Accounts for the Year ended 31 March 2025 had been considered by the Audit and Scrutiny Committee; and 2. agreed that the Section 95 Officer submit the Annual Accounts to the auditor by the statutory deadline of 30 June 2025. (Reference: Report by Section 95 Officer dated 19 June 2025, submitted) Page 5
Page 6
(b) Revenue Budget Monitoring - for the year ending 31 March 25 The Council gave consideration to a report advising on the revenue budget position of the Council as at the end of the financial year 2024-25. The report also summarised the movement in the General Fund balance. Decision The Council – 1. noted the revenue budget monitoring position as at the end of financial year 2024-25; 2. noted that the unallocated balance within the General Fund as at 31 March 2025, subject to approval of new earmarked reserves, amounted to £1.004m. This was in addition to the contingency amounting to £6.539m; and 3. approved the revenue virements over £0.200m between January and March 2025. (Reference: Report by Section 95 Officer dated 16 June 2025, submitted) (c) Earmarked Reserves - 2024/25 Year End The Council gave consideration to a report providing information on the balances earmarked within the General Fund, transfers and funds used during 2024-25 and any new earmarking. Decision 1. approved the Policy on Year End Flexibility as included in Appendix 1; 2. approved the three new earmarked proposals that total £2.600m as supported by business cases as outlined within Appendix 2; 3. noted the £8.278m of earmarking that qualify for automatic carry forward in line with the Policy on Year End Flexibility as outlined within Appendix 3; and 4. noted previously approved earmarked reserves as outlined within Appendix 4 with a balance of £94.284m as at 31 March 2025. (Reference: Report by Section 95 Officer dated 16 June 2025, submitted) (d) Capital Plan Monitoring Report - for the year ending 31 March 2025 The Council gave consideration to a report providing a summary of the financial position and progress on delivery of the approved 2024-27 Capital Plan as at 31 March 2025. Decision The Council – Page 6
Page 7
1. noted the actual expenditure incurred during the financial year 2024-25 and progress on delivery of the Capital Plan as at 31 March 2025; and 2. approved the updated Capital Plan, as detailed within Appendix 1. (Reference: Report by Section 95 Officer dated 9 June 2025, submitted) (e) Treasury Management Annual Report 2024/25 and recommendation from the meeting of the Audit and Scrutiny Committee held on 12 June 2025 The Council gave consideration to a report providing a review of treasury management activities and the actual prudential and treasury indicators for 2025/25 as required by the CIPFA Prudential Code for Capital Finance in Local Authorities and the CIPFA Code of Practice on Treasury Management (revised 2021), the Code. Decision The Council – 1. noted that the report had been subject to prior scrutiny by the Audit and Scrutiny Committee at its meeting on 12 June 2025 and subsequent to an agreed amendment, had been referred to council; and 2. noted the content of the report as per the recommendation by the Audit and Scrutiny Committee at the meeting held on 12 June 2025. (Reference: Report by Section 95 Officer dated 4 June 2025, submitted) (f) Strategic Housing Fund Annual Report 2024/25 The Council gave consideration to a report providing an annual update in the Strategic Housing Fund income and expenditure position for 2024-25, the current balance on the Strategic Housing Fund as at 31 March 2025 and all future commitments against this balance. Decision The Council – 1. noted the report on income and expenditure for 2024-25 and the balance on the Strategic Housing Fund as at 31 March 2025; and 2. noted the estimated future income for the Strategic Housing Fund for 2024-25. (Reference: Report by Section 95 Officer dated 9 June 2025, submitted) 8. BUDGET APPROACH 2026/27 AND BEYOND The Council gave consideration to a report outlining the financial challenges facing the Council in the next financial year and outlining an approach to transformation, opportunities and savings over the medium term. Page 7
Page 8
Decision The Council approved the budget approach for 2026-27 and beyond noting that it provided a more strategic approach to savings planning. (Reference: Report by Section 95 Officer dated 10 June 2025, submitted) 9. HEALTH AND SOCIAL CARE PARTNERSHIP - RECOVERY PLAN The Council gave consideration to a report that followed on from a report presented to the Policy and Resources Committee on 8 May 2025 advising that the Integration Joint Board, Chief Officer and Chief Financial Officer were preparing a financial recovery plan in light of savings still to be identified to balance the Social Work budget in financial year 2025/26. Decision The Council noted the content of the submitted report. (Reference: Report by Section 95 Officer dated 2 June 2025, submitted) 10. STORM EOWYN - ESTIMATE OF COST The Council gave consideration to a report providing an estimate of the costs associated with Storm Eowyn that struck Argyll and Bute on 24 January 2025, bringing wind speeds of up to 100mph and causing widespread damage. Decision The Council – 1. noted the estimated costs associated with Storm Eowyn; 2. agreed that the Council commit to Live Argyll to provide an additional service payment of £65k per month from November 2025 through to when the Leisure Centre reopens, and in addition to up to £65k per month for a further two months to allow the facility the breathing space to have normal level of service and income restored; 3. agreed that Live Argyll can access the Council’s redundancy earmarked reserve up to the value of £100,000 to pay for the cost of any staff redundancies required due to their cost reduction plan following the storm; and 4. agreed that the Council set aside a further £1.3m of funding towards Storm Eowyn costs with any funding not required for such purposes to be returned to the General Fund. (Reference: Report by Section 95 Officer dated 16 June 2025, submitted) 11. SINGLE AUTHORITY MODEL (SAM) - UPDATE The Council gave consideration to a report providing an update on the work of the Single Authority Model Short Life Working Group to date and other key activities in the interim period from the Council meeting held on 24 April 2025. Page 8
Page 9
Decision The Council endorsed, in general, the work that had been undertaken to date by the Short Life Working Group and wider Officer representation, specifically the activity being undertaken on a partnership basis to identify a joint preferred model for further consideration and consultation. (Reference: Report by Chief Executive dated 4 June 2025, submitted) 12. GUIDANCE FOR FAIR FUNDING OF THE VOLUNTARY SECTOR The Council gave consideration to a report requesting the adoption of the principles of the Community Planning Improvement Board Guidance for Fair Funding of the Voluntary Sector which set out the principles of better ways of working with the voluntary sector. Decision The Council – 1. noted the principles of the Guidance, set out at paragraph 4.1 of the submitted report and within the attached Appendix; 2. noted the illustration of what the principles could look like in practice, set out at paragraph 4.2 of the submitted report and within the attached Appendix; and 3. agreed that the Council signs up to the principles of the Guidance at the Community Planning Partnership meeting in September, and works towards the aspirations it contains. (Reference: Report by Chief Executive dated 19 May 2025, submitted) 13. C30 (KILMAHA) ROAD CLOSURE REVIEW The Council gave consideration to a report advising of the outcome of a lessons learned review which had been undertaken in relation to the road closure of the C30 at Kilmaha in January 2024. Decision The Council – 1. noted the relevant findings of the C30 (Kilmaha) Lessons Learned Review, as outlined within the submitted report; 2. noted, in particular, the finding that there was no legal basis in place for Roads and Infrastructure Services to re-close the road as they did on 8th January 2024 – thus breaching the requirements of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984; 3. noted that the Council’s Monitoring Officer is required, under Section 5 of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989, to report to the Council if he considers that in the course of the discharge of the Council’s functions any proposal, decision or omission has resulted in a contravention “of any enactment or rule of law or of any code of practice made or approved by or under any enactment”; and Page 9
Page 10
4. noted that the Executive Director with responsibility for Roads and Infrastructure Services and the Interim Head of Roads and Infrastructure Services are taking steps to implement the Review findings, for the purpose of mitigating the risks of any similar breaches of legislation by the Service occurring in the future. (Reference: Report by Monitoring Officer dated 10 June 2025, submitted) The Council adjourned for lunch at 1.00pm and reconvened at 1.30pm with all those present as per the sederunt with the exception of Councillors Gary Mulvaney and Paul Kennedy who left the meeting at this point. 14. REVIEW OF THE HEALTH AND SOCIAL CARE INTEGRATION SCHEME 2025 The Council gave consideration to a report setting out proposed revisions to the Health and Social Care Integration Scheme and detailing the next steps including the requirement for the Council and the Health Board to undertake a joint consultation with prescribed stakeholders. Decision The Council – 1. agreed the revisions detailed within the updated Integration Scheme contained at appendix 1 and summary revisions document contained at appendix 2; 2. agreed, subject to approval of 3.1, that Officers now proceed with arrangements for the joint consultation exercise as set out within section 4.2 of the report, and the Consultation and Engagement Strategy, as detailed in appendix 3; and 3. agreed that, in the event that the consultation feedback suggests no further changes to the Scheme and voices no opposition to the proposed changes, that the two Chief Executive Officers are authorised to approve the draft revised Integration Scheme on behalf of the Council and the NHS Highland Board prior to submitting to the Scottish Government for approval. (Reference: Report by Executive Director with responsibility for Legal and Regulatory Support dated 14 May 2025, submitted) 15. EDUCATION REPLACEMENT DEVICES The Council gave consideration to a report that presented information regarding devices which were not currently included in the Computer Rolling Replacement Programme (CRRP) and which sought agreement for funding to bring all school devices into a sustainable replacement programme. Decision The Council – 1. agreed funding to expand the existing CRRP over the next 5 years as outlined in paragraph 4.12 of the submitted report and noted that a longer term funding option would need to be considered for beyond year 5 and this would be part of the capital review; Page 10
Page 11
2. noted the current ICT model for CRRP device allocation has resulted in an uneven distribution of devices across schools and to address this, the service will regularly redistribute devices from schools with declining pupil rolls to larger schools in order to ensure equity of access; 3. noted that an appropriate device should be available to every pupil and provided to every permanent member of teaching staff, ensuring a centrally funded, fully sustainable device replacement program; and 4. noted that Education recommends a flexible device strategy, providing a sufficient number and range of devices appropriate for diverse learning needs. (Reference: Report by Executive Director with responsibility for Education dated 26 May 2025, submitted) 16. HOUSING EMERGENCY - EMPTY HOMES AND WORKER ACCOMMODATION PROJECT The Council gave consideration to a report proving an update on progress with a project funded by Shelter and the Health and Social Care Partnership which aimed to identify empty properties and bring them into use for HSCP workers. The report sought funding to continue the project. Decision The Council – 1. noted the content of the report; and 2. approved £60,000 of funds from the Strategic Housing Fund to match fund the Shelter contribution for the 2 year extension to the post to cover all employers in Argyll and Bute. (Reference: Report by Executive Director with responsibility for Development and Economic Growth dated April 2025, submitted) 17. HOUSING EMERGENCY - WORKER ACCOMMODATION PROPOSAL - ISLAY The Council gave consideration to a report which sought approval of the award of a grant of £145,000 from Strategic Housing Fund for the purpose of enabling the delivery of worker accommodation on Islay which would provide a 2 bedroom working accommodation property. Decision The Council – 1. approved a grant of up to £145,000 from the Strategic Housing Fund to enable an NHS Building in Bowmore, Islay to be brought back into use for HSCP staff delivering Health and Social Care services on the island; and 2. noted that the contribution would be match funded by the NHS. Page 11
Page 12
(Reference: Report by Executive Director with responsibility for Development and Economic Growth dated May 2025, submitted) 18. HOUSING EMERGENCY - OPEN MARKET ACQUISITION - DERVAIG, MULL The Council gave consideration to a report which provided information on the pressures on the housing market on the island of Mull and outlined a proposal to buy a property in Dervaig, Mull to be used for affordable principal home, long term accommodation. Decision The Council – 1. approved a grant of £12,000 from the Strategic Housing Fund to enable Mull and Iona Community Trust to acquire a property in Dervaig; and 2. noted that this approval would be in addition to the £16,220 Council funding already provided to the project. (Reference: Report by Executive Director with responsibility for Development and Economic Growth dated May 2025, submitted) 19. TARBERT HERITAGE AND PLACE FUNDING BIDS The Council gave consideration a report advising that the development phase of the Tarbert Heritage Regeneration Scheme was completed, allowing for delivery phase applications to now be submitted. Decision The Council – 1. agreed that an application is made to Historic Environment Scotland’s Heritage and Place Programme for £1m; 2. agreed that an application is made to National Lottery Heritage Fund’s Heritage Grants Fund for £850k; and 3. agreed in principle that match funding of c£650k would be required over the five-year lifetime of the project and that Crown Estates was considered the appropriate source of this funding. (Reference: Report by Executive Director with responsibility for Development and Economic Growth dated 9 May 2025, submitted) 20. CORPORATE IMPROVEMENT PLAN 2025 - 2028 The Council gave consideration to a report presenting the Corporate Improvement Plan (CIP) for 2025 – 2028 for endorsement. Decision Page 12
Page 13
The Council – 1. endorsed the Corporate Improvement Plan 2025 – 2028; 2. noted the alignment with statutory Best Value duties and the Accounts Commission's expectations; 3. acknowledged the Plan’s role in enabling transformational change across the Council; and 4. noted that progress updates would be reported to the Audit and Scrutiny Committee on an annual basis. (Reference: Report by Chief Executive dated 20 May 2025, submitted) 21. SHORT-TERM LET LICENSING: LICENCE RENEWALS AND REVISION TO SHORT-TERM LET POLICY The Council gave consideration to a recommendation from the meeting of the Planning, Protective Services and Licensing Committee held on 18 June 2025 in relation to recommended amendments to the Council’s Short-term Let Licensing Policy to reflect the renewal process with three-year licensing and the renewal fee. Decision The Council agreed the recommendation to support the introduction of a three-year renewal period for short-term let licences, the renewal fees, and revisions to the Council’s Short-term Let Licensing Policy. (Reference: Recommendation from meeting of the Planning, Protective Services and Licensing Committee held on 18 June 2025 and report by Executive Director with responsibility for Development and Economic Growth dated 28 May 2025, submitted) 22. QUESTION UNDER STANDING ORDER 15 FOR THE POLICY LEAD FOR FINANCE AND COMMERCIAL SERVICES The following question had been submitted under Standing Order 15 by Councillor Andrew Vennard for the Policy Lead for Finance and Commercial Services, Councillor Ross Moreland. "Can the policy lead for Finance and Commercial Services confirm whether he has had any discussions, meetings, or exchanged any correspondence since the last Harbour Board meeting on 20 March 2025 in relation to obtaining any alternative funding for the Council's Harbour Investment Programme with any of: (i) the Scottish Ministers; (ii) Transport Scotland; (iii) any other public bodies? If the policy lead for Finance and Commercial Services has had any such discussions, meetings, or exchanged any such correspondence in relation to alternative funding for the Council's Harbour Investment Programme, what details of any such discussions, meetings, or correspondence, can he provide?" The Policy Lead for Finance and Commercial Services provided a verbal response to the question. Page 13
Page 14
Councillor William Sinclair, Armed Forces Champion, presented the Provost with a framed picture of the Royal Navy’s new Minesweeper Zulu Squadron which he had received on behalf of the Provost at an affiliation ceremony he attended in May. The Provost, on behalf of the Council, expressed his condolences to Councillor Jan Brown on the loss of her partner Sandra. Page 14
Page 15
MINUTES of MEETING of POLICY AND RESOURCES COMMITTEE held ON A HYBRID BASIS IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBER, KILMORY, LOCHGILPHEAD AND BY MICROSOFT TEAMS on THURSDAY, 21 AUGUST 2025 Present: Councillor Jim Lynch (Chair) Councillor John Armour Councillor Math Campbell-Sturgess Councillor Audrey Forrest Councillor Kieron Green Councillor Mark Irvine Councillor Luna Martin Councillor Dougie McFadzean Councillor Ross Moreland Councillor Gary Mulvaney Attending: Pippa Milne, Chief Executive Douglas Hendry, Executive Director Kirsty Flanagan, Executive Director Carolyn Earl, Interim Head of Financial Services Fergus Murray, Head of Development and Economic Growth Ross McLaughlin, Head of Commercial Services Shona Barton, Governance Manager 1. APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Amanda Hampsey, Reeni Kennedy-Boyle, Liz McCabe, Yvonne McNeilly and Dougie Philand. 2. DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST There were no declarations of interest intimated. The Chair ruled and the Committee agreed in order to facilitate smooth running of the agenda, to vary the order of business and to take item 15 as the last item of the meeting. This would allow the Committee to deal with all of the business which could be taken in public before moving into private session. 3. MINUTES The Minutes of the meeting of the Policy and Resources Committee held on 8 May 2025 were approved as a correct record. 4. FINANCIAL MONITORING OVERVIEW - 30 JUNE 2025 The Committee gave consideration to a report providing a summary of the overall financial position of the Council for 2025-26 as at 30 June 2025. Decision The Policy and Resources Committee – 1. noted the revenue budget monitoring report as at 30 June 2025; 2. noted the capital plan monitoring report as at Quarter 1 and approved the proposed budget changes to the Capital Plan outlined in paragraphs 4.3 to 4.6 of that report; Page 15 Agenda Item 4a
Page 16
3. noted the 2025-26 financial risks report; and 4. noted the reserves and balances report as at 30 June 2025. (Reference: Report by Section 95 Officer dated 30 July 2025, submitted) 5. BUDGET OUTLOOK 2026-27 TO 2030-31 The Committee gave consideration to a report summarising the Budget Outlook for the 5 year period 2026-27 to 2030-31 and providing an update to the position previously reported to the Policy and Resources Committee in May 2025. Decision The Policy and Resources Committee noted the current Budget Outlook position for the period 2026-27 to 2030-31. (Reference: Report by Section 95 Officer dated 31 July 2025, submitted) 6. PROPOSAL TO REVIEW THE SCHEME FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT OF COMMUNITY COUNCILS IN ARGYLL AND BUTE: PHASE ONE FEEDBACK The Committee gave consideration to a report providing an update on feedback received following an 8 week public consultation on the proposals to amend the local Scheme for the Establishment of Community Councils and suggesting further amendments based on the feedback received. Decision The Policy and Resources Committee – 1. noted the feedback received following the stage one consultation outlined in Appendix 1 to the submitted report; 2. agreed to carry out a second phase 8-week consultation with the public and community councils, based on the draft revised Scheme for the Establishment of Community Councils at Appendix 2 to the submitted report and Best Practice Agreement at Appendix 3 to the submitted report; and 3. noted that in terms of the agreed timetable for the review, a further report on the second stage consultation, including consideration of grant funding, and any final proposals would be submitted to a specially convened Council meeting on 26 November 2025. (Reference: Report by Executive Director with responsibility for Legal and Regulatory Support dated 11 July 2025, submitted) 7. CROWN ESTATES FUNDING ALLOCATIONS 2025/26 AND REDIRECTION OF PREVIOUSLY ALLOCATED PROJECT FUNDING The Committee gave consideration to a report bringing forward proposals for the 2025-26 allocation of Crown Estates Funding, recommending a change to funding previously Page 16
Page 17
agreed for a Building Aires style campervan site in Dunoon (Glen Morag car park) and recommending a change to the funds allocated for Kintyre Sea Sports (KSS). Decision The Policy and Resources Committee – 1. agreed to the allocation of the Crown Estate funding for 2025/26 to the projects outlined in Table 1, paragraph 4.2.1 of the submitted report; 2. agreed to varying the use of previously allocated Crown Estate funding assigned to a now confirmed unviable project Building Aires style campervan site in Dunoon (Glenmorag Car Park) for a simpler, smarter and more sustainable Aires Project in Cowal; and 3. noted the update provided in relation to the planning application for the new Kintyre Sea Sports facility and approved the revised scope of project activities to be funded from the £200k of Crown Estates Funding previously approved by the Policy and Resources Committee in February 2025. (Reference: Report by Executive Director with responsibility for Development and Economic Growth dated 1 July 2025, submitted) 8. ISLANDS COST CRISIS EMERGENCY FUND 2025/26 The Committee gave consideration to a report providing an overview of the proposed arrangements for the Islands Cost Crisis Emergency Fund in 2025/26. Decision The Policy and Resources Committee – 1. noted the funding announced by the Scottish Government for the 2025/26 financial year for Local Authorities with responsibility for islands; and 2. agreed to the allocation of the Islands Cost Crisis Emergency Fund for 2025/26 to support the projects set out below:- ICCEF 2025/26 Distribution Targeting Fuel Poverty with ALI energy’s Affordable Warmth Service £120,000 Food Bank Grants £25,000 TOTAL ICCEF 25/26 £145,000 (Reference: Report by Executive Director with responsibility for Development and Economic Growth dated 2 July 2025, submitted) Page 17
Page 18
9. PLACE BASED INVESTMENT PROGRAMME FUNDING ALLOCATIONS 2025/26 The Committee gave consideration to a report advising that the Place Based Investment Programme Offer of Grant from Scottish Government had been received on 25 June 2025 and had confirmed partial release of funding resulting in a reduction from £496,000 to £388,368, with the remaining £107,632 subject to the Scottish budget position later in the year. Decision The Policy and Resources Committee agreed to the reprioritisation of projects set out in Table 1, paragraph 3.2 of the submitted report following Scottish Government notification that this funding would now be received in two tranches. (Reference: Report by Executive Director with responsibility for Development and Economic Growth dated 1 July 2025, submitted) 10. RURAL GROWTH DEAL - PROJECT DEVELOPMENT COSTS UPDATE The Committee gave consideration to a report providing an update on the Rural Growth Deal (RGD) and specifically costs associated with project development and followed on from the report presented to the Policy and Resources Committee on 5 December 2024. Decision The Policy and Resources Committee – 1. agreed that the Council increase the amount set aside from the Priorities Investment Fund from £0.700m to £0.850m to cash flow the development costs for the Council, noting that the cash flow support would be fully paid back by the end of Year 10; and 2. delegated to the Internal Programme Board (Chief Executive and Executive Directors), in consultation with the Leader and Depute Leaders to approve pre-development funding requests relating to Council led projects up to a maximum threshold of 15% of each project, subject to there being sufficient cash flow available, noting that this was an increase to the £0.250m threshold agreed in December 2024. (Reference: Report by Executive Director with responsibility for Development and Economic Growth dated 22 July 2025, submitted) 11. NATURE RESTORATION FUND - PROGRESS TO DATE AND 25/26 SPEND OPTIONS The Committee gave consideration to a report providing an update on the Nature Restoration Fund, the projects previously agreed to be taken forward and proposing several projects to be delivered in 2025-26. Decision The Policy and Resources Committee – 1. noted the progress made regarding the previously agreed allocation of Nature Restoration Funding in Appendix 1 of the submitted report; Page 18
Page 19
2. approved the proposed projects in Appendix 2 of the submitted report noting that there was still a balance of funds to be allocated; and 3. agreed delegated authority to the Executive Directors with responsibility for Development and Economic Growth and Commercial Services in consultation with the Policy Leads with responsibility for Planning and Regulatory Services and Climate Change, Renewables and Net Zero to amend the distribution of this funding in relation to approved projects in Appendix 2 to the submitted report if considered necessary. (Reference: Report by Executive Director with responsibility for Development and Economic Growth and Executive Director with responsibility for Commercial Services dated 11 July 2025, submitted) 12. CLIMATE CHANGE BOARD - PERFORMANCE REPORT & PUBLIC SECTOR DUTIES RETURN The Committee gave consideration to a report providing the Committee with an analysis of the Council's 2023/24 climate performance, in line with its statutory duties under the Climate Change (Scotland) Act 2009. The report presented an analysis of the Council’s most recent emissions data for the 2023/24 period, contextualised with findings from the analysis of national Public Bodies Climate Change Duties Report prepared by the Sustainable Scotland Network (SSN). The report provided the committee with an assessment of the Council’s current performance, enabling informed strategic decisions to be made to accelerate the Council’s progress towards meeting climate change commitments. Decision The Policy and Resources Committee – 1. noted progress towards net zero and the challenges identified in the Council’s 2023/24 Public Sector Duties Submission which included a 3.8% rise in previous financial year but 31% reduction overall; and 2. endorsed the strategic priorities outlined to accelerate climate action and ensure progress towards the Council’s net zero targets. (Reference: Report by Executive Director with responsibility for Commercial Services dated 21 August 2025) 13. CLIMATE CHANGE BOARD UPDATE & DECARBONISATION TRACKER The Committee gave consideration to a report providing an overview and update of recent activity completed or underway by the Climate Change Board. Decision The Policy and Resources Committee – 1. noted the contents of the submitted report and the key implications for the Council arising from the Scottish Government’s consultation on new statutory guidance for Public Bodies' Climate Change Duties; and Page 19
Page 20
2. noted the updates from the Climate Change Board including Drax LED installations, SG Consultation on draft Statutory Guidance for public bodies, Burnett Building Climate Adaptation, the Nature Restoration Fund Initiative, the climate change focussed work of the CPP, and the developments in the Kilmory grounds with ACT. (Reference: Report by Executive Director with responsibility for Commercial Services dated 21 August 2025, submitted) 14. COMMUNITY EMPOWERMENT (SCOTLAND) ACT 2015 - UPDATE - EXPRESSIONS OF INTEREST / ASSET TRANSFER REQUESTS / PARTICIPATION REQUESTS / REPORTING REQUIREMENTS The Committee gave consideration to a report advising on the operation of the processes in regard to formal Asset Transfer Requests (ATR) and Participation Requests in terms of the Community Empowerment (Scotland) Act 2015; current live informal Expressions of Interest (EOI’s) which may become subject to a formal asset transfer request or be dealt with out with the formal asset transfer request process; current live ongoing or agreed Participation Requests received by the Council; and the annual reporting requirements in respect of Asset Transfer Requests and Participation Requests set out in Section 95 and 32 of the Community Empowerment (Scotland) Act 2015 respectively. Decision The Policy and Resources Committee noted the content of the submitted report. (Reference: Report by Executive Director with responsibility for Commercial Services dated 30 June 2025, submitted) 15. POLICY AND RESOURCES COMMITTEE WORKPLAN The Policy and Resources Committee Workplan was before the Committee for noting. Decision The Policy and Resources Committee noted the content of the Workplan. (Reference: Policy and Resources Committee Workplan dated August 2025, submitted) The Committee resolved in terms of Section 50(A)(4) of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973 to exclude the press and public for the following item of business on the grounds that it was likely to involve the disclosure of exempt information as defined in Paragraph 6 of Part 1 of Schedule 7A to the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973. 16. KILMORY BUSINESS PARK - COMMERCIAL ESTATE & PORTFOLIO The Committee gave consideration to a report advising of an economic development opportunity in relation to Kilmory Business Park. Decision The Policy and Resources Committee agreed the recommendations as detailed within the submitted report. Page 20
Page 21
(Reference: Report by Section 95 Officer and Executive Director with responsibility for Commercial Services dated 29 July 2025, submitted) Page 21
Page 22
This page is intentionally left blank
Page 23
MINUTES of MEETING of COMMUNITY SERVICES COMMITTEE held ON A HYBRID BASIS IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBER, KILMORY, LOCHGILPHEAD AND BY MICROSOFT TEAMS on THURSDAY, 28 AUGUST 2025 Present: Councillor Audrey Forrest (Chair) Councillor Gordon Blair Councillor Maurice Corry Councillor Amanda Hampsey Councillor Graham Hardie Councillor Anne Horn Councillor Jennifer Kean Councillor Paul Donald Kennedy Councillor Dougie McFadzean Councillor Julie McKenzie Councillor Yvonne McNeilly Councillor Iain Shonny Paterson Councillor Dougie Philand Margaret Anderson, Church Rep Lorna Stewart, Teacher Rep Daniel Semple, Teacher Rep Reverend Dorothy Wallace, Church Rep Attending: Douglas Hendry, Executive Director Jennifer Crocket, Head of Education: Wellbeing, Inclusion and Achievement Wendy Brownlie, Head of Education: Performance and Improvement Jane Fowler, Head of Customer Support Services Stuart McLean, Committee Manager Graeme McMillan, Transformation Programme Manager Simon Easton, Education Manager Rhona Grant, Community Learning and Development Manager Scott McKinnon, Developing the Young Workforce Lead Chief Superintendent Gary I’Anson, Police Scotland Chief Inspector Lee Page, Police Scotland Inspector Bart Simonis, Police Scotland Group Commander, Brian Wardle, Scottish Fire and Rescue Service Watch Commander, Tony McGloin, Scottish Fire and Rescue Service Charlotte Craig, Interim Head of Planning, Performance and Technology, Argyll and Bute HSCP 1. APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Daniel Hampsey and Fiona Howard. 2. DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST There were no declarations of interest. 3. MINUTE The Minute of the Community Services Committee held on 5 June 2025 was approved as a correct record. 4. POLICE SCOTLAND ARGYLL & BUTE PERFORMANCE SUMMARY REPORT - REPORTING PERIOD: APRIL - JUNE 2025 Chief Superintendent Gary I’Anson presented the Argyll and Bute Performance Summary Report of Police Scotland’s Policing Priorities for April – June 2025. Page 23 Agenda Item 4b
Page 24
With the aid of power point slides a presentation on localised activities was also given by Chief Inspector Lee Page and Inspector Bart Simonis and thereafter Officers responded questions asked. Decision The Community Services Committee reviewed and noted the contents of the report. (Reference: Report for April – June 2025 by Divisional Commander for Argyll and Bute, West Dunbartonshire Division, Police Scotland, submitted) Councillor Graham Hardie joined the meeting during consideration of the foregoing item. 5. SCOTTISH FIRE AND RESCUE SERVICE - ARGYLL & BUTE PERFORMANCE SCRUTINY GROUP 2025-26 Q1 SCRUTINY REPORT With the aid of power point slides, Group Commander Brian Wardle and Watch Commander Tony McGloin presented a report highlighting Scottish Fire and Rescue Service’s review of local performance and partnership working within Argyll and Bute for Q1 (1 April – 30 June 2025) and responded to a number of questions asked. Decision The Community Services Committee reviewed and noted the contents of the report. (Reference: Q1 2025/26 Report by Local Senior Officer, Scottish Fire and Rescue Service, submitted) 6. ARGYLL & BUTE HEALTH & SOCIAL CARE PARTNERSHIP - PERFORMANCE REPORT FQ3 2024/25 A report detailing performance for FQ3 (October – December) 2024/25 for Argyll & Bute Health & Social Care Partnership along with a presentation on Annual Performance for 2024/25 was before the Committee for consideration. Decision The Community Services Committee: 1. acknowledged performance for FQ3 2024/25 (October - December); 2. acknowledged performance update on the National Health & Wellbeing Outcomes and Ministerial Steering Group Integration Indicators (Appendix 1); and 3. noted Delayed Discharge Sitrep as of 06 January 2025 (Appendix 2) (Reference: Report by Senior Manager, Performance and Improvement, Argyll & Bute HSCP dated 28 August 2025, submitted) Councillor Paul Kennedy joined the meeting during consideration of the foregoing item. Page 24
Page 25
7. ARGYLL AND BUTE EDUCATION SERVICE PROGRESS AND IMPACT 2024-2025 AND STRATEGIC PLAN 2024-2026 A report updating the Committee on the progress made by the Education Service in achieving the priorities included in the Argyll and Bute Strategic Plan for 2024/26 (2024/25 update) presented at Community Services Committee in August 2024, and outlining priority actions for 2025-2026, was considered. Decision The Community Services Committee: 1. noted the progress made with respect to priority actions within the 2024-2026 Education Strategic Plan (2024-2025 update) outlined in the Education Service Progress and Impact Report 2024-2026); 2. approved the Education Service Progress and Impact Report 2024-2025 and Strategic Plan 2024-2026 (Appendix 1); 3. approved the publishing of the Education Strategic Plan 2024-2026 and The Education Service Progress and Impact Report 2024-2025 on the Council Website; and 4. approved the submission of the Education Strategic Plan 2024-2026 and The Education Service Progress and Impact Report 2024-2025 to Scottish Government. (Reference: Report by Executive Director with responsibility for Education dated 17 July 2025, submitted) 8. SQA SCHOOL EXAMINATION RESULTS 2025 A report providing and update to the Committee on the initial outcome of the Scottish Qualifications Authority (SQA) 2025 examination diet for young people in Argyll and Bute was considered. Decision The Community Services Committee: 1. noted the guidance from the SQA, detailed below at 4.3 of the report, about qualitative comparisons of data over the last four years, with reference to ‘pre-pandemic’ data in 2018/19; 2. noted the outcome of the initial SQA examination results for pupils in academic year 2024/25, and that the performance of Argyll and Bute Schools in 2025 is above the current national performance of local authority run schools in SQA examinations in one measure at A-C (Adv Higher), and above in two measures at A-D (National 5 and Higher). Within the authority, performance against 2024 improved in four of six pass rate measures (National 5 and Higher at both A-C and A-D). Presentation rates for both National 5 and Higher levels increased. Twinned with increased pass rates, this year’s diet saw an overall increase in the number of awards per presenting pupil; and 3. requested that the Executive Director provide further reports to the Community Services Committee to allow the consideration of updated statistical school and Page 25
Page 26
national information, scheduled to be released by Insight (school data analysis tool) in September 2025 and February 2026. (Reference: Report by Executive Director with responsibility for Education dated 28 August 2025, submitted) 9. DEVELOPING THE YOUNG WORKFORCE 2024-25 A report summarising work and progress across Argyll and Bute relating to Developing the Young Workforce (DYW) was considered. The report covered all aspects of DYW work and activities across the local authority and case studies of DYW events, activities and programmes were also provided. Decision The Community Services Committee: 1. noted the scope, variety and impact of DYW initiatives and activities across Argyll and Bute; 2. acknowledged the importance of the Scottish Government’s continued policy commitment to DYW, and associated funding for regional DYW Groups; 3. recognised the contribution of the DYW team and its work towards securing and sustaining Argyll and Bute a position in the leading 10 Scottish Local Authorities with regards to the Annual Participation Measure, in which we place 9th out of 32 in the period April 2023 – March 2024; and 4. accepted the requirement to make the roles of DYW Lead and DYW Coordinators in Argyll and Bute permanent and non-dependent on DYW funding from the Scottish Government. (Reference: Report by Executive Director with responsibility for Education dated 28 August 2025, submitted) The Chair ruled and the Committee agreed to adjourn the meeting at 1.45 pm for lunch. The meeting reconvened at 2.15 pm with all those present as per the sederunt, apart from Lorna Stewart, Teacher representative. 10. STRONE PRIMARY SCHOOL - MOTHBALLING A report updating the Committee on the current situation of Strone Primary School and proposing a number of measures under which the Education Service can monitor the position of the school over the forthcoming year, was considered. Decision The Community Services Committee agreed that: 1. Strone Primary School be mothballed on a temporary basis and that the building be retained for one year on a care and maintenance basis; Page 26
Page 27
2. officers would conduct a review of the school’s mothballing ahead of the Committee’s August 2026 meeting, at which members could decide on a continued period of mothballing; or request that officers commence a preliminary exercise to examine the future options for Strone Primary School; and 3. if requested, the community would have pre-arranged access to the building to promote community functions during the period of mothballing. (Reference: Report by Executive Director with responsibility for Education dated 5 August 2025, submitted) At the previous Community Services Committee held on 5 June 2025, the Committee considered a report detailing a draft Proposal to relocate the current Tobermory 2-18 Campus to a new purpose-built Campus on the site that had been previously selected by the Council. After considering that report, the Committee agreed to adopt the draft Proposal as a “relevant proposal” in terms of the 2010 Act, which would proceed to a statutory public consultation exercise – commencing on 18th August 2025 and ending on 26th September 2025. Standing order 16 states that ‘No motion which seeks to alter or revoke a decision of the Council or has that effect will be considered within a period of 6 months of the original decision’. However, it will be competent to review a decision before the end of the 6 month period, provided that notice has been given on the agenda (the report meets that provision) and that a material change of circumstances has occurred. Given that a Petition for Judicial Review in the Court of Session challenging the Council’s decision of 7 March 2025 to locate the new campus on the Tobermory South site has been lodged; the Chair considered this to be a material change of circumstances and therefore under the provision of standing order 16 agreed that this report could be considered at this meeting. 11. TOBERMORY 2-18 CAMPUS - UPDATE AND NEXT STEPS In terms of Standing Order 11.10 the Depute Leader of the SNP Group advised that the Whip had been applied to the Group to vote in favour of an amendment to the recommendations in the report by the Executive Director which the Committee considered at this item. A report providing update on recent decisions and developments in relation to the project for a new 2-18 School Campus in Tobermory was considered. Following questions, the Chair ruled and the Committee agreed to adjourn the meeting from 2.35 pm – 2.55 pm to allow Officers to consider the competency of a proposed amendment to the Chair’s motion. The meeting reconvened with all those present as per the sederunt, apart from Lorna Stewart, Teacher representative. Following consideration, the Executive Director with responsibility for Legal and Regulatory Support advised that the amendment was not competent. The Chair ruled, and the Committee agreed to adjourn the meeting from 3.05 pm – 3.25 pm, to allow a Member of the Committee to seek advice on the preparation of a competent amendment. After consideration, it was confirmed there would be no amendment to the Chair’s motion. Page 27
Page 28
Decision The Community Services Committee: 1. considered the information contained within this report; 2. agreed to endorse officers’ actions not to commence the statutory relocation consultation exercise on 18 August 2025, given that the Judicial Review proceedings are ongoing; 3. agreed to endorse the decision of the Strategic Board, dated 4 August 2025, to pause all other work on the Project (including design work and development of the Outline Business Case) whilst the Judicial Review proceedings are ongoing; and 4. agreed that all further reports should be brought to Members whilst the ongoing Court proceedings progress. (Reference: Report by Executive Director with responsibility for Education, Legal and Regulatory Support and Commercial Services dated 1 August 2025, submitted) Councillor Jennifer Kean and Reverend Dorothy Wallace, Church Representative, left the meeting during consideration of the foregoing item. 12. SCOTTISH LANGUAGES ACT 2025 - UPDATE A report advising of the Scottish Languages Act 2025 and reporting on the themes included in this piece of legislation was considered. The Act give the Gaelic and Scots languages official status in Scotland and makes changes to the support for the Gaelic and Scots languages in Scotland, including changes in relation to Gaelic and Scots education. Decision The Community Services Committee: 1. noted the key points contained within the report regarding the Act; 2. recognised the obligations which would be incumbent on the Council in areas of linguistic significance; and 3. agreed that further reports are presented to members in relation to both the general impact on the Council and specifically to the Education Service following statutory guidance and explanatory notes being published by the Scottish Government. (Reference: Report by Executive Director with responsibility for Education and Executive Director with responsibility for Customer Support Services dated 1 August 2025, submitted) Councillor Yvonne McNeilly and Councillor Shonny Paterson left the meeting during consideration of the foregoing item. Page 28
Page 29
13. GAELIC LANGUAGE PLAN PROGRESS REPORT DECEMBER 2023 - DECEMBER 2024 A report updating Members on progress that the Council is making on the delivery of its statutory Gaelic Language Plan was considered. Decision The Community Services Committee considered the good progress that was being made in relation to the Council’s Gaelic Language Plan. (Reference: Report by Executive Director with responsibility for Customer Support Services dated June 2025, submitted) 14. LIVE ARGYLL - COMMUNITY LEARNING AND DEVELOPMENT REPORT 2024-2025 A report providing Members with an update on the performance of liveArgyll’s Community Learning Services and specifically the provision of Adult Learning and Youth Services in session 2024/25, was considered. Decision The Community Services Committee recognised: 1. the significant improvements and strengths achieved by Community Learning since the transfer of the service to liveArgyll in 2021, and specifically those outlined by HMIe in the January 2024 HMIe Progress Visit and the subsequent review in February 2025; and 2. the positive outcomes for young people and adult learners in Argyll and Bute resulting from Community Learning’s understanding of the needs of individuals, groups and communities, and its subsequent provision to learners. (Reference: Report by Executive Director with responsibility for Education dated 28 August 2025, submitted) Councillor Julie McKenzie left the meeting during consideration of the foregoing item. 15. EXTERNAL EDUCATION ESTABLISHMENT INSPECTION REPORT A report providing details of all external education establishment inspection reports received across Argyll and Bute Education Service during the period June to August 2025, was before the Committee for information. Decision The Community Services Committee noted: 1. the contents of the report; 2. this quarterly report would be presented on an ongoing basis to the Community Services Committee detailing all establishment inspections conducted and published by Education Scotland within that period, and Page 29
Page 30
3. that Ward members would receive copies of school inspection reports for schools within their area as published by Education Scotland. (Reference: Report by Executive Director with responsibility for Education dated July 2025, submitted) 16. COMMUNITY SERVICES COMMITTEE WORK PLAN 2025/2026 The Community Services Committee work plan for 2025/2026 was before the Committee for information. Decision The Community Services Committee noted the contents of the work plan. (Reference: Community Services Committee Work Plan 2025/2026, submitted) Page 30
Page 31
MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE ENVIRONMENT, DEVELOPMENT AND INFRASTRUCTURE COMMITTEE HELD ON A HYBRID BASIS IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBER, KILMORY, LOCHGILPHEAD AND BY MICROSOFT TEAMS ON THURSDAY, 11 SEPTEMBER 2025 Present: Councillor John Armour (Chair) Councillor Jan Brown Councillor Graham Hardie Councillor Willie Hume Councillor Andrew Kain Councillor Jim Lynch Councillor Tommy MacPherson Councillor Ian MacQuire Councillor Luna Martin Councillor Liz McCabe Councillor Ross Moreland Councillor Gary Mulvaney Councillor Alastair Redman Councillor William Sinclair Councillor Andrew Vennard Councillor Peter Wallace Attending: Kirsty Flanagan, Executive Director Andrew Summers, Head of Roads and Infrastructure Services Stephen Hall, Roads and Infrastructure Service Review Lead Hugh O’Neill, Network and Standards Manager Elsa Simoes, Infrastructure Design Manager Ishabel Bremner, Economic Growth Manager Jonathan Welch, Rural Growth Deal Programme Manager Stuart McLean, Committee Manager 1. APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE There were no apologies for absence. 2. DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST There were no declarations of interest intimated. 3. MINUTES The Minutes of the meeting of the Environment, Development and Infrastructure Committee held on 19 June 2025 were approved as a correct record. 4. WINTER SERVICE POLICY 2025/26 The Committee gave consideration to a report presenting the Winter Service Policy 2025/26. Decision The Environment, Development and Infrastructure Committee: 1. approved the 2025/26 Winter Maintenance Policy Document detailed at Appendix 1 to the submitted report; Page 31 Agenda Item 4c
Page 32
2. endorsed that a further review of the winter maintenance policy is undertaken prior to the 2026/27 winter maintenance season which includes a review of the total percentage of the road network that is currently treated and, recognising this is 10% higher than the average for the rural group authorities, whether efficiencies on this can be achieved. With a report to Committee during early summer 2026; 3. approved the Salt Use Reduction and Preservation of Stocks Protocol detailed at Appendix 2 to the submitted report; 4. noted the Advisory signing, routes unsuitable in severe conditions detailed at Appendix 3 to the submitted report; 5. noted the Frontline Treatment Vehicle Fleet 2025/26 detailed at Appendix 4 to the submitted report; 6. noted the Salt Stocks monitoring and resilience record at detailed Appendix 5 to the submitted report; and 7. noted the weather summary from season 2024-25 detailed at Appendix 6 to the submitted report. (Reference: Report by Executive Director with responsibility for Roads and Infrastructure Services dated August 2025, submitted) 5. PAVEMENT PARKING PROHIBITIONS - SERVICE PROCEDURE & EXEMPTIONS The Committee gave consideration to a report providing an overview of the Pavement Parking Prohibition, which primarily focused on footway parking. Decision The Environment, Development and Infrastructure Committee: 1. approved the Service Procedure document attached under Appendix 1 to the submitted report; 2. approved the application form which requests an assessment, attached under Appendix 2 to the submitted report and subject to style changes required for the website; and 3. noted that prior to the making of any Exemption Order, they would be presented to the Environment, Development and Infrastructure Committee for approval or otherwise. (Reference: Report by Executive Director with responsibility for Roads and Infrastructure Services dated July 2025, submitted) Councillor Kain joined the meeting during consideration of the following item of business. Page 32
Page 33
6. TRUNK ROAD LITTER MANAGEMENT RESPONSIBILITIES A82, A83, A85, A828 The Committee gave consideration to a report which was drafted following receipt of correspondence from East Lothian Council seeking support from COSLA and other local authorities with truck roads within their areas for a national review of trunk road litter management responsibilities. Decision The Environment, Development and Infrastructure Committee: 1. agreed that the Chief Executive writes to Scottish Ministers requesting a review of litter management responsibilities for the trunk roads within Argyll and Bute (A82, A83, A85, A828); and 2. agreed that the Chief Executive confirms to those other local authorities with trunk road litter management responsibilities and COSLA that Argyll and Bute Council support the proposal initially raised by East Lothian Council that there should be a review of litter management responsibilities for trunk roads across Scotland. (Reference: Report by Executive Director with responsibility for Roads and Infrastructure Services dated June 2025, submitted) 7. TEMPORARY TRAFFIC REGULATION ORDERS - REVIEW OF CHARGING AND ADVERTISING The Committee gave consideration to a report which provided information on the current Temporary Traffic Regulation Order (TTRO) charges and set out two options as the basis for engagement with event organisers, following a decision taken at the Environment, Development and Infrastructure Committee, at its meeting held on 19 June 2025 to review event application costs associated with TTRO charges and advertising. Decision The Environment, Development and Infrastructure Committee: 1. agreed to the outline options as the basis for consultation with event organisers and community councils; 2. agreed that the questionnaire attached in Appendix 2 to the submitted report is used to gather the organisers and community councils views on these options; 3. agreed that the consultation period is a minimum of six weeks; 4. noted that the results were expected to be reported to the Committee by March 2026; however, subject to analysis being completed sooner, may be reported to the Committee by December 2025; Page 33
Page 34
5. agreed that the minimum timescales for application for TTROs or Temporary Restriction by Traffic Notice are those listed in the end columns of Appendix 3 to the submitted report; 6. agreed that the list below are the newspapers which will be used to advertise the notice of TTROs: a. Argyllshire Advertiser b. Dunoon Observer c. Helensburgh Advertiser d. Oban Times e. Campbeltown Courier; and 7. noted that the means of advertising the notice of TTROs are determined by the Road Traffic (Temporary Restrictions) Procedure Regulations 1992 and The Local Authorities' Traffic Orders (Procedure) (Scotland) Regulations 1999. (Reference: Report by Executive Director with responsibility for Roads and Infrastructure Services dated July 2025, submitted) 8. WASTE COLLECTION POLICY AND OPERATIONAL UPDATES The Committee gave consideration to an update regarding the Route Optimisation, Second Domestic Bin Review, and Assisted Bin Uplift Review projects. The report also sought agreement of revised policies in relation to the approval of second domestic waste bins and assisted bin uplifts and the renaming of the route optimisation project. Decision The Environment, Development and Infrastructure Committee: 1. approved the revised Second Domestic Waste Bin Policy set out at paragraph 4.4 of the submitted report subject to the following amendment ‘There are 5 or more people resident in the household for whom this is their home address.’; 2. approved the revised Assisted Bin Uplift Policy set out at 4.10 of the submitted report; 3. endorsed that officers commence the activity outlined at 4.12 – 4.14 of the submitted report to ensure full implementation of the agreed policy that all household waste and recycling bins are clearly marked to identify the house name / number to which they belong including endorsing that following a suitable period of pro-active communication bins would no longer be uplifted where they are not identified with the house name / number; and 4. agreed to rename the Route Optimisation Project as the Digitally Enabled Operational Services Project and noted the changes in anticipated project benefits and project timeline set out at 4.15 to 4.18 of the submitted report. Page 34
Page 35
(Reference: Report by Executive Director with responsibility for Roads and Infrastructure Services dated May 2025, submitted) 9. REVIEW OF ROADS AND INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES - UPDATE The Committee gave consideration to a report providing an update on the progress and next steps in relation to the Roads and Infrastructure Service (RIS) Review. Decision The Environment, Development and Infrastructure Committee: 1. noted the progress made in relation to the priority improvement actions, including the financial impacts of these; and 2. agreed to receive a further report on progress of the RIS Review in December 2025. (Reference: Report by Executive Director with responsibility for Roads and Infrastructure Services dated June 2025, submitted) 10. LOCAL FLOOD RISK MANAGEMENT PLANS - S37 INTERIM UPDATE The Committee gave consideration to a report providing an update on how the delivery of the Council's duties under the Local Flood Risk Management Plans are progressing. Decision The Environment, Development and Infrastructure Committee: 1. endorsed the report; 2. approved the content of the report and appendices to be provided to the Lead Authorities to allow the Section 37 Interim Reports to be prepared; and 3. agreed that the Section 37 Interim Reports are brought back to Committee later in the year for approval. (Reference: Report by Executive Director with responsibility for Roads and Infrastructure Services dated September 2025, submitted) 11. A816 ARDFERN PERMANENT REPAIR SOLUTION UPDATE The Committee gave consideration to a report providing an update on the progress towards a permanent repair of the A816 at Ardfern which was damaged during the severe weather event in October 2023. Decision The Environment, Development and Infrastructure Committee: 1. agreed that the existing budget allocation of £1.1m be used to progress the next phase of detailed business case development required to provide a recommended option with a further and more highly developed budget estimate and outline delivery programme; and Page 35
Page 36
2. noted the difference in the current cost estimate and that originally produced and reported to Members in February 2024 and the reasons for this set out in the body of the report. (Reference: Report by Executive Director with responsibility for Roads and Infrastructure Services dated September 2025, submitted) 12. TRANSFORMATIONAL PROJECTS AND REGENERATION TEAM - LARGE SCALE PROJECT UPDATE REPORT The Committee gave consideration to a report which provided an update on the current progress of the large-scale, externally funded project work of the Transformational Projects and Regeneration Team and key issues that may impact on the successful delivery of projects. Decision The Environment, Development and Infrastructure Committee noted: 1. the current progress contained within the report; and 2. that further updates relating to pending funding bids would be brought back to the Environment, Development and Infrastructure Committee in due course. (Reference: Report by Executive Director with responsibility for Development and Economic Growth, dated August 2025, submitted) 13. ARGYLL AND BUTE COUNCIL'S ECONOMIC STRATEGY ACTION PLAN: 2025-2028 The Committee gave consideration to report which provided an updated Economic Strategy Action Plan (ESAP) to implement and deliver of the Argyll and Bute Council Economic Strategy, 2024-2034, covering the short-term period 2025-2028. Decision The Environment, Development and Infrastructure Committee: 1. noted the progress on actions during 2024-2025 and appropriate outcomes for 2034, as outlined in Appendix 1 to the submitted report; and 2. approved the ESAP, 2025-2028. (Reference: Report by Executive Director with responsibility for Development and Economic Growth, dated 14 August 2025, submitted) 14. ECONOMIC GROWTH TEAM ACTIVITIES AND OUTCOMES FOR 2024/25 The Committee gave consideration to report providing an update on the delivery of services and associated outcomes by the overarching Economic Growth Team, within the Development and Economic Growth Service, during 2024/25. Decision Page 36
Page 37
The Environment, Development and Infrastructure Committee noted the update on the delivery of services in 2024/25 by the Economic Growth Team. (Reference: Report by Executive Director with responsibility for Development and Economic Growth, dated 27 August 2025, submitted) 15. REGISTRATION OF AN ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT SUBSIDY SCHEME TO FACILITATE COMPLIANCE WITH POST-EU SUBSIDY CONTROL LEGISLATION The Committee gave consideration to report seeking approval for the registration of a subsidy scheme to facilitate the delivery of economic development projects and ensure legal compliance with subsidy control legislation. Decision The Environment, Development and Infrastructure Committee: 1. noted the Argyll and Bute Economic Development Subsidy Scheme document and the associated Principles Assessment document, contained with Appendix 1 and 2 of the submitted report; and 2. endorsed that a subsidy control scheme be registered with the Competition and Markets Authority called the ‘Argyll and Bute Council’s Economic Development Scheme’. (Reference: Report by Executive Director with responsibility for Development and Economic Growth, dated 23 July 2025, submitted) 16. ENVIRONMENT, DEVELOPMENT AND INFRASTRUCTURE COMMITTEE WORK PLAN 2025/26 The Environment, Development and Infrastructure Committee workplan was before the Committee for noting. Decision The Environment, Development and Infrastructure Committee noted the content of the workplan. (Reference: Environment, Development and Infrastructure Committee workplan dated September 2025, submitted) Page 37
Page 38
This page is intentionally left blank
Page 39
ARGYLL AND BUTE COUNCIL COUNCIL 24th September 2025 LEADER’S REPORT 1. INTRODUCTION 1.1 The Leader of the Council routinely provides a report outlining their strategic activities for consideration at each meeting of Argyll and Bute Council, except for the annual budget meeting in February. 1.2 This report provides an update on the activities of the council Leader, Cllr Jim Lynch, for the period 6th June to 12th September 2025. 2. RECOMMENDATIONS 2.1 Members are asked to consider the report. 2.2 Members are asked to note that any reports, briefings or copy correspondence referred to in the report can be requested as appropriate through the Leadership Support Manager, although it should be noted that some confidential reports provided by external organisations such as COSLA may be restricted. 3. LEADER ACTIVITY 6th JUNE TO 12TH SEPTEMBER 2025: 3.1 Working in partnership and delivering benefits for communities: During June and July this year I was engaged in correspondence with the Secretary of State for Scotland, Ian Murray MP, in relation to HM Naval Base Clyde and specifically the significance and importance of working in partnership to ensure that benefits can be delivered for our communities. I was subsequently very happy to be at the base on 16th July when Mr Murray visited to formally launch the Clyde 2070 defence dividend. The visit offered ourselves, as host authority for the base, and other neighbouring councils to represent directly to ministers the importance of Page 39 Agenda Item 5
Page 40
securing maximum benefit from this £250m investment over the next few decades. You can read more about Clyde 2070 here and, after several years of successful partnership working on this, we look forward to continuing these discussions as this major investment programme progresses. There has since been a change at ministerial level with Douglas Alexander taking up post as Secretary of State for Scotland, and by the time of the September Council meeting I will have written to him seeking to ensure that the positive working relationship we’ve enjoyed with the Scotland Office will continue, not only as Clyde 2070 progresses but as we press on with delivery of our Rural Growth Deal. 3.2 Here To Hear You Community Engagement: I last updated on our conversation sessions in Bute and Dunoon. We’ve had two further events since then, in Campbeltown on 6th August and over to the isle of Gigha the following day. As we’ve sought to do before, we sought to meet with local groups and businesses in each area – these meetings have proven an invaluable complement to the community conversations themselves in terms of highlighting not only any challenges that particular communities are facing, but also their successes. There’s so much good work going on, often led by volunteers, and there are also signs of confidence among businesses too. Campbeltown was no exception to either of these. We met with Kintyre Link Club – described by those who use it as ‘small but mighty’ and ‘an absolute lifesaver’. While we only spent a couple of hours there, we were able to see exactly what they meant. The work the group does is quite incredible, with tremendous energy and commitment. Kintyre Link Club Page 40
Page 41
The small team of two staff support around 40 people at any one time, although they stress that peer support is one of the most important factors in the club’s success. They have raised a staggering amount of funds themselves over the years in order to keep going and stay open. They work in partnership with other local organisations, business and voluntary groups, as well as connecting to other mental health support groups across Argyll and Bute. They support outings, health and fitness activities, creative sessions and a range of other options all aimed to promote and support better mental health. As well as those activities, though, they provide what is perhaps most important – a listening ear, a friendly face, a safe place to be. After an inspiring visit to the Link Club, we were off to the MACC Base at Machrihanish. Here too there was inspiration to be found, with the number of businesses who have taken up residence at the base and who now have scope to grow and expand. We visited the Campbeltown Bond premises and heard about their exciting plans. Kintyre is a fitting venue for this ambitious business given Campbeltown’s traditional title of Whisky Capital of the World. This was a really interesting visit – it was great to see some barrels already in place and hear about the process involved. Campbeltown Bond with some barrels already in place Page 41
Page 42
Those behind the venture are converting a massive former military hangar into a bonded warehouse with specialist storage for almost 38,000 whisky casks. There are also plans for a bottling plant and other facilities like a cigar lounge and tasting room, as well as accommodation. This sounds like a great addition to Kintyre’s existing business offer as well as connecting to that whisky heritage and taking into the future. After visiting the bond, we were back to Victoria Halls for a lively and well- attended conversation session. While every community has unique characteristics and issues to raise, there are also some common themes. Housing, infrastructure and connectivity challenges and the need for opportunities to help young people stay, work and learn in their home communities were among the points raised during the session. As always, we came away with a considerable list of questions and food for thought. The following day saw us travel to the isle of Gigha where we met first with members of the island’s Community Council. This was a very helpful and constructive discussion which covered a range of topics – the need for affordable housing, again, plus transport issues and some specific service issues within the island context. Some of these issues were repeated at the subsequent community conversation, but at that session we heard sometimes challenging but invaluable feedback from island residents and volunteers who pointed out that much of what happens on and for the island is so often ‘done at the kitchen table’. The conversation sessions are proving to be very valuable – it is a fact that sometimes we hear difficult things, but we are also gaining first hand knowledge and feedback directly from our communities and growing our understanding as a result. I believe that’s vital; building these relationships inevitably takes time and I’m grateful to those who have come out to talk with us, and those who will come to future events. 3.3 Learning achievements: On 23rd July I was glad to have the opportunity to meet with some of the families from Afghanistan who have settled in Argyll and Bute as part of the UK Government Afghan Resettlement Programme. These are people who have either worked for or with the UK Government in exposed or meaningful roles and who, as a result of that, face serious risk or threat to their lives. The fully-funded scheme opened in 2021 and closed to new applications in July this year. Families are housed in properties owned by the Ministry of Defence. Page 42
Page 43
The Council’s Refugee Resettlement team have been supporting some of the families with English language classes at various levels. Learners have been studying for a variety of English as a Second Language (ESOL) qualifications and I was more than happy to help present their certificates and acknowledge their hard work and progress. I have been able to meet a number of our refugee families over the past several months and I am always in awe of all that they do. So many of them have faced some unimaginable circumstances and dangers; but they are determined to make the best contribution to local life that they possibly can. Some have started up their own businesses, sharing their creativity and culinary talents with their local community. The Afghan families that I met in Helensburgh are equally determined to use their hard-won language skills to play their part, recognising the warmth of the welcome they have received from their new communities as they rebuild their lives. 3.4 Meeting with Cabinet Secretary for Transport: Fiona Hyslop MSP, Cabinet Secretary for Transport, came to Oban on 14th August to announce the very welcome news of a £1m-plus funding award through the Electric Vehicle Infrastructure Fund. I took the opportunity to write to her beforehand to ask for a separate discussion which would allow us to raise some of the issues that our communities highlight to us – most recently concerns from some island communities about the Islands Business Resilience Fund. The A83 was another topic – we welcome the progress being made in terms of moving what is a significant infrastructure forward, and we also appreciate the efforts made by the Cabinet Secretary directly to ensure that language used in the national media reinforces that Argyll and Bute remains open for business, and that information being shared is accurate. Although recognising that progress is being made, we are also aware of the pressures that local businesses experience when the Rest is affected, and took the opportunity to highlight again the concerns that they share with us in terms of the local economy. With the winter season approaching, ferry capacity and resilience was also a discussion topic, reflecting what we receive in our inboxes from our island and peninsula communities in particular. We also asked to explore scope for greater collaboration on air links. The services between Oban and island communities are lifelines and much valued, but it would be helpful to identify any scope to open up links to other parts of Scotland and the UK – something that has been highlighted during our discussions with local businesses through the Here To Hear You programme. Page 43
Page 44
3.5 COSLA Leaders: I’ve attended two COSLA Leaders meetings since my last update to Council – these taking place in June and August, given the July recess period. Agenda topics for these sessions are noted below with the majority of these being taken in private session, restricting how much I can share – however, I will be happy to answer questions where I can. 27th June – agenda items: • Pay Update • Council Tax Reform Engagement • Scottish Government Public Service Reform Strategy • Reduction in Class Contact Time • Scottish Government Climate Intelligence Service • UK Government Welfare Reform Consultation • Scottish Housing Challenges • EHRC Code of Practice Consultation • COSLA Manifesto • Flood Risk Management • Local Government Finance Update • Distribution 29th August – agenda items: • COSLA Manifesto • National Care Service Advisory Board • Fiscal Framework • SNCT Negotiations Update • European Charter of Local Self Government • Residential Outdoor Education • Universal Credit Two Child Limit Mitigation • Scottish Government Housing Emergency Action Plan • Packaging Extended Producer Responsibility • Local Government Finance and Council Tax Reform Update • Distribution • Statement on Community Cohesion 3.6 Housing – general update: A key piece of work which has helped deliver more affordable housing is the buy-back scheme. Over 20 houses have been purchased by Registered Social Landlords, with support from the Council, during the 2024/25 period. Work and discussions are ongoing with RSLs and community organisations to assist them to acquire properties for use as homes. We are also working with the Scottish Government in relation to options for a funding package which would help to secure properties that Page 44
Page 45
become available in areas where there is a high demand for affordable housing. Officers are continuing to work on the Strategic Housing Investment Plan for 2026/27 to 2030/31, and this is due to come to Council in November. There is currently a Housing Need and Demand Assessment (HNDA) process under way in the Lochgoilhead and Kilchrenan communities at present. Overall, the HNDA process is making good progress. The Argyll and Bute wide household survey is taking place and the opportunity for all residents to take part has been advertised through Council and partner channels. Housing stock profile and economic papers have been passed to the Scottish Government for comment and have received positive feedback. At the time of writing I am due to attend the Community Planning Partnership meeting in Arrochar on 19th September, which will include focus on how the CPP can assist in tackling the housing emergency. Papers for the Area Community Planning Partnership Groups (ACPGs) have also included housing emergency updates. The Addressing Depopulation officer continues to work delivering the Council-related recommendations from the private rented sector research that was produced by Citizens Advice Bureau and Glasgow University in relation to Argyll and Bute. In addition work is being carried out to gauge the demand for mid-market rentals across the local authority area, and further meetings will take place with Scottish Government officials to discuss next stages. During the 1st April to 30th June 2025 period, 40 Private Sector Housing Grants were approved, totalling £250,195. This is up from 32, with a value of £200,301, at the same time last year. 3.7 Economic growth – general update: Strategic Development Frameworks for Oban and Helensburgh: the first community engagement in Helensburgh has been carried out following member engagement. This went very well and the community were largely receptive. There is recognition that the base will expand and that more homes are required. A similar process will follow in Oban. This is a new approach for the council – taking a long-term view to tackle population, with very early engagement, and looking to identify how we can bring in the required infrastructure. Page 45
Page 46
Argyll and Bute’s Economic Strategy Action Plan, 2025-2028: The ESAP for 2024-2027 has undergone an annual review by relevant officers to articulated actions and success measures for 2025-2028 that will all contribute to achieving the longer-term outcomes under the four strategic pillars of People, Place, Planet and Prosperity outlined in the Council’s Economic Strategy, 2024-2034, In particular the actions and success measures align with the key themes and principles which influence and underpin all the Council’s priorities. The revised ESAP was agreed by the Environment, Development and Infrastructure Committee earlier in September. Highlands and Islands Regional Economic Partnership (HIREP): I attended the most recent HIREP meeting on 12th September. HIREP officers met Scottish Government’s Regional Economic Development Team on 19th August, with officials seeking views from a wide range of stakeholders across different sectors on what regional working could look like in the future; in particular elements of decision- making at a Regional Economic Partnership level. A report will be provided to Ministers before the end of the current Scottish Parliamentary session. Officers from our Economic Growth team are also members of the HIREP Re-population group, which has a key focus on actions on the ground to realise population growth and retention. Community Regeneration Partnership funding: Work continues on the business case and officers continue to liaise with UK Government colleagues to finalise arrangements. The Council continues to progress proposed projects working with key delivery partners, focusing at present on feasibility and outline design activities. Following confirmation of funding, detailed design and procurement work can commence at pace. 3.8 And finally…: As I write this report, Council officers are finalising the arrangements for the award of the Freedom of Argyll and Bute to the Royal Regiment of Scotland. This is due to take place in Lochgilphead on Saturday 20th September, and promises to be a historic occasion and a colourful spectacle, with the Regiment marching through the town with bayonets fixed, colours flying and to the sound of the pipes and drums. This follows our agreement in April this year to confer the Freedom in recognition of the Regiment’s ongoing dedication and service, but acknowledging the historic links with the region through the Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders and, further back to 1794, with the 98th (Argyllshire) Regiment of Foot, raised for the 5th Duke of Argyll. Page 46
Page 47
This has involved a lot of partnership working across Council departments, with partners like Police Scotland and others, and with the Regiment itself. All that remains is to hope for fine weather on the day! Find out more at Freedom of Argyll and Bute – Royal Regiment of Scotland 4. CONCLUSION 4.1 This report highlights the activities of the Leader of Argyll and Bute Council for the period 6th June to 12th September 2025. Councillor Jim Lynch Leader, Argyll and Bute Council 15TH September 2025 For further information please contact Aileen McNicol, Leadership Support and Member Services Manager, telephone 01546 604014 or email aileen.mcnicol@argyll-bute.gov.uk Page 47
Page 48
This page is intentionally left blank
Page 49
ARGYLL AND BUTE COUNCIL COUNCIL 24th September 2025 POLICY LEADS REPORT 1. INTRODUCTION 1.1 This report provides members with an update on key areas of activity for each Policy Lead Councillor. This aims to provide updates from all Policy Leads as regularly as possible, so that all members are informed, up-to-date and able to engage with current issues. This report covers the period since the last update provided to Council on 26th June up to 9th September 2025, which period includes the July recess. 2. RECOMMENDATIONS 2.1 Members are asked to consider the report. 3. POLICY LEAD FOR BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT – Cllr Math Campbell- Sturgess 3.1 Introduction: This report provides an update on key activity in the Business Development portfolio, including economic development, employability, digital infrastructure, rural investment programmes and film/media promotion. 3.2 Regeneration and Capital Projects: Work continues on the regeneration projects supported through the Regeneration Capital Grant Fund. The Port Ellen Community Hub and Aros Waterfront Development are still in development and further funding has been secured for Port Ellen and work is ongoing at both sites. The Luing Slate Quarry proposal is progressing, with subsidy control assessment being finalised. Stage 1 bids for the 26/27 programme were submitted in June, covering projects in Kintyre, Tiree, Tarbert, and Nonhebel Park among others. In Lochgilphead, four priority buildings under the CARS programme are now complete, with others underway. Tarbert’s Heritage and Place Programme has reached the development stage, with applications now Page 49 Agenda Item 6
Page 50
submitted to the National Lottery Heritage Fund and Historic Environment Scotland. `3.3 Economic Growth: Oban has been confirmed as a host port for the 2026 Clipper Round the World Yacht Race, which will provide a welcome boost to the town and wider area. Officers are also assisting with planning for the International Winter Swimming Championship due to be held in Oban in December 2025. Discussions continue on the seaweed industry, with Argyll and Bute playing a leading role in the newly expanded Scottish Seaweed Industry Association. The Council’s Rural Growth Deal is backing SAMS in the development of the new Centre for Seaweed and Shellfish Innovation and Development at Dunstaffnage. Distilleries remain a very important sector for Argyll and Bute. There has been progress with expansion proposals in Campbeltown and a site visit to MACC is planned to review wider investment opportunities, including possible space industry links. 3.4 Business Gateway and UK Shared Prosperity Fund: Business Gateway performance remains strong, with satisfaction rates in Argyll and Bute among the highest in Scotland. The UK Shared Prosperity Fund (UKSPF) transition year budget is now fully committed, with demand far exceeding the funds available. Unless a replacement scheme is launched quickly there will be a funding gap of at least six months. Officers, along with COSLA and Scottish Local Authorities Economic Development (SLAED), are pressing the UK and Scottish Governments for clarity. Community Development has secured support to reopen Princess Louise Hall in Helensburgh, which is expected to return to community use by the end of the year 3.5 Tourism and Film Sector: Projects supported through the Rural Tourism Infrastructure Fund continue, including the Staffa jetty works, Port Ellen motorhome facilities, and Skerryvore Lighthouse Shore Station. Film and TV activity remains busy. The feature film Jack of Spades is filming locally, Balamory is back in production on Mull, and several other productions have made use of locations across Argyll and Bute. 3.6 Employability: Delivery of the No One Left Behind programme and related employability schemes is underway, with InspirAlba, Clyde Fishermen’s Trust, and Street League all delivering services. Uptake of the Parental Welfare Fund has dipped slightly but is expected to rise again now that the schools are back. Page 50
Page 51
The second phase of work placements and training interventions under the UKSPF is running, with strong employer interest. Several participants have already achieved qualifications. 3.7 Digital Infrastructure and Connectivity: Progress continues on extending fibre and 4G/5G coverage across the area. A mobile coverage mapping project has now expanded to cover all of Argyll and Bute, with results due to be published soon. The Shared Rural Network programme will now deliver ten confirmed mast sites locally, representing a significant improvement. Full fibre availability is increasing gradually, though challenges remain in some of the more remote areas 4 POLICY LEAD FOR CARE SERVICES – Cllr Dougie McFadzean 4.1 Introduction: I continue to have the honour of being Argyll and Bute Council’s Policy Lead for Care Services, where challenges and opportunities come along on an almost daily basis. I am incredibly humbled by the dedication, enthusiasm and caring approach exhibited by my colleagues within the HSCP, particularly under the current fiscal pressures we are enduring. It’s no exaggeration to say that almost every meeting has the undertone of finance. The HSCP must live within its means. Legally we must balance our books at the end of every financial year, a requirement that is becoming ever more difficult to achieve as we face an ageing population, a decreasing workforce, increased costs and more complex health and care needs. I continue to meet Evan Beswick (HSCP Chief Officer) and Graham Bell (IJB Chair) on a weekly basis where we discuss emerging issues and strategic planning. I have attended all HSCP committee meetings and recently interviewed a number of candidates for two heads of service posts, appointing successful candidates to both posts. This should provide the Chief Officer with a robust management team going forward. I am also continuing to I continue to get across Argyll and Bute to meet as many colleagues as possible and listen to their concerns and ideas. During these challenging times we must listen to our front-line staff and do all we can to support them, as they support our communities. In addition, Cllr Forrest and I had the pleasure of attending the annual Corporate Parenting Board fun day in Inveraray where we met foster carers, cared for young people, colleagues from the emergency services and lots of enthusiastic volunteers, whilst the kids were having a great time playing games and eating cake. This is another example of the great work our education and social care staff do, working very closely together to support some of the vulnerable people in our society. Page 51
Page 52
4.2 Ministerial visit: Since the last full council meeting I had the privilege to welcome Health Minister Martin Henry from the South Atlantic island of St Helens to Islay, where I showed him several aspects of our health and social care offerings. He left Islay impressed with our staff, facilities and attitude and will be taking some learnings home with him, over 4,000 miles away. 4.3 Primary Care: Community Treatment And Care Centres (CTACs) and Vaccination Hubs: Dunoon: The Dunoon Community Treatment and Care Centre (CTAC) and Vaccination Service has relocated on a temporary basis to Ward 1 in Cowal Community Hospital, allowing for increased service capacity and readily accessible space to deliver vaccinations. The area will be subject to statutory works in the future, depending on the availability of capital funding. A permanent solution for hospital accommodation of the full primary care multi-disciplinary team is in the early stages of planning. Oban: The procurement process for creation of a permanent CTAC hub in Lorn and Islands Hospital is at an advanced stage with appointment of a contractor expected in October. Slippage notwithstanding, the Oban hub should be operational before the end of this financial year. The cost of the works is supported by primary care premises reserves. Helensburgh: The formation of three clinical rooms and staff amenities in the former X-Ray department of the Victoria Integrated Care Centre was completed in March/April 2025. The rooms are fully operational and included in the booking system for the wider Helensburgh site with priority given to CTAC and the primary care multi-disciplinary teams. 4.4 Strategic Planning Performance and Technology: The e-health team are continuing to deliver infrastructure projects at pace including upgrading the SWAN 2 network and Lorn and Islands Hospital laboratories. There is a continued focus on security and resilience. Operational improvements in terms of ensuring up to date technology and increased capacity for General Practitioners through new technology has also been delivered. At the time of writing the draft Joint Strategic Plan will be presented to the Integration Joint Board on 17th September 2025, seeking approval for the document to go out for consultation to communities and partners. It is fully anticipated that the final document will be informed through the consultation period, and we are looking forward to working with all our stakeholders to planning the best possible health and social services. Page 52
Page 53
The Hospital Haemodialysis Review Oversight Group will next meet on 14th October 2025. This has been a complex process and involves future planning in relation to need and future need. A consultation process will be required as any outcomes of process may require service change. A risk to change is the availability of capital and longer term revenue funding and it would be essential that we continue to plan jointly with board partners for the longer term. The annual review of the Integrated Performance Management Framework has been completed with Senior Managers and Performance Managers meeting with Heads of Service. Updates to current and new KPIs are complete with the new reporting cycle commenced for 2025/26 with publication of FQ1 (Jan- Mar 25/26) in August and establishing the new reporting year. This is presented at both Area and Community Services Committees. Development and testing of new fully interactive Service Activity Dashboard is under way. This is in response to the Time to Care Project objectives with a focus on improving data intelligence for local managers, using an interactive dashboard that offers visual trend analysis and easy view area data profiles. For accessibility the dashboard uses a “three click principle” for access and navigation, and the data from the dashboards will be included in the performance reporting and will be reported across our self-service SharePoint and MST Channel. In the longer term this will support managers to have wider insight on how they direct and manage resource. Further development of the Transformation Board has been ongoing with recent finalisation of the key areas of transformation for 2025/26. There has been a series of workshops with regards to reviewing new ways of working across the team and a renewed focus on quality assurance and project management. The new Board will meet on Thursday 18th September. Phase 2 Eclipse - Community Health Teams have seen the ongoing walk- through sessions being completed from August to September. These sessions are an opportunity for the Community Health Teams to test their bespoke build in the Eclipse Case Management System. This is supported by a further period of Process Acceptance Testing (PAT). The range of community teams is extensive covering Allied Health Professionals – Occupational Therapy, Dietetics, Speech and Language, and Physiotherapy, with the addition of Community Nursing. Both Child Health and Mental Health Teams are scheduled to begin the development of their workflows in the new year and have already had a preliminary discovery session with the system provider, OLM. Once completed this will see a fully digitally integrated community case management system, Page 53
Page 54
streamlining ease of access and delivery for service users and their families. 4.5 Corporate and Finance: The HSCP continues its work on how it intends to address financial pressures in the current year and the increasing pressure in the 2026/27 financial year as reliance on non-recurring funding comes to an end. The first stage in service change is to progress the Threshold of Care proposal for decision in September. The scale of the projected deficit for 2026/27 is such that further significant changes to service delivery are likely. The budget outlook and a series of other financial reports and the strategic risk register outline the severity of the situation facing the HSCP and wider health and social care sector at present. These are due to be considered by the IJB in September. It is a fact that actions that have been taken so far to stabilise care hours delivered and spend are already having an impact upon flow in the system, with increased waits for care at home packages and increased delayed discharges. Balancing the requirement for financial balance with the increasing demand for care is becoming an increasingly serious challenge. 4.6 Health and Community Care: Campbeltown Hospital: Registered Nurse resource remains a challenge with a high level of vacancies, however there is ongoing focus on recruitment looking at a specific international cohort. The service focus is on maintaining safe emergency care with six available inpatient beds. Dialysis has resumed; however this is being managed by an agency nurse. Recruitment to the ward posts is progressing well and bed numbers will be reviewed potentially in October should staff be in post and inducted. The new x-ray department is now operational with new equipment. An official opening is being planned. The new department is adjacent to the A&E department which will improve the patient and staff experience. Monthly A&E and bed occupancy numbers continue to be reported to local Ward Councillors. Lorn and the Islands Hospital: Recent interviews have seen three Consultant Physicians recruited. It is anticipated they will be in post by November, which will support continuity of care and reduction in short term staffing costs. Page 54
Page 55
Health Improvement Scotland recently carried out an unannounced inspection. As a result an action plan was developed and is being taken forward with learning. The consultation on the recent Fair Access and Threshold of Care Proposal closed on 31 August and was presented for decision at the IJB on 17th September. Management Roles: Caroline Robertson commenced in post on the 8th September as Head of Service Hospitals and Community Care. Interim Head of Service Donald Watt will return to his substantive post at the beginning of October, and we thank him for his great work whilst standing in. 4.7 Social Work Services: Despite challenges relating to staffing and reliance on temporary staffing, there has been an improvement in a number of performance criteria. Of particular note is a reduction in the numbers of later reports to Children’s Hearings. Work on stage 2 of the Bairns Hoose is progressing. The building will have been completely refurbished thanks to a Scottish Government grant. Work is now concentrating on the recovery programme for those young people who have been traumatised through abuse. Justice Social Work continues to meet the demands of courts and the Multi-Agency Public Protection Arrangements. Also on the agenda for September Council is the Chief Social Work Officer’s report for 2024/25 and this contains significant depth of information. 5 POLICY LEAD FOR CLIMATE CHANGE, RENEWABLES AND NET ZERO – Cllr Luna Martin 5.1 Climate Café: I attended a meeting of the Oban Climate Café with Will Currie and Andy MacPherson. The meeting involved discussions with residents and volunteers about what resilience and adaptation could look like in Argyll and Bute. The event was very insightful, and I was thankful for the opportunity to listen to and share ideas about the impact of Climate Change on our region. Page 55
Page 56
Since June 2025, Argyll and Bute Council’s Property Services team has delivered a focused package of energy efficiency measures across priority education and office assets, progressing carbon and cost reduction through fabric and controls improvements while advancing renewable generation opportunities. 5.2 Kilmory Castle Solar PV Array Expansion: Following confirmation from the Distribution Network Operator that the previous 50 kW constraint has been raised to 200 kW on the Kilmory Estate connection, the Council is preparing to expand the existing ground-mounted PV array to around 200 kW. The project will proceed through appropriate governance, technical design, and procurement steps, including any planning and grid conditions, with delivery programmed by May 2026. This staged approach aligns generation capacity with current grid headroom while preserving optionality for future scaling as network reinforcement progresses. 5.3 Energy Efficiency Works Since June 2025 – Education and Offices: At Sandbank Primary School, new high-efficiency boilers have been installed alongside enhanced Building Energy Management System controls and upgraded distribution insulation. These works are expected to reduce annual heating costs by approximately 20%, reflecting a combined impact from plant efficiency uplift, improved modulation, and reduced distribution losses. At Tiree High School, the Council has rationalised stored hot water capacity for space heating from 50,000 litres to 5,000 litres, removing two 25,000-litre storage vessels and installing a single 5,000-litre buffer tank. Page 56
Page 57
This rightsizing, delivered with BEMS control enhancements and pipework insulation upgrades, is expected to reduce annual heating costs by approximately 35%, primarily through lower standing losses, improved control responsiveness, and reduced parasitic consumption. At Lochgilphead Community Education Centre, new circulating pumps have been fitted with enhanced BEMS optimisation and upgraded pipework insulation. The combined effect of higher pump efficiency, variable speed control regimes, and reduced distribution losses is expected to lower annual heating costs by approximately 15%. At the Oban Social Work office, Property Services has installed new high- efficiency radiators and associated controls. The targeted replacement and zoning strategy is expected to deliver approximately 10% annual heating cost reduction by improving heat delivery efficiency and enabling closer temperature control in occupied zones. 5.4 Low-Carbon Heat Programme Delivery Approach: Due to an indefinite delay to the national Non-Domestic Energy Efficiency Framework (NDEEF) replacement framework, the Council will commit the £855k Clean Energy—NDEEF2 allocation through in-house Building Services delivery to maintain momentum on oil-to-air-source-heat-pump conversions. The initial tranche covers Keills Primary School, Dalmally Primary School, Ardrishaig Primary School, Easdale Primary School, and Strath of Appin Primary School. The Council will adopt a whole-building approach consistent with NDEEF principles, addressing fabric, controls, renewable generation, and supporting systems to maximise cost and carbon savings. Design work is underway, with site-specific sequencing to coordinate enabling works, grid capacity checks for any on-site renewables integration, and commissioning windows that minimise service disruption. 5.5 DRAX Foundation LED Programme for Schools: During the summer period, the Council completed a programme of LED lighting replacements in schools supported by the DRAX Foundation. Property Services operatives delivered the works to a compressed holiday timetable, coordinating access, materials, and quality assurance to avoid term-time disruption. The LED upgrades standardise efficient luminaires and controls across participating schools, reducing electricity consumption and maintenance burdens while improving lighting quality for teaching spaces. The programme contributes to the Council’s broader energy reduction trajectory in education settings and complements ongoing Building Energy Management System (BEMS) optimisation and plant upgrades. Page 57
Page 58
POLICY LEAD FOR COMMUNITY PLANNING AND CORPORATE SERVICES – Cllr Mark Irvine 6.1 Workforce Planning and Development: The council is actively planning ahead to make sure it has the right people in the right roles for the future. With many experienced staff expected to retire over the next few years, a “grow our own” approach is being promoted. This means creating trainee posts, offering flexible retirement, and encouraging mentoring so that knowledge can be passed on rather than lost. These changes not only support succession planning but also open up career paths for younger employees and help build confidence in the council’s long-term resilience. 6.2 Corporate Improvement and Performance: A new Corporate Improvement Plan has been signed off, setting a clear roadmap for the years ahead. Services are working with outcome dashboards and performance indicators so that progress can be measured more effectively and transparently. Leaders and managers have welcomed the tools that make it easier to see where improvements are happening and where attention is needed. Overall, the plan and dashboards provide a more joined-up way to track how the council is delivering on its promises and priorities. 6.3 Employee Experience: The most recent employee survey has already led to real change. Staff feedback has been taken seriously, with flexible working, leadership visibility, and digital training all being stepped up. A dedicated wellbeing function is now in place, so support is more coordinated and visible across the organisation. This open approach to sharing survey results and showing tangible improvements helps staff feel that their voices matter and that the council is committed to making the workplace better for everyone. 6.4 ICT and Digital Services: The ICT team continues to shine, consistently recognised as one of the most efficient and effective in the UK. With 59 staff supporting over 200 systems and 2,000 users, their work underpins almost every council service. A new Projects and Liaison Manager is now in post, bringing fresh ideas and experience from the private sector. The service is also making major investments in schools, replacing outdated iPads, upgrading networks, and preparing for the use of advanced tools like Microsoft Copilot. These upgrades mean more reliable devices for pupils and staff, better digital learning opportunities, and a stronger foundation for future innovation. Page 58
Page 59
6.5 Cyber Security: Cyber security remains a key focus, with the council tested every year against national standards and accredited through Cyber Essentials. Regular exercises, awareness training, and phishing simulations are helping staff to be alert to risks. Importantly, the council’s systems are independently checked, and despite growing threats across the UK, the local ICT security team continues to keep services safe and compliant. This proactive stance means the council is not waiting for problems to happen but is actively building resilience into its day-to-day operations. 6.6 Cove and Kilcreggan Community Hub Pilot: The Cove and Kilcreggan Community Hub has been a real community win. Based in the local Post Office, it gives residents easy access to council forms, leaflets, bin calendars, food waste bags, and even period products. People can also get help finding information on services like blue badges or recycling collections without travelling to Helensburgh. The pilot proved that this low-cost, volunteer-supported model works well, with residents appreciating the convenience and personal touch. Because of its success, the council now has a ready-made model and toolkit that could be rolled out to other rural communities, helping to keep services local in places where demand for traditional service points is lower. 6.7 Registration Services: The registration service is performing strongly, with the number of ceremonies and events increasing compared to last year. Importantly, income from ceremonies continues to cover the full cost of delivering the statutory service, making it sustainable. The new Zipporah online registration system is proving popular, allowing couples to personalise their ceremonies in ways that suit them best. At the same time, innovations like AI-powered helpbots are being trialled to support staff and customers, showing that the service is not only keeping up but actively modernising to meet people’s needs. 6.8 Communications and Recognition: The council’s communications team has been shortlisted for a national award from the PRCA, highlighting the quality of their digital and social media work. This is external recognition of the creativity and effort put into making sure information is clear, engaging, and accessible to staff and residents alike. Being a finalist is a positive reflection of how well the team is adapting to the fast-changing communications landscape and ensuring that the council’s messages are getting through effectively. Page 59
Page 60
6.9 Freedom of Argyll and Bute: A special celebration has been scheduled for the 20th of September to award the Freedom of Argyll and Bute to the Royal Regiment of Scotland. By the time of the council meeting, the march and ceremony will have taken place in Lochgilphead and will be a proud moment for the community, showcasing both tradition and appreciation for the regiment. Events like this not only strengthen community pride but also put the area in the spotlight in a very positive way. 6.10 Complaints Handling: The council’s approach to complaints is working well. Out of more than 750 complaints received last year, only 27 were referred to the Ombudsman – and none were taken forward for investigation. That means most concerns were handled quickly and effectively at a local level, without the need for escalation. This shows that the complaints system is responsive and that issues are being dealt with fairly and to a standard that satisfies national oversight. 6.11 Freedom of Information: Over 1,500 FOI requests were received last year, with an impressive 90% answered within the statutory deadline of 20 working days. Only three cases required formal decisions by the Information Commissioner, with two in favour of applicants and one supporting the council. This strong performance shows a clear commitment to openness and transparency, and to making sure residents, media, and other stakeholders can get the information they are entitled to. 7 POLICY LEAD FOR EDUCATION – Cllr Audrey Forrest 7.1 Exam Results: The first thing that must be mentioned in my report is the news that our SQA results were good this year with increased presentations and increased Pass rates. Once again, we have 100% pass rate at National 4. At National 5, Argyll and Bute maintained its national ranking for A-C pass rate whilst moving into the top half of local authorities for A grades. At Higher, Argyll and Bute improved its national A-C pass rate ranking by 4 places, narrowly missing the top half of all authorities by less than a single percentage point. The authority continued its strong performance at Advanced Higher, placing 10th in the country for both A-C pass rate and A grade rate. We congratulate our young people who achieved these great results. Page 60
Page 61
There is also support for anyone who didn’t get quite what they wanted. Developing the Young Workforce held their #NoWrongPath campaign on social media again this year encouraging young people to understand that there are many paths to achievement and to get them to where they want to be in the future. Our excellent Positive Destinations figures give us hope that this approach is working. 7.2 First Minister Visit to Hermitage Academy: On 23rd June, I was delighted to be invited to Hermitage Academy. The First Minister was visiting to have a Question and Answer session with the 4th year Modern Studies class which was really interesting-and very brave, I think! Whilst there, Mr Swinney also unveiled the Platinum Investors in Young People Award which is a fantastic achievement for the school which is the first in Scotland to gain national recognition at bronze, silver, gold and platinum. Page 61
Page 62
7.3 Probationers Day: I was happy to attend the Probationers’ Day in Inveraray and have the chance to welcome the teachers who will be working in Argyll and Bute for their vital probation year. They are a valued part of our workforce and it was great to learn that most of them already have connections to Argyll and Bute and to wish them well. A Fun Day was held in Inveraray Primary school in early August for our Care Experienced Young People, their carers and staff who work with them. Everyone seemed to have a good time and the sun shone which always helps. It was good to catch up with some of the young people and was exciting to hear that a Care Experienced young person has just become Vice Captain in one of our schools - she was really enthusiastic about the year ahead and about her role. As a Corporate Parent, the council has a duty of care to do the very best for the young people in our care in whatever form that takes. Further information on the Council’s Corporate Parenting responsibilities can be found on the Council website. 7.4 MCR Pathways: It is with great pleasure that I am able to say that MCR Pathways will be developed in another five of our schools. This is a really beneficial service which is going from strength to strength and is providing support for growing numbers of our more vulnerable young people. The service will be developed into Lochgilphead, Tarbert. Campbeltown, Tobermory and Islay. This service, which is based on building relationships, relies on volunteers. If you have any spare time, would you consider giving one hour a week during school hours to take part? Training is given and it is all about the relationships we build. It is really rewarding and as the service is expanded, we will need more volunteer Mentors. For further information or to enquire about this role please visit the MCR website. I would recommend reading the latest Scotland Impact Report to fully understand the profound positive impact MCR has on young people engaged with the programme. Page 62
Page 63
7.5 General education matters: We are glad to say that John Logie Baird Primary School in Helensburgh has reopened with the start of the new term after the removal of RAAC concrete. Thanks to all the pupils and staff for their patience during this necessary work. The Education service is sending out a quarterly newsletter to all members -“Thriving Together” which, in various mediums including short videos, can be very useful in getting information out to us all-please have a look when it lands in your inbox. There are stories from across all areas of the Authority so there will be something of interest in your area. I visited a number of schools within the Oban area on 29th August. As always, it was a joy to meet our children and young people in their learning environment. 8 POLICY LEAD FOR FINANCE AND COMMERCIAL SERVICES – Cllr Ross Moreland 8.1 Financial Services: Annual Accounts for the year ended 31 March 2025: The 2024-25 pre- audit annual accounts were considered by the Audit and Scrutiny Committee on 26th June and thereafter approved for submission to the auditor, Mazars by the statutory deadline of 30th June 2025. As outlined in the S95 Officer’s statement of responsibilities and the ‘Standards Issued Not Yet Adopted’ note, it was not possible to comply with the new IFRS16 (International Financial Reporting Standard) standard in respect of leases within the pre-audit version of the accounts. Specialist technical services in this respect, procured from our current treasury advisors MUFG had not been delivered within the required timescale. Information has now been received from MUFG in respect of accounting for leases and lease type arrangements under IFRS16. This is currently subject to review by officers and will inform the anticipated changes to the accounts that require to be made during the audit process in respect of IFRS16 compliance. The council’s external auditor, Mazars completed their audit planning in July, with fieldwork underway throughout August-September. Weekly progress meetings between the Mazars Audit Manager and senior council finance officers commenced in July. There are no issues arising at this point. Page 63
Page 64
Budget Outlook 2026-27 to 2030-31: An updated Budget Outlook, reported to the Policy and Resources Committee on 21st August 2025, outlines a projected budget gap of £10.5m (previously £9.6m) for 2026-27, rising to £33.9m (previously £33.8m) by 2030-31, based on the mid-range scenario. Key updates to the Budget Outlook are as follows: • The pay award for SJC and Chief Officers has now been agreed at 4% for 2025-26 and 3.5% for 2026-27, in comparison to the 3% provided for each of these years. These increases have now been reflected within the Budget Outlook, with assumed match SG funding for the 2025-26 pay award differential only. (Net increase to gap £0.9m re council 2026-27 unfunded). • DEFRA funding in respect of Extended Producer Responsibility has been confirmed at £2.8m in 2025-26, £1m lower than estimated, resulting in a reduction to the carry forward assumed to be available for 2026-27. Additional DEFRA funding at 50% of the 2025-26 has now been assumed from 2026-27, equating to £1.4m. (Net decrease to gap £0.4m.) • New budget pressures totalling £0.9m, largely in respect of Schools – Residential (£0.8m). (Increase to gap £0.9m.) • Over-recovery of Council Tax income 2025-26, recurring in future years, currently estimated at £0.5m but subject to ongoing refinement, through more sophisticated financial modelling, and also subject to financial risk in respect of the classification of self-catering units as either domestic or non-domestic. (Decrease to gap £0.5m.) There are a number of financial risks which may impact the financial position of the council in 2025-26 and future years, including in respect of our partners such as the HSCP and Live Argyll and their respective financial positions. This will be subject to ongoing monitoring and review, including in respect of delivery of the IJB’s financial recovery plan and Live Argyll’s revenue position. The Budget Outlook and Financial Risks will continue to be monitored and reported on an ongoing basis to Policy and Resources Committee. 2026-27 Budget Approach: The budget approach for 2026-27 and future years, ‘Enabling the Council of the Future to Thrive’ was approved by Council on 26th June. This provides a more strategic approach to savings planning, whilst recognising that a significant 2026-27 budget gap Page 64
Page 65
requires to be addressed in the short term. A pipeline of savings for consideration is being progressed across four themes: • Empowering Communities; • Increasing Income; • Right Sizing Council Asset Base; and • Delivering Services Differently. In addition to the above, services will be requested to bring forward short term savings options for consideration in respect of the 2026-27 budget gap. The cross party Budget Working Group will meet monthly from August to consider proposals and make recommendations to Council. Revenue Budget Monitoring: The 2025-26 Revenue Budget Monitoring position as at 30th June 2025, reported to Policy and Resources Committee on 21st August, outlines a forecast underspend of £0.5m for the year. This is in respect of estimated additional Council Tax income, which is subject to ongoing review and refinement. At this stage, services are forecasting spend in line with approved budgets. The HSCP was forecasting an overspend of £0.3m in respect of Social Work services as at 30th June 2025, with an expectation that this would be managed from within available HSCP reserves. This position and the risk to the council will continue to be closely monitored throughout the year. As was the case in 2024-25, there is likely to be an underspend in respect of debt financing costs, largely due to the significant level of reserve balances and the deferral of external borrowing for capital. However, it is deemed prudent to assume that there may be an opportunity to redirect any available resources to future council priorities, with no impact on the revenue forecast position in 2025-26. Capital Plan Monitoring: The Capital Plan monitoring as at Quarter 1 2025-26, 30th June 2025 was reported to Policy and Resources Committee on 21st August. This will now be reported on a quarterly basis to align with Treasury Management governance reporting requirements. The previous 2024-27 Capital Plan has been rolled forward, with slippage of £22m from 2024-25 into 2025-26 and the removal of completed projects. The new Capital Plan for 2025-26 and future years also reflects the additional resources approved by Council in February 2025, totalling £17.2m. Further budget changes have been made to reflect additional resources confirmed during Quarter 1 2025-26, totalling £1.5m. Page 65
Page 66
The revised approved gross expenditure budget now totals £303.5m, of which £93.2m has been incurred in prior years. This leaves approved capital investment of £210.3m to be delivered over 2025-26 and future years. Approved project specific income, excluding amounts accounted for in prior years (£26.016m) now totals £12.243m, resulting in approved net expenditure of £198.029m. There is a forecast overspend of £0.180m on the overall approved gross expenditure budget of £210.3m for 2025-26 and future years. This comprises £125k in respect of Lochgilphead Depot Rationalisation and other relatively small individual project budget variances of less than £50k. The forecast spend has been profiled across 2025-26, 2026-27 and future years, with £75.4m forecast to be incurred in 2025-26. As at Quarter 1, actual spend totalled £6.7m, representing 9% of the total forecast for the year. The profile of forecast spend across 2025-26 and future years will be subject to ongoing monitoring and review, with updates reported to committee. There are 126 projects in the current plan, with 121 on track to be delivered and five ‘off track’ (four in respect of timing only and one forecasting an overspend of more than £50k). Benefits: Housing Benefit performance has been strong in 2025/26. Between 1st April and 31st July 2025: • New claims were processed in an average of 9.9 days. • Changes in circumstances were processed in an average of 4.2 days. Both results are well within target, supporting timely access to benefit, helping prevent rent arrears, and promoting housing stability. Council Tax: As of July 2025, the in-year Council Tax collection rate stands at 38.1%, which is 0.38% lower than the same period in 2024. The shortfall primarily reflects the ongoing reclassification of Self-Catering Units from the Non-Domestic Rates Valuation Roll to the Council Tax register. The Scottish Government is laying new regulations to enable further review of these classifications, which may lead to adjustments later in the financial year. Page 66
Page 67
Second Homes: By 31st July 2025, Council Tax income from second homes was £3.78m, representing 43.1% of the total billed. This compares favourably to £3.65m (42.9%) at the same point in 2024. Work continues across Council services to assess the impact of the policy applying double Council Tax on second homes in Argyll and Bute. Non-Domestic Rates (NDR): In 2025/26, 50.5% of NDR billed has been collected by the end of July, more than 4% higher than the same period last year. While performance is strong, it has been boosted by a one-off recovery of £3m following Assessor changes notified just before year end. Scottish Welfare Fund (SWF): By 31st July 2025, the Council had awarded £191,000 in Community Care Grants and Crisis Grants – up £32,000 (20%) compared with July 2024. If this rate of spend continues, there is a projected overspend of around £200,000 against Scottish Government programme funding by year end. The position is being closely monitored, with options under consideration to manage spend across the remainder of the year. Discretionary Housing Payments (DHP): As at 31st July 2025, the Council has spent or committed £937,000 of its £1.3m allocation. These payments remain critical in supporting households to sustain tenancies and avoid homelessness. A draft new DHP policy has been developed and is undergoing final consultation. It is due for consideration at Policy and Resources Committee in October 2025, and, if approved, will relax the current financial hardship test to give greater flexibility in supporting households in need. 8.2 Commercial Services: Helensburgh Leisure Centre (HLC): Further to the previous update to Council in June 2025 regarding the devasting effects of Storm Eowyn, there continues to be steps taken to open the leisure centre as quickly as possible. The Council has appointed hub North Scotland as the development partner for Helensburgh Leisure Centre, to manage and deliver the works to replace the centre’s roof and other repairs following the damage done by Storm Eowyn. As a development partner, hub North Scotland will play a key role in the project by providing project management and working collaboratively with developers, builders, and their supply chain partners, Galliford Try FM and Curtis Moore, to advance the works. This appointment follows a period of competitive tendering required by the council and its insurer. Page 67
Page 68
Although not always visible, a lot of work is happening behind the scenes. Bulk materials, which are not readily available and take time to be delivered have already been ordered, and the team is currently finalising the detailed programme of works. A site compound is being established and scaffolding is being erected to install further temporary weathering measures. Repair works will be ongoing through Autumn when the bulk materials arrive on site and the existing roof will be totally stripped and the replacement roof fitted. In terms of a timescale for re-opening, the position remains as per my last update - a reasonable estimate for reopening could be no later than the first quarter of the calendar year 2026. Further updates will be provided when in a position to do so. John Logie Baird Primary School: Education and Property Services are delighted to report the re-opening of John Logie Baird Primary School following the removal of deteriorating Reinforced Autoclaved Aerated Concrete (RAAC) panels and extensive internal refurbishment works. The works commenced on 1st July 2024 and were successfully programmed for completion to receive the new school intake in August 2025. The school community were decanted to temporary accommodation sited on the school playing fields for the full academic year as the works progressed. The works comprised of the removal of existing roof coverings to expose deteriorating RAAC planks and co-ordinated removal under specialist instruction, timber reinstatement to ensure the structural integrity of the existing structure and re- roofing on completion. The works also included a replacement gym hall floor, LED lighting, ceilings, doors and flooring through-out the affected areas. The improvements have significantly enhanced the learning environment and overall experience for pupils and staff alike. Page 68
Page 69
Oban Airport Business Park: The project is progressing well with initial site works completed, planning consent granted for the two initial buildings to be developed, the design team and main contractor appointed and the programme estimating commencement of the main contract in 2025 with the majority of the works completed in 2026. Due to the timing of the works, Bristow Helicopters will require to erect and operate form a temporary hangar from 1st April 2026 and works are due to commence on this shortly. In addition the excess material from the main site, which was original intended to be stored to the south, will now be used for quarry restoration works to the north of the airport. This is due to the area to the south having been found to contain peat which is best not disturbed from an environmental perspective. It is intended to bring an report to the Policy and Resources Committee on 9th October 2025 to provide a more detailed update. Widening Venison Project: Catering and cleaning staff returned following the summer break, with dedicated cleaning and training days held prior to the return of children and young people, ensuring a smooth start to the new school term. In line with new legislation, all catering and cleaning staff working in schools now hold a PVG for children. The rollout of the new primary and secondary menu has been well received with positive feedback from pupils and staff alike. The contract for wild venison supply on Jura and Islay has been extended to June 2026, allowing continued collaboration with Wild Jura and supporting efforts to promote venison among our children and young people. Additionally, a new tender for wild venison in the Mid-Argyll area was recently advertised, initially to supply Inveraray Primary school. This contract is currently under evaluation and, once awarded, and will also run until June 2026. 9 POLICY LEAD FOR PLANNING AND REGULATORY SERVICES – Cllr Kieron Green 9.1 Introduction: Since my last report I have chaired meetings of the PPSL Committee on the 18th June and 20th August, the Licensing Board on the 24th June, and several Local Review Boards and Civic Hearings. I attended meetings of the Clyde Marine Planning Partnership on the 3rd June and 2nd September, which is after a lengthy period looking for agreement to consult on draft plan for a Clyde Regional Marine Planning Partnership over the coming months. At the COSLA Environment and Page 69
Page 70
Economy Board on the 20th June and 5th September items discussed included Waste, Recycling and the Circular Economy, Climate Change, and Business Gateway Services. 9.2 Development Management: Performance remains positive with continued progress to determine older legacy applications, whilst keeping processing times for applications received in the last six months to an average of 9.4 weeks. Pressures are arising in the Major Applications Team, as expected, from the volume of Section 36 (energy generation) consents received, with limited provision for extension of time to consider these. The Central Validation Team continues to consistently meet the target of five days, and recruitment continues to planner and administration posts. The National Planning Improvement Framework (NPIF) Performance Report and Action Plan have now been confirmed and submitted to Ministers and Council. Stage 2 of NPIF reporting will commence in Autumn 2025. Work is continuing to review enforcement activity workflow and performance reporting. 9.3 Development Policy: Officers have been working on evidence report papers and Local Living (20 minute neighbourhoods) assessment, with the first draft of the Transport Topic Paper circulated. Contact with local elected members around the Oban and Helensburgh Strategic Development Frameworks has begun. Wider community engagement will now be proceeding over the Autumn. In the Helensburgh area this includes working with and facilitating input from the MoD to LDP3. 9.4 Building Standards: The Grenfell Tower tragedy highlighted the importance of building standards regulation, and work is underway to strengthen this across Scotland. Actions being taken include the creation of the Scottish Building Standards Hub (SBSH), and increased investment in local authority Building Standards services. With this comes increased expectations and scrutiny; a competency/audit framework for all building standards professionals is due later this year, building warrant performance for 25/26 is being audited, a national time recording system Page 70
Page 71
is being introduced, and national key performance measures are being revised. An increasing volume of work is being required in dealing with buildings in disrepair or being alleged to be dangerous. Statutory powers under the Buildings (Scotland) Act are being used to protect public safety. However this ability to intervene is limited, and does not extend to a wider responsibility to maintain and repair private properties. 9.5 Regulatory Services: Vacant Environmental Health Officer posts continue to place pressures on the Regulatory Services Team – this reflects the national shortage of qualified officers. While workforce plans are in place, resources do have to be directed on a priority basis, which can mean delays in some low/medium risks areas. Food safety work continues and over the period, with Environmental Health responding to national food alerts including managing risks from counterfeit vodka and participating in an EU Audit of UK depuration/shellfish official controls. The multiagency event planning process led by Environmental Health has supported numerous safe and successful events, including the Tiree Music Festival, Fyne Ales and Argyll Rally, which have passed with no major issues. 9.6 Short Term Lets: The revised Short-term Let Licensing Policy approved by Council in June is in place and the new on-line renewal process was launched on the 22nd August 2025, together with a revised public register system which uses a search facility using AI technology. The team continue to focus on assessing and determining the outstanding existing host application, as well as processing new applications and other licensing related activities. To date, 3,601 applications have been received, 3,056 licences issued, 292 applications have been surrendered, withdrawn or are invalid, and there remains 161 existing host application to determine by October 2025. Page 71
Page 72
10 POLICY LEAD FOR ROADS, TRANSPORT AND AMENITY SERVICES – Cllr John Armour 10.1 Introduction: Since my last report to Council in June 2025, there has been a significant amount of work going on within my policy lead remit, I have done my best to capture as much of this as possible, however with such a wide ranging remit it is not possible to capture every piece of work which is ongoing – as always, if anyone has any queries or questions they would like me to pick up, I will be happy to try to assist. Here are some of the works that have been taking place since my last report. 10.2 EV Chargers: At an event in Oban on 14 August 2025, the Cabinet Secretary for Transport, Fiona Hyslop MSP, announced over £3 million in funding awarded to four councils - Western Isles, Orkney, Shetland, and Argyll and Bute - to expand the public EV charging network. Our council will receive one-third of the total funding allocated across these areas. We have already developed a strategy that identifies more than 80 potential locations for new electric vehicle chargers within our region. This funding will allow us to assess affordability, prioritize the network’s expansion, and provide Members with detailed options moving forward. 10.3 White Lining: The new lining vehicle is currently being rolled out across various capital sites and is proving to be a valuable addition to our fleet. It enhances our in-house capabilities and reduces reliance on external contractors. Following the completion of lining schemes on Bute and in Cowal, it will move to Helensburgh for similar work. Once the programme in the East is complete, it will shift to sites in the West. Page 72
Page 73
In addition to operational benefits, the vehicle also brings commercial opportunities and the potential for collaboration with neighbouring local authorities. It supports workforce development as well, offering staff the chance to gain a recognised SVQ2 qualification in road lining. To facilitate this training, the vehicle will have scheduled downtime in September while the team attends a course at the national training centre in Lincolnshire as part of their ongoing professional development. 10.4 Bus Stops: Since my last report we have secured just over £400,000 to support improvements in bus infrastructure. This is a significant opportunity, and we are currently exploring a range of potential options for how best to use the funding. To put this in perspective, our annual budget for bus stop enhancements is typically around £40,000, so this additional funding will allow us to make substantial progress. For context, installing a new bus shelter costs approximately £6,000, but when factoring in necessary groundworks, the total cost per site is closer to £10,000. 10.5 Play Parks: Five refurbished play parks in and around Campbeltown reopened ahead of schedule - a welcome boost for both local families and visitors to the area. The parks at Lochend, Hillside, Meadows, Jock’s Boat, and Stewarton have all received upgrades, including refreshed equipment, thanks to £186,000 in funding allocated to Argyll and Bute from the Scottish Government’s £938,000 play park investment programme. The Council worked in close partnership with Campbeltown Community Council and the Stewarton Hall Committee to ensure the new equipment reflects the needs of the children and young people who will use it. Feedback from a community survey highlighted the importance of accessibility, leading to the installation of wheelchair-accessible roundabouts at Hillside and the Meadows. The Port Bannatyne and Meadows play parks in Rothesay were also completed with £55k spent to improve the facilities after close partnership working with the local community council to deliver accessible play equipment and improved surfacing. The Council are currently tendering for a total of nine play parks in the Helensburgh, Rhu, Cove, Garelochhead and Rosneath areas totalling £280k. The tenders should be submitted by 12 September 2025 and the Council will allocate a winning bidder as soon as possible. Page 73
Page 74
10.6 Waste Disposal Post-PPP Arrangements: Over the past three months, this area of work has seen significant activity. The primary objectives are to ensure the continuity of waste disposal services as the current major contract comes to an end, and to transition to future arrangements that comply with the upcoming ban on municipal waste being sent to landfill. Key progress includes: • Conversion of existing treatment plants: Following extensive negotiations between the Council and BIFFA, contractual agreements have been finalised to convert the mechanical and biological treatment plants into waste transfer stations. Work is now underway. This transformation is critical to shifting from the current model - producing “Compost Like Output” and landfilling residual waste - to a bio-ban compliant approach, which involves closing landfill sites and transporting waste to energy-from-waste facilities. • Resolution of historic contractual issues: Two longstanding contractual matters between the Council and the PPP Project Company have reached commercial resolution, pending final approval from the Scottish Environmental Protection Agency on one element. Once approved, these issues can be formally closed. • Procurement of new services: Progress continues on procuring the services required post-PPP contract. Initial market engagement has helped shape the final specifications and contracting strategy. The tender will go live at the end of September, with submissions due in early November and contract award scheduled for January. • The Council is making good progress to secure energy from waste off- take for the period from January 2026 onwards to ensure municipal bio- ban compliance. 10.7 A83 Landslide: Heavy, persistent rainfall in the early hours of Monday 1st September 2025 caused several landslides along the A83, with the worst- affected areas being at Butterbridge and Glen Kinglas. The area saw approximately 76mm of rain fall over a five hour period. Page 74
Page 75
Eleven landslips were observed on the hillsides adjacent to the trunk road over a 3km stretch, with two depositing debris directly onto the carriageway, blocking the road, and a third contained within a roadside barrier. The road has been reopened with the usual traffic lights at the Rest and Be Thankful, however there are also traffic lights at the Glen Kinglas landslip area to enable the drains and culverts to be cleared. Geotechnical staff will remain on site to carry out daily inspections and time lapse photography supporting the reopening. I was invited by Jenni Minto MSP to attend a roundtable meeting in Inveraray on Friday 12th September to discuss the potential implications of the forthcoming works to establish a permanent solution for the A83 at Rest and Be Thankful. At the previous A83 Taskforce meeting held on 29th May, it was agreed that Jenni Minto MSP would convene a series of roundtable discussions, each focusing on different aspects of business and community that may be affected by the project. The purpose of this particular session is to gather feedback, concerns, and suggestions from stakeholders, which will be shared with Transport Scotland and the Cabinet Secretary for Transport to inform the next stages of planning and delivery. I was delighted to attend along with our Roads and Networks Standards Manager Hugh O’Neill. As well as Ms Minto, Brendan O’Hara MP, Jackie Baillie MSP, Gordon Ramsay and his team from Transport Scotland, Morag Goodfellow – HIE and John Gurr – RABT Campaign Group also attended for the full day. During the day full and frank discussion with hauliers, businesses (both large and small) and tourist organisations affected by the issues on the RABT took place. Emergency services, the Council and Mid Argyll Transport Volunteers also provided input. There was unanimous agreement that a letter should be sent on behalf of the participants and those affected directly by the current plan to the Transport Secretary outlining the concerns noted on the day and asking to pause further work in progressing the permanent solution for the RABT until a two-way solution be found either on the Old Military Road (which Page 75
Page 76
does not involve traffic lights or convoy) or a combination of the OMR and the Forestry Road on the other side of the hill during the predicted four year timescale for completing the permanent solution to the RABT. 10.8 Grubin Rockfall : You will be aware that the B8035 Kinloch to Gruline road on Mull is closed following a second rockfall. We have now received the Drone report; the Drone survey has identified several areas of interest where they have concerns over potential further rock falls and have advised that further investigation is required via a Geological and Geotechnical Survey. Whilst we had previously thought about this as the initial survey, due to the pressures placed on local farmers we opted for the drone survey which was quicker and potentially would have allowed us to open the road sooner. The picture above highlights areas where there is potential for further movement. Our Design and Structures team advice is that we continue to keep the road closed until the further Geological/Geotechnical Survey has been carried out. We are progressing this as quickly as we can and have prioritised the procurement. The road remains closed as we have a duty of care and must keep the travelling public safe. 11. CONCLUSION 11.1 This report provides members with an update on each of the Policy Lead portfolios. Policy Lead Councillors will be happy to discuss any particular issues with colleagues as required. Argyll and Bute Council – Policy Lead Councillors Report – 15th September 2025 For further information please contact Aileen McNicol, Leadership Support and Member Services Manager, telephone 01546 604014 or email aileen.mcnicol@argyll-bute.gov.uk Page 76
Page 77
ARGYLL AND BUTE COUNCIL COUNCIL CUSTOMER SUPPORT SERVICES 24 SEPTEMBER 2025 2024/25 COUNCIL ANNUAL REPORT 1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1.1 This report presents to Council the 2024/25 Council Annual Report (CAR). 1.2 The Annual Report is one of the key ways we meet our Public Performance Reporting responsibilities, letting the people of Argyll and Bute know what we have delivered for our communities over the past year. 1.3 It provides an overview of our performance against corporate outcome indicators, along with insights from services on key activities, projects, achievements, and challenges during the reporting period. 1.4 Despite the challenges, there is much to celebrate. From delivering infrastructure projects to supporting local businesses and investing in our young people, we have achieved a great deal together. We have also responded to new national requirements, adapting our services and systems to meet evolving expectations and responsibilities. 1.5 The increasing impact of climate events continues to test our resilience, and we are responding with urgency and innovation. Whether through our climate adaptation work, investment in sustainable infrastructure, or support for community-led initiatives, we are committed to building a greener, more secure future. Page 77 Agenda Item 7
Page 78
ARGYLL AND BUTE COUNCIL COUNCIL CUSTOMER SUPPORT SERVICES 24 SEPTEMBER 2025 2024/25 COUNCIL ANNUAL REPORT 2.0 INTRODUCTION 2.1 This report presents to Council the 2024/25 Council Annual Report (CAR). 3.0 RECOMMENDATIONS 3.1 Council are asked to agree the content of the 2024-25 Council Annual Report. 4.0 DETAIL 4.1 The Council Annual Report is a key document for the Council’s statutory Public Performance Reporting (PPR) duties and is published on the council website. 4.2 It presents both our performance against our corporate outcome indicators (COI) and information on the key activities, successes and challenges that our services have faced during 2024/25. 4.3 The Council Annual Report pulls together many examples of the exceptional efforts, innovative solutions delivered by our staff and joined up working between the Council and our partners and communities that took place during this period. 4.4 Despite the challenges, there is much to celebrate. From delivering infrastructure projects to supporting local businesses and investing in our young people, we have achieved a great deal together. We have also responded to new national requirements, adapting our services and systems to meet evolving expectations and responsibilities. 4.5 The increasing impact of climate events continues to test our resilience, and we are responding with urgency and innovation. Whether through our climate adaptation work, investment in sustainable infrastructure, or support for community-led initiatives, we are committed to building a greener, more secure future. Page 78
Page 79
4.6 It should be noted that due to timing there is some data that is not yet available. This is identified in the report and will be added to the online version of the report once available. 5.0 CONCLUSION 5.1 The Annual Report is one of the key ways that the council meets our Public Performance Reporting responsibilities, letting the people of Argyll and Bute know what we have delivered for our communities over the past year. Once approved, it will be published on the Council website. 6.0 IMPLICATIONS 6.1 Policy All of the indicators in this report are based on agreed Council policy. 6.2 Financial All indicators with financial implications are actively managed through agreed budget monitoring processes. 6.3 Legal All appropriate legal implications are complied with. 6.4 HR All HR implications are actively managed through agreed Wellbeing and Management monitoring processes. 6.5 Customer Service All activities with customer feedback or insight are rigorously monitored for improvement. 6.6 Risk Without this information Elected Members are less informed of activities within their area. 6.7 Climate Change The Council is committed to working towards net zero. 6.8 Fairer Scotland Duty None arising directly from this report. An IIA is not required for performance reporting. 6.9 Equalities – protected None arising directly from this report. All activities characteristics monitored in this report comply with the council’s equality policies and obligations. An IIA is not required for performance reporting. 6.10 Consumer duty None arising directly from this report. An IIA is not required for performance reporting. Page 79
Page 80
6.11 Islands Communities None arising directly from this report. An IIA is not required for performance reporting. 6.12 Children’s Rights and None arising directly from this report. An IIA is not Wellbeing required for performance reporting. This report highlights examples of how the Council is committed to and working towards reducing child poverty and improving outcomes for every child Pippa Milne, Chief Executive Jim Lynch, Council Leader August 2025 For further information contact: Jane Fowler, Head of Customer Support Services, jane.fowler@argyll-bute.gov.uk Kay Owen, Team Lead - OD Project Office, kay.owen@argyll-bute.gov.uk APPENDICES Appendix 1: Council Annual Report 2024-25 Page 80
Page 81
1 Classification: OFFICIAL Council Annual Report 2024 – 2025 Appendix 1 Page 81
Page 82
1 Classification: OFFICIAL Contents Forewords ................................................................................................................................................................................................... 4 Leader of the Council .......................................................................................................................................................................................... 4 Chief Executive ................................................................................................................................................................................................... 5 Introduction ............................................................................................................................................................................................... 6 Financial statement ........................................................................................................................................................................................... 7 Council priorities ......................................................................................................................................................................................... 8 Communities ....................................................................................................................................................................................................... 8 Children and young people.................................................................................................................................................................................. 8 Environment ........................................................................................................................................................................................................ 8 Speaking up for Argyll and Bute .......................................................................................................................................................................... 8 Sustainable service delivery ................................................................................................................................................................................ 8 Transport, infrastructure and digital connectivity ................................................................................................................................................. 9 Housing, economic growth and population .......................................................................................................................................................... 9 Cross-cutting activities ................................................................................................................................................................................ 9 Connect for Success ........................................................................................................................................................................................................ 9 Our Workspace – reducing costs and increasing efficiencies ........................................................................................................................................ 10 Performance Excellence Project .................................................................................................................................................................................... 11 ICT and Digital ............................................................................................................................................................................................................... 11 Climate Change ........................................................................................................................................................................................ 12 Capital Investment and central repairs delivered ...................................................................................................................................... 13 Housing and the Housing Emergency ....................................................................................................................................................... 14 Our performance ....................................................................................................................................................................................... 15 How We Compare – Local Government Benchmarking Framework (LGBF) ................................................................................................................ 16 Page 82
Page 83
2 Classification: OFFICIAL Delivering our outcomes ........................................................................................................................................................................... 18 Corporate Outcome: People live active, healthier and independent lives ................................................................................................. 18 Corporate Outcome: People will live in safer and stronger communities .................................................................................................. 21 Supporting our communities .............................................................................................................................................................................. 22 Corporate Outcome: Children and young people have the best possible start ......................................................................................... 24 Support and interventions for our care experienced children and young people ........................................................................................................... 26 Addressing non-attendance ............................................................................................................................................................................... 26 UNICEF UK’s Rights Respecting School Programme ....................................................................................................................................... 26 Children living in Poverty ................................................................................................................................................................................... 26 Award winning school meals service ................................................................................................................................................................. 28 School Counselling Service ............................................................................................................................................................................... 28 School suitability ratings .................................................................................................................................................................................... 28 Corporate Outcome: Education, skills and training will maximise opportunities for all .............................................................................. 29 Developing the young workforce .................................................................................................................................................................................... 31 Helping People into work ............................................................................................................................................................................................... 32 Literacy and Numeracy ..................................................................................................................................................................................... 32 Play on Pedals .................................................................................................................................................................................................. 32 Attainment ......................................................................................................................................................................................................... 33 Corporate Outcome: Our economy is diverse and thriving ....................................................................................................................... 34 Supporting economic recovery and our communities .................................................................................................................................................... 37 The Rural Growth Deal (RGD) ....................................................................................................................................................................................... 40 One council: property income ............................................................................................................................................................................ 43 Housing Services Partnership with Home Argyll ............................................................................................................................................... 43 Corporate Outcome: We have an infrastructure that supports sustainable growth ................................................................................... 44 Page 83
Page 84
3 Classification: OFFICIAL Council Carbon Footprint .................................................................................................................................................................................. 45 Flood Protection ................................................................................................................................................................................................ 46 Marine infrastructure ......................................................................................................................................................................................... 46 Ferry services .................................................................................................................................................................................................... 48 Road Condition improvements .......................................................................................................................................................................... 51 Corporate Outcome: Getting it right .......................................................................................................................................................... 54 Increasing the use of our website and self-service tools ................................................................................................................................................ 56 Improving our customer service ..................................................................................................................................................................................... 56 Award Recognition for Outstanding Innovation and Service .............................................................................................................................. 56 Supporting our Community Councils ............................................................................................................................................................................. 57 Local Government elections and supporting new elected councillors ............................................................................................................................ 57 Committee Support and Member Services ........................................................................................................................................................ 58 Looking after our financial assets ..................................................................................................................................................................... 59 Supporting attendance ...................................................................................................................................................................................... 59 Supporting Our People: Insights and Wellbeing Initiatives ................................................................................................................................ 60 Strategic Risk Register ............................................................................................................................................................................. 60 Operational Risk Register ......................................................................................................................................................................... 61 Service delivery challenges....................................................................................................................................................................... 61 Consultations – we asked, you said, we did ............................................................................................................................................. 64 Page 84
Page 85
4 Classification: OFFICIAL Forewords Leader of the Council It is a privilege to introduce Argyll and Bute Council’s Annual Report for 2024-25. Within this document you will find many examples of the achievements and successes that this council has delivered for its communities in the past year. The past year has also seen the council going through some changes, with a different Administration in place from April 2024. With this has come a refreshed and renewed set of strategic Priorities for the remainder of the council term up to 2027, and these underpin the council’s decision-making, its work and the action it takes. Our updated Priorities set out our aspirations for the area and our determination to see it thrive. They must, though, also frame how we tackle challenges, and something that remains a constant for every Scottish local authority is the financial climate in which we must operate and deliver for our communities today while seeking to plan ahead for tomorrow. Sometimes meeting those challenges requires making equally challenging decisions. While easy solutions or quick fixes almost never come along, something that can help in that context of challenge is to work in partnership – whether with other agencies or with our communities. That is why engagement is a key element of our Priorities, harnessing the knowledge and the commitment of our incredible communities where there is an increasing understanding that councils can no longer do all that they used to do or all that they would like to do, and that different approaches are required in today’s climate. Now, more than ever before, it is vital to work together where we possibly can. We may well have differing views from time to time, but we also have much common ground to be found and there are issues on which we can not only collaborate but where we can join our voices together to speak up and stand up for Argyll and Bute. I opened by saying it is a privilege to open this report. I close by saying that is an even greater privilege to represent this area, its people and its communities. Local government in Scotland continues to cope with change and to look towards transformation. Here in Argyll and Bute we are embracing that head-on and seeking to get ahead of the game, using the knowledge and experience we’ve had to build up in order to successfully deliver services and investment across one of Scotland’s most unique geographic environments. That, coupled with the determination of our workforce and the tremendous community spirit and resilience for which Argyll and Bute is renowned, stand us in good stead for as bright a future as possible. Cllr Jim Lynch Leader, Argyll and Bute Council Page 85
Page 86
5 Classification: OFFICIAL Chief Executive Welcome to Argyll and Bute Council’s Annual Report for 2024–25. This report provides an overview of the work we’ve undertaken over the past year, the progress we’ve made, and the challenges we continue to face. It reflects our commitment to transparency, accountability, and to delivering the best possible outcomes for our communities. As we reflect on the past year and look ahead to 2025–26, I want to begin by recognising the continued dedication and resilience of our staff, who remain at the heart of everything we do. Their commitment has enabled us to deliver vital services in the face of ongoing challenges and change. This year, we have had to make some difficult decisions about the future of service provision. These decisions are never taken lightly, and they reflect the complex financial landscape we continue to navigate. However, they are also part of our commitment to ensuring that we can sustain essential services for the people of Argyll and Bute in the years to come. We know that the best decisions are made together. That’s why we have continued to engage with communities across the area, listening to what matters most to them and working in partnership to shape the future. This collaborative approach is central to our vision for a stronger, more resilient and thriving Argyll and Bute. Despite the challenges, there is much to celebrate. From delivering key infrastructure projects to supporting local businesses and investing in our young people, we have achieved a great deal together. We have also responded to new national requirements, adapting our services and systems to meet evolving expectations and responsibilities. The increasing impact of climate events continues to test our resilience, and we are responding with urgency and innovation. Whether through our climate adaptation work, investment in sustainable infrastructure, or support for community-led initiatives, we are committed to building a greener, more secure future. Looking ahead, we remain focused on tackling the challenges that lie before us. We will continue to work with our communities, partners, and staff to find solutions, embrace opportunities, and deliver for Argyll and Bute. Together, we can shape a future that reflects the strengths, aspirations, and potential of this remarkable area. Pippa Milne Chief Executive, Argyll, and Bute Council Page 86
Page 87
6 Classification: OFFICIAL Introduction Welcome to our annual report. This report is an opportunity to share with you how your council has performed over the past year and is part of our public performance reporting commitment. Argyll and Bute Council’s vision and strategic direction is set in our Corporate Plan. Central to our corporate plan and highlighted throughout this report is successful partnership working with our partners, stakeholders, and local communities. In 24/25 the corporate plan set out three key priorities to fulfil our vision of a prosperous, inclusive, and sustainable Argyll and Bute. People and Places: our core business as a council Potential and Growth: turning opportunities into reality Partnership and Action: everyone has a part to play in Argyll and Bute’s success Our performance on these priorities over the past year was monitored via seven high-level Corporate Outcomes and a series of 47 Corporate Outcome Indicators (COIs). These indicators are strategic in nature and are reported annually to the Audit and Scrutiny Committee and Full Council. Detail on our performance against these Corporate Outcome Indicators as well as further information on our key activities and areas of focus and successes and challenges are provided within this report. Page 87
Page 88
7 Classification: OFFICIAL Financial statement In 2024/25 the budget gap was £10.167m prior to any measures to balance the budget and projected to rise to over £55m over a five-year period, with decisions made to bridge the 2024/25 gap, reduce future year pressures, and protect vital services. When agreeing the 2024/25 budget, the Council committed to provide funding for additional leisure, tourism, regeneration, and other initiatives totalling £0.248m which included funding for the following organisations: £0.010m for the International Eight Metre Association World Cup. £0.075m for the Argyll and the Isles Tourism Co-operative. £0.075m for the Culture, Heritage, and Arts Assembly (CHARTS). £0.028m for the Screen Machine mobile cinema. £0.030m for the Mid Argyll Community Pool in Lochgilphead. £0.030m for the MacTaggart Leisure Centre on Islay. Over the course of 2024/25 almost £549,134 in Scottish Welfare Fund grants were paid to support vulnerable people and £968,036 of Discretionary Housing Payments were distributed to households in need. During the year, the Council also continued to pay grants to cover food and fuel for people in poverty and successfully referred them for support to advice agencies; this resulted in maximised benefit income and reduced fuel costs of over £109,920 by the end of the 2024/25 Page 88
Page 89
8 Classification: OFFICIAL Council priorities In 2024 the council administration announced our priorities for 2024-2027. Our aim is clear: Argyll and Bute’s economy and population need to grow, and our seven interconnected priorities contribute to that. The themes that underpin these priorities and the actions to deliver these can be found on our website: Priorities of Argyll and Bute Council | Argyll and Bute Council Communities Our communities are as diverse as our geography and have varying needs, challenges, and opportunities. We want to harness local knowledge and work together to develop shared priorities. Children and young people Giving young people the best start in life and ensuring we have the right skills for a prosperous future, are key elements of making Argyll and Bute an ideal choice for families to stay or to relocate. Environment The Council has already declared a climate emergency continues to keep this a primary consideration. Recognising the importance of climate change is a key factor when we consider how we do business. We are committed to achieving 75% carbon reduction by 2030 and net zero before 2045. Speaking up for Argyll and Bute Collective, as well as collaborative, action is necessary to deliver growth on the scale that Argyll and Bute needs. No single agency alone can deliver on Argyll and Bute’s overarching aim of significant, vital population and economic growth. Sustainable service delivery We want to provide the best services we can for the money and resources available – and make clear the standards that our communities can expect. We know that this is important to local people. Page 89
Page 90
9 Classification: OFFICIAL Transport, infrastructure and digital connectivity Argyll and Bute’s mix of rural and island communities mean that transport, infrastructure, and digital connectivity are crucial in the drive for growth. We need effective and reliable ways to bring people, goods and services to Argyll and Bute – and to carry our own products. Reliable, resilient digital links have a highly significant contribution to make to growing the population and the economy. They can add considerable value to Argyll and Bute’s position as an ideal choice to locate to. Housing, economic growth and population Access to housing is a factor in almost every aspect of Argyll and Bute’s crucial growth agenda. It contributes to the success of economic development, recruitment, employment opportunities, service delivery and much more. Population growth is crucial to our economic success as decline impacts on our ability to sustain and deliver services in the future. We value the impact and return on investment that effective, targeted economic development can have. Cross-cutting activities Connect for Success This initiative is dedicated to encouraging and recognising new ways of working across the Council, to make things better for everyone. We are looking to the future and are focused on advancing how we use technology, share resources, and collaborate because better for us is better for our communities. There are 7 key areas, or principles, that we are focused on developing in how we work: 1. One Council One Place 2. Purpose and Mission Focus 3. Employee Empowerment 4. Data and Evidence Driven 5. Learning Council 6. Agile Mindset 7. Maximise Useful Technology Across the council these principles are in action and people are working on new projects and in new ways to help make things better. For example, we have reduced bureaucracy and saved time and effort by implementing a project to streamline our internal human resources systems and speed Page 90
Page 91
10 Classification: OFFICIAL up the recruitment process. Connect for Success is about bringing the 7 principles to life by sharing ideas and looking for new ways to innovate to help us do our jobs and deliver services. Partnership working As part of our Connect for Success principles we continue to work with colleagues across all teams and services, and where appropriate external partners and stakeholders to achieve a common goal. This approach to partnership working assists in improving efficiencies and removing work barriers, fully utilising what we have, connecting staff through technology, connecting services in delivering change and services, while connecting with communities and working together to improve outcomes for Argyll and Bute. Our Modern Workspace – reducing costs and increasing efficiencies The Our Modern Workspace project is reviewing how we use our workspace, reduce costs, and increase efficiency. Six hub buildings are now complete and under-utilised buildings under review for repurpose or to be mothballed. The entire project is being delivered through existing capital programme budgets and Scottish Government Place Demonstrator Funding (£664K awarded to deliver Rothesay Project). Our largest Office footprint is in Lochgilphead, and a project has been ongoing throughout 2024 and 2025 to create a new vision for the Council headquarters at Kilmory Castle by creating a modern public sector and democratic hub. The aim is to create a better and more sustainable place to collaborate and do business. We have been working with other public sector agencies, and an implementation plan is evolving to take the project into development in 2025/26. The Project has delivered significant savings from rationalising shared offices through: • Non-Domestic Rates relief on the buildings that have been closed. • A reduction in utility consumption. • A reduction in cleaning costs. • A reduction in the number of printing devices required. • A reduction in paper and the need to print as we adopt a more digital approach to service delivery. • A reduction in annual ICT network charges, such as ISDN lines and broadband charges. • Reduced ongoing cost pressures for replacement of network equipment (Wi-Fi access points / server switches etc.), where possible network equipment has been utilised in other locations. These savings and ease on cost pressures will continue to grow as the Our Modern Workplace project continues to deliver town by town. Page 91
Page 92
11 Classification: OFFICIAL Performance Excellence Project We are continuing to improve the way that we measure and report on our performance as a Council, in line with Connect for Success. We aim to make it clearer for Councillors to scrutinise our service performance and easier for the public to see what we deliver. This year we have begun to align our strategies and plans with the new council priorities and are making full use of the technology available to us through M365. We are designing new planners and dashboards to best show the data we hold, which will support review and evaluation of our performance so that we can ensure continuous improvement. We are designing this with a pilot group of team managers. Microsoft365 With Education colleagues now being introduced to Microsoft 365 (M365) and Teams, the move to using Teams for Telephony for all staff will be completed well before the retirement of Skype for Business in October 2025. The continued development of existing and new apps has added many more options for staff in how they use M365, and they are now also supported by having access to a nationally resourced M365 Skills Hub. The Digital Champions programme is being reviewed and refreshed to ensure the most is made of our investment in M365 and that staff have the support they need from within their own services. The opportunities that MS Copilot presents will be evaluated in a pilot of 100 staff prior to decisions being taken on the significant additional investment that a rollout to even a proportion of staff would represent. It’s anticipated Copilot will further enhance the benefits to staff and customers of using M365 in their daily work. ICT and Digital The Council’s ICT and Digital Strategy aims to position Argyll and Bute Council as a “digital by default” authority. The strategy resulted in the development of an action plan containing almost 100 activities designed to lead to further efficiencies, savings, and improved services for Council staff and customers. We outlined a vision to provide digital technologies and processes to support our people and our customers, to encourage collaboration, get things done and contribute to a better organised and more efficient council. The Accounts Commission’s April 2025 report on Best Value in Argyll and Bute Council found that “Given its remote and rural characteristics, the council is ahead of the game in terms of achieving efficiencies, including through its use of digital technology, with exciting examples of innovation within service areas.” This improved position hasn’t happened by chance. Our ICT and Digital Strategy over the last 4 years has focused on delivering key outcomes for our customers, simplifying, and improving our processes, providing secure and fit for purpose technology solutions and creating an agile culture for our workforce. New ways of working with ICT and Data Data is at the heart of key decision-making and improving outcomes for Argyll and Bute’s residents and communities. Our new Data Platform is now live, and the Data Advisory Group and the data team are dealing with a variety of exciting new data challenges. Page 92
Page 93
12 Classification: OFFICIAL Examples of data challenges in 2024/25: • The Climate Change Officer produces reports to both the Scottish Government (against national targets for 2030 and 2045) and quarterly reports to the Climate Change board. These reports require extensive data collection, analysis, and projection modelling. Using new data models, the council’s Climate Change Board can now visualise the challenge of meeting the Scottish Government’s statutory emissions goals. It is also now possible to perform fairly complex scenario planning to consider different strategies for reaching these goals, and aiming to reach them sooner, based on a better understanding of the potential long-term impact of working to reduce specific carbon emission sources more quickly. • As part of our aim to bring as many empty business properties back into use as possible, we used our PowerBI reporting tool to extract and analyse Non-Domestic Rates (NDR) data. This gave us information on rates of business change, business types, rateable values etc which the Empty Business Property Officer can use to target actions to for businesses, seek inward investment or coordinate other interventions such as a change of use for a property to make it more attractive to business in the local area. Climate Change The Council continues to meet its statutory duty to report on emissions and climate action through the annual Public Bodies Climate Change Duties Report, with strategic oversight provided by the Climate Change Board. We are developing a comprehensive Net Zero Route Map to provide a detailed pathway for Council operations to achieve net zero emissions by 2045. Operational Achievements Significant progress is being made across the organisation through investments in building energy efficiency, renewable energy generation, and fleet decarbonisation. Independent analysis confirms the Council successfully managed its energy use to outperform national benchmarks during a year of unprecedented electricity grid challenges. A major milestone was reached in October 2024 with the completion of an 86kW roof-mounted solar PV system at Cardross Primary School, representing the culmination of the Non-Domestic Energy Efficiency Framework (NDEEF) programme. The system joins the Council's expanding renewable energy portfolio, which now includes 27 solar PV installations across the area with a combined capacity of over 1.3MWp. Another significant achievement was the innovative stabilisation of the Grade A-listed Burnet Building in Campbeltown. The Council implemented a cutting-edge geopolymer resin injection solution involving 250 injection points reaching depths of two metres beneath the building structure. This non-invasive method allowed the building to remain operational throughout the works and delivered approximately 78% lower carbon emissions compared to traditional concrete underpinning - an estimated carbon saving of 50.7 tonnes. Page 93
Page 94
13 Classification: OFFICIAL The Council's LED streetlight replacement programme has achieved remarkable results, with over 14,000 luminaires replaced. Annual CO₂ emissions have dropped from 3,140 tonnes in 2015/16 to a projected 264 tonnes for the full 2024/25 financial year (based on performance to September 2024) – a reduction of 92%. Partnership and Community Leadership The Community Planning Partnership has made substantial progress in developing the Argyll and Bute Climate Action Strategy, funded by CPP partners including Argyll and Bute Council, with the project lead hosted by Argyll Countryside Trust. This comprehensive strategy represents a region-wide, community-led approach to achieving net-zero and climate resilience, developed through extensive engagement with communities and stakeholders across Argyll and Bute. The strategy establishes the vision that "We make Argyll and Bute climate ready by acting together to understand and adapt to our changing climate". Carbon Neutral Islands Programme Argyll and Bute Council supports the Scottish Government's Carbon Neutral Islands (CNI) Programme through the Local Authority Advisory Group and accessing the Carbon Neutral Islands Capital Fund. Highlights for 2024/25 are: Governance and Alignment –Membership of the Local Authority Advisory Group ensures island plans mesh with wider council and national policy and that good practice is shared with mainland communities. Strategic Foundations – Community Climate Action Plans are in place for Islay, Great Cumbrae, Hoy, Raasay, and Yell. Comprehensive carbon audits have established baseline emissions for each island. Investment and Delivery – Tailored climate-change investment strategies have been completed to guide project selection and funding bids. £1 million of capital funding allocated for 2024/25 to kick-start priority net-zero projects. For Islay this is supporting the installation of solar PV and battery technology across 7 community buildings as well as supporting the Islay Forestry Initiative through the purchase of equipment for wood fuel processing and creation of a community orchard. Overall, the programme has moved from planning to implementation, giving every island a clear emissions baseline, an agreed action plan and the first tranche of capital to put projects on the ground—all aimed at achieving carbon neutrality by 2040, five years ahead of Scotland's national target. Capital Investment and central repairs delivered We have successfully delivered a programme of investment in our property assets totalling £10.5M. Included within the wide variety of investment projects were 53 projects relating to energy efficiency, reducing fossil fuel consumption and renewable energy generation. This included solar panels, air source heat pumps and new automated control systems in our buildings, mainly in our schools. As well as delivering the additional investment projects, emergency, planned and statutory maintenance programmes were successfully delivered, resulting in improved customer satisfaction. Additionally, a separate large-scale project reviewed the water, wastewater, and drainage charges for the Council. This project has delivered one-off refunds in the region of £570,000 and year-on-year savings of more than £160,000 per annum. Page 94
Page 95
14 Classification: OFFICIAL Housing and the Housing Emergency In June 2023 the Council’s Environment, Development and Infrastructure (EDI) Committee declared a Housing Emergency due to a persistent reduction in the supply of housing, a steady increase in demand for housing across all tenures and increasing levels of un-affordability. In November 2024, Members of the Scottish Government, Local Government, Housing and Planning Committee, visited Oban. They met with the Council’s leader Jim Lynch, CEO Pippa Milne, other senior council officials, and representatives from the Link Housing Group together with a representative from the Colonsay Community Development Company. The day also included a visit to the Dunbeg Corridor housing development. The Scottish Government has produced a report of the visit which can be accessed here: A report on Committee visit to Argyll & Bute Council, 25th November 2024 In January 2025 consultants were engaged, to develop the Strategic Development Framework for Oban (OSDF) and Helensburgh (HSDF). Both are intended to identify long-term 20-40 years strategic development opportunities. The Council has continued to develop Business Cases for the proposals for a worker accommodation pilot on Mull, and market housing for principal home occupation on Islay. In addition to the £3m Rural Growth Deal investment allocated to these projects, further funding is being sought to enable housing projects. The Council has employed local contractors and is working with Mull and Iona Community Trust to deliver worker housing in Tobermory. Work is underway to procure tender costs for construction of the worker housing which will provide 12 units. It is anticipated a site start for building construction in spring 2026. A Local Heat and Energy Efficiency Strategy (LHEES) was approved by Council in November. This sets out a policy framework that assists in reducing fuel poverty in the long term. Officers will now work to identify deliverable projects and use the LHEES to support funding applications. The Home Energy Efficiency Programme Scotland (HEEPS) allows homeowners and private rented tenants to reduce their energy bills, assists with the cost-of-living crisis, and reduces energy consumption contributing to a reduction in climate change The Council fully utilised HEEPS funding of £1,979,827 for 24/25. Page 95
Page 96
15 Classification: OFFICIAL Our Empty Homes Officer project, working with the HSCP solely to assist empty homes owners to bring back properties in to use for HSCP staff has received national recognition through an award from the Empty Homes Network. This project is directly supporting the retention and recruitment of the key workforce required to sustain essential services and making the best use of existing stock. The role has directly enabled homes and bed spaces for use by HSCP workers in Coll, Connel, Tiree & Islay.” Our performance This table presents our progress in delivering the seven Corporate Outcomes outlined in the previous Corporate Plan (2022–2027). It is followed by detailed performance data and supporting commentary for each Corporate Outcome Indicator." Overall performance of our Corporate Outcome Indicators Corporate Outcome Number of Indicators Number On Track / Above Target with Improving Performance Number Off Track / Under Target / No Data No Target People live active, healthier, and independent lives 6 3 3 - People will live in safer and stronger communities 4 3 - 1 Children and young people have the best possible start 8 5 2 1 Education, skills, and training maximise opportunities for all 7 - 4 3 Our economy is diverse and thriving 12 - 2 10 We have an infrastructure that supports sustainable growth 5 3 - 2 Getting it right 5 2 - 3 TOTAL 47 Page 96
Page 97
16 Classification: OFFICIAL We continue to report other indicators of importance on a quarterly basis at each of our Area Committees. Quarterly Area Performance Reports present a suite of indicators at a local, area level with complementary narrative, and, where possible, Council-wide performance is also presented alongside these indicators. These can be found in the Performance and Improvement section of the Council website. Performance and Improvement | Argyll and Bute Council (argyll-bute.gov.uk) How We Compare – Local Government Benchmarking Framework (LGBF) In addition to monitoring our corporate outcomes we use a variety of improvement tools. A key aspect of this relates to our engagement with the Local Government Benchmarking Framework (LGBF). All local authorities in Scotland participate in the Local Government Benchmarking Framework (LGBF). The data is collected and presented in ways to ensure consistency and enabling comparisons between councils to be made, as levels of performance are affected by differences in local circumstances and local priorities. Data for the most recent year will not be complete until after the full twelve months has passed. The majority of the 2024/25 data will be published by the end of 2025. The chart below shows how our performance compares relative to other Scottish local authorities; overall, our performance has improved. In the last year, 60% of indicators for Argyll and Bute were in quartiles 1 and 2, where performance is above the Scottish average. This compares to 46% of indicators falling in quartiles 1 and 2 in the previous year. Between 2022/23 and 2023/24, 23 indicators (out of 99 for which direct comparisons could be made) moved to a higher quartile, 65 indicators stayed within the same quartile, and 11 moved to a lower quartile. Page 97
Page 98
17 Classification: OFFICIAL Page 98
Page 99
18 Classification: OFFICIAL Delivering our outcomes Below we provide detail on our performance against each of our Corporate Outcome Indicators and further context on the activities that have taken place to support delivery in that area. Corporate Outcome: People live active, healthier, and independent lives Number of indicators: 6 Number on track: 3 Number no target / no data: 3 Corporate Outcome Indicator Target 2021/22 Actual 2022/23 Actual 2023/24 Actual 2024/25 Actual Status Commentary Maximise distribution of Scottish Welfare Fund 95.30% 120.70% 144.00% 128.56% 119.80% G The Scottish Welfare Fund provides vital support to vulnerable households across our community. During 2024/25 a total of 1,134 households were supported, enabling individuals to remain safely in their communities and avoid crisis situations. We have maintained a high standard of delivery and responsiveness. Percentage of clients satisfied that they are better able to deal with their financial problems following our support and intervention 90.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 97.00% G Following their interaction with advice services, clients are invited to participate in a customer satisfaction survey. In the 2024/25 reporting period, 97% of respondents indicated that they felt better equipped to address the financial challenges they were facing. Page 99
Page 100
19 Classification: OFFICIAL Corporate Outcome Indicator Target 2021/22 Actual 2022/23 Actual 2023/24 Actual 2024/25 Actual Status Commentary Maximise distribution of Discretionary Housing Payment (DHP) fund 96.00% 98.20% 79.00% 84.30% 89.20% R The Discretionary Housing Payment (DHP) fund continued to serve as a vital mechanism for supporting low-income households facing housing related financial hardship. Although our actual expenditure fell short of the 96% target, a total of 729 households were successfully assisted in sustaining their tenancies and avoided housing instability. Percentage of care services graded as 'good' (4) or better in Care Inspectorate inspections 75.0% 80.00% 79.50% 77.30% 84.20% G The percentage achieved is also above the reported Scotland Rate (81.9%). Next years target will be uplifted to 80%. Percentage of adults receiving any care of support who rated it as excellent or good 75.30% 68.60% 68.60% 74.00% 74.00% - Data available biannually, next survey data available 2025/26 Percentage of carers who feel supported to continue in their caring role 29.70% 38.00% 38.00% 38.00% 38.00% - Data available biannually, next survey data available 2025/26 Page 100
Page 101
20 Classification: OFFICIAL Helping people live active, healthier, and independent lives We have helped residents maximise their income through additional benefits or accessing grants. This work has supported vulnerable people with assistance with independent living, preventing homelessness and helping reduce the number of households and families living in all types of poverty, including extreme poverty. • A total of £549,134 in Scottish Welfare Fund grants was paid to support 1,134 vulnerable households in our communities who are in need of financial support. This made up of Scottish Government programme funding and funding by Argyll and Bute Council. • Discretionary Housing Payments totalling £968,036 were distributed to 729 households in need to prevent homelessness and assist vulnerable members of our communities to maintain their tenancies. As a result of new guidance issued from Scottish Government, the Council’s policy will be reviewed to maximise further use of the fund in future years. • We paid out £109,920 in grants to cover food and fuel for people in poverty and successfully referred them for support to advice agencies. • 965 families have been supported to maximise benefit income and reduced fuel costs to the value of £1.357m. • The average processing time for new housing benefit claims was 14.67 days and 3.35 days for changes in circumstances against targets of 21 days and 6 days, respectively. • We assisted residents to claim £5.4 million in additional benefits that may have otherwise remained unclaimed, assisting independent living and preventing homelessness. This figure included £821,127 for individuals and families affected by cancer and supported through partnership with Macmillan Cancer Support and the Welfare Advice and Health Partnership. • The Welfare Rights Advice in Health Partnerships Initiative and referral pathway has built on existing links with GP practices and has made a positive difference to these rural and island communities. Financial gain for 2024-25 for clients referred via this pathway was £418,453. • 98% of respondents in our welfare rights customer satisfaction survey would recommend the service. 95% rated their overall experience of using the service as excellent or good and 96% said the time taken to respond to their initial enquiry was excellent or good. • In line with Scottish Government Policy, we implemented an uplift in the basic pay of carers and personal assistants who look after adults in our communities and Early Learning and Childcare workers employed by Partner Providers to ensure payment of at least the Scottish Living Wage. Page 101
Page 102
21 Classification: OFFICIAL Corporate Outcome: People will live in safer and stronger communities Number of indicators: 4 Number on track: 3 Number no target / no data: 1 Corporate Outcome Indicator Target 2021/22 Actual 2022/23 Actual 2023/24 Actual 2024/25 Actual Status Commentary Percentage of groups who say their effectiveness has increased as a result of capacity building by the community development team 75.00% 100.00% 90.00% 100.00% 100.00% G The results are from an annual survey of customers and community groups engaged with the Community Planning and Community Development Team. Information provided to our community groups, individuals and partners is easy to understand 75.00% 96.00% 90.00% 93.00% 93.00% G We recognise the importance of ensuring accessible communication when engaging with community groups. Total value of compensation settlements for vehicle damage/driver injury as a result of road/bridge faults No target £2,807 £1,879 £1,956 £2,147 No target Initial claims are recorded by our Roads team using Oracle system, with a supplementary record maintained in the designated directory on the shared network. Percentage of adult residents stating their neighbourhood as a 'very good' place to live 70.00% - 69.00% No data 74.00% G The figure for 2022 was 69% so the new figure of 74% is a significant improvement. Page 102
Page 103
22 Classification: OFFICIAL Supporting our communities In 2024/25, funding from the Supporting Communities Fund (SCF) was awarded to 64 groups across Argyll & Bute for the delivery of projects spanning sport, transport, music, the arts, and environmental initiatives. Walking and Cycling in the Dark The Community Development Team successfully secured funding through the Shaping Places for Wellbeing Programme to support active travel initiatives in Dunoon. Darkness was identified as a key barrier preventing children and families from choosing active travel over motorised transport. In response, five reflective and glow-in-the-dark craft workshops were delivered in local schools to promote safe travel during darker hours. A public workshop was held at Dunoon Pier on Saturday, 5th October, coinciding with the launch of the Dunoon Bothy. The event attracted over 83 attendees, who shared valuable feedback on what would encourage them to walk and cycle more. These insights were shared with the Active Travel Team. The project was delivered in partnership with Community Police, Cycling UK, and the Dunoon Development Trust. Following the workshops, 70% of pupils reported they would be more likely to walk or cycle in the dark. Feedback from children, staff, and parents was overwhelmingly positive. The activities were inclusive, accessible to all ages and abilities, and fully adapted for pupils with complex needs. Oban Community Council – Local Place Plan & Flood Resilience Ongoing engagement with Oban Community Council has focused on their Local Place Plan (LPP) and the work of their Flood Resilience Subgroup. A joint meeting was facilitated between Oban Community Council and an internal colleague involved in the Oban Strategic Development Plan, to explore opportunities for collaboration and ensure alignment of efforts, helping to avoid duplication. Page 103
Page 104
23 Classification: OFFICIAL Victory Hall, Benderloch – Community Engagement Project Victory Hall successfully secured SCF funding to support a local community engagement initiative. A meeting was held with the group to discuss the scope and aims of their project and guidance was provided using the VOICE Community Engagement Toolkit to help align their approach with the National Standards for Community Engagement. Good practice for engaging with children and young people was also discussed and ongoing support is being provided as the project progresses. Ardrishaig Community Council – Local Place Plan development Following attendance at a community-led plans training session in December 2023, Ardrishaig Community Council progressed their intention to develop a Local Place Plan (LPP). They were advised to establish a steering group and a facilitated workshop once the group was in place. The group was signposted to relevant funding opportunities, including the Community Led Local Development Fund and Awards for All and agreed to focus on person-to-person engagement, recognising their own skills and capacity to lead the process. The group developed ideas for community outreach and proposed forming a diverse working group of residents, with clear lines of accountability through designated representatives. Page 104
Page 105
24 Classification: OFFICIAL Corporate Outcome: Children and young people have the best possible start Number of indicators: 8 Number on track: 4 Number no target / no data: 4 Corporate Outcome Indicator Target 2021/22 Actual 2022/23 Actual 2023/24 Actual 2024/25 Actual Status Commentary Provide quality meals within cost margins to all pupils +/-5.00% -0.04% -2.56% 0.48% -1.73% G Delivered 1.2m early years, primary and secondary school meals. Increase the percentage of our care experienced young people that have the recommended additional tracking and monitoring plans in place 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% G Each care experienced child and young person (CECYP) enrolled in an authority school has tracking and monitoring in place via our education management system. Data collected includes attendance, exclusions, progress and attainment and wellbeing information. The Virtual School adds an additional layer of scrutiny to this process through a series of attainment meets and partnership working, helping to ensure our CECYP have the supports required. We continue to work with partner agencies and other local authorities to support our CECYP hosted out with Argyll and Bute Percentage of children living in poverty (after housing costs) No target 21.7% 23.5% No data No data No target Data collated by End Child Poverty, 2024/25 data not yet published. Last data available 2022/23. Page 105
Page 106
25 Classification: OFFICIAL Corporate Outcome Indicator Target 2021/22 Actual 2022/23 Actual 2023/24 Actual 2024/25 Actual Status Commentary Percentage rate for attendance across all Argyll and Bute schools is comparable or better than the Scottish national average (biennial data) 92.00% 93.30% 90.55% 92.85% 90.80% R Maximising attendance remains a key strategic priority, with ongoing liaison with Education Scotland colleagues to ensure alignment between local policy and national recommendations. Support the increase in the update of available grants, allowance, and entitlements 2,573 2,853 2,999 3,125 3,750 G The implementation of online grant processing has enabled staff to exceed targets. A counselling service is available in all secondary schools 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% G The service has supported 472 young people in secondary schools and 216 children in primary schools. The most common reasons for referral include anxiety, low mood, family difficulties, and emotional regulation. 83% of young people and 81% of primary-aged children completing support reported positive clinical outcomes, including reduced psychological distress and improved emotional resilience. Percentage of children with no concerns across all domains at 27-to-30- month assessment 82.10% 87.30% 85.30% No data No data - No data is available for 2024/25. This measure is taken from SOLACE LGBF indicators but has not been reported since 2022. 95% of schools have a suitability rating of A or B 95.00% 95.00% 95.00% 95.00% 98.00% G The overall position for suitability scores is 61% have a rating of A, 37% were rated as B. Page 106
Page 107
26 Classification: OFFICIAL Support and interventions for our care experienced children and young people Each care experienced child and young person (CECYP) enrolled in an authority school has tracking and monitoring in place via our education management system, SEEMIS. Data collated includes attendance, exclusion, progress and achievement and progress over time. Scrutiny of this data has led to early interventions to support our CECYP, in some cases positively impacting attendance and attainment. To date we have zero exclusions of CECYP. This is a major success that can be attributed to supportive policy, collegiate and partnership working and greater awareness of the needs of our CECYP community. The Virtual Head Teacher (VHT) links to Designated Managers across settings where CECYP are enrolled to both support and challenge the learning experience for our CECYP. We continue to explore the information arising from our data, ensuring our Health and Wellbeing Family Liaison Officers target those most in need. We are supported by wider colleagues in education to meet this target. Addressing non-attendance Seven out of ten secondary schools have completed the Addressing Non-Attendance training programme and continue to implement this with support from Educational Psychology Service. Training for primary school staff has been developed and implemented in some settings. Across the authority, the Maximising Attendance policy is supporting a more consistent and data-informed approach to monitoring attendance and intervening early to help children, young people, and families overcome barriers to school attendance. Maximising attendance remains a key strategic priority, with ongoing liaison with Education Scotland colleagues to ensure alignment between local policy and national recommendations. UNICEF UK’s Rights Respecting School Programme Apple Tree Nursery in Rothesay became the first nursery in Argyll and Bute, and only the third in Scotland, to receive a prestigious gold award from UNICEF UK’s Rights Respecting School programme. Children living in Poverty We are one of the lead players on a national level identifying those who are not in receipt of full benefit entitlement, working to identify ways of using data to identify those in need. Work is ongoing with the Improvement Service and Scalable Approach to Vulnerability Via Interoperability (SAVVI) to find the best approach and legal gateways to allow use. Reducing poverty with the power of right advice Our Welfare Rights Team has a significant impact in the outcomes for families by helping them maximise their uptake of available benefits grants and allowances, securing Client Financial Gain in excess of £4 million per year. Key to success is the close working of statutory and voluntary sectors. Examples include: Page 107
Page 108
27 Classification: OFFICIAL Flexible Food and Fuel Fund – our benefits team, ALI energy and the Bute Advice Centre manage this innovative scheme that sees considerable grant aid to people every year, coupled with benefit and fuel poverty solutions advice. Infant Food Insecurity Pilot – a one-year pilot study is taking place to access the level of crisis need for baby formula, where there is no other immediate solution. Supermarket vouchers are placed with Midwives and Health Visitors and a picture of the nature of this need is being identified. Safe homes for families who need them most The Local Housing Strategy (LHS) aligns with the aims and objectives our Child Poverty Action Plan and outlines a series of actions to address disadvantage and alleviate poverty. These include preventing families and young people in certain situations from incurring rent arrears, from becoming homeless, assisting families with a disabled family member, and assisting larger families. In 2024/25, 476 homeless cases were closed, of which 121 involved households with dependent children (amounting to 199 children) and 86 of these households received a positive outcome. There has been a slight reduction in homeless applications between the 1st of April 2024 and the 31st of March 2025. During that period, 459 homeless applications were made, a decrease of 34 applications (7% down) in the same period in the previous year. Making life more affordable for families Pre-loved School Uniform Project - The two-year funded pre-loved school uniform project has come to an end. The project was set up to focus on the reuse of good quality preloved school uniform and the recycling of uniforms that are no longer fit for purpose. Working with schools, community groups, and parent councils across all seven of our main settlements to support eco-friendly reuse school uniform schemes that cover school uniform for Early Learning Centres, Nurseries Primary and Secondary Schools linked to each school cluster. We investigated, supported, and promoted taking donations of uniform from parents and pupils, ways to launder them and methods of redistributing them as and when they are required. The project has achieved many of the goals we envisaged and many more that developed during the project in a positive and meaningful way. It also highlighted that more work is needed to keep this momentum moving forward. Much of the work and schemes will continue and the project has shown that with further support and encouragement much more could be achieved. For full details of the project report, when published, will be available from Pre-loved School uniform scheme | Argyll and Bute Council. My Tribe Free Period Product Initiative - our free period product initiative, plays a vital role in tackling child poverty by ensuring that no child misses out on education due to lack of access to essential items. By providing free period products in over 150 community locations and through a user- friendly online ordering system that delivers directly to any household in Argyll and Bute, My Tribe helps ease financial pressures faced by families. Schools Share and Recycle - Gigha Primary school have a community fridge, which they keep fully stocked with fresh items of food. They have been very surprised at the uptake and need to restock very regularly. Dalmally Primary School are actively involved with the charity Mary’s Meals and Page 108
Page 109
28 Classification: OFFICIAL pupils fundraise and raise awareness. Most of our schools have a Uniform Bank where pupils can access pre-owned items of school uniform. Pupils, staff, and parents spoke of the Uniform Swap Shop, with children learning that not everything needs to be bought new. Award winning school meals service We delivered 1.2m early years, primary and secondary school meals, with new menus introduced in August 2024 receiving positive feedback. The Catering Team wowed judges at the Public Sector Catering Awards with their wild venison school meals, earning them the Sustainability Award. Early years and primary meals were awarded a recertification for Food for Life Served Here - Bronze award. School Counselling Service The service has supported 472 young people in secondary schools and 216 children in primary schools. The most common reasons for referral include anxiety, low mood, family difficulties, and emotional regulation. 83% of young people and 81% of primary-aged children completing support reported positive clinical outcomes, including reduced psychological distress and improved emotional resilience. This is further supported by positive parent feedback, with 100% of parents feeling more confident in supporting their child's emotional and developmental needs and 94% observing positive changes in their child’s wellbeing. School suitability ratings Through the Capital Programme only Tobermory 2-18 school still has a C rating for suitability. There are plans for a new school on Mull through the LEIP programme which will ensure 100% of our schools will have a suitability of A or B. The four-year planning for the new school building in conjunction with the Hub North, will ensure that the new school have both a condition and suitability scoring of A. Page 109
Page 110
29 Classification: OFFICIAL Corporate Outcome: Education, skills, and training will maximise opportunities for all Number of indicators: 7 Number on track: - Number no target / no data: 7 Corporate Outcome Indicator Target 2021/22 Actual 2022/23 Actual 2023/24 Actual 2024/25 Actual Status Commentary Maintain the percentage of all young people leaving school achieving a positive destination into further education, training, or employment. *ACADEMIC YEAR 95.00% 93.50% 95.20% 94.30% No data - The data supplied for 2024/25 will not be available from the Scottish Government until February 2026. Maintain the percentage of successful examination presentations in Levels 4 and 5 for literacy and numeracy by our senior phase pupils *ACADEMIC YEAR 60.00% 97.00% SCQF4 87.23% SCQF5 66.84% SCQF4 84.08% SCQF5 66.59% No data - Data available early Sept 2025 Page 110
Page 111
30 Classification: OFFICIAL Corporate Outcome Indicator Target 2021/22 Actual 2022/23 Actual 2023/24 Actual 2024/25 Actual Status Commentary Percentage of modern apprentices that go on to a positive destination after completing the Argyll and Bute Modern Apprentice Programme 95.00% 96.10% 96.20% 94.55% 90.00% R The target was narrowly missed due to a small number of applicants not completing the programme however, 70% have successfully secured employment within the Council. Percentage of children that achieve their appropriate developmental milestones by Primary 1 70.00% 64.00% 63.00% 61.00% 61.00% R As a result of developmental effects of covid lockdowns, we continue to work collaboratively with health and allied health professionals to ensure that we are addressing developmental concerns as early as possible. Percentage pass rate for the National 5 qualification is comparable or better than the Scottish national average *ACADEMIC YEAR No target 79.70% 77.39% 75.60% No data No target Data will be available mid Sept 2025 Page 111
Page 112
31 Classification: OFFICIAL Corporate Outcome Indicator Target 2021/22 Actual 2022/23 Actual 2023/24 Actual 2024/25 Actual Status Commentary Percentage pass rate for the National Higher qualification is comparable or better than the Scottish national average *ACADEMIC YEAR No target 80.90% 77.35% 72.00% No data No target Data will be available mid Sept 2025 Increase the uptake of wider achievement opportunities which complement traditional SQA awards and offer alternative ways to develop learning, life, and work skills No target - 88.00% 100.00% No data No target Data will be available mid Sept 2025 Developing the young workforce Analysis of 23/24 attainment data has been completed and demonstrates a continued growth in the presentation for and passing of wider achievement awards. Data shows that the percentage of senior phase pupils who presented for a wider achievement award has grown from 7.3% in 22/23 to 9.9% in 23/24. This figure also surpasses the 5 years high of 9.8% in 2019/20. The average tariff points awarded to Argyll and Bute pupils (52) who passed wider achievement points is also above the virtual comparator (35) and national figures (36). This average was also an increase on the 22/23 figure (46). These two figures show that a higher proportion of our pupils are engaging with high quality wider achievement awards. We received the Insight raw data set in November which allows us to explore at a pupil level which wider achievements were achieved, and in which centres they were presented. Analysis of the data is underway to ensure the relevant Education Officer is equipped with the best insight possible to support and challenge our schools. Further analysis of Insight leavers data, published in February 2025, shows that wider achievement made up 11.4% of all attained entries for our S6 leavers. This was the highest it had been in the last 5 years and higher than both the virtual comparator and the national figure. This data shows that wider achievement is increasingly becoming part of a revised curriculum which complements traditional SQA awards. Page 112
Page 113
32 Classification: OFFICIAL Helping People into work Education and DYW have worked in partnership with Skills Development Scotland (SDS), the 3rd Sector and a wide and increasing range of employer partners to develop young people’s skills, formulate personalised learning pathways and track young people’s progress, both towards and within positive destinations. As a result, 94.8% of school leavers in 2023/24 entered positive destinations and 94.3% of all 16–19-year-olds were in education, training or employment, which equates to Argyll and Bute ranking 9th out of Scotland’s local authorities. Partnerships between schools and employers have continued to increase and as a result, a total of 387 work placements – a 60% increase on 2023/34 – have supported young people to plan their individual vocational pathways and develop skills for life and work, confidence and resilience. Forty Flexible Learning Plans (FLPs) have been in place across all secondary schools. FLPs have continued to provide bespoke curricula for young people who require such provision. All secondary schools have demonstrated increased capacity for and commitment to planning individualised curricula and timetables for young people. As a result, vulnerable young people at risk of disengagement have re-engaged with education and are entering sustained destinations in employment and training/apprenticeships. Frequent and regular 16 Plus meetings are being held in secondary schools in partnership with SDS and DYW. As a result, all secondary schools have robust frameworks for intervention to support school leavers at risk of not entering a positive destination, and to track young people post-school to ensure positive destinations are sustained. Our number of Modern Apprentices employed has remained consistent over the last few years, but to improve our approach we have included evaluation in our Growing Our Own framework. Modern Apprentices and their managers will be encouraged to provide feedback in this respect to ensure that the programme remains fit for purpose as a pipeline into longer-term employment. Literacy and Numeracy Full analysis of 23/24 literacy and numeracy data has highlighted the varying levels of attainment across all schools which will allow for interventions to be designed and implemented. This information, along with other relevant measures, has been organised into secondary attainment meeting packs which will be used to support improvement meetings. S3 BGE data for 23/24 shows increases at the fourth level, which should logically flow into improvements at National 4 and 5 awards in 24/25. Insight data for leavers, which included post appeal data, was published in February 2025. The percentage of leavers who left with Level 4 literacy and numeracy was 83.2%. The percentage of leavers who left with Level 5 literacy and numeracy was 64.8%. Both are above the target of 60%. Play on Pedals Our Play on Pedals collaboration with Bike-ability Scotland is now operating in 3 of our 4 localities, including one island, enabling young children to achieve their gross motor milestones, through learning to balance and pedal a bicycle. We are currently awaiting our most up to date development Page 113
Page 114
33 Classification: OFFICIAL data, however, initial qualitative data indicates that for children involved in the scheme, achievement of gross motor developmental milestones is above average, and as an additional benefit, stronger parental engagement and confidence in cycling with their children has been reported. Attainment Attainment data for the 2023/24 academic year has been reviewed at both the authority and individual school levels. At the authority level, Argyll and Bute recorded a National 5 pass rate of 75.9%, slightly below the national average of 77.2%. Notably, five out of ten secondary schools in the area achieved pass rates above the national figure. Further analysis revealed that in 15 National 5 courses, Argyll and Bute's pass rates exceeded national performance. At the Higher level, the authority-wide pass rate was 72.0%, again slightly trailing the national average of 74.9%. However, three secondary schools outperformed the national pass rate. Additionally, Argyll and Bute achieved higher pass rates than the national average in 16 Higher courses. Schools have received detailed data to support targeted improvements at the subject level. Information from the results machine has been shared, enabling schools to identify subjects that are performing above or below national averages. This insight allows for focused attention on specific course components to enhance overall performance. Schools have also been provided with data on the accuracy of their grade estimates for the 2023/24 exam diet. This will support improvements in assessment and moderation practices, helping schools more effectively track learner progress. Page 114
Page 115
34 Classification: OFFICIAL Corporate Outcome: Our economy is diverse and thriving Number of indicators: 12 Number on track: - Number no target / no data: 12 Corporate Outcome Indicator Target 2021/22 Actual 2022/23 Actual 2023/24 Actual 2024/25 Actual Status Commentary Maintain the percentage of local suppliers that benefit from the awards of contracts via the procurement portal 20.00% 13.50% 19.90% 17.80% 18.70% R During 2024/25, 183 tender/quick quote contract awards were placed with 203 successful suppliers, 38 of which were local suppliers (18.7%). Increase the number of community benefits that are delivered through the contracts we award locally No target 55 73 74 75 No target 31 Community Benefits have been achieved through Contract Management, Contract Awards and the Request List .44 Community Benefits have been achieved through Contract Management, Contract Awards, and the Request List. Number of business and industry planning applications submitted annually No target 19 23 21 13 No target Although applications submitted during 2024/25 have decreased, these include some significant new investments in Argyll and Bute. Percentage of homeless applicants who required temporary accommodation this period No target 40.00% 34.00% 29.00% 29.00% No target 29% of new homeless applicants required temporary accommodation in 2024/25. Page 115
Page 116
35 Classification: OFFICIAL Corporate Outcome Indicator Target 2021/22 Actual 2022/23 Actual 2023/24 Actual 2024/25 Actual Status Commentary Number of affordable social sector new builds completed per annum No target 145 188 70 54 No target Registered Social Landlord (RSL) partners completed 44 new affordable housing units across Argyll and Bute. Total number of visitor trips to Argyll and Bute No target 1.5M 2.5M 2.8M 3.312M No target Data provided by Scottish Tourism Economic Activity Monitor (STEAM) on an annual basis (calendar year). The significant increase from 2021 to 2024 is due to the number of visitors recovering from extremely low numbers during the Covid-19 pandemic period. Total visitor spend in Argyll and Bute No target £262.5M £407.5M £461.5M £566M No target Data supplied by Scottish Tourism Economic Activity Monitor (STEAM) on an annual basis (calendar year). The significant increase in the total economic impact of tourism from 2021 to 2024 is due to the number of visitors recovering from extremely low numbers during the Covid-19 pandemic period. Gross Value Added (GVA) per capita No target £23,394 £47,270 £47,270 No Data No target Data supplied by Office for National Statistics (ONS). Data not yet available. Page 116
Page 117
36 Classification: OFFICIAL Corporate Outcome Indicator Target 2021/22 Actual 2022/23 Actual 2023/24 Actual 2024/25 Actual Status Commentary Unemployment rate - claimant count as a %age of working age population No target 4.00% 2.80% 2.50% 2.70% No target In April 2025, 2.7% of the working age population in Argyll & Bute were claiming unemployment benefits – lower than the national average for Scotland of 3.1% and significantly below the UK average of 4.1%. Unemployment rate - claimant count as a %age of the population (16-24) No target 4.30% 2.80% 0.41% 0.43% No target As of April 2025, 0.43% of the population aged 16-24 in Argyll & Bute were claiming unemployment benefit. While no target has been set, the key focus remains to maintain low unemployment levels and to ensure that individuals are engaged in sustainable and meaningful employment, rather being under employed. The number of Business Gateway start-ups per 10,000 of population No target 154.3 135.7 135.0 152.0 No target During 2024/25, Business Gateway successfully supported the creation of 152 new start-ups. Geographical percentage coverage of 4/5G mobile connectivity 95.00% 79.00% 81.00% No data R According to latest Ofcom report update (Jan 25), 57% of Argyll and Bute Geographic Area has 4G coverage all 4 operators, this rises to 89% coverage from at least 1 operator, however there are geographic variations dependant on mast locations and level of Page 117
Page 118
37 Classification: OFFICIAL investment, 11% of Argyll and Bute Geographic area has no 4G coverage from any operator. Currently Argyll and Bute 0% 5G coverage from all 4 operators, however some operators have started upgrading infrastructure to incorporate 5G technology. 26% of Argyll and Bute has 5G coverage from at least 1 operator. Supporting economic recovery and our communities During 2024/25, 183 tender/quick quote contract awards were placed with 203 successful suppliers, 38 of which were local suppliers (18.7%). From the 53 awards that received a local bid, 37 tender/quick quote awards were awarded to a local supplier (69.8%). 31 Community Benefits have been achieved through Contract Management, Contract Awards, and the Request List during the period from 1st April 2024 to 30th September 2024. 44 Community Benefits have been achieved through Contract Management, Contract Awards, and the Request List during the period from 1st October 2024 to 31st March 2025. 31 Community Benefits have been achieved through Contract Management, Contract Awards, and the Request List during the period from 1st April 2024 to 30th September 2024.44 Community Benefits have been achieved through Contract Management, Contract Awards and the Request List during the period from 1st October 2024 to 31st March 2025. Affordable social sector new builds The 44 new affordable housing units completed by Registered Social Landlord (RSL) partners included 38 units for social rent and 6 properties for New Supply Shared Equity (NSSE). In addition, Trust and West Highland Housing Association both acquired a property on the open market, whilst following transfer of stock to Fyne Homes they completed the renovation works to eight affordable flats in Rothesay raising the annual completion total to 54. The challenges of housing delivery are well-articulated in the work surrounding the Housing Emergency, particularly infrastructure constraints, construction skills shortages, materials inflation, financial costs. Page 118
Page 119
38 Classification: OFFICIAL Business Support – case studies Lochawe Hardwoods An Argyll-based business has achieved significant business growth, including a boost in turnover, after accessing support from Business Gateway. Ian McAdam established Loch Awe Hardwoods in 2017 along the south shore of Loch Awe. The business operates its own sawmill to supply a range of products to customers across the region. Ian’s business journey has been supported by a Business Gateway adviser, who linked him up with a digital expert for a fully funded digital review to give guidance on growing Loch Awe Hardwoods’ digital presence to reach new customers. Using the recommendations from the digital review, Ian plans to enhance the company’s online presence even further, with an updated website and increased engagement on social media platforms such as Facebook to better showcase Loch Awe Hardwoods’ products and services. Through Business Gateway, Ian has also accessed funding towards machinery from the UK Shared Prosperity Fund, which has enabled the business to expand its product range, leading to an increased customer base and improved turnover. Lomond Clinic, Helensburgh A Helensburgh healthcare clinic has been given a boost after receiving digital support from Business Gateway in Argyll & Bute. The Lomond Clinic supports locals through its range of healthcare services, which include medical and alternative treatment options encompassing health, beauty, massage, physiotherapy, acupuncture, counselling, exercise and nutrition. Founder Jill Du Toit has been supporting Helensburgh residents since 2002, when she first launched her clinic with Business Gateway start-up support. Page 119
Page 120
39 Classification: OFFICIAL Throughout her business journey, Jill has been supported by her local Business Gateway team, who has provided expert guidance and advice as she has grown and developed The Lomond Clinic. One-to-one support from Business Gateway has helped Jill to develop her business plan to keep up with client demand. As part of recent efforts to improve The Lomond Clinic’s online presence, Jill participated in a one-day digital review with Business Gateway, which gave her a clear action plan on improvements to her website and social media. This has enabled Jill to effectively reach and communicate with new customers, supporting The Lomond Clinic’s continued development. Jill has also previously received advice on routes to funding and accessed grants that have helped her to expand her team and secure medical diagnosis equipment. Green Cup, Lochgilphead A Ukrainian national who relocated to Scotland has brought a taste of her homeland to Lochgilphead by opening Green Cup, a coffee shop. Owner Inna Arnautova offers specialist coffees and teas and accessed support from Business Gateway to help turn her passion for coffee into a thriving business. Inna, her husband and their three children moved to the area from Ukraine in January 2023 amidst Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. Keen to establish her roots in Argyll and Bute further, Inna had an idea to launch her very own coffee shop and approached Business Gateway for support earlier this year. She was soon connected with Donald Melville, a business adviser. Drawing on Donald’s expertise and resources, Inna successfully navigated the challenges of starting a new venture in a foreign country. Inna benefitted from advice on taking on a new premises and routes to funding. Through her local Business Gateway, Inna also benefited from a specialist adviser surgery which taught her more about using social media channels such as Facebook and Instagram to market her business to the right audience. Since its opening, Green Cup has proved popular with locals, and visitors alike, gaining positive attention for its new and unique offer in the town. Inna told us “I’m incredibly grateful for the support I have received from Business Gateway. Starting a new business was a long haul but Donald helped me along the way with any questions that I had. I’m looking forward to what’s to come in the future.” Page 120
Page 121
40 Classification: OFFICIAL Donald Melville, Business Gateway adviser, said: “The success of Green Cup highlights the opportunities available to budding business owners in Scotland, especially to those who bring diverse perspectives and new ideas to the local economy. Inna’s story serves as an inspiration to other aspiring business owners looking to make their mark.” UK SHARED PROSPERITY FUND – Business Support Programme Between June 2023 and March 2025 Business Gateway delivered a programme of additional support worth £516,521, fully funded through the UK Government Shared Prosperity Fund: • 87 small business development grants • 16 training, trade fair, accreditation or digital grants • 75 start-up grants • 9 expert help (1 to 2 days support) • 6 participants in intensive business support programme Of the 51 clients followed up to date, turnover has increased from a combined £10.7m at approval to £15.7m 12 months after the support (47% increase). The number of employees has grown from 96 to 136 (41% increase). Across the 165 unique businesses approved for support, turnover is predicted to grow by 32% to £32.8m and FTEs to grow by 47% to 468 within 12 months, so it is encouraging to see growth actually delivered from the early beneficiaries. Impact data will be mature in May 2026. £200k has been secured for the UKSPF Transition phase, to continue grant and expert help support in 2025. The Rural Growth Deal (RGD) The Rural Growth Deal (RGD) is a partnership approach to rural economic development which will deliver £50 million of investment equally funded by the Scottish and UK Governments where it will best develop Argyll and Bute as an inclusive, sustainable, economically successful region and driver for Scotland and the UK. Argyll and Bute Council, along with key stakeholders, will seek to contribute at least £20 million of match funding throughout the 10-year programme to accelerate inclusive economic growth for the region. The RGD will provide a catalyst for inclusive economic growth that will retain and attract working-age people in the area. It will create opportunities that can help to anchor the future prosperity of some of our key employment sectors. The programme comprises seven themes with key interdependencies between many projects, bringing together partners from the public, private, and third sectors who are all committed to delivering inclusive economic growth that benefits the whole region. The seven themes are: Page 121
Page 122
41 Classification: OFFICIAL • Tourism – Creating a World Class Visitor Destination • Creating a Low Carbon Economy • Rural Skills Accelerator Programme • Housing to Attract Economic Growth • Clyde Engineering and Innovation Cluster • West Coast UAV Logistics and Training Hub • Marine Aquaculture Programme Over the programme lifetime, it is estimated that the RGD will: • Generate over £5 million per year across its 10-year duration. This figure reflects the annual capital funding drawn down as part of the RGD, with a total of £50 million being provided by the Scottish Government and UK Government over the full-term equating to approximately £5 million per annum. In addition to this financial investment, the deal will deliver wider economic benefits, which will be clearly mapped out as individual projects progress.” • Directly and indirectly create over 300 additional jobs associated with the economic benefits accrued from growth RGD projects. • Attract more than 70,000 tourists to the area. • Assist the transition towards a net zero economy. • Deliver skills and training opportunities to more than 6000 students / workers. • Create an enhanced culture and leisure offering for local people to make Argyll and Bute a more attractive place to live and work. • Construct housing and worker accommodation in some of our remote and fragile island communities as part of wider efforts to address our local housing emergency. The Full Deal Agreement was signed in March 2025, at a ceremony in Rothesay, Isle of Bute signed by Cllr Jim Lynch on behalf of Argyll and Bute Council, Kate Forbes MSP, Deputy First Minister for the Scottish Government and Ian Murray, Secretary of State for Scotland for the UK Government. This event was a key milestone in RGD delivery and marked the beginning of the 10-year programme of investment across Argyll and Bute. Page 122
Page 123
42 Classification: OFFICIAL Strategic Transportation Strategic Transportation were successful in securing £100k from the SG Islands Infrastructure Fund to engage, supply and support 4 communities to establish Digital Hubs on their Islands. The Islands were Coll (An Cridhe), Tiree (Development Trust Building), Iona (Community Hall) and Islay (Kilarrow Hall). All 4 locations have an additional 3-year extended warranty and a direct line to the supplier for technical advice. Scottish Futures Trust Argyll, and Bute Council in partnership with Scottish Futures Trust were the first LA in Scotland to begin this full-scale area wide mobile coverage mapping project. Several others have followed suit. The data that is being received provides an actual coverage rather the assumed coverage data that was previously available. Data received through this ongoing project challenges the assumed data which is provided by the current 4 Mobile Network Operator. Page 123
Page 124
43 Classification: OFFICIAL One council: property income We have generated over £956,000 from disposals and generated new annual revenue income of £40,500 driven by our strategy of divesting of surplus property assets and generating income from our estate. Notable sales include: • Eaglesham House in Rothesay, Isle of Bute • Housing development site at Burns Brae, Lochgilphead as part of housing emergency actions. Notable projects include: • The marketing of the Helensburgh Waterfront commercial site, with a preferred developer selected in August 2024, site investigations completed, and utility connections secured. • Oban Airport Business Park has seen the completion of the full business case, funding secured for the site infrastructure and first building, Tier 1 contractor appointed, design team appointed, planning consent received, and site preparation works commenced. We are developing a strategic outline programme which will cover potential opportunities for the Council to develop several of its assets on a commercial basis and will be delivered over a number of years, with the immediate focus being a new Business Park at Kilmory, Oban Airport Business Park and commercial developments at Helensburgh’s waterfront. We secured ongoing commercial planning / building standards work from other local authorities. Not only is this important for us to provide a balanced budget, but it also supports communities in these other Council areas.” Housing Services Partnership with Home Argyll Housing service staff continue to work proactively with clients to offer support and identify solutions which avoid people needing to present as homeless and require temporary accommodation. Similarly, staff are working hard to ensure Housing First Tenancies are successfully sustained, and that Registered Social Landlords (RSLs) increase the number of offers they make to homeless clients. The number of tenancies created by RSLs annually has dropped and the number of offers made to homeless applicants is not reaching the agreed levels creating a continuing need to rely on the sporadic use of unsuitable accommodation types for temporary accommodation. We continue to engage constructively with RSLs & Scottish Government, COSLA and Highlands and Islands Regional Economic Partnership to focus on the issues and delivery. Page 124
Page 125
44 Classification: OFFICIAL Corporate Outcome: We have an infrastructure that supports sustainable growth Number of indicators: 5 Number on track: 3 Number no target / no data: 2 Corporate Outcome Indicator Target 2021/22 Actual 2022/23 Actual 2023/24 Actual 2024/25 Actual Status Commentary Percentage of waste recycled, composted or recovered 45.00% 48.30% 52.00% 58.20% 68.30% G The figures provided represent a combined total, with an annual rate of 68.3% for recycling, composting and recovery. This includes 41.5% from recycling and composting and 26.8% from recovery. The target figure will be revised once the landfill ban comes into effect. Number of tonnes of waste sent to landfill (biodegradable) 21,500 18,772 18,165 17,406 14,716 G Since general waste from Helensburgh and Lomond is no longer sent to landfill and is instead processed through refuse derived fuel and energy from waste methods, there has been a significant reduction in the tonnage of waste going to landfill. Percentage of street cleanliness 73.00% 79.00% 83.00% 84.00% 80.00% G The nationally recognised pass rate is 67% The average achievement across all areas is 80%, with every team exceeding the target set. Page 125
Page 126
45 Classification: OFFICIAL Corporate Outcome Indicator Target 2021/22 Actual 2022/23 Actual 2023/24 Actual 2024/25 Actual Status Commentary Percentage of roads in need of maintenance as defined by the annual survey No target No data 49.70% No data 50.77% No target The latest Road Condition Index (RCI) for 2023-25 indicates a decline in network condition. This figure is derived from the updated two-year average of completed survey data. Despite the recent dip, the RCI still reflects a continued improvement since the 2018 – 2020 period. Carbon emissions relating to Council activities (Council carbon footprint) tC02e = tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent Net Zero tC02e by 2045 No target 28,218 26,512 No data 27,515 No target Both the Council and Scotland as a whole, are committed to achieving Net Zero emissions by 2045. Since the baseline year, we have achieved a 31% reduction in carbon emissions. However, current progress – both locally and nationally – falls short of the trajectory needed to meet the interim target of a 75% reduction by 2020 and the goal of Net Zero by 2045. Council Carbon Footprint Projects delivered by the Council that have contributed to the reduction in emissions include: • LED Streetlight Replacement programme • Solar pv and LED lighting installations at Council assets • Installation of low carbon heating systems (e.g. air source heat pumps Page 126
Page 127
46 Classification: OFFICIAL Flood Protection Campbeltown Flood Protection Scheme • The main works contract was certified Complete in May 2024, • The Property Flood Resilience (PFR) element of the project is progressing through 2025 to 2026. As the scheme is largely complete, the only known remaining financial risk at this stage is that of the tender return costs of the Property Flood Resilience works contract. Tender costs are expected to be available in the third quarter of 2025/26 and, if required, the adequacy of the available £350k secured funding shall be reviewed at that stage. Marine infrastructure Oban Harbour For some time now there has been agreement that the Oban Bay area should be formally controlled for maritime safety, we took the step to assume the responsibility for managing the area through an extension of its Statutory Harbour Authority area around North Pier. We are now at the end of an extensive formal process and Transport Scotland continue to work on completing a submission and recommendation to the Cabinet Secretary for Transport. Craignure Terminal Our Harbour Board Members met on 20 March and approved the completion of the Outline Business Case (OBC) and a continuation of the project to the Final Business Case (FBC) pre-construction stage costing c.£3million. The Project Objectives include: • Replace the existing terminal infrastructure, parts of which are in poor condition, deteriorating or have limited structural capacity. • Increase berth capacity at the new ferry terminal to allow the full range of design vessels to be safely accommodated. • Ensure vessels can reliably berth year-round at the new ferry terminal, including in challenging weather conditions and overnight, to reduce weather-related cancellations and improve the winter timetable. • Increase resilience of the new ferry terminal operations. • Allow safe and efficient embarkation and disembarkation for both vehicles and foot passengers, including those with impaired mobility and wheelchair users. • Increase capacity of the new vehicle marshalling area in line with industry standards, addressing congestion on the A849. • Provide a new terminal building with modern facilities, meeting staff and passenger requirements. Page 127
Page 128
47 Classification: OFFICIAL • Provide access for RNLI lifeboat, which is used for medical evacuations from Mull to mainland. • Avoid and minimise disruption to the ferry service as far as practicable during the construction works. This next stage will develop more accurate construction costing estimates as the design and methodology become more informed, with the current construction phase projection cost estimated at c.£96 million. Campbeltown Old Quay The Campbeltown Old Quay steel sheet piled walls, particularly wall ‘A,’ was showing accelerated low water corrosion, had holes in the sheet piling, and was showing loss of infill material behind the sheet piling wall. The pier is operational with the Royal National Lifeboats Institute commercial /retail fishing vessels, leisure/private boats, and tourism. The Marine Operations and Infrastructure Design teams have been working together to facilitate the replacement the old steel sheet piles. Infrastructure Design undertook outline designs and costs of 8 Options from which a preferred option to design and construct a deep-water berth was selected. A contract was awarded in March 2024 and works on site began in June 2024. Since then, of ground anchors, backfilling between the old and new sheet piles, 50 metres of cope installation. The remaining works are the completion of cope installation, installation of quay furniture (bollards, ladders, fenders), completion of dredging works, site reinstatement. The completion date for the project is 04 October 2025. Page 128
Page 129
48 Classification: OFFICIAL Ferry services Iona Breakwater A contractor is now established on Iona to deliver a major infrastructure project that includes the construction of a breakwater, a new public toilet block, and slipway enhancements. These works are designed to protect the island’s vital ferry service and prepare for the arrival of new CalMac vessels on the route. The construction phase is expected to last approximately 17 months. This investment will significantly improve the reliability of ferry sailings during adverse weather conditions—an essential upgrade for a community that depends on consistent access to medical care, education, waste collection, and business deliveries. The lack of resilient infrastructure in the Sound of Iona has long impacted daily life for residents, with even a single day without ferry service disrupting essential services. The breakwater will provide critical protection, enable more reliable and frequent crossings, and support broader economic development opportunities on both sides of the Sound. In addition, the existing public toilet block on Iona is no longer fit for purpose. Frequently out of order and unable to meet demand—especially during the busy tourist season—the current facility fails to serve both residents and visitors. A new, accessible, and compliant toilet block is being constructed to provide reliable public amenities. The contract for the project was awarded in November 2024, with on-site works commencing in February 2025. These improvements are the result of extensive local consultation and careful environmental planning, ensuring that the project respects the unique character of this iconic location on Argyll’s coastline. Fionnphort Fionnphort overnight berthing facility is progressing to follow on from the Iona works, for c. 18 months construction. Preparation is progressing to ensure: • Overnight berth • Safe access for crew • Sheltered berthing • Charging and supply facilities • Traffic survey to enhance the passenger road user interface at the terminal An Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) is in process including the socio-economic assessment. Page 129
Page 130
49 Classification: OFFICIAL Port Askaig Port Askaig has been made ready to receive the new Islay vessel being completed in Turkey and represents a collaboration between Argyll and Bute Council and CMAL who carried out the waterside enabling works. Council works to enhance existing facilities, consisted of relining, signage, parking allocation, CCTV and traffic access control installation. Campbeltown Harbour Campbeltown Harbour continues to be very busy commercially. Harbour improvement in the form of the replacement of ‘Wall A’ at the Old Quay is well underway and due for completion in October this year. Business opportunities include using Campbeltown as a strategic supply hub for aquaculture and planned offshore wind projects are being explored. The continuation of cruise visits as well as military traffic represent a real opportunity to develop the port and secure long-term work in and from Campbeltown Harbour. Rothesay Quay Preparations continue for phase 3 of works, which will see a strengthening of the east roundhead and includes fendering upgrades. This work is currently at the design stage and is planned for tender in 2025. Feolin We will be installing a passenger only access at Feolin, for those periods when the vehicular vessel is not available and the service would otherwise be cancelled. Although these occasions are relatively rare, we have recognised the need for a replacement to the ladder access used at present. A plan for concrete steps between the existing dolphins following a more traditional design has been drawn up and approvals are now underway. Gigha and Tayinloan Planning is well underway to upgrade the marine infrastructure at Gigha and Tayinloan to accommodate new vessels for the CalMac route. Public consultation has been carried out at both sites as part of the Environmental Impact Assessment process. Ground Investigation work has also been completed at the locations, and this will help with refining the construction plans, methodology and costs. Page 130
Page 131
50 Classification: OFFICIAL Gigha Ferry Terminal To facilitate the arrival of a new ferry as part of the Small Vessel Replacement Project (SVRP), the Council’s Marine Operations and Infrastructure Design teams have been working to upgrade the existing infrastructure at Gigha and Tayinloan. A consultant has been commissioned to produce an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA), design drawings, and tender documents. The designs include a new pier/breakwater at Gigha to allow overnight berthing of the new vessel by the slipway, and an extension of the existing breakwater at Tayinloan. A Ground Investigation was carried out in April 2025. This included boreholes, vibrocores, grab samples, bathymetric surveys, and sub bottom profiling. The results of this investigation will provide information to allow designs to progress and a Marine Directorate consent to be secured for both construction and dredging. Argyll & Bute Council Ferry Services The first of our Ferry Stakeholder Forums held its initial meeting in June on Luing. Thanks to the enthusiasm of the local Community Council, it has begun to shape the available resources to better fit the islands needs and to better understand the constraints the service works within. It is now our intention to roll out this template and attend regular meetings for the remaining services for Jura, Lismore and Easdale and we look forward to involving the local communities alongside us to get the most out of their service. Vessel Priority Strategy The lag in increasing ferry capacity through new vessels is limiting the benefit of cheaper travel costs and impeding mainland travel to islands. New vessels and the associated marine infrastructure to accommodate them at our ports are both expensive and have lengthy lead times. It is therefore important for us to not only have a long-term strategy for vessel replacement but also to look at the longer-term needs of the island communities served by our ferries. A vessel strategy, which represents a realistic and Best Value approach to gain the most benefit from resources as they become available is as follows: 1. On-site accommodation at Port Askaig. The present situation requires Officers and crew to be residents of Islay as well as suitably qualified. Along with the market supplement and the 7-day rota, this will allow the recruitment of suitably certified crew required for resilience and new vessel minimum manning levels. Page 131
Page 132
51 Classification: OFFICIAL 2. Concept design to ‘Keel Ready’ for a new Jura vessel to identify capacity levels; fuel type; crew size and infrastructure upgrade requirements. This also allows for a more accurate assessment / estimate of build & certification costs. 3. Jura Ferry replacement and associated infrastructure at Feolin and Port Askaig. 4. Eilean Dhiura re-deployed to the Cuan / Luing route with associated slipway modifications on the route. 5. Easdale work boat replacement with landing craft type vessel. The vessel strategy uses the available resources and maximises the return from investments on vessel life extension works. It gives a service improvement in terms of redundancy and resilience while minimising the new build timescales. This will also allow time to assess future needs and fixed link opportunities for each community. Council vehicle ferries Major work during dry dock periods has now been completed to further extend the working lives of the Eilean Dhiura and the Belnahua. The work continues each year as an investment in the resilience of the vessels as important links to the island communities they serve. Works included engine replacement, extensive steel works, hydraulic and control systems as well as fire safety installations. Road Condition improvements The 2024 Annual Status and Options Report sets out the benefits of continued investment in our road network and highlights the critical risk of underinvestment. Although our network has seen a welcome improvement in recent years, we would need to spend in the region of £11-£14million annually to maintain a ‘standstill’ position, and significantly more to see continued improvements. Budget consultations and public feedback has shown the importance of roads to our communities, but maintaining the required level of investment is likely to be challenging in future years given the predicted decline in available capital funding. This brings with it significant engineering, economic, financial and reputational risks for the Council. We continue to deliver a range of different technical solutions that are designed to be proportionate for the use of the road and take into consideration the island and rural geography of Argyll and Bute. Claoniag landslip To facilitate the arrival of a new ferry as part of the Small Vessel Replacement Project (SVRP), the Council’s Marine Operations and Infrastructure Design teams have been working to upgrade the existing infrastructure at Gigha and Tayinloan. A consultant has been commissioned to produce an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA), design drawings, and tender documents. The designs include a new pier/breakwater at Gigha to allow overnight berthing of the new vessel by the slipway, and an extension of the existing breakwater at Tayinloan. Page 132
Page 133
52 Classification: OFFICIAL A ground investigation was carried in April 2025. This included boreholes, vibrocores, grab samples, bathymetric surveys, and sub bottom profiling. The results of this investigation will provide information to allow designs to progress and a Marine Directorate consent to be secured for both construction and dredging. Significant Work was carried out with SEPA and the owner of the surrounding land, to enable improvement to a nearby old borrow pit site using excavated material from the Works site. This helped to reduce the impact on the environment and the roads network of transporting large quantities of unsuitable (for engineering fill) excavated material away from the site. Work outside the road corridor will take place during 2025 to complete aspects required by SEPA such as the topsoil and seeding of the improved ex borrow pit area. Balliemore bridge The original Balliemore Bridge was demolished following its partial collapse during the October 2023 severe weather event. The next critical stage in replacing it included installing six precast, 15 metre long, concrete deck beams onto the reinforced concrete abutments. A 130 tonnes capacity crane was required to consider the safe working radius and capacity of the lifting operations. Further work includes installing pre-cast wing walls and deck reinforcement in preparation for the in-situ concrete deck pour. With the cooperation of Ardtaraig Estate a diversion road was put in place through a field to the north west of Balliemore Bridge, which allowed a temporary bridge to be placed slightly upstream of the existing bridge and reopening of the road. Page 133
Page 134
53 Classification: OFFICIAL Tigh Dearg Road in Kilcreggan. Civils works were completed as part of the flood alleviation scheme to improve the surface water drainage, as well reducing sewerage overflow into the River Clyde, at Tigh Dearg Road in Kilcreggan. This scheme involved de-coupling a 220m combined sewer which took the surface water (rain runoff) and sewerage in one pipe which was connected to the Scottish Water main sewer. This pipe lacked capacity and was a contributor to the ongoing issues faced by locals. The improvements include a new much larger surface water pipe (600mm in diameter) and a new sewer pipe connected only to properties. Improvements have also been made in the road surfacing which has been completely renewed – which provides a drastic visual improvement to the area. To accomplish these works significant logistical and geophysical challenges had to be overcome – such as the high rock read that was present at the site as well as the narrow nature of the street. This added complexity and time to the works but were managed and successfully overcome. Page 134
Page 135
54 Classification: OFFICIAL Corporate Outcome: Getting it right Number of indicators: 5 Number on track: 1 Number no target / no data: 2 Corporate Outcome Indicator Target 2021/22 Actual 2022/23 Actual 2023/24 Actual 2024/25 Actual Status Commentary Increase the percentage of all self-service and automated contracts 70.00% 73.10% 75.00% 76.70% 79.30% G In FQ4 there were 190,503 interactions across all Customer Engagement Team channels. Of these 150,986 were digital self service, which was 79.3%, so the target was comfortably met. Sickness absence days per employee (non- teacher) No target 13.4 14.9 14.6 15.4 No target Employee absence is showing an increasing trend. This is a feature across the entire public sector in Scotland and is concerning. The main reasons for absence in this employee group are Mental Health and back and neck issues. Officers are working in partnership with other councils to ensure we have the best approach possible to analysing data, managing absence and providing the most appropriate support to staff. Our older workforce profile has an impact on our absence but does not account for it all. We continue to focus work with managers to improve this. Page 135
Page 136
55 Classification: OFFICIAL Corporate Outcome Indicator Target 2021/22 Actual 2022/23 Actual 2023/24 Actual 2024/25 Actual Status Commentary Sickness absence days per teacher No target 5.6 7.2 9.0 9.6 No target Absence amongst our teaching staff has increased significantly since 2021-22. The main reasons for absence in this employee group are stress and infections. Workload and pupil behaviour have been identified as contributing factors to stress, both of which are nationally recognised issues. Officers are working in partnership with other councils to ensure we have the best approach possible to analysing data, managing absence and providing the most appropriate support available to staff. Level of employee satisfaction No target - - - 3.5 No target Employees were asked to rate on a scale of 0- 5 stars their overall experience of working at Argyll and Bute Council. The indicator is the average score and will be monitored on an annual basis. Level of customer satisfaction 92.5% combined 92.00% 97.60% 96.95% 93.00% G FQ4 outcomes were: 97.7% Satisfied for Customer Service Points (455 question responses), 96.4% satisfaction for Contact Centre (from 403 survey respondents), 100% satisfaction with Registration Service from 85 survey respondents and 78% Web Visit satisfaction, giving an overall satisfaction score of 93%. Page 136
Page 137
56 Classification: OFFICIAL Increasing the use of our website and self-service tools In 2024/25 there were 638,863 customer interactions dealt with via all channels by our Customer Engagement Team (up from 661k in 23/24). Of these 155,257 were handled in some way by Customer Service Agents (23%) and 528,606 were automated or self-service transactions (77.3%). This was increase of 18,000 on the previous year and so the % of digital transactions rose from 76% and thus the target was achieved. Website page views increased by over 5%. Improving our customer service We have two main measures of customer satisfaction at a corporate level, that on satisfaction with the Customer Engagement Team (Contact Centre, Service Points, Website, Registration) and that measured independently through the Local Government Benchmarking Framework. The former showed high levels of success, averaging 96% for Contact Centre and Face to Face, 99% for the Registration Service and 98% for the accessibility aspects of the website, where we now rank second highest amongst all Scottish Councils. It is important to note however that this reflects satisfaction with how the initial customer contacts are handled. Some services then have their own measures for how the fulfilment of those requests are done by the back-office teams. The LGBF also measure this for some services and out of the 11 indicators four had improved, with overall satisfaction increasing from 55% in the base Year to 82% last year. Award Recognition for Outstanding Innovation and Service We’re proud to share that our teams have received prestigious recognition for their work in 2025. Our Housing Services Team has won the Innovation Award at this year’s Empty Homes Network (EHN) Awards, for its project aimed at bringing properties back into use. Health and Social Care Partnership (HSCP) staff and were highly commended in Meeting the Challenge Award and the Best Partnership Award, highlighting their creative and impactful approach to housing solutions. Page 137
Page 138
57 Classification: OFFICIAL At the Scottish Local Authority Building Standards Scotland Awards, our Building Standards Team received the Outstanding Service and Commitment Award in recognition of their exceptional support to other local authorities. Over the past nine years, the team has led commercialisation efforts on behalf of eight partner councils, processing 3,409 building warrants for projects with a combined works value exceeding £166 million. Supporting our Community Councils We continue to support community councils both from a governance perspective and also regarding some of the more unique queries that come directly to the Community Council Liaison Officer. We’ve seen questions about charitable status, VAT registration, issues with Service Level Agreements which previous community councils had entered into and are supporting a community council who have a binding legal agreement signed from the 1980s which they had no prior knowledge of as nobody involved in those contract negotiations remained on the community council. We successfully re-established a community council which was dormant since 2022 and commenced the necessary project planning required for our periodic review of the Scheme for the Establishment of Community Councils to plan around key committee dates and national standards for engagement on this piece of consultative work. Local Government elections and supporting new elected councillors 2024 saw a snap UK Parliamentary Election called on 4 July 2024 catching the whole electoral community by surprise. In normal circumstances we would have commenced planning for the election at least 6 months prior to a scheduled election taking place. It is well documented that there are issues with the short timetable for this type of elections, and ability for specialist printers to prepare the number of postal packs required given any person can now request a postal vote. These increasing numbers of advanced voters, ongoing issues with Royal Mail, and the timing of the election being during Scottish school holidays caused huge pressure not only on the election team but also on wider council resources. The holiday period meant we required to have new staff appointed on election contracts causing additional work for the election team and human resources teams. Issues with delays in postal votes led to significant enquiries with our team and the contact centre staff. Bespoke arrangements Page 138
Page 139
58 Classification: OFFICIAL were made to try to ensure that postal voters could collect replacement voting packs and complete these if they were going to be out of the area when the main issue of postal votes were due to be delivered. This involved staff from the wider Legal and Regulatory team being asked to receipt and ensure these were handled in accordance with the law. This election saw us taking on part of the Highland Council area within our constituency following the review of Parliamentary boundaries which required us to work with multiple Electoral Registration Officers. It was also the first election requiring voter ID for polling station voting, and the first election where postal votes could not be returned by hand without completion of a form. Committee Support and Member Services In April 2024, a new Council Administration was formed. This required a number of additional special Council meetings and significant preparatory work to pick up and process changes in appointments to internal committees, representation on statutory bodies and a wide range of other external organisations at both strategic and area level, and the development and administration of a new committee and Council meetings programme. Alongside this sat the development and provision of dedicated support for elected members in a period of transition and for those adjusting to new senior roles, again at strategic and area level. The team have also supported the Council’s election team in the administration of a by-election in July 2024 following the passing of the late Cllr Robin Currie. Following the election, they provided induction support for the new councillor and have added to their learning and preparation for the significant 2027 Scottish Local Government Elections administration and larger-scale councillor induction programme which will be required. The Elected Member Development Framework is ongoing throughout the term and includes work with individual councillors using Improvement Service resources to identify personal development needs and potential resources. We have worked with our colleagues in Human Resources & Organisational Development to facilitate access to the Council’s online learning platform for all Elected Members and a “Learning Community” has been established. The team have also delivered another extensive Members Seminar programme over the course of the year. The programme was wide-ranging and included topics such as renewables, tourism, islands strategy, data and technology and other focused sessions on key issues like the A83 Rest and Be Thankful, exploring a Single Authority Model and the housing emergency. Building on the success of previous events and in response to member feedback, the team have supported additional externally delivered sessions offered in partnership with the Local Government Information Unit, including seminars and workshops on advanced communication skills for elected members, conflict resolution and mediation. Page 139
Page 140
59 Classification: OFFICIAL Following the previous year’s review of the councillors’ caseload management system and the establishment of the Member Zone self-service system, team representatives now participate in the Member Zone Sounding Board which brings together stakeholders to look at how the system is performing and where improvements may be possible. Looking after our financial assets The Council’s Counter Fraud Team works alongside Revenues and Benefits, Treasury, Creditors, Payroll and Corporate Debt Recovery to protect the public purse and ensure strong financial stewardship. During 2024/25 the Counter Fraud Team contributed to the identification of £1.48m of Council Tax that required rebilling due to fraud or error. The collection of these amounts is managed through the Council’s normal recovery processes, led by the Corporate Debt Recovery Team. Key achievements across these services during the year include: • We collected £64.5 million in Council Tax during 2024/25, £1.2 million more than was budgeted. • A positive External Audit report was received and presented to Council in December 2024, following completion of the 2023/24 Annual Accounts audit. • Financial monitoring packs and Budget Outlook were submitted to each Policy & Resources Committee. • The average investment rate for 2024/25 was 5.07%, and the investments generated £2.549m of interest during the year. • We processed 97.9% of invoices due within 30 days, exceeding the target of 95.5%. • The external audit of the Council’s Non-Domestic Rates Income (NDRI) Notified Return of £45.415m for 2023/2024 was completed by the statutory deadline with an unqualified audit certificate being received. • Following agreement of the 2024/25 pay awards for Teaching and Non-Teaching staff by October 2024, the Payroll Team processed the uplifts and backdated payments during December 2024. Supporting attendance The aims of the Councils Supporting Attendance policy is to support employee wellbeing and minimise sickness absence through fair, consistent, and compassionate procedures. The policy promotes early intervention, open communication, and tailored support, including access to Occupational Health, the Employee Assistance Programme, and wellbeing initiatives. It emphasises a preventative approach, values good attendance, and ensures that all employees are treated individually and respectfully, in line with the Council’s core values. Increasing absence rates are a national trend across local government in Scotland. Since the introduction of our wellbeing strategy in 2019 the council has improved its ranking in relation to sickness absence by 10 places. Therefore, while our absence rates are increasing and there will be Page 140
Page 141
60 Classification: OFFICIAL targeted work by the Human Resources & Organisational Development team to continue to tackle this, they are increasing at a slower rate than the national picture. The team are preparing to review the Supporting Attendance at Work procedures in the next 12 months to further enhance its effectiveness in addressing high levels of staff absence and to strengthen support for employee wellbeing. Supporting Our People: Insights and Wellbeing Initiatives We conducted an employee survey to gather feedback from staff across all services on their experiences working with the council. The survey explored key areas such as leadership, workplace relationships, workload, wellbeing, and the overall working environment. Follow-up focus groups were held to delve deeper into the findings. Analysis from these sessions has been completed and will be presented to the Senior Leadership Forum in 2025. A comprehensive report, including recommendations and proposed actions, is currently being drafted. We continue to prioritise employee wellbeing. Our enhanced Employee Assistance Programme (EAP) now offers services previously unavailable through our former provider, including physiotherapy and GP appointments. These additions are helping staff access essential support more quickly than through traditional NHS routes. We are also reviewing our Mental Health First Aiders service to ensure it meets current needs. Once approved the updated service will be promoted to all staff, aiming to provide timely support for mental health concerns and help reduce absence durations. Strategic Risk Register The Strategic Risk Register (SRR) details significant risks faced by the Council and the agreed approaches to manage them in the context of risk mitigation. These can be crosscutting across all areas of the Council, although some are very specific to a service function and tend to be long-term in nature. They each have specific interventions, subject to scrutiny at Strategic Committees, and are formally reviewed bi-annually, although the SRR can be reviewed at any time should matters need to be placed on the register by the Strategic Management Team. A formal report is prepared on an annual basis by the Chief Executive on risk management and is reported to the Audit and Scrutiny Committee. Further information can be found within the Audit and Scrutiny Committee meeting area on the council website. Audit and Scrutiny Committee - Argyll and Bute Council (argyll-bute.gov.uk) Currently the SRR has 13 risks in total, 4 are red, 8 are amber and the remaining 1 is green. The red risks relate to: Population, External Infrastructure and Economic Decline, Waste Management, Service Delivery - Cyber Security, Lack of Housing availability. The amber risks relate to: Condition and suitability of Infrastructure & Asset Base, Financial Sustainability, Governance and Leadership, Engagement and Understanding the needs of the Community, Service Delivery, Health and Social Care Partnership, Cost of Living Crisis, Impact of Climate Change Page 141
Page 142
61 Classification: OFFICIAL The green risks relate to: Civil Contingency & Business continuity. Operational Risk Register Executive Director Kirsty Flanagan has eleven red risks which relate to: 1) Environmental Health - dealing with Public Health/infectious disease/food related incidents and emergencies which have significant financial implications for the Council in terms of sampling/monitoring costs, employment of experts, storage and disposal costs (food) etc; 2) Availability of Suitable Temporary Accommodation and Housing Support; 3) Road Maintenance Culverts under 1.5m where extreme localised weather may result in loss of culvert or road loss; 4) Winter Maintenance in respect of adverse weather conditions which require greater than budgeted number of gritting runs; 5) Waste Disposal in relation to the Biodegradable Municipal Waste Ban (known as the BMW Ban); 6) Aging bridges and retaining wall assets which require a level of investment which is currently unaffordable, to ensure a resilient road network; 7) Cyber Security in managing the Council’s assets to ensure they are available to users and meet the needs of the business; 8) vulnerable roads near to the coastline; 9) vulnerability of access to and from Argyll and Bute during severe weather events and/or RTCs where roads or routes are closed; 10) non-compliance with state subsidy regulations with regards to Council and externally funded projects dealt with by the Transformation Projects Team; 11) Roads reconstruction capital funding will be significantly reduced in the coming financial year. Executive Director Douglas Hendry has nine red risk in relation to 1) Failure to maintain the school estate 2) Failure to ensure that Council offices, depots and other properties are improved 3) Increased utility costs 4) Resource – unavailability of Project Management, Professional Services and/or Contractor resources 5) Finance – unavailability of internal capital funding 6) Compliance with conditions of all external funding 7) Capital receipts targets are not met or revenue generating projects not delivered 8) Commercial Catering and Events not meeting financial targets and 9) Challenges within HSCP in identifying budget savings within timescale due to work required to ensure service standards are being met. Operational Risk Registers are monitored on a quarterly basis at Departmental Management Team meetings and are managed accordingly. Service delivery challenges As well as our Strategic and Operational Risk Registers, we face a number of challenges that can impact on service delivery. This is a summary of challenges we have encountered over the year and the actions we have identified and are putting in place to address them. Challenge - Allocation of the Scottish Welfare Fund A key challenge was managing high demand within the limitations of the Scottish Government’s initial programme funding, which was insufficient to meet local needs. Action Page 142
Page 143
62 Classification: OFFICIAL In response to a projected overspend, the Council allocated an additional £250,000 early in the year to ensure continued support for vulnerable residents. Through careful budget management and a focus on high and medium priority cases, we successfully reduced the Council’s actual contribution to £90,000, maintaining a strong level of support throughout. Although a one-off additional funding allocation was issued by the Scottish Government in January, we did not need to use it in-year. However, the need for this additional allocation highlighted the inadequacy of the original funding levels. This funding will be carried forward into 2025/26 to mitigate potential future overspends. Challenge - Discretionary Housing Payment (DHP) Key challenges include difficulty to identify Universal Credit (Housing Costs) claimants affected by the Bedroom Tax without direct Department of Work and Pensions data and barriers reaching tenants in the private rented sector, where DHP take-up remains low. This resulted in DHP spend at 89.2% and below the 96% target. Action Planned improvements for 2025/26 include closer collaboration with Registered Social Landlords within GDPR guidelines to proactively identify and support vulnerable tenants and enhanced information-sharing and joint working with housing colleagues. We are planning for greater promotion of DHP availability to private sector tenants. Introduction of a revised DHP policy, currently under consultation, to be brought to Council in 2025/26 to improve strategic targeting and delivery. Challenge - Welfare Rights Advice in Health Partnerships Initiative Through this new partnership and referral pathway we have been building links with GP practices. Due to rural locations, it was initially difficult to identify GP practices where an adequate number of referrals could be achieved. Action We have identified two additional surgeries where we will be offering this service to reach more clients. Challenge – Access to financial support for those that need it most Due to the cost-of-living crisis and Welfare Reform changes some clients will continue to struggle financially even after intervention from advice services. Some clients, particularly vulnerable individuals and families can be hard to reach and engage with and may have unmet needs. Action We have planned increased community engagement with partners and community groups in 2024-25 to increase awareness of the Welfare Rights Service and what we do. It also ensures clients and partners know how to access the service for support. Page 143
Page 144
63 Classification: OFFICIAL Challenge - Achieving and sustaining positive destinations for young people Young people across Argyll and Bute face several barriers to achieving and sustaining positive destinations. Remote rurality and transport links, routinely involve dislocation from home to attend further and higher education establishments. Additionally, post Covid-19, a higher proportion of young people are finding engaging with full time education or employment challenging. The requirement to develop young people's confidence, resilience and agency is as important as ensuring they are developing the skills to engage with Argyll and Bute's local economy and skills gaps and the national employment landscape. Action Education, Developing the Young Workforce and partners are working to identify key areas of future employment - e.g. tourism, hospitality, renewables, construction, social care, aquaculture and inform and facilitate young people's engagement with these industries. Challenge - Impact of COVID on young children's speech, language and communication development Impact of COVID lockdowns on young children's speech, language and communication development continues to be mirrored within our own data with reports that children present in greater numbers with underdeveloped speech and reduced vocabulary than in previous years. In addition, the number of children with underdeveloped communication and emotional regulation difficulties appear to have increased. Difficulties recruiting HSCP allied health professionals, presents an increasing challenge for ELC staff in supporting children’s development, and for us to meet developmental milestone targets across our authority. Action We are working with health and allied health colleagues, nationally and locally, to support the development of early language and literacy through targeted block model interventions which allows for deeper focus in the areas where it is required. Challenge – Modern apprenticeships with Argyll and Bute Council Opportunities for Modern Apprenticeships has remained consistent however there is a need to create more and varied apprenticeships and ensure we can offer the best possible support for young people in the workplace. Action In 2024/25 we published our Growing Our Framework which outlines the organisation’s ongoing commitment to attracting the workforce of the future and will be taking forward further activities to understand and address barriers to modern apprenticeships. Page 144
Page 145
64 Classification: OFFICIAL Challenge – website customer satisfaction Website satisfaction measures were difficult to collate and review as the tools to do this were no longer compatible with the new website. Action The web team has now fully re-engineered these to follow Govmetric principles, and we now have improved customer data to report on for 2025/26. Consultations – we asked, you said, we did We want to ensure that proposed developments are what our citizens and communities want. To help us obtain your views we post our consultations on our website. The following link will take you to the ‘closed’ consultations which relate to this reporting period. Consultation Results | Argyll and Bute Council (argyll-bute.gov.uk) Page 145
Page 146
This page is intentionally left blank
Page 147
ARGYLL AND BUTE COUNCIL COUNCIL CHIEF EXECUTIVE 24TH SEPTEMBER 2025 SINGLE AUTHORITY MODEL (SAM) - UPDATE 1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1.1 Officers have been working in partnership with colleagues from Argyll and Bute HSCP, NHS Highland, the Scottish Government (SG), COSLA, and other local authorities, such as Western Isles and Orkney, over a period of time to explore the potential benefits and opportunities of alternative governance arrangements, such as a Single Authority Model (SAM). 1.2 Following on from previous update reports, with the latest of these to Council in June 2025, this paper provides a further update on the development work that has been undertaken in respect of exploring options for a SAM and makes recommendations in terms of proposed next steps. 1.3 It is recommended that Members • Note the ongoing collaborative working that has been undertaken by local partners in respect of developing potential options for a SAM in Argyll and Bute; • Accept the recommended views of the SLWG that options 4 and 5 are reported to the Scottish Government by end September as the preferred models at this point in time subject to further investigation to support the development of detailed proposals; • Agree that authority is delegated to the Chief Executive and Executive Director with responsibility for Legal and Regulatory Support, in consultation with the Leader of the Council and the Policy Lead for Care Services, to utilise the Invest to Save Fund in accordance with the spend conditions set out by the Scottish Government. Page 147 Agenda Item 8
Page 148
ARGYLL AND BUTE COUNCIL COUNCIL CHIEF EXECUTIVE 24TH SEPTEMBER 2025 SINGLE AUTHORITY MODEL (SAM) – UPDATE 2.0 INTRODUCTION 2.1 Officers have been working in partnership with colleagues from Argyll and Bute HSCP, NHS Highland, the Scottish Government (SG), COSLA, and other local authorities, such as Western Isles and Orkney, over a period of time to explore the potential benefits and opportunities of alternative governance arrangements, such as a Single Authority Model (SAM). 2.2 Following on from previous update reports, with the latest of these to Council in June 2025, this paper provides a further update on the development work that has been undertaken in respect of exploring options for a SAM and makes recommendations in terms of proposed next steps. 3.0 RECOMMENDATIONS 3.1 It is recommended that Members • Note the ongoing collaborative working that has been undertaken by local partners in respect of developing potential options for a SAM in Argyll and Bute; • Accept the recommended views of the SLWG that options 4 and 5 are reported to the Scottish Government by end September as the preferred models at this point in time subject to further investigation to support the development of detailed proposals; • Agree that authority is delegated to the Chief Executive and Executive Director with responsibility for Legal and Regulatory Support, in consultation with the Leader of the Council and the Policy Lead for Care Services, to utilise the Invest to Save Fund in accordance with the spend conditions set out by the Scottish Government. 4.0 DETAIL 4.1 BACKGROUND/CONTEXT Page 148
Page 149
4.1.1 Argyll and Bute is made up of a rich mix of remote, rural and island communities, which present a number of challenges in terms of service delivery. In recognition of the unique demographics and geography, and the numerous strands of public sector reform that the SG has committed to, we recognise that a shift in public sector structures may be required to fulfil the ambition laid out in policy. Building on the current collaborative/joint working arrangements and the relative success of fully integrated health and social care services, a whole system approach is required. 4.1.2 Public sector service sustainability in Argyll and Bute requires a multi-agency integrated model. Greater integration, collaboration and coordination through joined up strategic planning and delivery of public sector services could deliver better outcomes for the population of Argyll and Bute. 4.1.3 The exploration of SAMs forms part of a wider package of public sector reform being driven at a national level including:- a) The Local Governance Review was launched jointly by COSLA and the SG in December 2017 with the aim of exploring how power, responsibilities and resources might by shared between local and national government, and with communities. A key element of this work relates to Democracy Matters, which has involved two rounds of consultation by the SG. The latest, phase 2, findings were published in September 2024 and the SG have established a steering group to develop potential models/options for streamlining the community empowerment landscape. b) COSLA’s Plan (2022-2027) confirms that the Local Governance Review remains a key priority, and supports the following three inter-related empowerments as set out by the SG: i. Community Empowerment through a new relationship with public services where communities have greater control over decisions. ii. Functional Empowerment of public sector partners to better share resources and work together. iii. Fiscal Empowerment of democratic decision-makers to deliver locally identified priorities. c) Programme for Government i. 2024-25 Programme included a commitment to “continue to make progress towards concluding the joint review of local governance by the end of this parliamentary session’” and this includes developing single authority models (SAMs) with local government and health partners to strengthen and streamline local decision making, and support a shift towards more preventative public services. ii. 2025-2026 Programme states that by the end of the Parliament the SG will publish “preferred models for Single Authority Models in Argyll and Bute, Orkney and Western Isles that have been developed jointly by local government and health and enable a Page 149
Page 150
shift towards prevention. This will include a plan and timeline for implementation, with at least one area transitioning to shadow arrangements.” d) The ‘Public Sector Reform Strategy’ was published in June 2025. Within Workstream 3 – Empowering People, Places and Communities – there is a commitment to “Empower local government and health partners to strengthen and streamline local decision-making through the development of Single Authority Models in three rural and island local areas, resulting in improved service delivery, better outcomes for communities and a shift towards more preventative public services. We will promote and share learning to inform local governance reform in other geographies.” e) Health and Social Care Service Renewal Framework was also published in June 2025 and reinforces the importance of whole-system planning and governance, and that all planning must demonstrate partnership working across the public sector. SAMs are cited as being an opportunity to explore the role of alternative local governance arrangements in delivering service renewal, with a particular focus on health and social care, and to develop local decision-making arrangements which can best respond to the unique challenges faced by communities. f) Scotland’s Population Health Framework sets out the SG and COSLA’s long term collective approach to improving Scotland’s health and reducing health inequalities for the next decade. The conclusion of the Local Governance Review and the establishment of Single Authority Models in rural and island areas such as Argyll and Bute, Western Isles and Orkney, will provide key learning and insights into new place- based approaches for Scotland. Work led by Democracy Matters will also provide blueprints for innovative, democratic community-level decision-making models. 4.1.4 Any proposals developed for a SAM for Argyll and Bute will require to have regard to the outcomes and principles set out in the above publications. The SG have also provided guidance on additional national reform parameters which we should work within when exploring potential models. These are summarised below, with further detail provided in section 4.3.5 below and in appendix 1:- • Health bodies and integration authorities will retain their respective responsibilities for clinical governance • No detriment to terms and conditions, pay or pensions • No loss of skills or expertise • Protection of employment in line with the public sector pay policy • Some health law was not devolved to the Scottish Parliament. Matters such as professional regulation are addressed at UK level. Anything that falls within this category is out of scope for SAMs. • Scottish Government will retain responsibility for development of current and future national policy and strategy relating to Primary Care Page 150
Page 151
• As Scottish Ministers will retain overall responsibility for health service provision, suitable lines of accountability to Scottish Ministers must remain in place. • As above, consideration should be given to existing arrangements and frameworks when developing proposals, however partners do not need to be limited by the current legislative context where this would stand in the way of delivering an optimal model. • Financial governance - the Director-General Health & Social Care/ Chief Executive of NHS Scotland and all accountable officers will be expected to continue to carry out their responsibilities when evaluating any proposals for a SAM. • Health Boards - any proposals should recognise that there must be a health board in place to carry out the various legal responsibilities (of a health board) for the geographical area that the SAM will cover. This could include agreements with health boards in other geographies, as already happens for some functions. The development of any proposals for SAMs should recognise the importance of health boards collaborating with each other to optimise patient outcomes, address inequalities, and improve efficiency across the system. • Public Bodies (Joint Working) (Scotland) Act 2014 - when developing proposals for SAMs, local partners should consider whether the aims can be achieved using the existing mechanisms in the 2014 Act. If any proposals would require changes to existing integration schemes and the integration functions, then the constituent authorities would have to follow the processes within the 2014 Act. If there are obstacles in the 2014 Act, or its associated regulations, removal of those can be considered. 4.1.5 The SG are facilitating quarterly Ministerial Meetings to drive forward this strand of reform. The first of these meetings took place in December 2024 and are chaired by Ivan McKee – Minister for Public Finance, and Neil Gray – Cabinet Secretary for Health and Social Care, bringing together SG officials, local partners (Health Board Chairs, Council Leaders and Council Officers from Argyll and Bute, Western Isles, and Orkey), and other relevant interests to explore the possibility of SAMs. In addition, monthly meetings are held at a local level between SG officials and local authority/health board officers. 4.1.6 A national workplan and timeline have also been developed, with the following key milestones in place:- • September 2025 - local partners should aim to share first draft preferred models with the Scottish Government in September 2025. This should be accompanied by detailed plans mapping out next steps for inclusive policy development, including through extensive engagement with communities and relevant workforces. Draft preferred models should take into account the parameters guidance. In addition, they should make reference to the anticipated impact of reforms on progress against current, or refreshed, Joint Strategic Needs Assessments. • December 2025 - In line with previous indicative milestones that have been shared, to support Ministerial and COSLA consideration, local Page 151
Page 152
partners should submit detailed models to Scottish Government in December 2025. The Scottish Government will be providing further information on the type and level of detail that local partners should submit in December 2025. The development of implementation plans will be heavily dependent on the preferred models identified, including what legislative change might be required to enable full implementation. This will be an iterative conversation between SG officials and local partners. 4.2 SAM SHORT LIFE WORKING GROUP (SLWG) 4.2.1 Given the increasing frequency of meetings held at a national level and the ongoing pace of development with regard to the development of a SAM, there was a need to put in place arrangements to allow officers to effectively engage and contribute to these meetings on an agile and flexible basis and to facilitate ongoing dialogue with elected members outwith the formal committee structure. 4.2.2 To this end, the Council agreed at their meeting held on 24th April 2025, to establish a SAM SLWG to act as a sounding board and take forward the development of alternative governance models for Argyll and Bute, including the identification of a preferred model, which can be used as the basis for further consultation. 4.2.3 Terms of reference were also agreed as follows:- Membership Core membership will be minimum of 6 elected members (to be appointed by Council, along with the positions of Chair/Vice Chair who will be Councillors), Chief Executive, and the Executive Director with responsibility for Legal and Regulatory Services (supported by other officers as appropriate). Purpose / Role of the Group The purpose of the SAM SLWG is to undertake the development of a preferred option(s) for a SAM for Argyll and Bute, to include, amongst other things:- • Act as a sounding board / provide advice to the Council’s representatives engaged at a national level, to enable them to effectively engage with and take forward work arising from the national workplan and timescales • Examine and assess the current options identified • Development of an engagement and consultation strategy/programme for key stakeholders • Commentary and recommendations on all reports going to Policy and Resources Committee and Council Meetings and Reporting An agreed series of SAM SLWG meetings and reporting requirements as Page 152
Page 153
follows:- • The SLWG will provide update reports to the Policy and Resources Committee • Recommendations will be made by the Policy and Resources Committee to the full Council in respect of any decision on the identification of a preferred option. • Initial meetings of the SLWG to take place in May/early June to progress a review of current options 4.2.4 The SAM SLWG, as established in April, has met on two occasions – 16th May and 3rd June 2025. Following the SLWG held on 16th May, Officers met with colleagues from the HSCP and NHS Highland to continue a collaborative approach to this work and to update on the discussions/decisions taken at the SLWG. This included agreement to extend an invitation to appropriate NHS Highland non-executive Board members to future meetings of the SLWG. 4.2.5 A joint meeting of the SLWG was held on 1st September 2025. The main item of business was for local partners to consider the development work undertaken to date, including an appraisal of the models identified, with the aim of coming to an agreed position on a preferred model(s) for Argyll and Bute which can be reported to the SG by end September deadline. Further details on these discussions and the options is provided in sections 4.3 and 4.4 below. 4.2.6 An Officer led working group has also been established to drive forward this work and to facilitate the multi agency approach being adopted for this project. The core membership of this group includes senior officer representation from across the Council, HSCP and NHS Highland. 4.3 ASSESSMENT OF SAM MODEL OPTIONS 4.3.1 The Senior Officer Working Group and joint SLWG have worked together to consider a range of information in order to make a recommendation to the full Council and NHS board on options that could be considered further to develop a SAM. This includes: • Success to date of the current model of health and social care integration • The case for change • Potential benefits of moving to a SAM • Principles and parameters to be considered in relation to assessing options for a SAM • SAM options • Assessment of the options proposed for a SAM for Argyll and Bute A key document that has informed these discussions is included at appendix 2 – A Single Authority Model For Argyll and Bute – Overview of Key Principles and Models. Page 153
Page 154
Successful Strategic Joint Working in Argyll and Bute 4.3.2 It has been acknowledged by both partners that health and social integration has delivered notable success through fostering good working relationships that enable collaboration and joined up strategic planning including: i. Comprehensive Delegation: One of only two partnerships in Scotland to delegate all health and social care functions permitted by legislation, fostering close collaboration between Council and NHS Highland. ii. Innovative Strategies for Older Adults: Development of targeted strategies for older people, promoting longer, healthier, and more independent lives. iii. Effective Co-location of Services: Multiagency teams sharing premises in all localities, enabling daily collaboration, better care planning, and smoother hospital discharges. iv. Flexible, Localised Care Models: Home care services tailored to the needs of different communities and closely connected with hospital pathways for the best outcomes. v. Integrated Palliative and End-of-Life Care: Consistent, high-quality support delivered jointly by social care, district nursing, and community hospitals. vi. Successful Joint Decision-Making: Examples such as the Kintyre Care Centre purchase demonstrate the positive impact of joint leadership and strategic working. vii. Embracing Technology: Technology Enabled Care and digital strategies help deliver innovative solutions suited to the local geography. viii. Community-Focused Planning: Place-based, co-productive assessments and planning ensure services reflect community needs and priorities. ix. Prevention and Early Intervention: Long-term focus on tackling inequalities and promoting public health, particularly in the wake of the pandemic. x. Integrated Children's Services: Fully joined-up approach from pre- conception through education, addressing child poverty and delivering on children’s rights. Case for Change 4.3.3 A SAM offers the opportunity to consider wider and deeper integration across public sector organisations to improve outcomes for the people of Argyll and Bute. This includes considering integration of services and functions beyond health and social care as well as opportunities for improved sustainability of existing health and social integration including workforce and financial sustainability. Key points in relation to the case for change include: i. Successes of Integrated Working: The Argyll and Bute HSCP has achieved positive outcomes across a wide range of regulated services, credited to fully integrated service delivery under the Public Bodies (Joint Working) (Scotland) Act 2014. Page 154
Page 155
ii. Potential for a Whole System Approach: Expanding beyond clinical and care services to a whole system approach could build on current successes and support more comprehensive, place-based planning tailored to community needs. iii. Strengthening National Policy Delivery: Enhanced arrangements would consolidate resources and capacity, enabling more effective influence and delivery of national policy, especially through a rural-focused lens. iv. Workforce Attraction and Retention: All public sector organisations are committed to collaborating to attract and retain skilled workers, ensuring families have opportunities to grow, learn, work, and thrive locally. v. Benefits of Full Integration: The full integration of permissible functions has already delivered many benefits, as outlined in previous successes, and provides a strong foundation for further improvement. Benefits of a SAM 4.3.4 The potential benefits of a SAM are described in the paper included in Appendix 2 and can be grouped as follows: 4.3.5 Place based decision making and joined up strategic planning • Tailored, Place-Based Reform: Adapts governance and decision-making to fit the unique needs of Argyll and Bute, avoiding ‘one size fits all’ models often imposed on rural or island areas. • Enhanced Local Accountability and Democracy: Empowers locally accountable decision-makers with better knowledge of community needs and enables citizens to actively influence and participate in local democracy, fostering greater legitimacy and transparency. • Expanded Democratic Participation: Increases opportunities for communities to scrutinise, analyse, and participate in public decision- making processes, enhancing the vibrancy of local democracy and accountability of service providers. 4.3.6 Improved service delivery and efficiency • Improved Public Service Delivery: Aims to improve or at least maintain the quality of services despite financial constraints, aligning resources and priorities for more effective, joined-up service delivery tailored to community priorities. • Efficient Use of Resources: Reduces duplication in management and supporting structures (e.g., multiple Chief Executives and corporate teams), enabling more efficient use of declining budgets while safeguarding vital public sector jobs and redistributing opportunities across the area. 4.3.7 Improving outcomes through wider integration • Greater Integration Across Sectors: Facilitates joined-up working not just in health and social care, but also in housing, education, and other public Page 155
Page 156
services, supporting comprehensive approaches to longstanding challenges such as depopulation, workforce retention, and the housing emergency. • Potential for Improved Educational Outcomes: Opens possibilities for closer collaboration between schools and further/higher education (such as UHI Argyll), potentially improving learner outcomes and resource coordination. 4.3.8 These categories align well with the impact and outcomes included in Appendix 2 – Theory of Change Outcomes, developed by Scottish Government Officials to inform the national SAM work. This could be summarised as: - more effective joined up strategic planning across a wider range of public sector services combined with improved efficiency, productivity and effectiveness to improve outcomes for people. Principles and Parameters 4.3.9 The following principles were developed between the two partners to guide discussions on SAM options: i. Brand identity and professional status are key considerations for the SAM, requiring the continued prominence and protection of the NHS brand while establishing a clear identity for the new partnership. ii. Professional roles and their associated status must also be safeguarded, with transparent plans for workforce models and engagement with professional bodies at all levels. iii. Governance structures, including clinical and care governance, would need to ensure professional accountability across partner organisations, whether through existing models or new organisational frameworks. iv. Any move towards a single employer model would necessitate significant legislative changes, especially regarding staff terms and conditions, which would likely remain unchanged unless beneficial alternatives are provided. 4.3.10 In addition, the parameters developed by Scottish Government officials (set out at section 4.1.4 above and appendix 1) to ensure SAM options were compatible with the current legislative and policy context were taken into consideration, alongside the suite of public sector reform publications set out at section 4.1.3 above. 4.3.11 SAM Options / Assessment The options for a SAM are set out within appendix 2. Detailed below is an overview of each option, together with an assessment of each one. Discussions to date have focussed on narrowing down the options for further exploration through considering: • Alignment with the benefits of the concept SAM • Compatibility with principles and parameters Page 156
Page 157
• Risks and challenges 4.3.12 Option 1 - Status Quo This option would be a continuation of the current structures with the retention of the Health and Social Care Partnership with governance through the Integrated Joint Board. This option provides continuity, but offers limited options for shared services/ efficiency savings, and doesn’t offer any change from the challenges currently experienced by partners. Benefits It was noted that Argyll and Bute Health and Social Care Partnership has maximised the scope of delegation within the current legislative context and delivered notable successes. This option could continue to deliver effectively for the people of Argyll and Bute and there may be opportunities to further improve placed based approaches to strategic planning joined up working with other agencies to improve service delivery. There may be limited opportunities for improved service efficiency beyond the efficiency, productivity and effectiveness initiatives identified and progressed either jointly or within each partner organisation. Principles and Parameters This option would appear to be compatible with the principles and parameters. Risks and challenges This option minimises risks associated with disruption and significant structural change but potentially risks limiting the opportunity for realising the benefits envisaged for public sector reform and the SAM concept. 4.3.13 Option 2 - Community Planning Plus This model would be based on the current Community Planning Model and would maintain separate organisations. It would give the opportunity to pool budgets and share resources, but employees and structures would remain separate. It would build on the provisions of the Community Empowerment (Scotland) Act 2015. Benefits This option does provide the opportunity for more efficient use of resources through pooling budgets and sharing resources along with aligned strategic planning which could improve service delivery and outcomes for people. There may be limited opportunities for wider integration within this model. Page 157
Page 158
Principles and parameters This option would appear to be compatible with the principles and parameters. Risks and challenges This option would retain independent organisations and governance structures with strategic planning undertaken and agreements to share resources made within the context of existing community planning powers. This could present a risk procedural disputes arising, meaning that developments could be delayed if one or more partners were not on board with a proposal. 4.3.14 Option 3 - A New Integrated Authority This model would establish a new elected single legal entity which would have fully integrated service budgets, providing the opportunity for resource efficiencies and more shared services, and would be empowered by elected status to give clear and accountable leadership. The Authority would create specific Boards or Committees which would provide the governance and decision-making structures required to ensure that resources and services are managed effectively. Under this model, the Council would no longer exist and Council staff (as well as the staff from other partner organisations falling under the umbrella) would need to be moved over to the employment of the new Integrated Authority. This could lead to concerns about loss of identity, particularly for NHS staff. This type of model would require a significant change to structures across most, if not all, public bodies. It would also require a new scheme of public sector primary legislation to enable implementation. Benefits This option would involve significant structural change and would require extensive consultation to agree the design, operating parameters and legislative arrangements including considering governance and accountability arrangements for delegated functions to both councillors and Scottish Government ministers. In that context it is possible this model would deliver benefits across the categories: Place based decision making and joined up strategic planning; Improved service delivery and efficiency; Improving outcomes through wider integration. Page 158
Page 159
However, there are many uncertainties associated with this model that would need to be explored more fully to understand the specifics of the model and the associated benefits. This includes understanding whether wider integration beyond the current scope of health and social care integration and other agencies/functions is envisaged. Principles and Parameters This option does not appear to be compatible with the parameters that have been defined to guide development of the SAM model. Risks and challenges There are significant risks and challenges associated with this option including: • Requirement for primary legislation to enact this model including accommodating NHS accountability to Scottish Ministers • Timescales associated with fully designing, defining and agreeng this model including staff and community engagement • Risks of significant disruption to existing health and social care integration which are noted to have achieved several successes • Consideration of protection of arrangements for negotiating NHS terms and conditions which are currently agreed at national level in partnership with trade unions 4.3.15 Option 4 - A Fully Empowered Local Board The starting point for this model would be strengthening the IJB and the functions delegated to it by partners (Council and NHS Highland). It could initially build on the existing synergies and effective partnership working demonstrated to date. However, in an Argyll and Bute context, the maximum functions permissible under the 2014 Act have already been delegated to the IJB. As such, in order to build on existing successes of integration and go any further, the 2014 Act would need to be amended, or new primary legislation required, to expand the functions that could be delegated beyond health and social care (but with similar governance structures to the HSCP/IJB). For example, a statutory housing partnership, further/higher education partnership, enterprise partnership etc… However, if new statutory partnerships were created for all those service areas it is appreciated this might result in a complex landscape of partnerships/boards, making it difficult for the public sector and public to navigate. Benefits Page 159
Page 160
This option would require amendments to the 2014 act but would offer the benefits associated with wider integration across the public sector to improve outcomes. It would maintain the current benefits of place based approaches and joint strategic planning within the IJB model and placed based but offer opportunities to enhance these benefits. There is potential for improved service delivery through wider integration and potential for further efficiencies by working together as independent organisations within the IJB model. Principles and Parameters This option appears compatible with the principles and parameters. Risks and challenges There are risks and challenges within this option including: • Further complexity of governance of more than two entities within the IJB model • Limited opportunities for service efficiencies due to maintaining existing organisational structures 4.3.16 Option 5 - Single Authority Partnership This model could be considered as a variant of the traditional Lead Agency arrangement (in place within Highland) under the banner of a “Single Authority Partnership”. This could take effect by conducting a review of the current Integration Scheme (Under Section 45 of the 2014 Act), preparing a new Integration Scheme (under Section 47 of the 2014 Act), and subsequently through the use of Directions (issued under the 2014 Act). There are two sub-options within this option: the council as the lead agency and the NHS board as the lead agency. Only the former has been considered as it is considered that the latter would not satisfy the requirements for local democratic accountability. Under such a Strategic Lead Agency arrangement, there would be no transfer of staff – only functions and resources. Under these terms the Health Board would delegate all functions and resources to the Council, as Lead Agency, which could then:- • redesign back office and business functions to secure maximum efficiency through a process of aggregation (e.g. the two asset management services coming together); Page 160
Page 161
• provide direction back to the Health Board to deliver its functions in accordance with a Strategic Plan conceived to deliver maximum functional integration alongside Council services; and • provide direction to the Health Board to devise operational arrangements that promote a single delivery agency. In practice, a Health and Social Care Board or Committee could become the engine room for health and social care delivery, with a membership similar to the IJB if this was desirable - local Elected Members, NHS Non-Executive Directors, professional leads, carers, third sector, etc. Benefits This option could include the benefits of option 4 by including wider integration in the scope of the single authority partnership. It does potentially offer benefits for greater efficiencies and productivity through redesign or consolidation of support functions that are not related to staff. In addition there may be some advantages to the alternative governance arrangements that would replace the IJB as a legal entity and house the joint strategic planning and decision making structures, mechanisms and governance within the council. Principles and Parameters It is possible that this option could be compatible with the principles and parameters. However, further exploration would be required to understand the roles of the Chief Executive of the council and the Chief Executive of the NHS board in relation to accountability. Currently the chief officer of the HSCP is jointly accountable to both CEOs in line with the current legislation. Other accountable officers including the NHS Board’s Director of Finance, Director of Nursing, Midwifery and Allied Health Professionals, Director of Public Health and Medical Director also have a role in the current accountability and governance framework. Any proposed changes to this accountability framework would need to be explored further to understand the implications on the parameters. Risks There are risks and challenges within this option including: • Potentially complex arrangements for governance and accountability in relation to accountable officer roles • Further complexity of governance if more than two entities are considered in order to extend the scope of integration of public bodies. Page 161
Page 162
Preferred Options 4.3.17 The Joint Short Life Working Group supported by the senior officers group explored the options and the outcome of the discussion is summarised above in terms of relative advantages and disadvantages of each option. This has resulted in a recommendation from the SLWG that “options 4 and 5 are reported to the Scottish Government by end September as the preferred models at this point in time subject to further investigation”. This is on the basis that: • There were potential benefits that could be achieved through both options • Both options are potentially compatible with the principles and parameters agreed to guide the SAM work • There are less risks and challenges associated with both options • Further exploration would be required to determine the details of each option and further assess these options for the benefits, alignment with principles and parameters and assessment of the risks and challenges Option 3 was discounted on the basis that: • It is not compatible with the principles and parameters as currently defined • the significant risks and challenges associated with this option Option 2 was discounted on the basis that it appears to offer limited benefits and presents some level of risk and challenge. 4.4 OTHER CONSIDERATIONS/IMPLICATIONS 4.4.1 The Joint Short Life Working Group supported by the senior officers group also discussed other factors that should be considered as part of the further exploration of the options for a SAM. This includes: 4.4.2 Resource requirements Additional resource may be required as an enabler and the capacity to support change and implement new models of integration needs to be evaluated and assessed against the risks and benefits. 4.4.3 Future governance and role of NHS Highland It was noted that the two other areas considering a SAM have co-terminous councils and health board areas (Western Isles and Orkney). NHS Highland has a governance and accountability role across two council areas and consideration of the compatibility of a SAM for Argyll and Bute alongside the future model for Highland council is needed. 4.4.4 Interface with other health boards Page 162
Page 163
It was considered that many services are provided by another health board, NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde. In addition, the future relationship between NHS boards in the context of regional collaboration for NHS services involved in relationships between NHS Highland, NHS GGC, Western Isles and Orkney. These interfaces also should be considered in the context of a SAM for Argyll and Bute as we move forward. 4.5 PUBLIC SECTOR REFORM - INVEST TO SAVE FUND 4.5.1 As previously reported to the Council in April 2025, as part of the Cabinet Secretary for Finance’s budget statement in December 2024 a £30m Invest to Save fund was launched. This initiative is aimed at funding reforms, driving efficiencies and improving productivity within public services. A bid for funding was submitted jointly by the Society of Local Authority Chief Executives (SOLACE) on behalf of a number of Councils who are currently exploring integrated authority models, including; Argyll and Bute, Eilean Siar, Orkney, North/East/South Ayrshire, Falkirk and Clackmannanshire Councils. 4.5.2 Following the submission of the bid in March, it has been confirmed that Argyll and Bute, Eilean Siar, and Orkney Councils have jointly received funding of up to £900K (£300K each), payable over financial year 2025/26, to support the development of SAMs within our respective areas. 4.5.3 NHS Highland and Argyll and Bute council have been working together to identify potential areas of spend for the allocated £300k from the Invest to Save Fund. One of the key next steps in this process, should the recommendations of this report be agreed, is to develop an appropriate programme of consultation and engagement with all relevant stakeholders to obtain views on the proposals. On this basis it is proposed that an element of the Invest to Save Fund is utilised to undertake a joint commissioning exercise to secure external professional support to assist with this large scale engagement process. It is recommended, from a Council perspective, that authority is delegated to the Chief Executive and Executive Director with responsibility for Legal and Regulatory Support, in consultation with the Leader of the Council and the Policy Lead for Care Services, to utilise the Invest to Save Fund in accordance with the spend conditions set out by the Scottish Government. NHS Highland will work with council colleagues to progress this proposal through the joint senior officers group. 4.5.4 Local partners will also continue to work in collaboration with the other two Councils to ensure the most efficient utilisation of the funds, particularly where there are common areas of support required to progress the development of a SAM. 5.0 CONCLUSION 5.1 Members are being asked to agree the recommendation from the SAM SLWG that options 4 and 5 are reported to the Scottish Government by end September as the preferred models at this point in time, subject to further investigation to support the development of detailed proposals. Members are Page 163
Page 164
also asked to agree that authority is delegated to the Chief Executive and Executive Director with responsibility for Legal and Regulatory Support, in consultation with the Leader of the Council and the Policy Lead for Care Services, to utilise the Invest to Save Fund in accordance with the spend conditions set out by the Scottish Government. 6.0 IMPLICATIONS 6.1 Policy; currently none but with the potential for significant implications due to emerging national policies. 6.2 Financial; - exploration of a SAM will consider any financial implications arising. £300K has been allocated from the Invest to Save fund to support the project. 6.3 Legal; a review of all relevant legislation will be undertaken as part of the development of any options for a SAM. Depending on the preferred model identified, new legislation may be required. 6.4 HR; as the proposals develop there may be a requirement for additional resource to support this work. 6.5 Customer Service; it is proposed that an extensive consultation and engagement exercise is carried out to obtain feedback on the preferred options. 6.6 Risk; failure to explore options for the best model for our communities and influence the national development of reforms. 6.7 Climate Change; none. 6.8 Fairer Scotland Duty: none 6.9 Equalities - protected characteristics; none arising from this report 6.10 Consumer Duty; none arising from this report 6.11 Island Communities; none arising from this report 6.12 Children’s Rights and Wellbeing; none arising from this report 7.0 APPENDICES • Appendix 1 – Parameters • Appendix 2 – A Single Authority Model for Argyll and Bute - Overview of Key Principles and Models • Appendix 3 – Theory of Change – Impact and Outcomes Pippa Milne - Chief Executive Councillor Jim Lynch – Leader of the Council 5th September 2025 Page 164
Page 165
For further information contact: Laura Blackwood Gareth Adkins Directorate Support Officer Director of People and Culture Argyll and Bute Council NHS Highland 01546 604325 01463 704865 laura.blackwood@argyll-bute.gov.uk Gareth.adkins@nhs.scot Page 165
Page 166
This page is intentionally left blank
Page 167
St Andrew’s House, Regent Road, Edinburgh EH1 3DG www.gov.scot NHSScotland Chief Operating Officer T: 0131-244 2480 E: Christine.McLaughlin@gov.scot Christine McLaughlin Chief Operating Officer of NHS Scotland Mary McAllan Director of Public Service Reform The Scottish Government St. Andrew's House Regent Road Edinburgh EH1 3DG Date: 18 July 2025 Dear colleagues, SINGLE AUTHORITY MODELS Thank you for the time and effort that you continue to invest in the ongoing work at local level to develop place-specific Single Authority Models. You will be aware that Ministers’ commitment to this work is restated in the current Programme for Government, which describes joint work between local government and health partners to agree detailed plans and timelines for implementation by the end of this Parliament. There are clear opportunities in this work to improve outcomes, unlock prevention and better meet local needs. The Cabinet Secretary for Health and Social Care and Minister for Public Finance have agreed the enclosed Single Authority Models Information Note 2/2025. This responds to partners’ request for further information on the reform parameters which they should work within when developing models. The note also sets out existing law and Ministerial policy, which should be considered throughout this process. This should be seen as a shared starting point for local dialogue on the ambitious reforms to strengthen local decision-making which Ministers want to support. We recognise the importance of a locally-led approach which involves all relevant partners. We also want to ensure that you have the right input at the right stages from the Scottish Government, as part of an iterative process of policy development. We hope our commitment to working closely with you in this way will help to identify and agree the optimal local governance arrangements for the communities you serve. You will be aware that the Scottish Government recently published the Population Health Framework, the Service Renewal Framework and the Public Service Reform Strategy – each of which specifically references Single Authority Models. We are confident that enhanced local governance arrangements can align with the wider renewal and reform programme. Page 167
Page 168
St Andrew’s House, Regent Road, Edinburgh EH1 3DG www.gov.scot As partners have recognised, extensive local engagement will be needed to ensure the voices of local communities and expertise of staff are fully harnessed. This will be key to developing and implementing robust proposals with the greatest potential to improve outcomes. The next phase of this work will require locally-led policy development to form detailed proposals for Ministerial and COSLA approval. The Scottish Government stands ready to provide further national policy input as more detailed, locally agreed preferred models emerge. Officials will also work with national representatives to support their engagement in discussions on proposals across all geographies. We recognise that there will be both commonalities and variation across emerging models and this will have implications for how key interests will wish to engage. To support this approach, it would be beneficial if local partners could aim to share first draft preferred models with the Scottish Government in September 2025, accompanied by detailed plans mapping out next steps for inclusive policy development, including through extensive engagement with communities and relevant workforces. These first drafts should take into account the enclosed information note, and current or refreshed Joint Strategic Needs Assessments. In line with previous indicative milestones that have been shared, to support Ministerial and COSLA consideration, local partners should submit detailed models to Scottish Government in December 2025. We are happy to discuss these timescales and recognise that there may be a requirement for variation across geographies. The announcement of up to £0.9 million for local model development through the Public Service Reform “Invest to Save” fund provides the opportunity to obtain additional capacity and expertise as appropriate. We encourage local government and health partners to work jointly to identify opportunities for this spend to be used to help accelerate model development. We are grateful for your continued leadership in progressing this important work to realise transformational change for your communities. Yours sincerely, Christine McLaughlin Mary McAllan Chief Operating Officer NHS Scotland Director of Public Service Reform Page 168
Page 169
SINGLE AUTHORITY MODELS – INFORMATION NOTE 2/2025 1. Purpose The development of proposals for Single Authority Models (SAMs) is a locally-led process, to ensure proposals are most suitable for the unique circumstances and priorities of each geographical area. However, it is recognised that some key considerations, particularly regarding the NHS, are common to all areas. In setting these out, we aim to support development and discussion of preferred models at the local level. This information note sets out national parameters for the development of models, and key considerations arising from NHS renewal plans and the current legal and financial frameworks, which will be relevant as local partners are developing their joint proposals. Potential models do not need to be limited by the current legislative context, but any need for legislative change would need to be factored into timelines for implementation. The Scottish Government will work with local partners to consider jointly-developed emerging options which demonstrate the greatest potential to address local priorities and improve outcomes for people. This will involve helping to ensure that new arrangements help to find the optimum balance between place-based and population-based planning and delivery of services. Partners should reference local Joint Strategic Needs Assessments when setting out the potential benefits of preferred models. This will be an iterative process of policy development. Partners will wish to consider shared local governance arrangements to oversee locally-led model development to help ensure proposals reflect the views of all organisations. Final agreed detailed proposals should have a sound evidence-base and the support of relevant staff groups and the communities they serve. 2. Reform Parameters – Health 2.1 Clinical Governance Health bodies and integration authorities will retain their respective responsibilities for clinical governance. 2.2 Staff Governance Our staff are key to the delivery of high quality public services and to the development and implementation of public service reform. The process of developing local proposals must consider health boards’ responsibilities as employers, notably in relation to staff governance and partnership working. There will need to be full and meaningful discussions with trade unions on any new model. Any proposal for a SAM should ensure there is: • no detriment to terms and conditions, pay or pensions of staff currently employed in the NHS; • no loss of skills or expertise and continued access to appropriate professional development and training; and • protection of employment in line with the public sector pay policy. Page 169
Page 170
2.3 Health matters that are not devolved to Scotland, or subject to UK-level regulation or agreement Some health law was not devolved to the Scottish Parliament. Matters such as professional regulation are addressed at UK level. Anything that falls within this category is out of scope for single authority models. 2.4 Primary Care: Independent Contractors Scottish Government will retain responsibility for development of current and future national policy and strategy relating to Primary Care to ensure universal coverage while fostering local population needs assessments to shape aspects of local delivery. This includes overarching responsibility for value for money, accountability for primary care policy, expenditure and cost control. 2.5 Accountability to Scottish Ministers As Scottish Ministers will retain overall responsibility for health service provision, suitable lines of accountability to Scottish Ministers must remain in place. 3. Key Considerations – NHS Renewal The Scottish Government’s plans for NHS renewal include a focus on prevention, sustainability, shifting the balance of care toward delivery in primary and community settings, improved outcomes and reduced health inequalities. The Scottish Government published the NHS Scotland Operational Improvement Plan in March 2025. The Population Health Framework and Service Renewal Framework, published in June 2025, focus on key reforms to make service delivery models more preventative. The Population Health Framework focuses on creating and maintaining good health, supporting the people and communities who need it most, changing systems and environments to support people to stay healthy, and delivering a whole-system approach. The Service Renewal Framework sets out a long-term strategic intent to renew health and social care services. This renewal will implement more person-led health and care, strengthened primary and community healthcare capacity, a wider suite of treatment and services being provided in the community or at home rather than in hospitals, and a redefined hospital model of care. The Cabinet Secretary for Health and Social Care has also stated that the priorities for this work are primarily to optimise service delivery, with a resultant improvement in outcomes for patients, and secondarily to drive efficiencies, reducing duplication and demand to alleviate resource pressures on public services. Accordingly, any proposals for SAMs must fully reflect the outcomes and principles that are set out in the above publications. 4. Key Considerations – Existing Legal and Financial Frameworks As outlined above, consideration should be given to existing arrangements and frameworks when developing proposals, however partners do not need to be limited by the current legislative context where this would stand in the way of delivering an optimal model. Page 170
Page 171
4.1 Financial Governance As public bodies, health boards, special health boards, NHS National Services Scotland, and Healthcare Improvement Scotland are subject to the Public Finance & Accountability (Scotland) Act 2000. They must comply with the Scottish Public Finance Manual, which includes a section on “Accountability”, which assigns personal responsibilities to “accountable officers”. The Director-General Health & Social Care / Chief Executive of NHS Scotland is the “Portfolio Accountable Officer”, and the chief executives of health bodies are the “accountable officers” for their organisations. Health bodies also are required to operate within their resources under the terms of the National Health Service (Scotland) Act 1978. The Director-General Health & Social Care/ Chief Executive of NHS Scotland and all accountable officers will be expected to continue to carry out their responsibilities when evaluating any proposals for a SAM. The “Accountability” section of the Scottish Public Finance Manual explains that accountable officers should approve in advance all significant initiatives, policies, programmes and initiatives. They must conduct an Accountable Officer assessment against four standards, summarised below: • Regularity: the proposal is compliant with relevant legislation (including the annual Budget Act), delegated authority and relevant guidance issued by the Scottish Ministers i.e., the SPFM and is compatible with the agreed spending budgets. • Propriety: the proposal meets the high standards of public conduct and relevant Parliamentary control procedures and expectations. • Value for money (i.e., Economy, Efficiency & Effectiveness): the proposal must demonstrate good value for money for the use of public funds. In comparison to alternative proposals or doing nothing, the proposal should be systematically evaluated and assessed to provide confidence about suitability, effectiveness, prudence, quality, value and avoidance of error and other waste, judged for the public sector as a whole. • Feasibility: the proposal is feasible, can be implemented accurately, sustainably, and to the intended timetable ensuring it is demonstrating economy, efficiency, effectiveness, considers the equal opportunities requirements, and contributes to the achievement of sustainable development judged for the public sector as a whole.” Any proposals for a SAM will need to work within these arrangements. The arrangements for the commission, submission and agreement of financial plans and financial reports, following the same schedule as the rest of the NHS, would need to remain in place. 4.2 Health bodies established under the National Health Service (Scotland) Act 1978 Section 2 of the Act requires Scottish Ministers to establish health boards, however it does not stipulate how many there must be. Any proposals should recognise that there must be a health board in place to carry out the various legal responsibilities (of a health board) for the geographical area that the SAM will cover. This could include agreements with health boards in other geographies, as already happens for some functions. Page 171
Page 172
Health boards are responsible for the governance of services to the population they serve. However, health boards operate as part of a National Health Service, and use nationally agreed terms & conditions for staff, national procurement arrangements, and draw from services that are managed on a national basis (e.g. screening programmes, blood transfusion, healthcare facilities management). Health boards also enter into arrangements where some clinical services may be planned and delivered on a national basis, or perhaps on a model that services several health board areas. The Director-General Health & Social Care / Chief Executive NHS Scotland wrote to all NHS Board Chairs and Chief Executives on 7 February 2025 (see Appendix), emphasising the importance of health boards collaborating with each other to optimise patient outcomes, address inequalities, and improve efficiency across the system. The letter summarised the developments that had been put in place to strengthen collaboration across the system, and encouraged health boards to review their arrangements for cross-boundary collaboration. The Act also provides the legal basis for the establishment of special health boards, Healthcare Improvement Scotland, and NHS National Services Scotland. All of these health bodies have been established to carry out functions and services on a national basis. The development of any proposals for single authority models should recognise this context, and the potential opportunities that it offers a single authority arrangement. 4.3 Public Bodies (Joint Working) (Scotland) Act 2014 This Act requires constituent authorities (the relevant health board and local authorities) to jointly prepare integration schemes. Under this Act, both bodies are required to delegate certain functions (and budgets) under an integration scheme, and may choose to delegate others. The Act does offer a variety of integration models, including where a health board can enter into an integration scheme with more than one local authority in its area, and constituent authorities can make choices regarding what functions they delegate to the “integration authority”. Where a local authority and a Health Board are preparing an integration scheme they must have regard to the integration planning principles (which include having regard to the well-being of service-users) and to the national health and wellbeing outcomes. The Act also allows Scottish Ministers to use secondary legislation to implement the Act, including specifying in regulations what functions must and may be delegated, and making provision about the operation of integration joint boards. The functions of Health Boards that require to be delegated are set out in the Public Bodies (Joint Working) (Prescribed Health Board Functions) (Scotland) Regulations 2014. The functions which must be delegated in terms of the Regulations include certain functions under the National Health Service (Scotland) Act 1978, the Community Care and Health (Scotland) Act 2002 and the Mental Health (Care and Treatment)(Scotland) Act 2003. The functions of local authorities that require to be delegated are set out in the Public Bodies (Prescribed Local Authority Functions etc.) (Scotland) Regulations 2014. The functions that require to be delegated include certain functions under the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968, the Adults with Incapacity (Scotland) Act 2000 and the Adult Support and Protection (Scotland) Act 2007. Page 172
Page 173
Only those local authority functions conferred by the legislation listed in the schedule of the 2014 Act, and only those health board functions prescribed by the Scottish Ministers in regulations, may be delegated. When developing proposals for SAMs, local partners should consider whether the aims can be achieved using the existing mechanisms in the 2014 Act. If any proposals would require changes to existing integration schemes and the integration functions, then the constituent authorities would have to follow the processes within the 2014 Act. If there are obstacles in the 2014 Act, or its associated regulations, removal of those can be considered. It should be noted in this context that the creation of new public bodies, or changes to existing public bodies, are subject to a Ministerial Control Framework and all other delivery mechanisms should be exhausted first. Page 173
Page 174
St Andrew’s House, Regent Road, Edinburgh EH1 3DG www.gov.scot Director-General Health & Social Care and Chief Executive NHS Scotland Caroline Lamb E: dghsc@gov.scot All NHS Chairs and NHS Chief Executives ___ 7 February 2025 Dear Colleagues Following the First Minister’s recent keynote speech on improving public services, I am writing to seek your support in taking forward the programme of reform and renewal for our NHS. The NHS Chairs meetings and the advent of the NHS Scotland Executive Group has meant a fundamental shift in the way we come together and lead the NHS, but we need to increase the pace at which we are implementing the range of improvements across our system, in order to maximise the effectiveness and efficiency of services. In taking forward the range of system reform and improvement work, it is important that we fully utilise the opportunities provided by working across boundaries – giving life to the statutory duties placed upon all NHS Boards to work collaboratively in delivering healthcare services. This duty is set out in Section 12J of the National Health Service (Scotland) Act 1978 and provides the foundation for ensuring equitable and effective healthcare delivery across Scotland. As system leaders, you are required to ensure that your Boards actively engage in collaborative arrangements with other Health Boards. This includes sharing resources, expertise and services, where appropriate, to optimise patient outcomes and improve efficiency across the system. Such co-operation is critical to achieving the best possible care for our population, especially given the complex challenges we face in addressing health inequalities and meeting the demands on services. Over the last year we have strengthened our approach to collaboration and co-operation with you, beginning with the publication of the Model Framework Document for NHS Boards in April 2024. This document outlines how we collaborate and co-operate and provides a structured approach for Boards, detailing our respective roles, responsibilities, and the nature of how Boards interact with the Scottish Government. It aimed to provide greater clarity on governance and accountability and sets out our commitment to fostering effective partnerships to deliver high-quality healthcare services across Scotland. Our commitment to working together has been further strengthened with the establishment of the NHS Scotland Executive Group, which first met in October 2024. Its primary aim is to support the effective governance, planning and delivery of healthcare services across Scotland. The NHS Scotland Executive Group plays a central role in supporting national and Appendix – Letter of 7 February 2025 to all NHS Chairs and NHS Chief Executives Page 174
Page 175
St Andrew’s House, Regent Road, Edinburgh EH1 3DG www.gov.scot regional planning initiatives, such as those outlined in the NHS Scotland Planning Framework. The recent publication of the NHS Scotland Planning Director’s Letter, in November 2024, provides additional guidance on population-based planning, once again highlighting the need for strengthened national and regional coordination. The DL emphasised the establishment of a Single Planning Framework to ensure coherence and alignment in service delivery, infrastructure investment, and workforce planning at national level. The NHS Scotland Planning and Delivery Board (NHSSPDB) will oversee and govern these efforts, ensuring that resources are deployed efficiently and equitably across all Health Boards. At the regional level, the letter outlines the importance of collaboration between neighbouring Health Boards to develop strategies that address the specific needs of local populations. Regional planning groups are expected to drive innovation and adaptability, responding to the unique health dynamics within their areas whilst aligning with the broader NHS Scotland priorities. These planning efforts are integral to achieving the vision set out in the 2016 National Clinical Strategy and the Public Bodies (Joint Working) (Scotland) Act, which prioritise integration and partnership working across sectors. I believe we have all of the foundations now in place to allow you to fulfil your roles, as NHS leaders, but also in how we come together as an NHS Scotland to meet the needs of patients and the expectations of our communities. Moving forward, I intend to work with employers to enhance the Executive Management Appraisal System so that we can properly assess and record the impact of working across board and wider system boundaries. This will be incorporated into the guidance for the 2024/25 performance review and 2025/26 objective setting process, which the Chief People Officer will issue in late February / early March. Similarly, the appraisals of NHS Chairs will encompass how they are facilitating and supporting the level of cross boundary working that we all see as essential. For now, I encourage you all to review your current arrangements for cross-boundary collaboration and identify any areas requiring improvement. Please also ensure that staff within your Boards are familiar with the statutory requirements of the Model Framework. In the meantime, should you require clarification or support, please do not hesitate to contact my office. Thank you for your continued leadership and dedication to delivering high-quality, patient- centred care for the people of Scotland. Yours sincerely, Caroline Lamb Director General Health and Social Care and Chief Executive NHS Scotland Page 175
Page 176
This page is intentionally left blank
Page 177
Bute • Helensburgh • Islay • Oban • Mull • Campbeltown • Iona • Dunoon • Tiree • Lochgilphead • Seil … . Overview of Key Principles and Models A SINGLE AUTHORITY MODEL FOR ARGYLL AND BUTE Page 177
Page 178
Bute • Helensburgh • Islay • Tarbet • Oban • Mull • Campbeltown • Iona • Dunoon • Tiree • Lochgilphead • Seil … Introduction This Paper outlines the work undertaken thus far by Argyll and Bute Council to explore the possibility of a Single Authority Model (SAM) for the area. It outlines they key principles that have guided the work to date, the potential benefits of a SAM for the area, and an overview of the possible models that have been identified. Background Understanding Argyll and Bute Argyll and Bute is made up of a rich mix of remote, rural and island communities, which presents a number of challenges in terms of service delivery. For planning and service delivery purposes Argyll and Bute is divided into four areas: Bute and Cowal; Helensburgh and Lomond; Mid Argyll, Kintyre and the Islands; and Oban, Lorn and the Isles. The area has a population of 87,810 (NRS 2023 Mid-Year Estimates), spread across the second largest local authority area in Scotland. There are 28 inhabited islands in Argyll and Bute (Census 2022) - more than any other local authority in Scotland. Approximately 17.5% of Argyll and Bute’s population live on islands. Moreover, many of Argyll and Bute’s mainland peninsulas could be considered to share the same characteristics and challenges to the island communities – given their remote/remote rural nature. 47.6% of Argyll and Bute’s population live in areas classified by the Scottish Government as ‘rural’ and 43.2% live in areas classified as ‘remote rural’. The changing demographic profile of Argyll and Bute presents one of the greatest challenges. By 2028, the population is projected to decrease to 83,796. This is a decrease of 5.9% which compares to a projected population increase of 1.8% for Scotland as a whole. Argyll and Bute's population is predicted to continue ageing, with the proportion of 0-15 year olds projected to fall by 17.6%, working age population to decrease by 4.7%, and the proportion of those of pensionable age to decrease by 1.7%. However, it is anticipated that there will be an increase of 23.3% in the population aged 75 and over. (National Records of Scotland 2018-based Population Projections). Other key challenges include: • increased demand for health and social care services due to a projected increase in the number of older people in the area; • increased need for end of life care; • recruitment and retention of the local workforce as the working-age population decreases; • the physical geography of Argyll and Bute provides limitations in terms of developing the road network, and a reliance on ferry travel in parts. This also creates issues in terms of the accessibility of services for all across a significant remote and rural geography; • there is fragility in the economy in Argyll and Bute due to reliance on part time and seasonal employment; • the Council recently declared a housing emergency in Argyll and Bute, with a consistent reduction in available housing, coupled with a rise in demand and increasing property prices; • thirteen data zones in Argyll and Bute are included in the 20% most overall deprived data zones in Scotland; and • although Argyll and Bute falls within the NHS Highland health board area, almost all patient pathways for Argyll and Bute residents are to NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde. This factor, coupled with the unique geography of Argyll and Bute, poses a further challenge to the delivery of health services and outcomes for patients. Addressing the Challenges In recognition of the challenging demographics and geography outlined above, and the subsequent impacts of COVID-19 on the social determinants of health, we understand that a shift in public sector structures is required and that increased collaborative working is needed to Page 178
Page 179
Bute • Helensburgh • Islay • Tarbet • Oban • Mull • Campbeltown • Iona • Dunoon • Tiree • Lochgilphead • Seil … implement positive action. These issues cannot be addressed successfully by one single organisation/partner and requires a whole system approach, as advocated by Public Health Scotland. This whole system approach is about more than the delivery of clinical and care services for Argyll and Bute and is reflected in the relative success of the delegation of fully integrated services. The basis for the approach is rooted in an evidence based strategy that supports the implementation of the Christie Commission recommendations and supports Community Empowerment and Islands legislation. National policy is increasingly prescriptive in its human rights approach, and the ability to apply this is becoming increasingly difficult in a remote mainland, island, rural and urban geography without some substantial change in how we can affect the design and delivery of safe care supported by sustainable services. Public sector service sustainability in Argyll and Bute requires a multi-agency integrated model, robust infrastructure and the coordination of planning and commissioning for the longer term that supports public sector organisations in the area to meet their legislative and public duties. Public Sector Reform The Scottish Government has committed to a number of strands of reform that affect local government and HSCPs, which have the potential to result in significant change. These include the Local Governance Review, Fiscal Framework and the National Care Service. The Local Governance Review was launched jointly by COSLA and the Scottish Government in December 2017 (Democracy Matters) to explore how power, responsibilities and resources might be shared across ‘spheres’ of government and with local communities, with a particular objective to devolve powers as far as reasonably possible in a manner that improves outcomes for communities. COSLA’s Plan (2022-2027) confirms that the Local Governance Review remains a key priority, and supports the following three inter-related empowerments as set out by the Scottish Government: a) Community Empowerment through a new relationship with public services where communities have greater control over decisions. b) Functional Empowerment of public sector partners to better share resources and work together. c) Fiscal Empowerment of democratic decision-makers to deliver locally identified priorities. In August 2023, Phase 2 of Democracy Matters was launched, which included a period of engagement with communities and organisations across Scotland. The report analysing the responses to this engagement exercise was launched on 19th September 2024 and can be read here. In terms of the Fiscal Framework, in May 2022 the Scottish Government published its Resources Spending Review (RSR) - Investing in Scotland's Future. The RSR set out the Scottish Government’s plans for public service reform and efficiency, and invited Local Government to take a complementary approach. The RSR also proposed a ‘New Deal’ between the Scottish and Local Government, in the form of a Partnership Agreement. A Fiscal Framework has also been proposed that will support: (i) working together to achieve better outcomes for people and communities – especially on national priorities including addressing poverty, inequality, and supporting the economy; (ii) balancing greater flexibility over financial arrangements with improved accountability; Page 179
Page 180
Bute • Helensburgh • Islay • Tarbet • Oban • Mull • Campbeltown • Iona • Dunoon • Tiree • Lochgilphead • Seil … (iii) providing certainty over inputs, outcomes and assurance, alongside scope to innovate and improve services; and (iv) recognising the critical role played by local authorities in tackling the climate emergency, for example through delivering our heat and buildings, waste, active travel and nature restoration goals. The Verity House Agreement, signed on 30th June 2023 as part of a New Deal between the Scottish Government and Local Government, committed to concluding a Fisal Framework which establishes early and meaningful budget engagement, the simplification and consolidation of the Local Government Settlement, and establishes a clear process for exploring local revenue raising powers and sources of funding. The Framework should also, wherever possible, provide multi-year funding certainty to support strategic planning and investment. In December 2023, a Progress Report was published in order to provide an update on those sections of the Framework which were nearing completion, as well as those where work was still required. Any proposals in relation to the possibility of a SAM in Argyll and Bute would have to take into account the above-mentioned Verity House Agreement, which reiterates the importance of working collaboratively to deliver sustainable public services at a local/place level. The Agreement sets out 3 key priorities and forms a statement of intent in how Local Government and the Scottish Government will work together more effectively to improve the lives of the people of Scotland. The 3 priorities are to: 1. tackle poverty, particularly child poverty, in recognition of the joint national mission to tackle child poverty; 2. transform our economy through a just transition to deliver net zero, recognising climate change as one of the biggest threats to communities across Scotland; and 3. deliver sustainable person-centred public services recognising the fiscal challenges, ageing demography and opportunities to innovate. The Scottish Government and Local Government have jointly accepted that changes are required in how they work together, how each are held to account, how progress is monitored, and how they will engage with each other in a positive and proactive manner. The Agreement is a statement of intent and provides a high-level framework for working together more effectively to improve the lives of the people of Scotland. Full detail on the Agreement can be found here. National Care Service (Scotland) Bill The National Care Service (Scotland) Bill was introduced to the Scottish Parliament on 20th June 2022. It proposed to establish a National Care Service (NCS) as well as powers to enable the Scottish Ministers to transfer social care responsibilities from local authorities to a NCS, and also for the transfer of healthcare functions from the NHS to the NCS. The Council submitted a formal response to the Stage 1 Call for Views on the Bill, highlighting a number of key points including that any solution proposed must meet the rural and remote rural needs of Argyll and Bute. Following the introduction of the Bill, in July 2023, COSLA and the Scottish Government announced a shared accountability partnership for delivering the NCS in an alternative way, with enhanced national strategic direction through the creation of a national NCS Board, but with a continued role for local decision-making and Local Government. During the Stage 2 proceedings, the Bill was amended to the extent that it no longer proposes the structural reforms through the creation of a NCS. The further amended Bill is now at Stage 3, and has been renamed the Care Reform (Scotland) Bill. Page 180
Page 181
Bute • Helensburgh • Islay • Tarbet • Oban • Mull • Campbeltown • Iona • Dunoon • Tiree • Lochgilphead • Seil … Examples of Successful Strategic Joint Working in Argyll and Bute In terms of the Argyll and Bute Health and Social Care Partnership (HSCP), it is one of only two Partnerships in Scotland to have delegated all health and social care functions permissible under the Public Bodies (Joint Working) (Scotland) Act 2014. This, coupled with other factors, has prompted the partner organisations to work innovatively and strategically in a joined-up fashion, and has produced numerous benefits to the people of Argyll and Bute – some of which are set out within this section. Partnership in Innovative Adult and Older Adult Social Care Design and Delivery The HSCP is currently developing an Older Adults Strategy alongside a Housing for Older People Strategy. The aim behind both is to design a future model of care for older people to ensure that residents of Argyll and Bute can live longer, healthier and independent lives. In order to deliver that aim, co-location of multi- agency services in both health and social care premises was an early partnership decision and is the norm in all four localities. It provides an effective model in the daily review of care needs and supports discharges of patients from hospital back to their homes. Innovative models of care, such as this, support the attraction and retention of the workforce which is a key priority for Argyll and Bute. In relation to care at home services, the HSCP continues to work collaboratively to commission flexible models of care which address different needs in different localities, and ones which connect with hospital pathways in order to secure the best outcomes for individuals, families and unpaid carers. The delivery of effective palliative and end of life care is another ongoing joint process between social care, district nursing and community hospitals within Argyll and Bute to secure consistent approaches across the area, build capacity, and support those receiving those services. The purchase of Kintyre Care Centre in Campbeltown by the Council, on behalf of the HSCP, is a recent example of positive joint decision making, strategic joint working, and an exercise which is generating positive wellbeing outcomes and securing longer term care for people in Kintyre. The continued development of Technology Enabled Care, through a Joint Digital Modernisation Strategy, is a key strategic aim of the HSCP and a service which has been developed in cognisance of Argyll and Bute’s unique and diverse geography. Partnership in Planning with People The Coll Health and Social Care Needs Assessment replicated the Argyll and Bute wide Joint Strategic Needs Assessment at a hyper- local scale. This community-based partnership approach aimed to deliver four overall priorities for the residents on Coll: • Choice, control and innovation. • Prevention, early intervention and enablement. • Living well and active citizenship. • Community co-production. The approach taken in relation to this piece of work has contributed to the basis for the HSCP’s Island Strategy development, and co-production approaches being implemented to the current Jura Out of Hours Care development. In 2023, the Improvement Service supported place-based assessments for the HSCP, the Council and Community Planning – initially with a focus on Dunoon. The outputs of these assessments will support the collaborative approach to the delivery of the Joint Strategic Plan, and will consolidate approaches to Islands Community Empowerment, Wellbeing, Prevention and Early Intervention. It will further support delivering a human rights-based approach to Page 181
Page 182
Bute • Helensburgh • Islay • Tarbet • Oban • Mull • Campbeltown • Iona • Dunoon • Tiree • Lochgilphead • Seil … service design and delivery within the HSCP. Such a place-based approach has also supported the development and delivery of services through the Alcohol and Drugs Partnership, identifying gaps in wider services, and working together to deliver the national standards. Argyll and Bute have a long-term local strategy of prevention and early intervention which supports the public sector approach to alleviating inequalities in the social determinants of health. These are acutely visible post-pandemic, and the HSCP are working in partnership with Live Argyll to promote public health messaging and tackle frailty. Partnership in #KEEPINGTHEPROMISE Children’s health and social care services in Argyll and Bute offer a fully integrated approach to care delivery from pre-conception to transition – working closely with the Council’s Education Service and jointly delivering on Child Poverty Action Planning, the Children’s Service Plan, and the implementation of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. Building on Successes The preceding Section outlines several examples of successes achieved by the HSPC working across a breadth of regulated services, and the positive outcomes it has generated for people in Argyll and Bute. This is partly down to the fact that Argyll and Bute have fully integrated services in terms of the Public Bodies (Joint Working) (Scotland) Act 2014. However, an opportunity to extend this to a whole system approach, going further than clinical and care services, could present a further opportunity to build on these successes. Expansion or development of the current arrangements could support a wider place-based approach – based on common planning and needs. It could also strengthen the resource and capacity to influence and deliver national policy with a consolidated rural approach. All public sector organisations in Argyll and Bute wish to work together to attract and retain the skills and workforce in the area – ensuring that whole families have access to opportunities to grow, be educated, live, work and play in Argyll and Bute. As mentioned above, the partner organisations in the Argyll and Bute HSCP have integrated all functions permissible under the Public Bodies (Joint Working) (Scotland) Act 2014. Many of the benefits described above have been delivered, in part, due to this fully integrated model. In order to build upon the successes and go further, this Paper explores options for a SAM in Argyll and Bute, which could allow us to progress our ambitions and improvements to the next stage. Benefits of Exploring a SAM for Argyll and Bute The concept of a SAM for Argyll and Bute is being explored as a tool to deliver lasting reform, which can be adapted to fit the specific and unique needs of this area (place-based – not one size fits all), concentrating on optimum governance arrangements to deliver the reform vision. For the residents of Argyll and Bute, there would be an expectation that a SAM would improve the services they receive, or at least mitigate financial constraints. Services currently available under existing frameworks can be, and mostly are, undertaken locally – in many instances by several public bodies. However, the strategic decision-making on their direction and resourcing is often determined elsewhere and at other times not practically accountable to the local public. The concept of a SAM could have the added value of recognising the importance of local operational decision-making and delivery, whilst re-aligning the organisational priorities of those bodies forming part of the SAM in order to deliver more effective joined-up services – with the parameters for that local delivery, in many cases, still being set by national policy. Page 182
Page 183
Bute • Helensburgh • Islay • Tarbet • Oban • Mull • Campbeltown • Iona • Dunoon • Tiree • Lochgilphead • Seil … Local whole-system decision-making by accountable decision-makers should result in improved decisions, as there would be better local knowledge of what is required and the existing strengths and weaknesses of the local system. In addition, the decision-makers would be accountable to the local communities whom they serve and which they live within. Citizens need to know that, and how, they can influence decision making or they may not fully take part or even opt out of local democracy. Local democracy offers the best form of accountability with detailed scrutiny, analysis and consideration in a public forum the standard way of working. Of course, the electoral opportunity to remove the decision makers is the ultimate sanction. A SAM would expand the democracy and accountability which is inherent in Local Government to include all services provided through the SAM or by other agencies with accountability to the SAM. One of the most significant criticisms of unelected organisations and agencies which discharge important public functions is that they are de facto unaccountable. The ultimate test of the vibrancy of local democracy is the willingness of the members of the community to participate in the democratic process. If people can interact with, communicate and believe they can influence the decision- makers, indeed even be the decision-makers, they are more likely to take part in the process that gives the decision-makers democratic legitimacy. Local planning and delivery of services under an SAM would provide a vehicle of opportunity for significantly expanded democratic participation in the key decisions affecting communities. When considering the possibility of better and more efficient use of declining revenue and capital budgets, the fact of the Council, NHS Highland and other potential partners all having Chief Executives and associated Corporate Management Teams promotes an obvious question: is it really necessary, for a population of 87,810, that each of these public sector organisations has a Chief Executive and associated management structures, with all the costs that this entails? Below that executive level are multiple Finance, HR, IT and other important internal structures supporting the public sector within Argyll and Bute. There are crossovers in those functions that could produce efficiencies and provide better value for money at a time of continuing financial challenge. However, a SAM is not about losing vital jobs in the public sector, which are essential to population retention and growth. The employment opportunities within the area which arose from previous Local Government reorganisations would be repeated following the formation of a ground-breaking SAM, with jobs and opportunities being better distributed across Argyll and Bute than at present. Looking at functions wider than Health and Social Care, it can likewise be argued that in the context of Housing, the purpose of stock transfer and the formation of the Registered Social Landlords (RSLs) in Argyll and Bute has successfully been fulfilled. It is therefore now appropriate to consider the best structure for providing social housing and the essential role that can play in meeting the critical objectives of combatting depopulation and providing economic sustainability and prosperity for Argyll and Bute’s communities – particularly in light of the ongoing Housing Emergency in the area, declared by the Council in June 2023. It could also be appropriate to consider bringing together the strategic housing role exercised by the Council and the operational functions of the RSLs. A SAM would provide the circumstances and possible vehicle for doing so. Argyll and Bute Council was the first local authority in Scotland to declare a Housing Emergency. This declaration was intended as a call to action – envisioned as the catalyst to bring partners, stakeholders, investors and communities together to prioritise and commit to the collective action needed to tackle the housing shortage in Argyll and Bute. Several causes for the Housing Emergency have been identified, and they concern a range of agencies with responsibility for both social and private housing. The possibility of bringing those agencies Page 183
Page 184
Bute • Helensburgh • Islay • Tarbet • Oban • Mull • Campbeltown • Iona • Dunoon • Tiree • Lochgilphead • Seil … together, under the organisational banner of a SAM, could have potential to be an effective measure in promoting joint-working and more effectively tackling the Housing Emergency in Argyll and Bute. In relation to the possibility of including the Further and Higher Education sector within the scope of a SAM, in an Argyll and Bute context, it is noted that University of Highlands and Islands (UHI) are currently undergoing a process of transformational activity - examining steps that they can take to become more integrated as an organisation – with the possibility of increased delegation to their areas/campuses. It is noted that there are currently effective links in place between a number of the secondary schools in Argyll and Bute (operated by the Council as the Education Authority) and UHI Argyll, with co- location in some instances. It is acknowledged that there could be scope to develop this relationship further under a SAM which could include the Further and Higher Education Sector – in order to produce further advantages for learners, and to promote the coordination of resources. The challenges facing public funding, both revenue and capital, coupled with the reducing workforce, will demand significant changes to the delivery of public services throughout Scotland, and intervention at all levels of government is needed to bring this about before communities and services are detrimentally impacted even further. It is always of particular concern in rural and island communities that models will be developed with an urban/mainland focus and then imposed on rural/island areas without consideration of their particular needs and opportunities. The development of bespoke, place-based models, tailored to the unique needs and circumstances of each area would help in avoiding that unintended, but detrimental, outcome. This is a critical time for Argyll and Bute, the public sector and the delivery of services on which communities have come to rely for many years. Current models are anticipated to face further strain in the forthcoming years. It is therefore time to consider alternative models, to free up resource currently tied into servicing organisational structures and to proceed with real, visible, accessible and accountable empowered government for areas such as Argyll and Bute. The advantages could be hugely significant and could offer enhanced opportunities for safeguarding public services, enhancing democratic oversight, making Argyll and Bute even more attractive as a place to live and work, whilst stimulating economic sustainability and reversing depopulation. Key Principles As part of the Council’s ongoing exploration of the possibility of a SAM for the area, one aspect of this work has been the development of a set of key/guiding principles to ensure that all parties are clear from the outset, whilst engaging with stakeholders, regarding what is on or off the table in relation to the development of possible SAM models for Argyll and Bute. These are as follows: Brand Identity – The NHS brand is nationally recognised and would have to, in our view, continue to be prevalent within the context of a SAM. The SAM would need to consider how the brand identity is protected whilst articulating the SAM ‘brand’ in much the same way as HSCPs have had to accommodate this. With multiple partners, it could become a ‘house of brands’ which, whilst possible, would need some consideration to ensure clarity of purpose of the SAM. Protection of Professional status – Similar to the brand identity, the professional roles within each partner hold a significance in terms of both identity and professional status. The ambitions of the SAM would likely include opportunities to redesign or define new roles that fulfil the tasks undertaken within existing roles, potentially including professional roles. The SAM proposals would need to be clear on the ambitions for the workforce models and how professional bodies would be engaged at both a local and national level. Page 184
Page 185
Bute • Helensburgh • Islay • Tarbet • Oban • Mull • Campbeltown • Iona • Dunoon • Tiree • Lochgilphead • Seil … Professional Governance (including clinical and care governance) as outlined above, an IJB model could enable the SAM to expand the range of partners and retain professional accountability. It would also enable governance to be enacted through the IJB and the partner bodies’ governance structures. Any move to a single corporate governance structure within one partner would need to consider the legal and practical implications of creating organisational level professional roles and governance committees to fulfil legislative and regulatory requirements. Staff Terms and Conditions – Any SAM model which includes moving to a single employer/corporate structure would require fundamental changes to the relevant legislation, as well as the complication of managing national terms and conditions for NHS staff and other partners being integrated where national terms and conditions exist. TUPE would also have to be considered and whilst this is technically possible, the practical reality is that staff would most likely remain on their existing terms and conditions, unless the alternatives were more favourable. Single Authority Models – Options Against the above-mentioned reforms, Officers have begun considering potential models for a SAM in Argyll and Bute. A Working Group has been established to explore the identified options in further detail. In preparing the high-level options thus far, Officers have had regard to a number of guiding principles, including: • Recognition that there is a spectrum of options available. • A focus on models with the potential to achieve the most effective outcomes and benefits for communities. • Focus on those areas where developed synergies already exist (such as Health and Social Care), building on the current level of integration. The options for a SAM in Argyll and Bute considered thus far have been: Option 1 – Status Quo This option would be a continuation of current structures with the retention of the Health and Social Care Partnership with governance through the Integrated Joint Board. In terms of positives, there would be continuity given that nothing would need to change, no transfer of staff would be required, and there would be no change to the current governance structures. However, this option does not offer any change, offers only limited options for shared services (Health and Social Care only) and efficiency savings, and there would continue to be the existing issues around the burden of governance and delivery of integrated services. Option 2 – Community Planning Plus This model would be based on the current Community Planning Model and would maintain separate organisations. It would give the opportunity to pool budgets and share resources, but employees and structures would remain separate. It would build upon the provisions of the Community Empowerment (Scotland) Act 2015. However, given that the partner organisations would maintain their independence and separate governance structures, it is likely that any integration would be very specific and limited. Given the number of organisations that could be involved in this model, it is likely that there would be a high probability of procedural disputes arising, meaning that developments could be delayed if one or more partners were not on board with a proposal. Option 3 – Integrated Authority This model would establish a new elected single legal entity which would have fully integrated service budgets (with opportunity for resource efficiencies and more shared services) and would be empowered by locally elected status to give clear and accountable leadership. The Authority would create specific Boards or Committees Page 185
Page 186
Bute • Helensburgh • Islay • Tarbet • Oban • Mull • Campbeltown • Iona • Dunoon • Tiree • Lochgilphead • Seil … which would provide the governance and decision-making structures required to ensure that resources and services are managed effectively. Under this model, the Council would no longer exist and Council staff (as well as others falling under the umbrella) would need to be moved over to the employment of the new Integrated Authority. This type of model would require a significant change to structures across most, if not all, public bodies. It would also require a new scheme of public sector primary legislation to implement the model. Nonetheless, there is greater potential as to the range of public sector functions that could fall within the scope of such a model. If this model were to be explored further, the role of local democratically elected members would be a vital component to the decision-making structure of such an Authority. Option 4 – Further Empowered Local Boards The starting point for this model would be through strengthening the Integration Joint Board (IJB) and the functions delegated to by the partners (i.e. the Council and NHS Highland) it under the Public Bodies (Joint Working) (Scotland) Act 2014. It could initially build on the existing synergies and effective partnership working that has been demonstrated thus far between the Council and NHS Highland. However, in an Argyll and Bute context, it should be noted that the maximum functions permissible under the 2014 Act have already been delegated to the IJB. As such, in order to build upon the existing successes of integration in the area, and to go any further, the 2014 Act would have to be amended to expand the functions that could be delegated to the IJB to build upon the current level of partnership working. In order to go to the next stage in an Argyll and Bute context, it might be possible either through amendment to the 2014 Act, or the enactment of new primary legislation, to open up the public bodies and public functions that can be integrated wider than just health and social care (but with similar governance structures to the HSCP/IJB) – for example, a statutory Housing Partnership, Further Education Partnership, Enterprise Partnership, etc. However, if new statutory partnerships and boards are created for all of those service areas, it is appreciated that this might result in a complex landscape of statutory partnerships/boards which could be difficult for those working within the public sector, and the wider public, to navigate. Confusion could be generated as to where certain roles, responsibilities and powers lie. It may also appear that additional layers of bureaucracy have been created. This model is built upon existing legislation as a logical starting point, as well as numerous examples of effective local partnership working as a starting point. More strategic alignment amongst the partnership organisations’ priorities may have potential to generate a more user-focused approach to services delivered under this model. It can retain local accountability, decision-making structures, and knowledge to allow the circumstances and issues particular to Argyll and Bute to be addressed at a local level – according to the priorities and needs expressed by our local communities. Under the current framework, the IJB has its own set of statutory responsibilities to engage the public. The IJB is also required by law to preside over locality planning arrangements, which prescribe further devolution of power to local professional and community groups, to ensure that services develop in line with local need and circumstances. These functions could be mirrored in any other statutory boards that would be established under this model, to ensure consistency of approach. However, it should also be noted that under the current integration arrangements, the Council and NHS Highland are the partner bodies, but many of the patient pathways for Argyll and Bute residents is to the Greater Glasgow and Clyde Health Board. This arrangement, with its Page 186
Page 187
Bute • Helensburgh • Islay • Tarbet • Oban • Mull • Campbeltown • Iona • Dunoon • Tiree • Lochgilphead • Seil … perceived barriers, would remain in place initially under this model. Option 5 – Single Authority Partnership A change of the delivery model under the 2014 Act from the current IJB structure to a Lead Agency arrangement in Argyll and Bute, with NHS Highland as the Lead Agency, would have the same benefit (as discussed in the context of other models) of whole system planning. However, it would not satisfy the aspiration of local elected members to hardwire local accountability into the system of governance. This was also a key aspect of the Council’s objection to the National Care Service (Scotland) Bill. Alternatively, the Council could become the Lead Agency. However, in these circumstances there is arguably a greater risk of fragmentation with secondary care, loss of NHS identity as an agency, employer and clinical network. To that end, a traditional Lead Agency arrangement (as currently envisaged within the 2014 Act) is potentially highly problematic. An alternative option could be to consider a variant of the Lead Agency arrangement under the banner of a Single Authority Partnership. This could take effect by conducting a review of the current Integration Scheme (Under Section 45 of the 2014 Act), preparing a new Integration Scheme (under Section 47 of the 2014 Act), and subsequently through the use of Directions (issued under the 2014 Act). Under such a Strategic Lead Agency arrangement, there would be no transfer of staff – only functions and resources. Under these terms, the Health Board would delegate all functions and resources to the Council (as Lead Agency) which could then: • redesign back office and business functions to secure maximum efficiency through a process of aggregation (e.g. the two asset management services coming together); • provide direction back to the Health Board to deliver its functions in accordance with a Strategic Plan conceived to deliver maximum functional integration alongside Council services; and • Provide direction to the Health Board to devise operational arrangements that promote a single delivery agency. In practice, under such a Single Authority Partnership (SAP) arrangement, the existing process for local government elections and political representation is acknowledged as being tried and tested, and would offer a suitable foundation for development to fit the particular requirements of Argyll and Bute. A Health and Social Care Board, or Committee – forming part of the SAP could act as the engine room of health and social care delivery. This could be populated in a way which is sympathetic to the principle of shared accountability – with local Elected Members, NHS Non-Executive Directors, professional leads, carers, third sector, etc. – a similar group to the membership of the IJB at present. In effect, the Board would become responsible for the strategic development of services. The Health Board would accordingly play a different role under this governance arrangement. It would still be accountable to central Government for use of public funds, and it would retain its obligations as an employer and for clinical governance, but strategic matters would pass to the Health and Social Care Committee and the SAP. The Chief Executive of NHS Highland would maintain oversight of all health services. They would continue to have a line of sight to the Chief Executive of NHS Scotland, but would also be accountable to the SAP for the delivery of services undertaken by Council employees and the strategic development of all health and social care services. Their relationship with the Health Board would be unchanged. The Chief Executive of the Council would in effect function as the principal advisor to the SAP. They would not have a hierarchical or line management relationship with the Chief Executive of the NHS Board. They would ultimately be responsible, however, for ensuring discharge of functions and Page 187
Page 188
Bute • Helensburgh • Islay • Tarbet • Oban • Mull • Campbeltown • Iona • Dunoon • Tiree • Lochgilphead • Seil … deployment of resources delegated through the Integration Scheme. A key driver of the Verity House Agreement is the focus on the achievement of better outcomes locally for individuals and communities by recognising local differences. A move to a SAP for Argyll and Bute has potential to build on the recognised success of joint working which is already in place via the fully integrated Argyll and Bute Health and Social Care Partnership, which operates in an environment where there are significant challenges - not least around the geography of the area. Moreover, the Verity House Agreement’s maxim of “local by default, national by agreement” can be embraced to provide an approach to service delivery through a SAP, delivering innovative services for our citizens locally taking account of need, efficiency and economy. The move towards greater flexibility in terms of budget and the removal of “ring fencing” will also allow for services to be developed and/or procured which meet the specific local needs of Argyll and Bute’s residents. The Verity House Agreement also makes clear that any exploration in terms of national delivery models should work on the presumption in favour of local flexibility. Evidence provided herein in supporting further exploring this model in particular strengthens the position for a more local approach to be taken in respect of Argyll and Bute. Such a model could allow for the design and delivery of services for and around people - which is pertinent in terms of the proposals. If the scope and functions of the Partnership is to be increased beyond health and social care, amendments to the 2014 Act, or new legislation may be required. This model protects the concept of strong local accountability. Retaining local accountability, decision-making structures, and knowledge allow the circumstances and issues particular to Argyll and Bute to be addressed at a local level – according to the priorities and needs expressed by our local communities. Under the current framework, the IJB has its own set of statutory responsibilities to engage the public. The IJB is also required by law to preside over locality planning arrangements, which prescribe further devolution of power to local professional and community groups, to ensure that services develop in line with local need and circumstances. These functions would be transferred to the new decision-making Board under this model. Continuing with the current IJB arrangement retains an additional third public body to sit between the NHS Board and Council, and as such, an additional bureaucratic layer. Moving to the strategic lead agency model as described above moves the decision-making functions to a Board within the Council (as the lead agency). Next Steps It is important to highlight that the outline of the potential models within this Paper is a very high- level articulation of what a deeper partnership between the Council and NHS Highland might look like. To progress any further, it would need both organisational and technical analysis. In terms of a more detailed examination of a SAM for Argyll and Bute, and what that may encompass, a natural starting point is the high degree of synergies between the Council and the NHS. If or when a second phase of consideration and/or implementation is carried out, the Council may also wish to lobby the Scottish Government in relation to amending the 2014 Act, or considering the introduction of new legislation, which would allow other partner bodies to fall within the scope of this model (e.g. RSLs, HIE, etc.) and/or the inclusion of other public sector functions beyond health and social care. The inclusion of Community Planning Partners in this regard could be significant in promoting and improving outcomes for our communities, as Community Planning Partnerships are also to play a key role in delivering the shared priorities of the Verity House Agreement. Page 188
Page 189
Bute • Helensburgh • Islay • Tarbet • Oban • Mull • Campbeltown • Iona • Dunoon • Tiree • Lochgilphead • Seil … In terms of the further exploration of the feasibility of the potential models as outlined within this Paper, and/or identification of any other possibilities, the Council’s Working Group are clear that we are approaching the stage where external expertise may be required in order to fully assess the models. This has already been highlighted to Scottish Government colleagues at previous meetings. The Council are continuing to explore the possibility and options for a SAM generally on a joint basis with Comhairle nan Eilean Siar, and will require both NHS Highland and the Argyll and Bute HSCP to continue to participate meaningfully with the ongoing work. 25th March 2025 Page 189
Page 190
This page is intentionally left blank
Page 191
Classification: OFFICIAL Appendix 3 – Theory of Change – Impact and Outcomes Page 191
Page 192
Classification: OFFICIAL Page 192
Page 193
ARGYLL AND BUTE COUNCIL COUNCIL FINANCIAL SERVICES 24 SEPTEMBER 2025 AUDITED ANNUAL ACCOUNTS FOR THE YEAR ENDED 31 MARCH 2024 – TRUST FUNDS 1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1.1 The purpose of this report is to update members on the external audit of the council’s Trust Funds Annual Accounts for the year ended 31 March 2024. 1.2 Council is requested to: • Note that an unqualified audit certificate has been issued for the council’s Trust Funds Annual Accounts for the year ended 31 March 2024; • Authorise for issue, the Trust Funds Audited Annual Accounts for the year ended 31 March 2024, given as Appendix 1; • Consider Forvis Mazar’s Annual Audit Report follow-up letter, given as Appendix 2; • Approve for signature, the ISA 580 Letter of Representation, given as Appendix 3; and • Note that a copy of the council’s Trust Funds Audited Annual Accounts for the year ended 31 March 2024 will be submitted to the Audit and Scrutiny Committee for information. Page 193 Agenda Item 9
Page 194
ARGYLL AND BUTE COUNCIL COUNCIL FINANCIAL SERVICES 24 SEPTEMBER 2025 AUDITED ANNUAL ACCOUNTS FOR THE YEAR ENDED 31 MARCH 2024 – TRUST FUNDS 2.0 INTRODUCTION 2.1 Forvis Mazars, the appointed external auditor has now completed the audit of the council’s Trust Funds Annual Accounts for the year ended 31 March 2024. The purpose of this report is to update members on conclusion of the audit and approve the accounts for issue. 3.0 RECOMMENDATIONS 3.1 Council is requested to: • Note that an unqualified audit certificate has been issued for the council’s Trust Funds Annual Accounts for the year ended 31 March 2024; • Authorise for issue, the Trust Funds Audited Annual Accounts for the year ended 31 March 2024, given as Appendix 1; • Consider Forvis Mazar’s Annual Audit Report follow-up letter, given as Appendix 2; • Approve for signature, the ISA 580 Letter of Representation, given as Appendix 3; and • Note that a copy of the council’s Trust Funds Audited Annual Accounts for the year ended 31 March 2024 will be submitted to the Audit and Scrutiny Committee for information. Page 194
Page 195
4.0 DETAIL 4.1 The council’s draft Trust Funds Annual Accounts for the year ended 31 March 2024 were completed and submitted for audit by 30 June 2024. Forvis Mazars, the appointed external auditor has now completed the audit and have issued an audit certificate containing no qualifications. The Audited Trust Funds Annual Accounts are attached as Appendix 1. 4.2 Forvis Mazars has issued their Annual Audit Report, incorporated within the Audited Annual Accounts and a follow-up letter, attached as Appendix 2. The outcome of the audit is generally positive and includes the following key messages: • The financial statements present a true and fair view of the financial position as at 31 March 2024 and have been prepared in accordance with proper accounting practice; • The Trustees' Annual Report is consistent with the financial statements and has been prepared in accordance with the Charities Statement of Recommended Practice (SORP) and applicable Financial Reporting Standard (FRS 102); • There were no misstatements identified during the audit above the trivial threshold (£490); and • There was one unadjusted disclosure requirement in relation to the Trustees’ Annual Report and one new recommendation in relation to internal control. 4.3 The following disclosure adjustments were made during the audit process: • An update to Audit Fees within the Statement of Financial Activities and Note 6; and • Several minor adjustments to the annual report and accounts. 4.4 The unadjusted disclosure noted by the auditors is in relation to the Trustees’ Annual Report not including a summary of the main achievements of the charity, which is a requirement, as per Audit Scotland Technical Guidance. 4.5 The new recommendation in respect of the internal control environment is to improve the audit trail for grant expenditure, in order that transactions can be explicitly linked to the relevant decision records. An improved referencing approach has now been developed for implementation by officers, which will resolve this matter. 4.6 A follow-up on the previous year’s internal control recommendation relating to the potential streamlining of Trust Funds, in order to relieve the administrative burden on the council, confirmed that potential opportunities in this respect would continue to be pursued. Page 195
Page 196
5.0 CONCLUSION 5.1 This report updates members on the conclusion of the audit of the council’s Trust Funds Annual Accounts for the year ending 31 March 2024. The external auditor’s opinion is unqualified, minimal adjustments were made to the draft accounts during the audit process and an opportunity to further strengthen the internal control environment has been taken in response to a new audit recommendation. 6.0 IMPLICATIONS 6.1 Policy None. 6.2 Financial None. 6.3 Legal Not expected to be any legal issues. 6.4 HR None. 6.5 Customer Service None. 6.6 Risk None known at this time. 6.7 Climate Change None. 6.8 Fairer Scotland Duty None. 6.9 Equalities - protected characteristics None. 6.10 Consumer Duty None. 6.11 Island Communities None. 6.12 Children’s Rights and Wellbeing None. Kirsty Flanagan Executive Director/Section 95 Officer Councillor Ross Moreland - Policy Lead for Finance and Commercial Services 01 September 2025 For further information contact: Carolyn Earl, Interim Head of Financial Services Carolyn.earl@argyll-bute.gov.uk Page 196
Page 197
APPENDICES Appendix 1 - Trust Funds Audited Annual Accounts for the year ended 31 March 2024 Appendix 2 - Forvis Mazars Annual Audit Report Follow-up Letter Appendix 3 - ISA 580 Letter of Representation Page 197
Page 198
This page is intentionally left blank
Page 199
Argyll and Bute Council Comhairle Earra Ghàidheal agus Bhòid Argyll and Bute OSCR Trusts AUDITED Annual Report and Financial Statements 2023-2024 For the Year ended 31 March 2024 Appendix 1 Page 199
Page 200
Trust Funds Contents 1 Trustees’ Annual Report 2 Independent Auditors Report 11 Statement of Financial Activities for Year Ended 31 March 2024 15 Statement of Balances as at 31 March 2024 17 Notes to the Financial Statements 19 Page 200
Page 201
Trust Funds Trustees’ Annual Report 2 1. INTRODUCTION The Trustees present the annual report together with the financial statements and the Auditor’s Report for the year ended 31 March 2024. ADMINISTRATION INFORMATION Charity Number Charity Name SC019599 McCaig Trust SC019607 Third Marquess Of Bute's Silver Wedding Dowry SC013578 Baillie Gillies Bequest SC013600 Kidston Park Trust SC018697 Miss Annie Dickson Burgh Bequest SC018698 Logie Baird Prize Fund SC020382 County of Argyll Educational Trust Scheme, 1960 Contact Address Argyll and Bute Council Kilmory Lochgilphead Argyll PA31 8RT Appointment of Trustees The trustees of these charities are the elected members (councillors) of Argyll and Bute Council. Trustees are appointed through their election to Argyll and Bute Council. Current Trustees Previous Trustees Councillor John Armour Councillor William Blair Councillor Janette Brown Councillor Math Campbell-Sturges Councillor Garret Corner Councillor Maurice Corry Councillor Robin Currie Councillor Audrey Forrest Councillor Kieron Green Councillor Amanda Hampsey Councillor Daniel Hampsey Councillor Graham Hardie Councillor Fiona Howard Councillor Willam Hume Councillor Mark Irvine Councillor Donald Kelly – to Aug. 23 Page 201
Page 202
Trust Funds Trustees’ Annual Report 3 Councillor Andrew Kain Councillor Jennifer Kelly – from Nov. 23 Councillor Paul Kennedy Councillor Reeni Kennedy-Boyle Councillor James Lynch Councillor Tommy Macpherson Councillor Ian Macquire Councillor Luna Martin Councillor Liz Mccabe Councillor Douglas Mcfadzean Councillor Julie Mckenzie Councillor Yvonne Mcneilly Councillor Ross Moreland Councillor Gary Mulvaney Councillor Iain Paterson Councillor Gemma Penfold Councillor Douglas Philand Councillor Alastair Redman Councillor Willaim Sinclair Councillor Andrew Vennard Councillor Peter Wallace Honorary Secretary Douglas Hendry Executive Director Argyll and Bute Council Honorary Treasurer Kirsty Flanagan FCCA,CPFA,ACIBS Section 95 Officer Argyll and Bute Council Auditor Mark Outterside Audit Director Forvis Mazars 26 Mosley Street Newcastle upon Tyne NE1 1DF Page 202
Page 203
Trust Funds Trustees’ Annual Report 4 Governing Documents Charity Name Description McCaig Trust The town council shall in the building proposed to be erected by them at Corran Parks, Oban, accommodation for the McCaig Memorial Institute including accommodation for a reference library, lending library, reading room and museum and shall equip and furnish said accommodation all to the satisfaction of the governing body Third Marquess of Bute Silver Wedding Dowry £1,000 was given by John Patrick Crichton-Stuart, 3rd Marquess of Bute, on 12 April 1897 (the date of his silver wedding) to Rothesay Town Council. Noted in the Rothesay Town Council Minutes 12th April 1897 and 10th May 1897 Baillie Gillies Bequest The charity was ‘inherited’ from Bute County Council. William Gillies, Cooper and Fish curer in Rothesay, and at some time a Baillie and Chief Magistrate of that Burgh, bequeathed £200 for the benefit of the poor of Rothesay. He was elected to the Town Council in 1812 and retired in 1835. Mrs Margaret Stevenson, or Lochhead, died circa 1947. Bequest of £50 to Rothesay Town Council, the income of which is to provide coals for the deserving poor of the Burgh. Archibald Brown, Clerk in the Bute Savings Bank Rothesay, died 1903. Will confirmed and recorded in 1903, detailing bequest of £100. The interest to be divided annually at Candlemas among the deserving old and infirm poor of Rothesay. James Duncan, Merchant in Valparaiso, Chile, thereafter residing in Rothesay died in 1874. He bequeathed £2,000 to Rothesay Town Council. Noted in the Minute Book of the Charity, 1875-1894 in the District Archives. The income was to be distributed half yearly to 10 older women of good character and honest repute, over 60 years of age and not in parochial relief, whose parents as well as themselves have been born in Rothesay or the Island of Bute. Misses Gibson, Ardmory, Rothesay. Janet Gibson died in 1893 her will was confirmed and recorded in 1894 with a bequest of £200 to the Minister of the Parish of Rothesay and to Rothesay Town Council. The interest was to be paid out at Candlemas to the most deserving of the poor and each recipient was to get 25 pence. Mrs Ann Taylor, or Jackson, residing at Easterhouse, Baillieston, died 1892 and her will was confirmed and recorded 1892. She made a bequest of £100, the annual income of which was to be expended from time to time providing coals for the poor persons of the name Taylor residing in Rothesay and who were born in Skipness (Kintyre) or Rothesay. Minute Book of the Bequest 1892-94 in District Archives. Annie McMillan - Minutes of Rothesay Town Council 28th November 1947, a bequest of £100 to Rothesay Town Council to provide coals for the deserving poor of Rothesay. Jane Paterson of Whinny Brae, Rothesay, died 1902. Will confirmed and recorded in Page 203
Page 204
Trust Funds Trustees’ Annual Report 5 1903 with a bequest of £300 made to Rothesay Town Council. The income from the bequest was to be divided at Candlemas among the old and infirm poor of Rothesay. Kidston Park Trust A bequest of £1,000 was made by William Kidston towards the upkeep of Kidston Park (formerly Cairndow or Cairndhu Park) in April 1889. It was noted in the minutes of a meeting of the Town Council of the Burgh of Helensburgh Miss Annie Dickson Bequest A bequest by Miss Mary Ann Dickson dated 4th April, 1927 to the Town Council of the Burgh of Helensburgh. Noted in an Excerpt from Copy Will and Codicils. Miss LA Colvil’s bequest - A Legacy of £200 was passed by Mr J Percival Agnew to the Town Council to perpetuate his cousin’s name in Helensburgh by means of a fund for necessitous cases. Noted in the minutes of a meeting of the Finance Committee of Helensburgh Town Council on 22nd December 1969. Logie Baird Prize Fund Ex-Bailie J. Arnold Fleming of Locksley, Helensburgh, invested the sum of £200 in the names of the Provost, Magistrates and Councillors of the Burgh of Helensburgh, for the Logie Baird Prize Fund. Noted in the minutes of the Town Council of Helensburgh, January 1956. Argyll Education Trust The Trust is a scheme under the Education (Scotland) Acts, 1939 to 1956, for the future government and management of certain educational endowments in the County of Argyll. Formed by the amalgamation of fourteen individual endowments and approved by His Late Majesty King George V in Council on 24th July, 1933. Robert MacFie of Airds and Oban, Sugar Refiner in Liverpool, died 1899. His will confirmed and recorded in 1899 a bequest of £150 2. OBJECTIVES AND ACTIVITIES The objectives of each trust are as follows: Charity Name Purpose Mccaig Trust To contribute towards the cost of a library and institute in Oban. Third Marquess Of Bute's Silver Wedding Dowry To provide a donation to one or two girls from the poorer classes on their wedding Baillie Gillies Bequest Various funds make up the Baillie Gillies fund • Baillie Gillies Bequest - Prevention and relief of poverty in Rothesay. • Margaret Lochhead Bequest - Prevention and relief of poverty in Rothesay through grants to individuals for purchase of coals. Page 204
Page 205
Trust Funds Trustees’ Annual Report 6 • Archibald Brown Bequest - The interest is to be divided annually at Candlemas among the deserving old and infirm poor of Rothesay • James Duncan Bequest - Prevention and relief of poverty in Rothesay through distribution to ten old women whose parents as well as themselves were born in Rothesay • Janet Gibson Bequest - Prevention and relief of poverty in Rothesay. • Ann Jackson Bequest - Prevention and relief of poverty in Rothesay, by providing coals for poor persons of the name Taylor residing in Rothesay who were born in Skipness (Kintyre) or Rothesay. • Annie McMillan Bequest - Prevention and relief of poverty in Rothesay through grants to individuals for coal. • Jane Paterson Bequest - The objective of the fund is for the prevention and relief of poverty in Rothesay Kidston Park Trust To provide a public park, or recreation ground for the inhabitants of Helensburgh and for the purposes of boating and bathing in the Gareloch Miss Annie Dickson Burgh Bequest The relief of distress in the Burgh of Helensburgh. Logie Baird Prize Fund The advancement of education by providing an annual prize to a pupil at Hermitage Academy, Helensburgh County of Argyll Educational Trust Scheme, 1960 The objective of the fund is for the advancement of education for children and young people within the former County of Argyll. This objective is met by the issuing of grants to individuals and organisations. Page 205
Page 206
Trust Funds Trustees’ Annual Report 7 Robert MacFie - The objective of the fund is for the advancement of education by providing a gold Dux medal to Oban High School. 3. STRUCTURE AND GOVERNANCE Argyll and Bute Council Trust Funds are registered with the Office of the Scottish Charity Regulator (OSCR). The trustees of all of the charities are the elected members of Argyll and Bute Council. The Chief Financial Officer is the designated officer within Argyll and Bute Council with responsibility for the proper administration of the charitable trust’s financial affairs. The Chief Financial Officer is responsible for keeping proper accounting records that are up to date and which ensure that financial statements comply with the Charities Accounts (Scotland) Regulations 2006. Organisational Structure The trustees (as the elected members of the council) meet once a year at the Annual General Meeting (AGM) to consider and approve the annual report and financial statements and any other business such as future plans and the reorganisation of trust funds. The trustees delegate the day to day administration of the charities to officers of the Council. The Council has established a range of committees with delegated powers to allow it to discharge its business effectively. This includes the management of charities. The Council has an approved constitution that governs the conduct of business by the Council and covers standing orders for meetings, a scheme of administration and delegation, financial and security regulations, contract standing orders and an ethical framework. Related Parties Trustees hold this position because they are elected members of Argyll and Bute Council. Argyll and Bute Council provides administration services to the Charity at no cost to the Trusts. Risk Management The Section 95 Officer of Argyll and Bute Council has taken the steps required by trustees to consider the major risks to which the charities are exposed, in particular those related to their operation and finance, and to be satisfied that systems are in place to mitigate the exposure to the major risks. Page 206
Page 207
Trust Funds Trustees’ Annual Report 8 4. MANAGEMENT OF FUNDS AND INVESTMENT POLICY The trustees rely on the expertise of Argyll and Bute Council to manage the investments to ensure the maximum return at the least risk to each charity. In this way, the income stream for the future benefit of each charity is protected. The Section 95 Officer of the Council is responsible for securing the proper management of the investments of the Charity. The day-to-day management of investments is performed by external investment managers under a discretionary agreement. 5. PERFORMANCE Income comes from investment returns and any donations. Awards totalling £23,200 were made during the year to 31 March 2024, awards were disbursed as follows: Charity Name Awards Distributed during the year to 31 March 2024 Mccaig Trust £3,835 Kidston Park Trust £2,538 County of Argyll Educational Trust Scheme, 1960 £16,827 Total £23,200 6. FINANCIAL REVIEW Overview The following charities are dormant: Baillie Gillies Bequest Miss Anne Dickson Burgh Bequest Page 207
Page 208
Trust Funds Trustees’ Annual Report 9 In the year to 31 March 2024, Trust funds received income and held cash and bank balances within the Council’s Loans Fund (recorded as a debtor in the financial statements) as follows: Charity Name Income from Investments £ Income from Donations £ Cash and Bank Balance £ Mccaig Trust 3,698 0 73,192 Third Marquess Of Bute's Silver Wedding Dowry 387 0 7,345 Baillie Gillies Bequest 504 0 10,693 Kidston Park Trust 175 0 1,175 Miss Annie Dickson Burgh Bequest 211 0 4,495 Logie Baird Prize Fund 97 0 2,049 County of Argyll Educational Trust Scheme, 1960 22,761 0 185,020 Total 27,833 0 283,969 Investments and Reserves The overall funds increased by £47,953. The reserves of the trusts at 31 March 2024 amount to £815,917. There is £250,683 in unrestricted (revenue) funds and £565,234 in endowment (capital) funds. These funds are invested as follows: 31-Mar-23 31-Mar-24 £ £ Investments (CCLA/Local Government Bonds) 488,628 531,948 Cash and Bank held by Argyll and Bute Council 279,336 283,969 767,964 815,917 Assets in Restricted Funds 521,914 565,234 Assets in Unrestricted Funds 246,050 250,683 Total Funds 767,964 815,917 Page 208
Page 209
Trust Funds Trustees’ Annual Report 10 Reserves Policy Reserves are held by Argyll and Bute Council on behalf of each Trust and revenue income, generated from capital that has not been disbursed at 31 March each year, is invested in Argyll and Bute Council’s Loans Fund. Trustees’ Responsibilities Statement The trustees are responsible for preparing the trustees' report and the financial statements in accordance with applicable law and United Kingdom Accounting Standards. The law applicable to charities in Scotland requires the charity trustees to prepare financial statements for each year which give a true and fair view of the state of affairs of the charity and of the incoming resources and application of resources, of the charity for that period. In preparing these financial statements, the trustees are required to: o select suitable accounting policies and then apply them consistently; o observe the methods and principles in the applicable Charities SORP; o make judgments and accounting estimates on a reasonable basis; o state whether applicable UK Accounting Standards have been followed, subject to any material departures disclosed and explained in the financial statements; o prepare the financial statements on the going concern basis unless it is inappropriate to presume that the charity will continue in business. 7. CONCLUSION The reserves of all the Trust Funds increased by £47,953 in the year. In 23-24 the total value of grants awarded from Trust Funds amounted to £23,200. Since 2013-14 an audit is required to be carried out by the appointed auditor of Argyll and Bute Council in accordance with the requirements of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973. From 2022-23 these accounts are prepared as one group set of accounts following the guidance set out in OSCRs Guidance, A Guide to Charity Accounts Part 1 – The Overview, which states in Section 9 - Connected Charities’ that a single set of accounts can be prepared rather than individual ones where charities are connected by having a common controlling body or administration. The appointed auditor of Argyll and Bute Council is Forvis Mazars and the Trustees would like to thank them for undertaking this task. 8. DECLARATION This report was signed on behalf of the Trustees on 24 September 2025 by: Councillor J Lynch Trustee Kirsty Flanagan Section 95 Officer Page 209
Page 210
Trust Funds Independent Auditors Report 11 Independent auditor’s report to the trustees of Argyll and Bute OSCR Trusts and the Accounts Commission Report on the audit of the financial statements Opinion on the financial statements We certify that we have audited the financial statements in the statement of accounts of Argyll and Bute OSCR Trusts (“the Charities”) for the year ended 31 March 2024 under Part VII of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973 and section 44(1)(c) of the Charities and Trustee Investment (Scotland) Act 2005. The financial statements comprise the Statement of Financial Activities, Balance Sheet and notes to the financial statements, including material accounting policy information. The financial reporting framework that has been applied in their preparation is applicable law and the United Kingdom Accounting Standards, including Financial Reporting Standard 102 The Financial Reporting Standard applicable in the UK and Republic of Ireland (United Kingdom Generally Accepted Accounting Practice). In our opinion the accompanying financial statements: • give a true and fair view of the state of affairs of the Charities as at 31 March 2024 and of their incoming resources and application of resources for the year then ended; • have been properly prepared in accordance with United Kingdom Generally Accepted Accounting Practice; and • have been prepared in accordance with the requirements of the Charities and Trustee Investment (Scotland) Act 2005, and regulation 8 of The Charities Accounts (Scotland) Regulations 2006. Basis for opinion We conducted our audit in accordance with applicable law and International Standards on Auditing (UK) (ISAs (UK)), as required by the Code of Audit Practice approved by the Accounts Commission for Scotland. Our responsibilities under those standards are further described in the auditor’s responsibilities for the audit of the financial statements section of our report. We are independent of the Charities in accordance with the ethical requirements that are relevant to our audit of the financial statements in the UK including the Financial Reporting Council’s Ethical Standard, and we have fulfilled our other ethical responsibilities in accordance with these requirements. We believe that the audit evidence we have obtained is sufficient and appropriate to provide a basis for our opinion. Conclusions relating to going concern basis of accounting We have concluded that the use of the going concern basis of accounting in the preparation of the financial statements is appropriate. Page 210
Page 211
Trust Funds Independent Auditors Report 12 Based on the work we have performed, we have not identified any material uncertainties relating to events or conditions that, individually or collectively, may cast significant doubt on the Charities’ ability to continue to adopt the going concern basis of accounting for a period of at least twelve months from when the financial statements are authorised for issue. Responsibilities of the trustees for the financial statements The trustees are responsible for the preparation of financial statements that give a true and fair view in accordance with the financial reporting framework, and for such internal control as the trustees determines is necessary to enable the preparation of financial statements that are free from material misstatement, whether due to fraud or error. In preparing the financial statements, the trustees are responsible for assessing the Charities’ ability to continue as a going concern, disclosing, as applicable, matters related to going concern and using the going concern basis of accounting unless the trustees intend to discontinue the Charities’ operations, or have no realistic alternative but to do so. Auditor’s responsibilities for the audit of the financial statements Our objectives are to obtain reasonable assurance about whether the financial statements as a whole are free from material misstatement, whether due to fraud or error, and to issue an auditor’s report that includes our opinion. Reasonable assurance is a high level of assurance, but is not a guarantee that an audit conducted in accordance with ISAs (UK) will always detect a material misstatement when it exists. Misstatements can arise from fraud or error and are considered material if, individually or in the aggregate, they could reasonably be expected to influence the economic decisions of users taken on the basis of these financial statements. Irregularities, including fraud, are instances of non-compliance with laws and regulations. We design procedures in line with our responsibilities outlined above to detect material misstatements in respect of irregularities, including fraud. Procedures include: • using our understanding of the local government sector and charity sector to identify that the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973, the Charities and Trustee Investment (Scotland) Act 2005, and The Charities Accounts (Scotland) Regulations 2006 are significant in the context of the Charities; • inquiring of the Trustees as to other laws or regulations that may be expected to have a fundamental effect on the operations of the Charities; • inquiring of the Trustees concerning the Charities’ policies and procedures regarding compliance with the applicable legal and regulatory framework; • discussions among our audit team on the susceptibility of the financial statements to material misstatement, including how fraud might occur; and • considering whether the audit team collectively has the appropriate competence and capabilities to identify or recognise non-compliance with laws and regulations. Page 211
Page 212
Trust Funds Independent Auditors Report 13 The extent to which our procedures are capable of detecting irregularities, including fraud, is affected by the inherent difficulty in detecting irregularities, the effectiveness of the [Charity's/Charities'] controls, and the nature, timing and extent of the audit procedures performed. Irregularities that result from fraud are inherently more difficult to detect than irregularities that result from error as fraud may involve collusion, intentional omissions, misrepresentations, or the override of internal control. The capability of the audit to detect fraud and other irregularities depends on factors such as the skilfulness of the perpetrator, the frequency and extent of manipulation, the degree of collusion involved, the relative size of individual amounts manipulated, and the seniority of those individuals involved. A further description of the auditor’s responsibilities for the audit of the financial statements is located on the Financial Reporting Council's website www.frc.org.uk/auditorsresponsibilities. This description forms part of our auditor’s report. Reporting on other requirements Other information The trustees are responsible for the other information in the statement of accounts. The other information comprises the Trustees’ Annual Report. Our responsibility is to read all the other information and, in doing so, consider whether the other information is materially inconsistent with the financial statements, or our knowledge obtained in the course of the audit or otherwise appears to be materially misstated. If we identify such material inconsistencies or apparent material misstatements, we are required to determine whether this gives rise to a material misstatement in the financial statements themselves. If, based on the work we have performed, we conclude that there is a material misstatement of this other information, we are required to report that fact. We have nothing to report in this regard. Our opinion on the financial statements does not cover the other information and we do not express any form of assurance conclusion thereon except on the Trustees’ Annual Report to the extent explicitly stated in the following opinion prescribed by the Accounts Commission. Opinions prescribed by the Accounts Commission on the Trustees’ Annual Report In our opinion, based on the work undertaken in the course of the audit, the information given in the Trustees' Annual Report for the financial year for which the financial statements are prepared is consistent with the financial statements and that report has been prepared in accordance with the Charities SORP (FRS 102). Matters on which we are required to report by exception We are required by The Charity Accounts (Scotland) Regulations 2006 to report to you if, in our opinion: Page 212
Page 213
Trust Funds Independent Auditors Report 14 • proper accounting records have not been kept; or • the financial statements are not in agreement with the accounting records; or • we have not received all the information and explanations we require for our audit. We have nothing to report in respect of these matters. Use of our report This report is made solely to the parties to whom it is addressed in accordance with Part VII of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973 and for no other purpose. In accordance with paragraph 108 of the Code of Audit Practice, we do not undertake to have responsibilities to members or officers, in their individual capacities, or to third parties. Mark Outterside Audit Director For and on behalf of Forvis Mazars LLP 26 Mosley Street Newcastle Upon Tyne NE1 1DF 24 September 2025 Page 213
Page 214
Trust Funds Statement of Financial Activities 15 STATEMENT OF FINANCIAL ACTIVITIES FOR THE YEAR ENDING 31 MARCH 2024 McCaig Trust Third Marquess Of Bute's Silver Wedding Dowry Baillie Gillies Bequest Kidston Park Trust Miss Annie Dickson Burgh Bequest Logie Baird Prize Fund County of Argyll Educational Trust Scheme, 1960 Note Total Funds 2024 Total Funds 2024 Total Funds 2024 Total Funds 2024 Total Funds 2024 Total Funds 2024 Total Funds 2024 Total £ £ £ £ £ £ £ £ INCOMING RESCOURCES Investment income from managed funds - Unrestricted 5 77 43 1 - - - 13,915 14,036 Interest from short-term deposits - Unrestricted 3,621 344 503 175 211 97 8,846 13,797 Donated Services (Audit) 6 891 107 119 13 50 23 7,797 9,000 Total Incoming Resources 4,589 494 623 188 261 120 30,558 36,833 RESOURCES EXPENDED Costs of generating funds: Investment management costs - - - - - - - Audit fee 6 891 107 119 13 50 23 7,797 9,000 Charitable Activities: Grants awarded 7 3,835 - - 2,538 - - 16,827 23,200 Total Resources Expended 4,726 107 119 2,551 50 23 24,624 32,200 Net Incoming/(Outgoing) Resources before Other Recognised Gains/(Losses) (137) 387 504 (2,363) 211 97 5,934 4,633 OTHER RECOGNISED GAINS AND (LOSSES) Unrealised gains/(losses) - Permanent Endowment - - - - - - 43,320 43,320 Total Gains and (Losses) on Investment Assets - - - - - - 43,320 43,320 Net Movement in Funds (137) 387 504 (2,363) 211 97 49,254 47,953 Total funds brought forward - Unrestricted 45,791 8,358 7,189 2,538 1,336 1,752 179,086 246,050 Total funds brought forward - Permanent Endowment 35,138 1,000 3,050 1,000 2,948 200 478,578 521,914 Total funds brought forward 10 80,929 9,358 10,239 3,538 4,284 1,952 657,664 767,964 Funds Carried Forward - Unrestricted 45,654 8,745 7,693 175 1,547 1,849 185,020 250,683 Funds Carried Forward - Permanent Endowment 35,138 1,000 3,050 1,000 2,948 200 521,898 565,234 Total funds carried forward 10 80,792 9,745 10,743 1,175 4,495 2,049 706,918 815,917 Page 214
Page 215
Trust Funds Statement of Financial Activities 16 STATEMENT OF FINANCIAL ACTIVITIES FOR THE YEAR ENDING 31 MARCH 2023 McCaig Trust Third Marquess Of Bute's Silver Wedding Dowry Baillie Gillies Bequest Kidston Park Trust Miss Annie Dickson Burgh Bequest Logie Baird Prize Fund County of Argyll Educational Trust Scheme, 1960 Note Total Funds 2023 Total Funds 2023 Total Funds 2023 Total Funds 2023 Total Funds 2023 Total Funds 2023 Total Funds 2023 Total £ £ £ £ £ £ £ £ INCOMING RESCOURCES Investment income from managed funds - Unrestricted 5 77 45 - - - - 13,915 14,037 Interest from short-term deposits - Unrestricted 1,469 144 198 70 83 38 3,534 5,536 Donated Services (Audit) 6 667 79 87 30 36 17 5,584 6,500 Total Incoming Resources 2,213 268 285 100 119 55 23,033 26,073 RESOURCES EXPENDED Costs of generating funds: Audit fee 6 667 79 87 30 36 17 5,584 6,500 Charitable Activities: Grants awarded 7 2,400 500 - 131 - - 16,800 19,831 Total Resources Expended 3,067 579 87 161 36 17 22,384 26,331 Net Incoming/(Outgoing) Resources before Other Recognised Gains/(Losses) (854) (311) 198 (61) 83 38 649 (258) OTHER RECOGNISED GAINS AND (LOSSES) Unrealised gains/(losses) - Permanent Endowment - - - - - - (18,822) (18,822) Total Gains and (Losses) on Investment Assets - - - - - - (18,822) (18,822) Net Movement in Funds (854) (311) 198 (61) 83 38 (18,173) (19,080) Total funds brought forward - Unrestricted 46,645 8,669 6,991 2,599 1,253 1,714 178,437 246,308 Total funds brought forward - Permanent Endowment 35,138 1,000 3,050 1,000 2,948 200 497,400 540,736 Total funds brought forward 10 81,783 9,669 10,041 3,599 4,201 1,914 675,837 787,044 Funds Carried Forward - Unrestricted 45,791 8,358 7,189 2,538 1,336 1,752 179,086 246,050 Funds Carried Forward - Permanent Endowment 35,138 1,000 3,050 1,000 2,948 200 478,578 521,914 Total funds carried forward 10 80,929 9,358 10,239 3,538 4,284 1,952 657,664 767,964 All incoming resources and resources expended derive from continuing activities. The notes on pages 19 to 26 form an integral part of these financial statements. Page 215
Page 216
Trust Funds Balance Sheet 17 Balance Sheet as at 31 March 2024 McCaig Trust Third Marquess Of Bute's Silver Wedding Dowry Baillie Gillies Bequest Kidston Park Trust Miss Annie Dickson Burgh Bequest Logie Baird Prize Fund County of Argyll Educational Trust Scheme, 1960 Note Total Total Total Total Total Total Total Total £ £ £ £ £ £ £ £ Fixed Assets - Investments - Unrestricted 8 - 2,400 50 - - - 2,450 Investments - Permanent Endowment Funds 8 7,600 - - - - - 521,898 529,498 Total Fixed Assets 7,600 2,400 50 - - - 521,898 531,948 - Current Assets - Debtor (Cash at Bank and at Hand) - Unrestricted 9 45,654 6,345 7,643 175 1,547 1,849 185,020 248,233 Debtor (Cash at Bank and at Hand) - Permanent Endowment 9 27,538 1,000 3,050 1,000 2,948 200 35,736 Total Current Assets 73,192 7,345 10,693 1,175 4,495 2,049 185,020 283,969 - Current Liabilities - Net Current Assets or Liabilities 73,192 7,345 10,693 1,175 4,495 2,049 185,020 283,969 - Total Assets 80,792 9,745 10,743 1,175 4,495 2,049 706,918 815,917 - Funds of the Charity - Unrestricted Funds 45,654 8,745 7,693 175 1,547 1,849 185,020 250,683 Endowment Funds 35,138 1,000 3,050 1,000 2,948 200 521,898 565,234 Total Charity Funds 80,792 9,745 10,743 1,175 4,495 2,049 706,918 815,917 Page 216
Page 217
Trust Funds Balance Sheet 18 Balance Sheet as at 31 March 2023 McCaig Trust Third Marquess Of Bute's Silver Wedding Dowry Baillie Gillies Bequest Kidston Park Trust Miss Annie Dickson Burgh Bequest Logie Baird Prize Fund County of Argyll Educational Trust Scheme, 1960 Note Total Total Total Total Total Total Total Total £ £ £ £ £ £ £ £ Fixed Assets - Investments - Unrestricted 8 - 2,400 50 - - - 2,450 Investments - Permanent Endowment Funds 8 7,600 - - - - - 478,578 486,178 Total Fixed Assets 7,600 2,400 50 - - - 478,578 488,628 - Current Assets - Debtor (Cash at Bank and at Hand) - Unrestricted 9 45,791 5,958 7,139 2,538 1,336 1,752 179,086 243,600 Debtor (Cash at Bank and at Hand) - Permanent Endowment 9 27,538 1,000 3,050 1,000 2,948 200 35,736 Total Current Assets 73,329 6,958 10,189 3,538 4,284 1,952 179,086 279,336 - Current Liabilities - Net Current Assets or Liabilities 73,329 6,958 10,189 3,538 4,284 1,952 179,086 279,336 - Total Assets 80,929 9,358 10,239 3,538 4,284 1,952 657,664 767,964 - Funds of the Charity - Unrestricted Funds 45,791 8,358 7,189 2,538 1,336 1,752 179,086 246,050 Endowment Funds 35,138 1,000 3,050 1,000 2,948 200 478,578 521,914 Total Charity Funds 80,929 9,358 10,239 3,538 4,284 1,952 657,664 767,964 Page 217
Page 218
Trust Funds Notes to the Financial Statements 19 1. Basis of Preparation The principal accounting policies are summarised below. The accounting policies have been applied consistently throughout the year and the preceding year. 1.1. Basis of Accounting The financial statements are prepared under the historic cost convention and in accordance with: a) Accounting and Reporting by Charities – Statement of Recommended Practice (SORP 2019 - 2nd Edition); and the Financial Reporting Standard for Smaller Entities FRS102 b) The Charities and Trustee Investment (Scotland) Act 2005 and the Charities Accounts (Scotland) Regulations 2006 (as amended). 2. Accounting Policies 2.1. Form of Financial Statements a) Unrestricted funds are those that may be used at the discretion of the trustees in the furtherance of the objects of the charity. b) The permanent endowment funds are invested in perpetuity and derive an annual investment income which is available for distribution. 2.2. Incoming Resources a) All incoming resources are recognised and included in the Statement of Financial Activities when the charity becomes entitled to the resources; the trustees are virtually certain they will receive the resources and the monetary value can be measured with sufficient reliability. The following specific policies are applied to particular categories of income. b) Income from investments is included in the year to which it relates. c) Investments gains and losses includes any gain or loss on the sale of investments and any gain or loss resulting from revaluing investments to market value at the end of the year. d) The value of the services provided free of charge by Argyll and Bute Council has not been included in the accounts but is described in the trustees’ annual report. Page 218
Page 219
Trust Funds Notes to the Financial Statements 20 2.3. Resources Expended a) All expenditure is included in the Statement of Financial Activities on an accrual basis and is recognised when there is a legal or constructive obligation to pay out resources. 2.4. Cash and Bank Balances a) During the year the above short term deposits were held by Argyll and Bute Council, which manages the administration of the funds on behalf of the Trustees. The Council also acts as the banker for the charity and, as detailed below, all transactions incoming and outgoing are made via the Council’s accounts. No costs were incurred by the trust for this work. The balances are repayable on demand. Interest is payable on balances. b) As cash and bank balances are held as short term deposits with Argyll and Bute Council and are not in a standalone bank account, they appear on the Balance Sheet as a debtor. c) The debtor balance is split between those funds deemed to be unrestricted and those deemed to be permanent endowment. The unrestricted funds are available to be used for the charitable activities of the trust and the permanent endowment funds are held to generate income for the charitable activities. 3. Taxation The charity is not liable to income or capital gains tax on its charitable activities. Irrecoverable VAT is included in the expense to which it relates. 4. Trustee Remuneration, Expenses and Related Party Transactions (a) No remuneration or expenses were paid to charity trustees or persons connected to a trustee during the year (2022-23 - £0). (b) The trust received interest of £13,797 (2022-23 £5,536) from Argyll and Bute Council on unrestricted reserves placed on short-term deposits and also from interest on investments of £14,036 (2022-23 - £14,037). All transactions incoming and outgoing are made via the Council’s accounts. (c) There were no other transactions between the charity and any trustee or any connected person during the year (2022-23 - £0). Page 219
Page 220
Trust Funds Notes to the Financial Statements 21 5. Investment Income McCaig Trust Third Marquess Of Bute's Silver Wedding Dowry Baillie Gillies Bequest Kidston Park Trust Income from Investments Interest on Short-term deposits - Argyll and Bute Council Total Income from Investments Interest on Short-term deposits - Argyll and Bute Council Total Income from Investments Interest on Short-term deposits - Argyll and Bute Council Total Income from Investments Interest on Short-term deposits - Argyll and Bute Council Total 2023 77 1,469 1,546 45 144 189 1 199 200 - 70 70 Unrestricted 77 3,621 3,698 43 344 387 1 503 504 - 175 175 Permanent Endowment - - - - - - - - - - - - 2024 77 3,621 3,698 43 344 387 1 503 504 - 175 175 Miss Annie Dickson Burgh Bequest Logie Baird Prize Fund County of Argyll Educational Trust Scheme, 1960 Income from Investments Interest on Short-term deposits - Argyll and Bute Council Total Income from Investments Interest on Short-term deposits - Argyll and Bute Council Total Income from Investments Interest on Short-term deposits - Argyll and Bute Council Total Totals 2023 - 83 83 - 38 38 13,915 3,534 17,449 19,575 Unrestricted - 211 211 - 97 97 13,915 8,846 22,761 27,833 Permanent Endowment - - - - - - - - - 2024 - 211 211 - 97 97 13,915 8,846 22,761 27,833 Page 220
Page 221
Trust Funds Notes to the Financial Statements 22 6. Audit Fees The independent auditor’s fee is a donated service amounting to £9,000 (2022-23 £6,500). 7. Grants Awarded Charity Name Grants Awarded in year to 31 March 2024 Number of Grants awarded McCaig Trust £ 3,835 1 Kidston Park Trust £ 2,538 1 County of Argyll Educational Trust Scheme 1960 £ 16,827 21 Total £23,200 23 Page 221
Page 222
Trust Funds Notes to the Financial Statements 23 8. Fixed Asset Investments Mccaig Trust Third Marquess Of Bute's Silver Wedding Dowry Baillie Gillies Bequest Kidston Park Trust Miss Annie Dickson Burgh Bequest Logie Baird Prize Fund County of Argyll Educational Trust Scheme, 1960 Total £ £ £ £ £ £ £ £ Carrying (market) value at 1 April 2023 7,600 2400 50 0 0 0 478,578 488,628 Add: additions to investments at cost - - - - - - - Less: disposals at carrying value - - - - - - - Add/(deduct): net gain/loss on revaluation - - - - - - 43,320 43,320 Carrying (market) value at 31 March 2024 7,600 2,400 50 - - - 521,898 531,948 Analysis of Investments CCLA Investments - - - - - - 521,898 521,898 Local Government Bonds 7,600 2,400 50 - - - - 10,050 Total 7,600 2,400 50 - - - 521,898 531,948 Page 222
Page 223
Trust Funds Notes to the Financial Statements 24 9. Cash and Bank Balances During the year the above short term deposits were held by Argyll and Bute Council, which manages the administration of the funds on behalf of the Trustees. The Council also acts as the banker for the charity and, as detailed below, all transactions incoming and outgoing are made via the Council’s accounts. No costs were incurred by the trust for this work. The balances are repayable on demand. Interest is payable on balances. McCaig Trust Third Marquess Of Bute's Silver Wedding Dowry Baillie Gillies Bequest Kidston Park Trust Unrestricted Permanent Endowment Total Funds Unrestricted Permanent Endowment Total Funds Unrestricted Permanent Endowment Total Funds Unrestricted Permanent Endowment Total Funds Short-term deposits with Argyll and Bute Council: £ £ £ £ £ £ £ £ £ £ £ £ Carrying value at 1 April 2023 45,791 27,538 73,329 5,958 1,000 6,958 7,139 3,050 10,189 2,538 1,000 3,538 Add: lodgements during year 3,698 - 3,698 387 - 387 504 - 504 175 - 175 (Less): withdrawals during year (3,835) - (3,835) 0 - - 0 - - (2,538) - (2,538) Gains/losses - - - - - - - - - - - - *Cash and Bank at 31 March 2024 45,654 27,538 73,192 6,345 1,000 7,345 7,643 3,050 10,693 175 1,000 1,175 Page 223
Page 224
Trust Funds Notes to the Financial Statements 25 Miss Annie Dickson Burgh Bequest Logie Baird Prize Fund County of Argyll Educational Trust Scheme, 1960 Unrestricted Permanent Endowment Total Funds Unrestricted Permanent Endowment Total Funds Unrestricted Permanent Endowment Total Funds Totals Short-term deposits with Argyll and Bute Council: £ £ £ £ £ £ £ £ £ £ Carrying value at 1 April 2023 1,336 2,948 4,284 1,752 200 1,952 179,086 - 179,086 279,336 Add: lodgements during year 211 - 211 97 - 97 22,760 - 22,760 27,832 (Less): withdrawals during year 0 - - 0 - - (16,826) - (16,826) (23,199) Gains/losses - - - - - - - - - *Cash and Bank at 31 March 2024 1,547 2,948 4,495 1,849 200 2,049 185,020 - 185,020 283,969 *Cash and bank on above tables recorded as a debtor on the balance sheet Page 224
Page 225
Trust Funds Notes to the Financial Statements 26 10.Movement in Funds McCaig Trust Third Marquess Of Bute's Silver Wedding Dowry Baillie Gillies Bequest Kidston Park Trust Unrestricted Revenue Permanent Endowment Total Funds Unrestricted Revenue Permanent Endowment Total Funds Unrestricted Revenue Permanent Endowment Total Funds Unrestricted Revenue Permanent Endowment Total Funds At 1 April 2023 45,791 35,138 80,929 8,358 1,000 9,358 7,189 3,050 10,239 2,538 1,000 3,538 Incoming Resources 4,365 - 4,365 466 - 466 591 - 591 205 - 205 Outgoing Resources 4,502 - 4,502 79 - 79 87 - 87 2,568 - 2,568 Gains/ Losses - - - - - - - - - - - - At 31 March 2024 45,654 35,138 80,792 8,745 1,000 9,745 7,693 3,050 10,743 175 1,000 1,175 Miss Annie Dickson Burgh Bequest Logie Baird Prize Fund County of Argyll Educational Trust Scheme, 1960 Unrestricted Revenue Permanent Endowment Total Funds Unrestricted Revenue Permanent Endowment Total Funds Unrestricted Revenue Permanent Endowment Total Funds Totals At 1 April 2023 1,336 2,948 4,284 1,752 200 1,952 179,086 478,578 657,664 767,964 Incoming Resources 247 - 247 114 - 114 28,345 - 28,345 34,333 Outgoing Resources 36 - 36 17 - 17 22,411 - 22,411 29,700 Gains/ Losses - - - - - - - 43,320 43,320 43,320 At 31 March 2024 1,547 2,948 4,495 1,849 200 2,049 185,020 521,898 706,918 815,917 Page 225
Page 226
This page is intentionally left blank
Page 227
The Corner Bank Chambers 26 Mosley Street Newcastle Upon Tyne NE1 1DF Tel: +44 (0)113 394 2000 www.mazars.com Forvis Mazars LLP is the UK firm of Mazars, an integrated international advisory and accountancy organisation. Mazars LLP is a limited liability partnership registered in England and Wales with registered number OC308299 and with its registered office at Tower Bridge House, St Katharine’s Way, London E1W 1DD. Registered by the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales to carry out audit work. The Trustees Argyll and Bute Council OSCR Trusts Kilmory Lochgilphead Argyll PA31 8RT Direct line +44 (0) 7824 086 593 Email mark.outterside@mazars.co.uk 28 April 2025 Dear Trustees Update of the audit of Argyll and Bute Council OSCR Trusts – Annual Audit Report. As required by International Standards on Auditing (UK), I am writing to communicate that we have completed the audit of Argyll and Bute Council OSCR Trusts. Summary of misstatements I attach a summary of misstatements identified during the audit as Appendix A to this letter. If you wish to discuss these or any other points, then please do not hesitate to contact me. Yours faithfully Mark Outterside Director Appendix 2 Page 227
Page 228
Appendix A – Adjusted & Unadjusted Misstatements and Follow-up on Previously Reported Internal Control Recommendations There were no adjusted and unadjusted misstatements identified during the audit above the trivial threshold of £490. Adjusted disclosure amendments The following disclosure adjustments have been made: • Audit Fees have been updated in the Statement of Financial Activities and note 6. • Several minor adjustments to the annual report and accounts have been made. Unadjusted disclosure amendments Trustees’ Annual Report – The Trustees' Annual Report for the charity does not include a summary of the main achievements of the charity, which is a requirement as per Audit Scotland Technical Guidance. Other deficiencies in internal control Description of deficiency There is an insufficient audit log in respect of grant payments/expenditure. When testing grant expenditure cut- off, we observed that transactions did not have a unique identifier, making it difficult to reconcile them with the corresponding decision records. Potential effects Insufficient audit trails can compromise the effectiveness of the audit process. Recommendation We recommend that the Trusts improve the audit trail for grant expenditure so that transaction entries can be explicitly reconciled to their relevant corresponding decision records. Follow up on previous internal control recommendations Description of deficiency We noted that the Argyll and Bute Council administers more than 5 charitable trusts. Of these, two, namely the Bailey Gilles Bequest and Miss Anne Dixon Burgh Bequest were dormant during the period. Potential effects Administering several charities could pose an extended administrative burden on the Council’s staff. Recommendation We recommend that Argyll and Bute OSCR Trust Trustees consider some of the available proposals for the simplification of accounting for charitable trusts for example: • Reorganise their charities through merging or winding them up, particularly when they appear to be failing to meet their charitable aims (e.g. by not disbursing funds) • Consider appointing an external trustee as this would remove the charity from the scope of section 106. 2023/24 update Ongoing – The Trust has confirmed that it will continue to work with the legal services to identify if there are any further opportunities to do this in 2024/25. Page 228
Page 229
Appendix 3 Forvis Mazars 1 Argyll and Bute Council Comhairle Earra Ghàidheal agus Bhòid Financial Services Financial Services Kintyre House, Snipefield Industrial Estate, Campbeltown, Argyll, PA28 6SY Date: 27/09/24 www.argyll-bute.gov.uk Mark Outterside Forvis Mazars 26 Mosley Street Newcastle Upon Tyne NE1 1DF 24 September 2025 Dear Mark, Argyll and Bute OSCR Trusts - Audit for Year Ended 31 March 2024 This representation letter is provided in connection with your audit of the financial statements of Argyll and Bute OSCR Trusts for the year ended 31 March 2024 for the purpose of expressing an opinion as to whether the financial statements give a true and fair view Part VII of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973 and section 44(1)(c) of the Charities and Trustee Investment (Scotland) Act 2005. We confirm that the following representations are made on the basis of enquiries of management and staff with relevant knowledge and experience (and, where appropriate, inspection of supporting documentation) sufficient to satisfy ourselves that we can properly make each of the following representations to you. Our responsibility for the financial statements and accounting information We believe that we have fulfilled our responsibilities for the true and fair presentation and preparation of the financial statements in accordance with Part VII of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973 and section 44(1)(c) of the Charities and Trustee Investment (Scotland) Act 2005. The financial reporting framework that has been applied in their preparation is applicable law and the United Kingdom Accounting Standards, including Financial Reporting Standard 102 The Financial Reporting Standard applicable in the UK and Republic of Ireland (United Kingdom Generally Accepted Accounting Practice). Our responsibility to provide and disclose relevant information We have provided you with: • access to all information of which we are aware that is relevant to the preparation of the financial statements such as records, documentation and other material; • additional information that you have requested from us for the purpose of the audit; and • unrestricted access to individuals within the charitable trusts you determined it was necessary to contact in order to obtain audit evidence. • We confirm as trustees that we have taken all the necessary steps to make us aware, as trustees, of any relevant audit information and to establish that you, as auditors, are aware of this information. As far as we are aware there is no relevant audit information of which you, as auditors, are unaware Page 229
Page 230
Appendix 3 Forvis Mazars 2 Accounting records We confirm that all transactions that have a material effect on the financial statements have been recorded in the accounting records and are reflected in the financial statements. All other records and related information, including minutes of all management and trustees' meetings, have been made available to you in accordance with the Charities and Trustee Investment (Scotland) Act 2005. Accounting policies We confirm that we have reviewed the accounting policies applied during the year in accordance with Section 10 of Financial Reporting Standard 102 and consider these policies appropriate to faithfully represent the effects of transactions, other events or conditions on the charitable trusts’ financial position and financial performance. Accounting estimates We confirm that the methods, significant assumptions and the data used in making the accounting estimates are appropriate to achieve recognition, measurement or disclosure that is in accordance with the applicable financial reporting framework. We confirm the appropriateness of the measurement process, including related assumptions and models, used by management in determining accounting estimates under UK GAAP, and the consistency of application of the process. We confirm that disclosures related to accounting estimates are complete and appropriate under UK GAAP. Contingencies There are no material contingent losses including pending or potential litigation that should be accrued where: • information presently available indicates that it is probable that an asset has been impaired or a liability had been incurred at the balance sheet date; and • the amount of the loss can be reasonably estimated. There are no material contingent losses that should be disclosed where, although either or both the conditions specified above are not met, there is a reasonable possibility that a loss, or a loss greater than that accrued, may have been incurred at the balance sheet date. There are no contingent gains which should be disclosed. All material matters, including unasserted claims, that may result in litigation against the charitable trusts have been brought to your attention. All known actual or possible litigation and claims whose effects should be considered when preparing the financial statements have been disclosed to you and accounted for and disclosed in accordance with Part VII of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973 and section 44(1)(c) of the Charities and Trustee Investment (Scotland) Act 2005. Laws and regulations We confirm that we have disclosed to you all those events of which we are aware which involve known or suspected non-compliance with laws and regulations, together with the actual or contingent consequences which may arise therefrom. We have complied with all aspects of contractual agreements that would have a material effect on the financial statements in the event of non-compliance. Fraud and error We acknowledge our responsibility as trustees of the charitable trusts, for the design, implementation and maintenance of internal control to prevent and detect fraud and error. We have disclosed to you: Page 230
Page 231
Appendix 3 Forvis Mazars 3 • all the results of our assessment of the risk that the financial statements may be materially misstated as a result of fraud; • all knowledge of fraud or suspected fraud affecting the charitable trusts involving: o management and those charged with governance; o employees who have significant roles in internal control; and o others where fraud could have a material effect on the financial statements. We have disclosed to you all information in relation to any allegations of fraud, or suspected fraud, affecting the charitable trusts' financial statements communicated by employees, former employees, analysts, regulators or others. Related party transactions We confirm that all related party relationships, transactions and balances, have been appropriately accounted for and disclosed in accordance with the Part VII of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973 and section 44(1)(c) of the Charities and Trustee Investment (Scotland) Act 2005. We have disclosed to you the identity of the Argyll and Bute OSCR Trusts’ related parties and all related party relationships and transactions of which we are aware. Transactions with trustees We confirm that the charitable trusts has at no time during the year entered into any arrangement, transaction or agreement to provide credit facilities including loans, quasi-loans, credit transactions, mutually beneficial arrangements, or guarantees or security for the foregoing or assumed or assigned any such rights or liabilities for any trustees or their connected persons, except as permitted by the Companies Act 2006 and as disclosed in the financial statements. No trustee or their connected persons had a direct or indirect material interest in any other transaction or arrangement with the charitable trusts other than those disclosed in accordance with section 413 of the Companies Act 2006 or exempted from disclosure by the Act. Future commitments We are not aware of any plans, intentions or commitments that may materially affect the carrying value or classification of assets and liabilities or give rise to additional liabilities. Other Matters We confirm in relation to the following matters that: • COVID-19 – We have assessed the continued impact of the COVID-19 Virus pandemic on the Argyll and Bute OSCR Trusts and the financial statements, including the impact of mitigation measures and uncertainties, and are satisfied that the financial statements and supporting notes fairly reflect that assessment. • Ukraine – We confirm that we have carried out an assessment of the potential impact of the continued conflict in Ukraine on the Argyll and Bute OSCR Trusts and there is no significant impact on the Argyll and Bute OSCR Trusts’ operations from restrictions or sanctions in place. • We confirm that we have assessed the impact on the Argyll and Bute OSCR Trusts of the on-going Global Banking challenges, in particular whether there is any impact on the Argyll and Bute OSCR Trusts’ ability to continue as a going concern, and on the post balance sheet events disclosures. Subsequent events We confirm all events subsequent to the date of the financial statements and for which the Charities and Trustee Investment (Scotland) Act 2005 and relevant legislation and United Kingdom Accounting Standards require adjustment or disclosure have been adjusted or disclosed. Page 231
Page 232
Appendix 3 Forvis Mazars 4 Should further material events occur after the date of this letter which may necessitate revision of the figures included in the financial statements or inclusion of a note thereto, we will advise you accordingly. Going concern To the best of our knowledge there is nothing to indicate that the charitable trusts will not continue as a going concern in the foreseeable future. The period to which we have paid particular attention in assessing the appropriateness of the going concern basis is not less than twelve months from the date of approval of the financial statements. Annual Report The disclosures within the Annual Report fairly reflect our understanding of the Argyll and Bute OSCR Trusts’ financial and operating performance over the period covered by the financial statements. Unadjusted misstatements We confirm that there are no uncorrected misstatements. Yours sincerely Councillor J Lynch Trustee 24 September 2025 Page 232
Page 233
ARGYLL AND BUTE COUNCIL COUNCIL LEGAL AND REGULATORY SUPPORT 24 SEPTEMBER 2025 COUNCIL CONSTITUTION REVIEW 2025 1.0 INTRODUCTION This report considers proposed changes to the Council Constitution. The Council generally reviews the Constitution annually and various changes are proposed which take into consideration decisions agreed by Council since the last review. An overview of key changes is provided at Appendix 1. 2.0 RECOMMENDATIONS 2.1 The Council is invited to agree to the adjustments to the Constitution as set out in Appendix 1 3.0 DETAIL 3.1 3.2 The proposed changes to the constitution are driven generally by incorporating updates in respect of decisions previously agreed by Council as set out in Appendix 1 and updates to reflect changes within the Council. In addition to the annual review, amendments to the Constitution will be considered in the event of any potential alterations to operational and procedural requirements. 4.0 CONCLUSION 4.1 4.2 The proposed changes will address issues arising since the last revision in September 2024. Council is recommended to agree the adjustments to the Constitution as outlined in Appendix 1 to ensure the Constitution remains up-to- date and facilitates the operation of regulatory functions. 5.0 IMPLICATIONS 5.1 Policy - These revisions will keep the Constitution up to date. 5.2 Financial – None 5.3 Legal - None Page 233 Agenda Item 10
Page 234
5.4 HR - None 5.5 Customer Service - None 5.6 Risk - None 5.7 Climate Change - None 5.8 Fairer Scotland Duty - An IIA is not required for procedures. 5.9 Equalities - protected characteristics - An IIA is not required for procedures. However, we have noted that the provisions have no adverse impact in terms of equality issues. 5.10 Consumer Duty – An IIA is not required for procedures. 5.11 Island Communities - An IIA is not required for procedures. 5.12 Children’s Rights and Wellbeing - None Douglas Hendry - Executive Director with responsibility for Legal and Regulatory Support Policy Lead – Councillor Mark Irvine 24 July 2025 For further information contact: David Logan, Head of Legal and Regulatory Support, Kilmory, Lochgilphead Tel: 01546 604322 APPENDICES Appendix 1: Review of Constitution 2025 – Summary of Key Changes Page 234
Page 235
Review of Constitution 2025 – Summary of Key Changes APPENDIX 1 For discussion Reference – Current constitution Page & Paragraph detail Proposed amendment Full Document Formatting of the entire document to ensure compliance with accessibility for screen readers. Correction of typographical errors Part A The Constitution Page 8, Section 3(1) Add “Economic Strategy” to the list of plans, policies and strategies which form the policy framework on the basis that Economy is a Council priority. Part C Scheme of Delegation Page 62, Paragraph (14) Appointments Panel - HSCP Under Heads of Service – remove reference to Council Leader and NHS Board Chair, which no longer apply, and amend paragraph to read - ‘Heads of Service – Panel of 5: 4 IJB Members (2 Council and 2 NHS – to include Chair and Vice Chair plus 2 others or their nominated substitutes) plus the Chief Officer as a voting member.’ Part E Contract Standing Orders Page 178, Section 1.8, 2nd line Page 179, Section 1.9.2, line 4 Page 181, Section 4.0.1 At Page 178 at Section 1.8 second line remove “, so far as reasonably practicable,” Purpose of Change For consistency with the Sustainable Procurement Strategy At Page 179 at Section 1.9.2 line 4 add “real” before living wage Purpose of Change To ensure compliance with Sottish Government Fair Work First Guidance At Page 181 at Section 4.0.1 remove “Toolkit” and replace with “Management Policy” Page 235
Page 236
Page 182, Section 4.5.1, Line 1 Page 189 At Page 182 – 4.5.1 at line one remove reference to “report in the form set out at para 8.8 of “ and replace with “ using the agreed modification approval templates referred in SGN17” Purpose of Change To ensure consistency with SGN 17 At Page 189 – remove Procurement Manual 2023 and replace with insert of Procurement Manual 2025 (https://intranet.argyll- bute.gov.uk/sites/default/files/2025- 02/PROCUREMENT%20MANUAL%202025.pdf) Purpose of Change To ensure consistency with most recent Manual Page 236
Page 237
ARGYLL AND BUTE COUNCIL COUNCIL LEGAL AND REGULATORY SUPPORT 24 SEPTEMBER 2025 POLITICAL MANAGEMENT ARRANGEMENTS 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1 This report sets out the updated political composition of the Council. 2.0 RECOMMENDATIONS 2.1 The Council is asked to consider the updated Political Composition of the Council as outlined in Appendix 1. 3.0 DETAIL 3.1 The updated Political Composition of the Council is provided at Appendix 1 and sets out political group membership and leadership. 4.0 CONCLUSION 4.1 This report sets out the updated Political Composition of the Council. 5.0 IMPLICATIONS 5.1 Policy – none 5.2 Financial – none 5.3 Legal – none 5.4 HR – none 5.5 Customer Service – none 5.6 Risk – none 5.7 Climate Change – none 5.8 Fairer Scotland Duty – none Page 237 Agenda Item 11
Page 238
5.9 Equalities Protected Characteristics – none 5.10 Consumer Duty – none 5.11 Island Communities – none 5.12 Children’s Rights and Wellbeing – none Douglas Hendry Executive Director with responsibility for Legal and Regulatory Support Policy Lead - Mark Irvine 3rd September 2025 For further information contact: Shona Barton, Governance Manager (01436) 657605 Appendix 1 – Updated political composition of the Council Page 238
Page 239
Appendix 1 - Political Composition of Argyll and Bute Council Argyll and Bute Council – Political Composition ARGYLL FIRST (2) Jennifer Kean (Ind) Douglas Philand (Ind) (Leader of Argyll First) * INDEPENDENT (7) Kieron Green * Mark Irvine * Andrew Kain * Tommy Macpherson Ian James MacQuire Liz McCabe Alastair Redman INDEPENDENT CONSERVATIVE AND UNIONIST (1) Garret Corner CONSERVATIVE AND UNIONIST (1) Yvonne McNeilly SCOTTISH GREEN PARTY (1) Luna Martin* SCOTTISH LABOUR PARTY (1) Fiona Howard * SCOTTISH LIBERAL DEMOCRATS (4) Graham Hardie * Paul Donald Kennedy * Page 239
Page 240
Ross Moreland * (Leader of Scottish Liberal Democrat Group) William Sinclair * SCOTTISH NATIONAL PARTY (12) John Armour * Gordon Blair * Jan Brown * Math Campbell-Sturgess * Audrey E Forrest (Depute Leader, SNP Group) * Anne Horn * Willie Hume * Reeni Kennedy Boyle * Jim Lynch (Leader of the SNP Group) * Dougie McFadzean * Julie McKenzie* Iain Shonny Paterson * * Member of the Administration Partnership The Argyll, Lomond and the Isles Group (TALIG) (7) Maurice Corry (Con) Amanda Hampsey (Con) Daniel Hampsey (Con) Gary Mulvaney (Con) (Leader (and Leader of the Opposition)) Gemma Penfold (Con) Andrew Vennard (Con) (Depute Leader) Peter Wallace (Con) Note: Con - Scottish Conservative and Unionist Party Ind - Independent Page 240
Page 241
ARGYLL AND BUTE COUNCIL COUNCIL HEALTH & SOCIAL CARE PARTNERSHIP 24 SEPTEMBER 2025 CHIEF SOCIAL WORK OFFICER REPORT 2024 - 2025 1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Chief Social Work Officer (CSWO) for each of Scotland’s 32 local authorities is required to provide an annual report for Scottish Government. It is due in the autumn and relates to the previous financial year. It is important to note that the report relates to that timeframe with only minimum reference to the period since. There is a requirement for every local authority in Scotland to appoint a professionally qualified CSWO. This is set out in Section 3 of the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968. In Argyll & Bute the role of CSWO is held by the Head of Children, Families & Justice. The CSWO Report for the financial year 2024/2025 is attached in Appendix 1. Page 241 Agenda Item 12
Page 242
ARGYLL AND BUTE COUNCIL COUNCIL HEALTH & SOCIAL CARE PARTNERSHIP 24 SEPTEMBER 2025 CHIEF SOCIAL WORK OFFICER REPORT 2024 - 2025 2.0 INTRODUCTION 2.1 The Chief Social Work Officer (CSWO) for each of Scotland’s 32 local authorities is required to provide an annual report for Scottish Government. It is due in the autumn and relates to the previous financial year. 2.2 The CSWO Report for the financial year 2024/2025 is attached in Appendix 1. 2.3 These annual reports from all CSWOs are submitted to the Office of the Chief Social Work Advisor (OCSWA) to the Scottish Government. OCSWA will subsequently produce an overview report setting out the state of Social Work and Social Care throughout Scotland. 2.4 It is important to note that the report relates to the timeframe of the last financial year with only minimum reference to the period since. It is fully acknowledged that there have been significant changes since the period relevant to the report, however these are not within the reporting timeframe. 2.5 Within the Report, tribute is paid to the efforts of Social Work and Social Care staff. This thanks requires to be re-iterated here. 3.0 RECOMMENDATIONS 3.1 Members are invited to note the key activities outlined in the attached CSWO Report 2024/2025. 3.2 Members are asked to acknowledge the continued commitment of Social Work and Social Care staff in the delivery of services. Page 242
Page 243
3.3 Members are asked to note that the Report will be submitted to the Office of the Child Social Work Adviser to the Scottish Government. 4.0 DETAIL 4.1 See attached CSWO Report 2024/2025 5.0 CONCLUSION 5.1 As per recommendations. 6.0 IMPLICATIONS 6.1 Policy A large number of policy and legislative initiatives are dealt with in the report. 6.2 Financial While there are no direct financial implications of this Report it should be noted that the recruitment crisis in Social Work and Social Care continues. There is a finite pool of qualified staff across the nation and some local authorities are increasing salaries to attract staff. Discussions on the formation of a National Social Work Agency continue with debate on a return to national pay and conditions for Social Work staff. During the timeframe of this CSWO report costs relating to commissioned services were continuing to rise at a time when public sector budgets were under strain. A number of third sector services ceased as a result of financial and staffing pressures. The cost of continuing to provide Social Work and Social Care services, during a period of rising need, is outstripping the available budgets and the available staffing resource. The financial position of the IJB is set out with the report. Without investment Social Work and Social Care services will continue to require to prioritise work and time scales for certain aspects of our responsibilities will lengthen. 6.3 Legal This Reports meets the Council’s obligations under Section 3 of the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968. 6.4 HR None 6.5 Customer Service None 6.6 Risk No specific corporate risk Page 243
Page 244
6.7 Climate Change None 6.8 Fairer Scotland Duty None 6.9 Equalities - protected characteristics None 6.10 Consumer Duty None 6.11 Island Communities It is undoubtedly harder to recruit suitably qualified Social Work and Social Care staff to live and work in our island communities. Services provided to our island communities are more precarious and limited than those on the mainland of Scotland. 6.12 Children’s Rights and Wellbeing No direct implications David Gibson, Chief Social Work Officer 25 August 2025 For further information contact: David Gibson (david.gibson@argyll-bute.org.uk) APPENDICES Appendix 1: Chief Social Work Officer Report 2024/2025 Page 244
Page 245
Appendix 1 Argyll and Bute Chief Social Work Officer Annual Report 2024/25 Daibhidh MacGileabairt David Gibson Àrd-Oifigear Obair Shòisealta Chief Social Work Officer Earra Ghàidheal is Bhòid Argyll and Bute Page 245
Page 246
3 | P a g e Contents: 1. Introduction Page 4 2. Governance and Accountability Page 7 3. Service Quality and Performance Page 10 Adults Children, Families & Justice Statistics 4. Resources Page 39 Financial Overview 5. Workforce Page 41 6. Conclusion Page 45 Page 246
Page 247
4 | P a g e Chief Social Work Officers Report 1. Introduction This is the annual Chief Social Work Officer (CSWO) report for Argyll and Bute for the period from 1st April 2024 to 31st March 2025. On reviewing the CSWO reports for the last few years many of the pressures remain the same. Indeed, they may be intensifying. In Argyll & Bute the geographic challenges are a fact of life. Distance and transport often being key factors impacting our communities. Emergency planning is in place and has had to be stood up a number of times due to the impact of storms on arterial mainland routes. In the last year geographic challenges have arguably been exacerbated for our island communities by the increasingly fragile ferry service. It is of note that at a national and local level those of us living and working on our islands still require to remind policy makers of the requirements of the Islands (Scotland) Act 2018 and the need for Island Community Impact Assessments. Remote and island communities must be central to thinking and not on the periphery. Demographic challenges continue. The number of people of working age is decreasing. The workforce is ageing. The proportion of those who are retired is increasing and the numbers over 75 years old is increasing at a faster rate. To put it simply, for Social Work and Social Care this means that we do not have the people to look after the people. There are vacancies throughout the workforce. Continuing to attempt to offer services in the ways that have been done up till now is quite simply a futile task. We cannot be expected to provide the same service for increasing numbers of people with less staff. Digital solutions such as AI require to be invested in and accelerated, freeing staff to engage in those elements of service which require a relational approach. The Third Sector is as impacted as the public sector. The start of this reporting period saw the closure of two services for children with disability. Efforts at procurement failed and work had to concentrate on providing support in the only way remaining, direct payments. In some instances, pressure is primarily financial, however recruitment and retention are often more pressing. The shape of services and provision is changing out of necessity. It is worthy of note, although developing outside the time period of this report, that there is talk of reducing visas for those coming from abroad to work in Social Care. There is further discussion of raising the minimum salary to be deemed a skilled worker for visa purposes. Such initiatives will worsen our staffing position. Recruiting from outside the UK has been a successful angle for Argyll & Bute with staff coming from both the EU and further afield. The financial pressures within the wider sector of health, Social Care and Social Work are well documented. Audit Scotland noted in July 2024 an increasing funding gap in IJBs across Scotland. Argyll & Bute have managed their resources in as prudent as possible a way however like many others this has relied on one off savings, vacancies and financial reserves. As Audit Scotland noted this is not sustainable. Given the demographic realities it is not surprising that adult Social Care is the largest fiscal pressure. Followed by the cost of children’s external placements. The gap between the shape our communities would like services to take and what can be afforded is increasing. The gap between the resources needed to meet the statutory duties placed on Social Work and Social Care and the budget being given to do that, feels to be increasing. Page 247
Page 248
5 | P a g e The pressure from policy and legislation continues. In January 2025 efforts to move towards a National Care Service were effectively abandoned with structural reform aimed at a national service model being dropped. Responsibility for Social Work and Social Care is being retained by Local Authorities. In last year’s CSWO report it was acknowledged that the debate on the NCS had swallowed up significant time and effort. The ambiguity around the future structures was leading to the potential for planning blight. There is now a degree of certainty, however during the period covered by this report, it remained unclear what if anything of the NCS debate would be progressed through an alternative legislative path. Responsibilities resultant from the Health and Care (Staffing) (Scotland) Act 2019 began to come into force. The main impact for Social Work and Social Care being increased reporting on the staffing within registered services. Consultations were held on various elements of practice. For example: The potential to regulate the role of Social Work Assistant through the Scottish Social Services Council (SSSC). For example: Moving on from Care into Adulthood – improving transitions for young people leaving care. It is expected these will result in further guidance or legislation and will be reported on in subsequent CSWO reports. Of particular note is the milestone incorporation of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child into Scots Law. It came into force on 16th July 2024. Children need to be considered when taking decisions on any aspect of public life. Scotland taking a lead in promoting the rights of children is highly commendable and it is now imperative the wherewithal is provided to ensure there is the ability to meet these raised expectations. Individually all these policy and legal developments are to be welcomed. It is when taken together the picture becomes one of increasing pressure with a real danger of policy ‘clutter’. Professionals are not getting the opportunity to consolidate knowledge, understanding or practice. With so many competing demands, inevitably Social Work and Social Care staff are having to prioritise what can be done. We are forced into a tiered approach. It is to be seen whether the financial support from central government matches the policy aspirations. Given the challenges faced, our staff need to be congratulated on the positive impact they manage to have on people’s lives. It is in the relationships we develop with people, not the numbers of reports or assessments, where the true worth of our Social Workers and Social Care staff is experienced. As a local community and a nation, we require to recognise that it is often individual staff staying late, working beyond their contracted hours, that is keeping the Social Work and Social Care system running. As always, I use this report to thank them for their commitment. At an organisational level developments are taking place. Of note over the time period of this report has been the extensive work, along with Police Scotland and Education colleagues, on child protection practice. Argyll & Bute has been able to establish a Bairns Hoose and are now partnering with West Dunbartonshire, NHS Highland, NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde and Police Scotland to establish the support model for traumatised children. Focus is now turning to adult protection. The Older Adult Strategy has been developed and agreed with the IJB. The Collaborative Care Home Group has continued to develop a wider, more holistic approach to supporting the entire care home estate including our external partners. An Intensive Resettlement Pathway has been implemented for Unaccompanied Asylum Seeking Children. Page 248
Page 249
6 | P a g e This report will be in the format shared by the Office of the Chief Social Work Advisor. The report will cover: • Governance & Accountability • Service Quality & Performance • Resources • Workforce Page 249
Page 250
7 | P a g e 2. Governance and Accountability Throughout the last year the governance and accountability of the CSWO, Social Work and Social Care services has largely remained constant. As Chief Social Work Officer for Argyll and Bute, I am also Head of Children, Families and Justice. This portfolio includes direct responsibility for all Social Work services for Children, Families and Justice as well as all associated resources such as Children’s Houses. Within the scheme of delegation deployed in Argyll & Bute my responsibilities also include health services ranging across CAMHS, Maternity, School Nursing, paediatric AHPs and Health Visiting. There are four staff who can deputise for the CSWO. The Professional Lead for Social Work in adult services, the Senior Service Manager for Justice, the Senior Service Manager for Children & Families Operations and the Senior Service Manager for Children’s Resources. All require to be qualified registered Social Workers and work for the Local Authority. This deputization has been strengthened in the last year. As CSWO I am a member of the Senior Leadership Team (SLT) of the Argyll and Bute Health and Social Care Partnership (HSCP) and have specific accountability for the delivery of Social Work and Social Care services ensuring that the statutory duties of the profession are delivered across children’s, adult’s and justice services. Partnership working takes place with a wide range of multi-agency professionals including the Chief Officer of the HSCP, Chief Executive of the Council, Elected Members, managers and practitioners. There are regular meetings with the Chief Executive of Argyll and Bute Council and the Chief Officer of the HSCP. Importantly there are increasing strong relationships with senior staff in Police Scotland, Scottish Fire & Rescue, Scottish Children’s Reporters Administration and Third Sector organisations. As Head of Children, Families and Justice the strength of relationship with the Heads of Education facilitates joint working on strategy and ensures we are also ‘getting it right for every child’ on a case-by-case basis. It is recognised that work of children’s Social Work services are intrinsically linked to the work of the Education Service. To strengthen this there are now regular meetings involving the Heads of Service, Chief Officer and Executive Director. There are continuing discussions on a Single Authority Model (SAM) like the Single Island Authority (SIA) being developed by Comhairle Nan Eilean Siar and Orkney. As Social Work necessarily must work beyond organisational boundaries, any movement to ensure such boundaries are not obstacles has huge saliency. It is of particular interest for Children’s Services as any move towards closer integration with Education, the largest universal service for children, can only be of advantage. These discussions are at an early stage however are supported by Scottish Government. I am a member of various key groups and committees within the organisation. Clear governance and reporting arrangements are in place. The CSWO provides professional advice and guidance on all Social Work matters and provides assurance that Social Work services are being delivered to the best standards and within the required statutory and policy guidelines. Regular performance reporting around risk management is also provided with the CSWO specifically reporting through the Chief Officers Group for Public Protection. The CSWO is the MAPPA (Multi-agency public protection arrangements) lead officer and is a member of the Adult Support and Protection and Child Protection Committees. The CSWO is part of the Community Justice Partnership. The CSWO, or those deputising, continues to have input into Care Home oversight. The CSWO further reports to the IJB on key changes and developments regarding the Social Work profession. Page 250
Page 251
8 | P a g e As mentioned in the introduction the push towards a National Care Service has been effectively abandoned. Nevertheless, further legislation on elements of the original concept is expected in the shape of a Care Reform Act. For the period of this report, it was as yet unclear what that will be. Major change in the scheme of delegation is however no longer envisaged. The complicated health pathways and governance does impact Social Work. While part of NHS Highland, many specialist pathways lead to services in NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde. In Social Work terms this has impacted forensic services for Justice Social Work, mental health pathways and the diagnosis / review of children with Additional Support Needs. Work continues on Service Level Agreements; however, this can be labour intensive and slow. It continues to feel that Argyll and Bute HSCP are the junior partner in these negotiations and Social Work only one small voice within the HSCP. NHS Highland did have a representative on the Senior Officers Group (SOG) for the Multi-Agency Public Protection Arrangements (MAPPA) throughout 2024. This is an improvement on previous years. It is clear from discussion at a national level that there are a variety of models for the governance of Social Work. This is due to the variety of organisational arrangements the profession finds itself in. Dictated in large part by the various local schemes of delegation. Work continued through this time period on developing the concept of a National Social Work Agency and with that perhaps an increasing expectation of consistency. The Care Inspectorate carried out a thematic review of Social Work governance in Scotland. Reporting in March 2025. There were several key findings: • Governance arrangements are generally effective despite being complex. There was a suggestion of developing dedicated Social Work governance boards in each area. Along with Social Work Scotland colleagues this is a function Argyll & Bute would hope to develop in the next year. • Social work influence is sometimes limited within Health and Social Care Partnerships (HSCPs), with health priorities often dominating. Chief Social Work Officers (CSWOs) play a key role in amplifying Social Work's voice and ensuring there is an understanding of the role of Social Work including statutory responsibilities which lie with the profession. • Social work values are upheld by staff at all levels, with SSSC Codes of Practice being key reference points for ethical practice. • Assurance mechanisms are mostly effective, though performance reporting does not always capture the full breadth of Social Work activity, particularly in adult services. • Significant challenges exist regarding staffing and financial resources, with recruitment and retention being critical issues nationwide, amplified in rural and island settings. • Staff support systems are generally effective, with supervision arrangements working well, though increasing caseload complexity impacts staff wellbeing. There were also several national challenges identified and will be touched at various points in this report. • Social work services struggle to match supply with increasing demand and complex need, risking their ability to fulfil statutory duties. • Traditional relationship-based practice is being replaced by more transactional engagement, particularly in adult social work. Page 251
Page 252
9 | P a g e • A national approach is needed urgently to address the recruitment and retention crisis and ensure social work sustainability. As CSWO I am also involved in several national groups. These include chairing Social Work Scotland’s (SWS) Workforce and Resources Standing Committee and as such I am a member of the SWS Board, membership of the national steering group for the Scottish Child Interview Model, and membership of the Remote and Island CSWOs group. Importantly, these allow the issues of remote and island practice to be brought to bear on the national stage. Page 252
Page 253
10 | P a g e 3. Service Quality and Performance Service quality and performance is managed on an ongoing basis and in several ways. This is in line with the discharge arrangements of the CSWO and the requirement to manage the performance and quality of Social Work services being delivered. The CSWO is an active participant in the key service performance and improvement meetings including Clinical and Care Governance, the Chief Officers Group for Public Protection, Child Protection Committee, Adult Support and Protection Committee, Multi Agency Public Protection Arrangements and the Care Home Oversight Group etc. This is set out in detail in the previous section on governance. As all of Social Work and Social Care in Argyll & Bute are delegated to the IJB / HSCP the internal clinical and care structures are inherently involved in the governance of the profession. Nevertheless, there is a recognition that much of statutory Social Work has assurance processes which are by necessity multi-agency in nature. Most obviously CPC, APC and MAPPA. These are national structures which we require to have and recognises that in the case of Justice or Children’s Social Work these functions are not consistently delegated to IJBs across the country. The potential for duplication requires to be constantly avoided. As mentioned above, the Care Inspectorate carried out a thematic review of Social Work governance. Social Work Scotland is working on these recommendations along with Chief Social Work Officers. It is expected a standardised Social Work governance framework will result with each area being able to add bespoke elements to address local integration schemes. A specific Social Work governance group is anticipated, encompassing all aspects of the profession. During the period covered by this report work has been ongoing on implementation of the Health and Care (Staffing) (Scotland) Act 2019. Social Work is not covered by the Act, however regulated services are. This includes the likes of the Fostering & Adoption Service, Care Homes, and Children’s Houses. Early indications are that the Act has added to the reporting load rather than making any practical difference. All regulated services are already scrutinised by the Care Inspectorate and address staffing adequacy with them. In the Fostering and Adoption Services which are covered by the Act it is only Social Workers who are employed, who are paradoxically not covered by the Act. Notwithstanding the complications of the Act, Argyll & Bute remains committed to attempting to reach staffing levels across Social Work and Social Care services which allow us to meet our statutory duties. Within Argyll and Bute HSCP there is an attempt to deal with health, Social Work and Social Care complaints and incidents within an integrated framework. There are regular Quality and People Safety (QPS) meetings involving all professional leads and senior managers. All Social Work and Social Care complaints are dealt with through established Council procedures. Page 253
Page 254
11 | P a g e Performance monitoring has also been thorough, and we have contributed to all statistical data requests from the Scottish Government. Variations between localities within Argyll and Bute have been recognised and reflected on. Data within an authority with a small population must always be treated carefully. A small variation in numbers can look significant when presented as percentages. Significant percentage falls or increases must be examined to uncover the complex human narratives which often lie behind the numbers. Performance and planning require to consider the objective data and the subjective human stories. The Eclipse case management system is deployed in Argyll & Bute. Initial implementation took place in 2023. It would be accurate to state that the system continues to need development to ensure it is producing accurate data and is efficiently recording the necessary information. It is proving to be a labour-intensive process, and the advantages of the system have still to be fully realised. Work is taking place to ensure Eclipse works alongside the Civica date storage system. Throughout 2024 children and families Social Work have had to commit an operational Social Work Team Manager to support the Eclipse development. Following a child protection file reading exercise an action plan was developed along with a multi- agency leadership group, first line managers group and CPC. The commitment to this work across agencies has been exemplary and supported by Council Chief Executive and Police Scotland Area Commander. Over the coming year there will require to be a replication of this work in Adult Support and Protection. Care Inspectorate activity remains challenging as the feedback is very much that people continue to feel ‘done to’ by the current inspection model rather than ‘worked with’. The current model of inspection is not taking the context of a national staffing crisis, nor the aftermath of social problems associated with the pandemic or the UK’s exit from the EU into consideration, nor Argyll & Bute’s remote and island geography, nor the small scale of our structures compared to the urban centre. As previously reported inspection experiences can be demotivating with people feeling blamed without the context within which they are practicing being fully acknowledged, understood and reflected through inspection reports. Senior HSCP staff are meeting regularly with local link inspectors and national Care Inspectorate leaders to ensure a greater degree of partnership working in improvement activity. Relations with the local link inspector for Argyll & Bute are excellent. The Care Inspectorate have indicated their focus over 2025/2026 will on vulnerable children looked after at home. There is currently a consultation taking place on how the Care Inspectorate / Scottish Government will scrutinise the functioning of Chief Officer Groups for Public Protection. There have been no strategic inspections during this reporting period. Adult Services Adult services have two Heads of Service responsible for different aspects of Argyll & Bute’s services. These are integrated management posts therefore also cover significant elements of health services in addition to Social Work and Social Care. The portfolios covered by Heads of Service in Argyll and Bute are significantly wider than the equivalent in many other local authorities. The ‘all in’ nature of Page 254
Page 255
12 | P a g e integration in Argyll and Bute dictates this wide portfolio. For example, Argyll and Bute is the only Health & Social Care Partnership in Scotland where maternity services are delegated. During the period covered by this report one of the adult Heads of Service was absent and being covered by a member of the health team acting up. The two adult Heads of Service cover practice team Social Work and specialist teams such as Adult Support & Protection and mental health. The exact portfolio each one covers has changed over time and during the period of temporary cover this changed again. Adult Area Team Social Work Adult Area Team Social Work sits within locality or operational teams, managed by Area Managers. These Area Managers are responsible for services across their locality including social work and community health services and community hospitals. Like the Heads of Service these are integrated management posts and can come from either employer. Currently the incumbents of these posts are all NHS employees. This creates risks to Social Work supervision and management. There is a degree of mitigation in place with an updated supervision procedure being developed to ensure professional standards, support and supervision are in place. Nevertheless, further work is required to ensure the ‘golden thread’ of Social Work responsibility is not diluted any further. Of note is the previous mention of a Social Work Governance Board to cover all aspects of the profession. The Professional Lead for Social Work leads on the Newly Qualified Supported Year programme and coordinates and facilitates the Newly Qualified Social Work Forums, Social Work Team Manager Forums and Social Work Assistant Development forums. These all add to the assurance and standardisation of practice. In last years CSWO report we pointed to statistical data which suggested a downward trend in referrals for our services. Caution was advised due to changes in the reporting mechanisms. This year’s statistical data, which are reported later in the report, would now indicate a steadying of the referral rate to somewhere around 110 or so per month on average. Other metrics would suggest rising need. For example, the number of adults in receipt of care at home services is trending upwards over the last year. Not unsurprisingly the number of reviews of Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar 2023/24 260 225 177 167 128 158 102 146 122 129 2024/25 113 114 85 148 107 105 123 104 113 143 125 82 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 Adult Social Care Referrals by Month and Year Page 255
Page 256
13 | P a g e such care is also on the rise. This increase in workload has to be seen with the context of staffing issues, third sector organisations ‘handing back’ services and financial restrictions. (Data Dashboards 2022/23 & 2023/24) Older Adults The older adult strategy- Promoting Independence and Well Being was completed and agreed by the IJB in 2025. The development of a year one action plan is underway and will be reported in next year’s CSWO report. The strategy covers health, Social Work and Social Care. In summary: • Redefinition of Single Point of Contact (SPoC) Access • Redesign of Assessment and Care Co-ordination, including Care Reviews • Preventative Models of Care – Urgent Community Response and a redefinition of care beds • Reablement approach is a vein running throughout Future planning began on: • A redesign of care homes and housing beds based on detailed profiling of population and bed use predictions. These predictions were completed in the first quarter of 2025 and potential options appraisal models of care beds for the future will be ready for engagement and consultation in the autumn of 2025. • Islands approach to our health, Social Care and Social Work. During this period the care home on Tigh-a-Rhuda, Tiree received island and HSCP funding to redesign the care home and create en-suite rooms and staff accommodation. The care home on Islay, Gortonvogie was strengthened in terms of its staff recruitment and staff engagement, although remains vulnerable due to the level of agency staffing required. • A wholesale organisational redesign of Argyll and Bute care at home services. A focus on digital and training is well underway. Consultation events were carried out with front line staff and the first stage of organisational redesign for front line carers is in progression. The wider organisational review of care at home is in train to be completed in 2026. • The focus on digital first and what it can achieve including a scheduling system for care at home, consideration of devices to decrease distress at home, virtual medication prompting and care provision, this is progressing as part of the care at home steering group. • Realistic public conversations about health, Social Care and Social Work capabilities and how the challenging financial climate is likely to impact what we can sustainably offer. Collaborative Care Home Group During 2024-25, the Collaborative Care Home Group has continued to develop a wider, more holistic approach to supporting the entire care home estate across Argyll & Bute including our external partners. The group has been successful in recruiting into a Team Lead for Care Home Review post. This role undertook an evaluation of the reviews being carried out across all homes, identifying good practice and existing barriers to achieving success in this area. The legacy of this role has been a newly agreed process for assessing and collating care planning information for each resident and ensuring that an agreed process is in place for conducting reviews in line with legislative requirements. Page 256
Page 257
14 | P a g e Care Governance processes continue to be strengthened across the sector. Within Argyll and Bute our Care Home and Care at Home Clinical & Care Governance group meets quarterly assessing learning to be achieved and agreeing on guidance documents. This has included the wide-ranging guidance developed to ensure consistency when making last minute changes to rotas to maintain acceptable staffing levels. Care at Home Following on from the questionnaire sent out to service users last year we have continued to forge ahead with our wide-ranging review of the service, something which has not been done in 10-15 years. As well as hearing from staff via the questionnaire, we have also met with staff across locations to hear their thoughts on the service, what works well, what we could do better, how they see the service evolving and how they wish to be involved in this evolution. Comments heard from staff included the integration of better face to face training in their roles, more time with managers to develop their skills and abilities and a realignment of their roles and job descriptions to better reflect what they do on a day-to-day basis. This review is continuing at this time with a steering group driving forward the various subgroups set up to examine how we can achieve organisations change, better training for staff, a more sustainable financial model and a more tech integrated service. Integrating technical advances into the service shouldn’t be seen as something to add on, this should be an option to be explored with everyone in receipt of care to determine how best to meet their needs. The significant financial pressures on care at home to be more sustainable is something that we are working towards. Examining ways of using our resources more efficiently as well as focussing on reducing our recent over reliance on agency staff across areas such as Oban. (It is acknowledged that the debate on the shape of care at home services has developed in recent months, however it is out with the time scale of this report to make any substantive comment.) Day Services Day services for older adults provide a key role in offering respite for carers. It is recognised however that there is uneven coverage of these services across Argyll and Bute. A full review of our existing day supports is underway. Drop-in sessions have taken place to garner opinions and comments from those using the services along with their representatives and families. We have commissioned an external research company to conduct a mapping exercise of all existing day supports available across our locality areas, identifying gaps and where further provision and diversification of services could be of use to the wider community. Adult Support and Protection: Over the year there have been 1017 Adult Support and Protection (ASP) Referrals, including both Vulnerable Person and Adult at Risk, equating to twelve referrals per one thousand population. 349 Adult at Risk referrals were actioned as formal adult protection Inquiries, this represents a slight increase on last year’s figures identifying 327 AP inquiries. Page 257
Page 258
15 | P a g e Through 2024/25 ASP activity has again been affected by staffing sickness, retention and recruitment challenges. This impacted the ability to continue with a central Adult Protection Team. To ensure that the service continued to provide timely and effective ASP intervention across the Partnership we were obliged to revert to sharing all ASP referrals across all the locality teams. Owing to staffing shortages and the volume of work we continued to struggle to meet our defined timescales for completion of initial Inquiry within 5 days of receipt of referral. We remain confident however, from our monitoring of ASP activity, that inquiries were conducted in a timescale in keeping with the needs of the individual. We continued to work with our colleagues in the Eclipse Systems Support and Performance and Information Teams to ensure that the Eclipse IT enabled us to record our risk analysis of an adult’s circumstances and our plans for effective protection. The collection of data for both our own and national purposes continue to improve as both teams work on the system revisions required. Data analysis revealed that once again Police Scotland are our most prolific referrers, representing 53% of all our Vulnerable Person and Adult at Risk referrals. We work closely with our colleagues in the Police Concern Hub and our monthly Multi-Agency Forums enabled us to work together to protect and support many of the adults identified within these referrals. We welcomed the opportunity to work with new Concern Hub officers earlier this year, particularly in developing our joint working through use of multiagency Initial referral discussions. We have also noted increased referral numbers from the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service (SFRS) who also attend our Multiagency Forums. Self-harm and self-neglect together totalled 43% of the identified types of principal harm. The SFRS are most supportive in working with adults whose self- harm and neglect results in concerns for their safety within the home. Since the retirement of our external trainer in early 2024, we have been unable to sustain the high numbers of training session we had previously achieved, particularly with our Social Work Council Officers and other significant professional groups who are involved in regular ASP activities. Throughout the year, we have endeavoured to maintain the opportunities for staff to participate in essential learning and development through an increase in level 1 ASP Awareness sessions, some bespoke sessions for specific staff groups and ‘bitesize’ ASP process training sessions between our quarterly Council Officer Forums. Throughout 2024, work took place to revise our substantial document ‘Understanding Adult Support and Protection Procedure in Argyll and Bute’. It was issued by the Adult Protection Committee (APC) in November 2024 and is designed to provide practical guidance to all staff within the Partnership involved in supporting and protecting adults at risk of harm. Having completed our last ASP file reading audit in January 2024, we committed to ongoing annual audit. We agreed to look more extensively at a reduced number of files and undertake the file reading as a group activity. We were grateful to colleagues in Children and Families for their guidance. Multiagency group file reading provides valuable development opportunities for the file readers learning from other group members. Additionally, more detailed evidence on the quality of ASP intervention can be identified as each reader contributes to the collective analysis of the file. Preparation commenced in late 2024/early 2025 for a 4-day audit set for May 2025. We revised the extensive ASP analysis template in line with the new Care Inspectorate Quality Improvement Framework (QIF), identified and briefed our file reading groups and set about gathering the multiagency records required. The preparation was time consuming, and we are most grateful to all Page 258
Page 259
16 | P a g e who have been involved in this significant event. This work will be reported in next year’s CSWO report. Karen Ralston was appointed as the new Chair of the APC in July 2024. She has over 40 years of Social Work service and 20 years holding senior leadership roles. Karen has brought a wonderful combination of practice expertise and thoughtful leadership. Having gained extensive experience working with a wide and diverse range of services for children and adults in urban and remote areas and being able to utilise Health & Social Care knowledge and partnership achieved, she has established a new solid foundation for working and supporting the Committee and ensured we build on our protection and support for adults at risk of harm. The APC has seen some changes of membership; it remains committed to fostering a continuous improvement ethos with the support of our colleagues from the Care Inspectorate and other leading agencies. The APC has valued the support of the Child Protection Committee (CPC) where our protection roles overlap, particularly in the context of supporting young people. Additionally, the Lead Officer’s membership of the Alcohol and Drug Partnership and the Violence Against Women and Girls Partnership remains essential in understanding where ASP has a role in working with these collective organisations. We continue to rely on Lomond and Argyll Advocacy Services to play a vital role in relation to service user support in investigations, case conferences and monitoring of outcomes. Adults at risk of harm are encouraged to attend and contribute to all ASP meetings about them and we recognise this can be daunting. Advocacy team members have been invaluable in supporting vulnerable adult to ensure that their voice is heard. The launch of the Care Inspectorate Quality Improvement Framework (QIF) in October 2024 has been hugely helpful for Lead Officers to focus on what good practice in ASP activity should look like from the role of the APC through to consideration of specific tasks undertaken by Social Work staff in their everyday ASP work. The QIF, alongside other best practice initiatives, promoted within the National Implementation Group, West of Scotland Lead Officers group and the ASP Hub have all served to set the wider agenda for ongoing review and ultimate improvement of our service into 2025/26. Mental Health and Addictions Our services within Argyll and Bute HSCP continue to work in integrated health and social work teams across mental health, addictions and dementia services. Local Authorities have a duty to provide Mental Health Officers to manage the range of statutory interventions via the various legislation within health and Social Work. This includes providing services to those subject to the Mental Health (Care and Treatment) (Scotland) Act 2003; the Adults with Incapacity (Scotland) Act 2000, as well as having knowledge of the Adult Support and Protection Act 2007. The MHOs often manage complex cases involving high risk management, including forensic cases and care management duties associated with person centred care planning. We have a total of 14 MHOs at present. However, there are only 7 permanent MHOs working within the 4 Community Mental Health Teams and 1 MHO based in Children and Families Service. The Service Manager and the Lead Officer for Adult Protection can only provide duty cover and cannot carry caseloads. There are 2 student MHOs at present and 2 agency MHOs. Page 259
Page 260
17 | P a g e Throughout 2024, there were 4 agency MHOs employed, 2 within Cowal & Bute CMHT and 2 within Helensburgh and Lomond CMHT. From December 20024, 1 agency contract was ended in H&L and another contract ended for C&B in March 2024. Training for forthcoming MHOs - Unfortunately, we have not had any successful applications for the 2025/26 MHO course which is provided by the University of Strathclyde. The only applicant did not have the relevant experience required and has been asked to prepare more for the following year if still interested. There are local pressures in each of our areas. The Oban area has increased amounts of older people who require legal intervention through the Adults with Incapacity (Scotland) Act 2000. There is often a backlog of cases and the timeframe for these applications being presented at court has increased, often due to the delay with obtaining medical reports to accompany the applications. This is out with the control of the MHO service. There are shortages of resources, including suitable care homes for under 65s whose presentation is in relation to mental health diagnoses. There have been two clients who have required out of area placements in the past year from Oban area. In Helensburgh & Lomond the NHS part of the CMHT team is provided by NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde. There are a few differences, with their Standard Operational Procedures, which for example does not include referrals from SWs. This can often cause delays when Social Workers must request a GP to make a referral to the team rather than doing it directly. The relationship between Argyll & Bute and NHS Highland and NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde is undoubtedly one of the complications of integration. Helensburgh receives the most statutory work via the Mental Health (Scotland) Act 2015. MHOs are often requested to attend Gartnavel Hospital or other hospitals in Glasgow and Paisley due to the location and care being provided by NHS GG&C services. One MHO post was advertised more than eleven times during the past year, without any interest from qualified practitioners. The MHO student who worked for another team in Helensburgh accepted the post in January 2025. The workload in servicing Welfare Guardianships remains high. The Supervision of welfare guardians often presents challenges, as the guardians should have meetings with either the MHO or a SW who has been identified to provide the supervision requirement, at least once per year. There are many cases where there is no identified Supervision Officer. This is an area of risk where we continue to grapple to find a solution. Consideration continues on the structures which will offer equity of MHO provision across Argyll & Bute and allow priority work to be completed. In the next year there will be further consideration given to the potential to have an advanced practitioner role. This would include MHO practitioner along with the likes of child protection SCIM interviewers. Learning Disability, Autism and Transitions, Sensory Impairment Services. Page 260
Page 261
18 | P a g e As in previous years work continues on the repatriation of individuals who are currently placed out with the Argyll and Bute area. Overall, this is proving to be very challenging as it brings with it the requirement for additional local specialist resources and provision which can take investment and years to develop. Key partners from the housing and third sectors include Affinity, Enable, Key Housing, Scottish Autism, Cornerstone, The Priory Group, Hub North and NHS Greater Glasgow & Clyde. Whilst all our out of area placements have been regularly reviewed by the Learning Disability Social Work teams we additionally contracted with Carr Gomm for them to independently review the placements and this exercise was completed in April 2025. The findings of that exercise were largely consistent with our expectations in respect of Service User, Family and carer wishes within only 1 of the 43 cases there being expressions of dissatisfaction with the current arrangements for care requesting urgent consideration for an alternative arrangement to be made and a further 2 of the 43 where we are looking for alternatives at the Guardians requests. Within Argyll and Bute, we have completed a 6-person flatted development with West Highland Housing Association in Dunbeg, and the 4-person facility at the Sawmill Site, in Helensburgh. A further 6-person flatted development in Rothesay, in partnership with Argyll Community Housing Association has been commissioned and we’ll hopefully move to full occupancy by November 2025. Staffing, recruitment and financial pressures across the sector have added to operational and development challenges however we are continuing to work with our colleagues from Argyll & Bute Council Housing Options Group scoping other possible site options particularly in Helensburgh and Oban. The demographic indicators within the Learning Disability sector are that we will require additional specialist care and supported living options for young adults with complex needs and for others whose family and care/support arrangements are not sustainable in the longer term. All Senior Support staff in Day Services have satisfactorily completed their SVQ4 qualifications, with one receiving The Student of the Year award from Argyll College UHI. Children & Families and Justice Services The Children & Families Service includes Social Work, Youth Justice, Children’s Resources, Child Poverty, Child Health, Paediatric Allied Health Professionals, Child and Adolescent Mental Health (CAMHS) and Maternity Services. Within the organisational structures of the Argyll and Bute’s HSCP, Justice Services, Community Justice and Violence Women and Girls also sit within this same department. Justice Services Justice Social Work can at times appear to be a separate service from much of the rest of Social Work carried out within the auspices of Argyll & Bute HSCP. Perhaps partly due to the separate centrally allocated ring-fenced funding model, perhaps due to their being little health equivalent to this Social Work service. As such a lengthier commentary is given in this year’s CSWO to raise awareness of the crucial and significant work carried out by this service. During the time frame of this report, the Care Inspectorate undertook a national self-evaluation exercise which focussed on evaluating the extent to which justice Social Work services were able to evidence performance, quality and outcomes in relation to community-based sentences; exploring the factors that impacted justice Social Work services’ ability to confidently and robustly demonstrate the effectiveness and impact of community support and supervision. This was undertaken over a 3-month period between Sept – November 2024. This led the service to re- Page 261
Page 262
19 | P a g e evaluate the way in which the large volume of data collected can be used to better inform practice developments. Justice Social Work (JSW) produces Aggregate and Unit Returns every year from Eclipse and submits it to the Scottish Government for inclusion in the national bulletin for Justice Social Work. As part of our Performance Improvement Programme an annual review of statistical information is undertaken. This report looks at the outturns achieved over the last year for Bail, Structured Deferred Sentences, Diversion, Justice Social Work Reports, Community Payback Orders and statutory throughcare as recorded in the Aggregate Return, and compares them to previous years. This allows areas of change to be identified, and recommendations made for any action to be taken. This review is one method used by to deliver performance improvement for Justice Social Work and is linked to the outcomes contained within the Community Justice Strategy and Performance Framework, Justice Vision and Priorities for Scotland and the JSW Strategy Map - safe and resilient communities. One of our main concerns about the publication of the aggregate return data is that it is always a year out of date, with recently published data being for year 23/24. To establish ‘real time’ trend analysis we have introduced a tracker (Performance Dashboard) on a monthly basis commencing September 24 where we can identify any spikes or issues in workload in real time and address accordingly. The performance dashboard is still a work in progress and will develop more fully over time. The information within this report is therefore a combination of published data for 23/24 and unvalidated real time data spanning the period Sept 24 – March 25. Bail In 2023/24, there were 57 requests for bail assessments and 15 new cases commenced. The number of requests for Bail assessment has shown a significant increase following changes in legislation and court practice. The number of Bail supervisions has also increased sharply but only relates to 26% of assessments. Conversion rates are therefore low but is higher than the national average of 23%. Our performance data from the period Sept 24 – March 25 indicates that the number of bail assessments will surpass those of 23/34 with 42 assessments being completed in a 6-month period. Work will be ongoing to determine the conversion rates for this period. Further changes are planned for 2025/26 by Scottish Courts and Tribunal Service to address the low conversion rates from bail assessments to supervision. The main issue identified locally is that many of the cases where bail assessments are completed, the Sheriff has already dealt with the case and either remanded or released on standard bail without knowledge of whether a bail assessment is being completed. It is anticipated that the new system will enable tighter communication between Justice Social Work and the Courts to ensure that the Sheriff’s do not hear cases if an assessment is being prepared and until they are in receipt of this. Structured Deferred Sentences Structured Deferred Sentences are a relatively new sentencing option whereby Courts can defer sentence on an individual to allow short term pieces of work to be undertaken or to test likely compliance with statutory supervision. This is generally for periods of 3 – 6 months, but they can be extended if required. Page 262
Page 263
20 | P a g e In 23/24 there were 25 SDS cases commenced, and the use of this sentencing option has increased year on year since it became available. Data available for 24/25 indicates that the use of SDS is beginning to plateau, with 24 cases being imposed. Diversion from Prosecution During 23/24, there were 124 referrals for Diversion assessments with 88 cases commenced. The use of diversion continues to increase year on year. Data available from Sept 24 – March 25 indicates there were 66 referrals in that 6-month period. The age profile demonstrates that Diversion is used predominantly for those aged 16 – 17 New national guidance on Diversion is due to be published during 2025/26 and any changes to practice will be implemented. This will include the introduction of Diversion Max which will increase the length of time allotted to complete intervention work with an individual from 12 weeks to 9 months. This change will see us being expected to assess and work with more serious cases. This may have an impact on how we deliver services as in the main it is our unqualified staff who oversee diversion at present. Justice Social Work Reports The number of JSWRs requested by the Courts has continued to rise and has surpassed pre lockdown levels, with 459 requests in the year 24/25. 7 6 16 21 25 9 3 11 10 12 0 0 7 5 10 2 1 2 3 65 10 11 11 14 6 9 11 25 21 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 2019/20 2020/21 2021/22 2022/23 2023/24 Number of cases commenced by age 16-17: 18-20: 21-25: 26-30: 31-40: Over 40: Page 263
Page 264
21 | P a g e With the introduction of our Performance Dashboard in Sept 24 we have been able to breakdown the number of report requests by locality. The graph below indicates that Bute & Cowal have, over a 6-month period, had the highest number of report requests, with Mid Argyll, Kintyre and Islay having the least. The number of report requests can however fluctuate on a month-to-month basis which can add short term workload pressures for staff. Further analysis of the data allows us to track whether reports are submitted on time to the Court (by 12 noon 48 hrs before Court date), the reasons for late submission and establish if there are particular members of staff who have a pattern of this so that it can be addressed with them. Community Payback Orders As with JSWR’s the number of new CPO’s imposed by the Court has continued to show a steady increase and has also surpassed pre lockdown levels. Orders can be made for 6 months to 3 years, 381 318 358 321 323 326 208 246 319 413 459 JSWR 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 JSWR Sept24 JSWR Oct24JSWR Nov24JSWR Dec24 JSWR Jan25 JSWR Feb25JSWR Mar25 MAKI B&C OLI H&L Page 264
Page 265
22 | P a g e therefore the number of CPO’s being supervised by the service is higher than those highlighted in the graph below. As of March 25, the service was supervising 276 orders. It should be noted that as well as an increase in numbers of CPO’s being imposed, the complexity of cases is also increasing with longer orders being imposed for individuals with multiple risks and needs being identified. With the introduction of our Performance Dashboard, we are now able to track breach rates of CPO’s by locality, which enables us to identify whether there is inconsistency in practice or if there is unmet needs in certain localities. This was relatively new data available to us and we will continue to monitor moving forward. Statutory Throughcare Those given certain types of custodial sentences must be involved in throughcare. Statutory, as opposed to voluntary throughcare has risen from 84% of all cases to 88% of all cases. The types of sentences requiring statutory throughcare are set out below. • Life Sentence. Argyll & Bute currently have 8 people in prison who are serving a life sentences with punishment elements ranging from 14 to 29 years. If released they will be on life licence. • Order of Lifelong Restriction. Argyll & Bute currently have 8 individuals who are sentenced to an Order of Lifelong Restriction. OLR’s are classed as indeterminate sentences and are imposed on people sentenced in the High Court for a serious violent offence (not including murder), serious sexual offending, or an offence which indicates a tendency to serious 0 100 200 300 No. of New CPO's imposed 0 50 100 150 MAKI B&C OLI H&L Total CPO Transfer CPO: orders successfully completed CPO: orders completed early discharge CPO: number of orders revoked due to review CPO: number of orders revoked due to breach CPO: number of orders completed Page 265
Page 266
23 | P a g e violent, sexual or life endangering offending. Specialist risk assessment reports are requested from the Risk Management Authority to assist the sentence planning and management of such cases within the prisons, and for consideration by the Parole Board. Those released by the Parole Board will be under the supervision and stringent risk management by Justice Social Work for life. • Extended Sentence. Argyll & Bute currently have 14 individuals who are serving extended sentences. An extended sentence combines a period in prison with a further set time of supervision in the community (the extension part). It is used to protect the public and can be given to offenders who have committed a sexual or violent crime; or abduction on indictment (more serious crime). Of the 14 individuals, the periods in prison range from 20 months to 14 years, with the average sentence length being 7 – 9 years, and the periods on supervision in the community ranging from 5 – 10 years. • Custody over 4 years. Within Argyll & Bute we currently have 16 individuals who are serving custodial sentences of 4 years or over who do not fall into the categories mentioned above. Sentence length ranges from 4 years to 12 years. In these cases, the individual will be eligible to apply for parole after serving half their sentence, and if not successful, their case will be reconsidered by the parole board on an annual basis, until the 6 months point prior to the end of their sentence. • Short Term Sex Offender licence. At present Argyll & Bute has 1 individual who will be subject to a short-term sex offender licence on release from custody. These Licences are for anyone convicted of a sexual offence serving sentences of more than 6 months in custody and they will be under the supervision of Justice Social Work until the expiry date of their sentence. They will also be subject to management by MAPPA when in the community. • Supervised Release Orders. At present there are 6 Argyll & Bute residents who are sentenced to custody with a Supervised Release Order. The Sheriff can in such cases impose an SRO at the point of sentence, meaning that the individual will be subject to a period of statutory supervision by justice social work following their release from custody for up to 12 months. Custodial sentences must be less than 4 years and the offences that the individual is convicted of cannot be sexual. For all individuals within custody that fall under statutory throughcare, staff attend ICM (sentence planning meetings) on an annual basis. In addition to this, those who are due for release will have additional prerelease ICM’s. All cases are also subject to Parole Board Hearings for which reports are required, at the parole qualifying date and any subsequent reviews of the case by Parole Board. This can also include attendance at Oral Hearings. At the end of March 25, we have 25 individuals subject to various statutory throughcare supervision in the community, ranging from life licence, STSOL, Parole and Supervised Release Orders. A breakdown of these can be produced for the next assurance report. Multi Agency Public Protection Arrangements Justice Social Work saw a large increase in the number of MAPPA cases being managed during 2024/25, with an increase of 17 cases. This is the largest increase over a 4-year period, with 48 Registered Sex Offenders in the community. This in some way equates to several prison releases over the past year as well as an increase in the complexity of Community Payback Orders being imposed. During this period, we also managed our first, most serious, Category 3 MAPPA case (violent/other risk of serious harm offending). Page 266
Page 267
24 | P a g e The increase in workload and complexity of cases across all areas of Justice Social Work business during 24/25 has placed stressors and challenges on a small but committed staff group. It is anticipated that the needs of this client group will continue to grow with cuts t services and increased levels of inequality and poverty. There continues to be changes to practice because of policy initiatives and legislative changes from Scottish Government, often with the impact on community-based Justice Social Work Services being underestimated – i.e. Early release initiatives for short term prisoners, and planned changes for release for long term prisoners, planned changes to bail assessment and supervision and diversion during 2025/26. Community Justice In Argyll and Bute, during 2024-2025, the Community Justice Partnership focussed on creating an evidence base for the strategic and operational baseline, across the 4 national aims and 13 priority actions contained within the refreshed National Strategy for Community Justice. Whilst developing our draft local action plan, the Community Justice Partnership has implemented a range of local multi-agency engagement and activities across most of the national aims and actions. The Community Justice Plan 2024-2027 was published in Autumn 2025. The following key areas are offered within this CSWO report: Progress was made across all four national Community Justice Aims 1. Enhance intervention at the earliest opportunity by ensuring greater consistency, confidence in and awareness of services which support the use of direct measures and diversion from prosecution Following on from the work undertaken in 2023/24 by Argyll & Bute representatives from Community Justice and Alcohol and Drug Partnerships with Police Scotland (L Division and Criminal Justice Services Division, Healthcare & Interventions) Custody Suite representatives, the national roll out began in April 2025. A local group is established, led by Police Scotland, to progress identified improvements for our local Arrest Referral model. Alignment between this Community Justice group and the Health & Social Care Partnership Custody Improvement Group is underway to minimise duplication and enhance strategic and operational planning. 2. Ensure that robust and high-quality community interventions and public protection arrangements are consistently available across Scotland Argyll & Bute wide Electronic Monitoring numbers were unknown at a local level (until May 2024). Only those included as part of a community sentence could be identified. The application of this option presents geographical delivery challenges to those organisations responsible for fitting and monitoring, which may be one of the reasons for its underuse as a sentencing option. 3. Ensure that services are accessible and available to address the needs of individuals accused or convicted of an offence Third Sector Lomond & Argyll Advocacy Service (Community Justice Advocacy) delivered a pilot to support a rights-based approach for those leaving prison, an evaluation has been completed, and the Community Justice Partnership will review the learning during 2025-26. 4. Strengthen the leadership, engagement, and partnership working of local and national community justice partners Page 267
Page 268
25 | P a g e Argyll & Bute Community Justice Partnership continued to scope the realities of our collective ability to deliver improvements equitably across Argyll & Bute, this was consistently noted as a key challenge. However, progress was made through collaborative approaches with the Alcohol & Drugs, Violence Against Women and Employability Partnerships. Pragmatic improvement activity has been identified for implementation during 2024-2025. Despite the volume of work being undertaken there remains significant challenges. Of note: The current national community justice direction takes a general approach to populations however does not reflect the needs of delivering to remote, rural and island communities. Cognisance should be given to the Islands (Scotland) Act 2019 and the requirement for an Island Community Impact Assessment to ensure national policy and initiatives do not inadvertently adversely affect those communities. The delivery of the significant community justice improvements expected, alongside core funding and workforce challenges, is an area of concern that will be closely monitored by the Community Justice Partnership. Whilst there is undoubtedly a strong commitment to continuous improvement, how many we can deliver within the current context remains uncertain. Children & Families The Children and Families Management Team model aligns management, professional and clinical leadership and strengthens oversight of the services and the accountability of managers and staff. Unlike Adult Services in Argyll & Bute there is a clear ‘golden thread’ of Social Work responsibility and governance through to the CSWO. As senior managers are required to deputise for the CSWO they must be both qualified registered Social Workers and employed by the Local Authority. The service is underpinned and delivered in line with the Getting it Right for Every Child (GIRFEC) Framework and The Promise. There has been considerable investment in promoting a trauma informed approach. These developments are fully imbedded within multi-agency processes and strong relations with Police Scotland, Argyll & Bute Education Department, NHS and the Third Sector. The multi-agency Children and Young People Plan 2023-2026 continues to be the basis for development. Children & Families Social Work Last year’s CSWO report noted that recruitment and retention of staff in the Children and Families teams had deteriorated from a comparatively successful position in relation to neighbouring authorities to a position where some teams were operating at 50% capacity. This situation has deteriorated further across this year, due to a combination of a high level of vacancies and challenges attracting new recruits, particularly in Helensburgh, Dunoon and Oban Additionally high levels of absence, both short and long term, particularly in Dunoon, have added to the staffing pressures. This has seen team capacity fall as low as 20% in some areas. This issue is not based on available finance and both the Chief Executive of the Council and Chief Officer of the IJB have been clear maintaining the child protection service is imperative. The issues are absence, recruitment and retention. Page 268
Page 269
26 | P a g e A national shortage of qualified social workers has contributed to the profile of applicants for any vacancies becoming almost exclusively newly qualified staff. The authority has led the way in consideration of applications from social workers who have qualified in Scotland but who require employer sponsorship to obtain work visas. At present we have three social workers within the Area Teams who have been successfully recruited and supported through this process, and it is likely to be a continuing feature of our recruitment. The Area Teams have also encouraged local support staff to engage in further study and progress to Social Work qualification through the Grow Your Own programme, with four staff currently enrolled in the degree programme. Again, the benefits to retention of training locally based staff mean that ongoing support of this recruitment process will remain a key feature within Workforce Planning for the foreseeable future. In 2024 the Child Protection Committee commissioned a full audit of inter-agency child protection work, this included a file audit, views of children, staff survey and file reader survey. The findings in this audit highlighted some areas of strength in multi-agency practice and provided us with evidence of the areas where we needed to improve our practice. The areas for development have now been incorporated into the CPC work plan, which provides clear and measurable actions for improvement, the plan will be reviewed within the Performance and Quality Assurance sub-group and updates provided to the Child Protection Committee and Chief Officers Group. To ensure oversight and governance, a multi-agency child protection leadership group has been established to drive forward improvement activity chaired by the Head of Service (C&F, Justice). This group meets bi-monthly. A multi-agency child protection development programme has been established for front line managers which meets bi-monthly, and these groups have been very focused on working together to implement change and develop closer working relationship across all partner agencies. Since the last report the Child Protection Committee has hosted a series of locality-based practitioner events to share with the workforce the work of the groups outlined above and to include them in the ongoing improvement work. Theses workshops also shared the learning identified in a recent Learning Review. We held a child protection self-evaluation event with around 50 practitioners from across Argyll & Bute and from a wide range of organisations and Third Sector. The aim of the day was to seek the views and thoughts of front-line practitioners and to identify future development activity and child protection priorities. The Learning Review Panel oversaw a formal Learning Review last year and produced a full report with learning recommendations and an executive summary along with training pack for all CPC partners to use in the dissemination of learning within their respective organisations. The Learning Review panel has also commissioned a thematic learning review on three cases involving very young children, and work has begun on the planning of this. The priorities from the Learning Review and from the Senior Leadership group have been incorporated into the CPC work plan, and this single document includes all our shared priorities and improvement actions. We have appointed a Social Work Service Manager for Child Protection who will drive forward improvement in Social Work practice and develop robust systems for regular audit and self- evaluation. Page 269
Page 270
27 | P a g e We have devised a more robust system for scrutiny and quality assurance in our processes surrounding vulnerable children with locality managers meeting with service manager/senior managers three times weekly to review new referrals and oversee actions taken. We are in the process of increasing our capacity to implement the Scottish Child interview model, with a further two social workers and two team managers undertaking their training in the near future. This will greatly increase our capacity in working towards more of our joint interviews to be undertaken using this model. These changes have been implemented in the context where numbers of IRDs have increased threefold over the past year, with interestingly the same pattern being observed in the neighbouring authority of West Dunbartonshire, with whom we share the same Police Division (L). Our partner agencies SCRA and Police Scotland are also reporting a very significant increase in referrals. These trends will be examined in 2025/26 to establish possible factors that may be influencing this challenging increase in volume of concerns. It remains the case that there have been no Age of Criminal Responsibility Investigations (ACRi) over the course of the last year. We opened our first Bairns Hoose in Argyll and Bute. Bairns Hoose is a key action in the Scottish Government Keeping the Promise Implementation Plan and the values of Bairns Hoose are founded in Getting it Right for Every Child. The house will provide a child friendly setting for children who have been victims of or witness to abuse or violence, as well as children under the age of criminal responsibility whose behaviour has caused significant harm or abuse. In this setting children can be interviewed and supported in a trauma informed and respectful way with their views and rights respected. Interviews are currently taking place within the house, and we have appointed a Bairns Hoose social work co-ordinator who along with the service manager will develop systems for recovery support. We have secured Scottish Government funding to develop the house further to include more therapeutic support space and planning for this is underway. We will be working to explore how we can ensure such support is accessed by children and young people across Argyll & Bute It is recognised that due to the challenging staffing context and the need to ensure the significant and immediate risks associated with child protection activity were covered, it has taken longer to allocate other work. We have worked on a tiered approach where child protection is the top priority, statutory duties with timescales in legislation the second tier and duties without timescales the third tier. Even within that there has been a constant struggle to meet conditions set by Children’s Hearings and Courts on matters such as family contact. As mentioned on several occasions throughout this report what we have achieved has often been through the commitment of existing staff to work beyond hours and remits. Meeting the demands from the Scottish Children’s Reporters Administration for reports has been challenging. We are experiencing a large increase in referrals to SCRA, which in turn is leading increasing numbers of reports being requested from Social Work. One of the Social Work Service Managers is leading on liaison with SCRA to understand these underlying patterns and to reduce the numbers of late reports. Page 270
Page 271
28 | P a g e There is continued concern within the profession about the increasingly litigious nature of Children’s Hearings. This is being worked on locally to explore how we support staff, young people and their families in this setting. Legislative changes are likely however not enacted as yet. Services to children impacted by disability has been an area of pressure over 2024/25. Commissioned services for children with a disability across the nation have been under pressure from the drying up of non-statutory funding sources and difficulties in recruiting and retaining staff. These challenges accelerated in the aftermath of the lockdown period with many people leaving the social care sector. These pressures have directly affected commissioned day and overnight respite services for children and young people with disability here in Argyll and Bute with two voluntary organisations in the east of the County ceasing operations. We continue to provide direct support to families in Kintyre, through the council funded and staffed registered service Kintyre Network Centre, and to families on the Clyde area island of Bute through funding to our now sole commissioned service Achievement Bute. A procurement process was completed but did not identify any bidders for any configuration of provision across any part of Argyll. This year following discussion with individual families and with groups of families who have come together for mutual support, all funding previously committed to the commissioned services has been redistributed to families under Self-Directed Support as direct payments. Under Option 1 this has provided for the employment of PAs, improvements to family accommodation and surroundings, short breaks, online learning opportunities and equipment to improve the wellbeing of children and young people. In areas of Argyll where there had been no commissioned provision for many years, including Lochgilphead, Oban and Argyll's Hebridean islands, we had and continue to directly recruit sessional staff, and families have accessed through this provision support under Options 2 and 3, or in some cases across Argyll with a combination of different supports, Option 4. In 25/26 we plan to widen the availability of Options 2,3 and 4 through the recruitment of sessional staff in every local area. Work is continuing with colleagues in adult services to review supports to Parent Carers and have jointly commissioned a Parent Carers Survey to identify the priorities of families across the area. Following the reporting of the findings due in 25/26 we plan to co-create new guidance, advice and procedures to facilitate access to information and early supports in the community, and improve assessment processes, the speed and equality of distribution of resources. Following this consultation exercise consideration will be given to further procurement and developments. Residential Houses In previous CSWO reports we noted a very challenging inspection of one the Children’s Houses, with a subsequent report in 2024 that recognised the improvements. This has been further strengthened with the 2025 unannounced Care Inspectorate inspection commending the service for continued service improvements, along with recognition for the team of their professional and therapeutic approach to care planning and positive outcomes. Improvements to the homely and nurturing environment were recognised along with the positive impact that specialist training had in achieving positive destinations for the young people who had been supported to transition to independent living arrangements within the local community. Connection with the Through Care and After Care has been strengthened. The previously noted dip in morale caused by the previous care inspectorate report has since been replaced with a new sense of purpose, enthusiasm and aspirations for future progress to come. Page 271
Page 272
29 | P a g e In recognition of the previously reported challenges in staffing the Children’s Houses, a review of the job description and grading of staff was carried out. There was a greater recognition and expectation of the therapeutic potential of residential staff. Moving the title from Social Care Worker to Residential Child Care Practitioner. The role was also upgraded. Since these changes qualified Social Workers and those with experience in educational settings have been recruited to become house staff. This range of cross-sector knowledge being embedded within our Children’s Houses continues to build the skill base to support and strengthen future models of care. Having a suitably qualified workforce we can consider effective and early intervention in the community to target support to families and provide a dynamic response to young people whose needs may be more complex. All our staff teams within the Houses have been trained in Therapeutic Theories by CALM, along with Therapeutic Care Giving training facilitated by CAHMS care experienced team. There continues to be progress in the number of practitioners trained in Dyadic Developmental Psychotherapy (DDP) - which is a therapeutic approach that focuses on strengthening connections and attachment between children, young people, and their caregivers, particularly those who have experienced developmental trauma. This therapeutic approach has been successful within the children’s houses not only for improving the outcomes for some of our hardest to reach young people, but also in developing a culture of respect and professionalism amongst the practitioners. High-Cost External Placements The number of children being looked after in high-cost external placements continues to be of concern. While the numbers are small the financial impact on the whole IJB budget cannot be underemphasised when individual placements are costing between £250k and £500k per year each. Placements are jointly funded by Education and Social Work. As such there is very tight communication between the Head of Children’s Services and the two Heads of Education. Tightening the aims of placements is going to be necessary to set the expectations about purpose. Planning for moving back to Argyll & Bute provision requires to begin before the external placement is agreed. In some instances, it has been necessary to question the quality of care our young people are getting in such placements. It does also need to be recognised that the Local Authority is not always in control of such placements. Where the Children’s Hearing system or Courts are involved, they make the final decision, and it is for the HSCP / Council to provide. Neither Court nor Children’s Hearing have any requirement to consider cost. The Council’s internal audit team have been asked by Social Work and Education to examine external placements, considering how we can improve governance and processes. In parallel our senior resource manager has been asked to carry out a review of the ‘models of care’ from support at home, foster care, kinship care and internal residential houses. How can we care for our young people here with less reliance on high-cost external out of area placements. In the summer of 2024, the Scottish Government made the decision that young offenders under 18 years old would no longer be accommodated in prisons but should be sent to children’s secure units. There can be no argument against the move away from incarcerating vulnerable young people in prisons, however the move has caused significant difficulty in the secure network, with beds being kept of those coming through the Court system. This is leaving challenges in finding beds for those ‘secured’ through children’s legislation and processes. Work is ongoing at a national level to consider ways to increase the number of placements in the secure estate. Page 272
Page 273
30 | P a g e Unusually Argyll & Bute had five young people in a secure setting at one time or other over the course of this reporting period. In most years there has been no young people or perhaps one individual. Through Care and After Care Services (TCAC) Figures published by CELCIS in 2025 indicate that 89% of young people eligible for Through Care and After Care in Argyll & Bute are in receipt of a service. Given the Scottish average is 48%, this is a remarkable figure. Central to the approach taken by TCAC is ensuring positive, trusted, and sustained relationships with the young people we support. The team become involved with young people from the age of 16 years onwards. The team continue to support 110 young people at different stages of their transition to adulthood and independence, with 68% in the age range 16-20 years. The number of young people supported at age 21 – 24 remains relatively static, with one young person continuing to be supported at age 25. The most common accommodation for our young people is their own tenancies, which indicates a good level of joint working with Argyll & Bute Housing Service and the housing associations. While this equates to only 32% of the total population of care leavers, there were a number of young people who do not require a tenancy due to their circumstances e.g. those who remain in continuing care, kinship arrangements, foster care, children’s houses, supported lodgings, living with family, resettlement tenancies and student accommodation. While the above figures are positive it is still the case that there are several care leavers ‘stuck’ in other resources awaiting access to a tenancy. Argyll & Bute remains in a housing crisis. 19%, young people were settled in private rented accommodation, in temporary tenancies/homeless accommodation, with 1 young person in prison. Work has been ongoing throughout the year with local Housing Associations to develop a stepdown model, where young people can move into satellite flats to gain experience of living independently without having the full responsibility of managing their own tenancy. Flats have been established in Helensburgh and Oban, and it is hoped that this model will be further rolled out to Dunoon in the coming year. A programme of work aimed at continuous improvement in delivering high quality services was developed during 2024 – 25 which includes how we capture relevant data on the needs and the voices of our care leavers. Initial stages of this work highlights need ranging from accommodation, mental health, addictions, trauma, offending behaviour, attachment disorders and varying degrees of neurodiversity. Often TCAC staff are the young people’s only point of contact and support, and they need to be all things to all people. This is a challenging area of work, often dealing with crisis and young people who are living chaotic lives. Transitions to independence is difficult for any young person and there is a clear sense that the TCAC never give up on their young people, even though at times the young people push the support away. Identifying and planning for multiagency working to meet these needs is crucial and a key area for development moving forward into 2025-26. The scale of Argyll & Bute’s population is of benefit in this instance as it is hard for young people to get ‘lost’ as could happen in urban settings. Balancing young people’s right to continuing care within the context of the high demand for placements for younger children continues to cause difficulties. During 2024-25, Argyll & Bute faced a judicial review of the right to continuing care in one of our Children’s Houses when a young person was also resident in student accommodation. The complexities and implications of this judgement Page 273
Page 274
31 | P a g e could have had serious consequences for our care sector across Scotland. Whilst this case did not progress, it highlighted the challenges inherent in balancing the conflicts between the continuing care legislation, adequate resource provision, scarcity of available placements and the financial implications of continuing care. There is a need to look further at financial modelling to ensure that Continuing Care and all aspects of transitions are sufficiently resourced to ensure that the rights of care leavers are upheld. Through care and after care is vital in freeing space in our residential houses and allowing the development of these facilities to halt the loss of Argyll & Bute’s children into high- cost external placements. Unaccompanied Asylum Seeking Children (UASC) Previous reports noted the challenges of meeting the requirements of the UK Home Office mandatory National Transfer Scheme (NTS) for UASC. Significant work has taken place in the last year involving staff from the Council, Through Care and After Care, Residential Houses and Family Placement team. The outcome of this has been an exemplary service where no matter the young person’s individual circumstances, trauma, ethnicity or pressures on the system they have been welcomed into our care. Communities throughout the area have been equally welcoming. During the year 2024/25 30 young people were supported, the majority of whom are aged 16+. We have one young person who is under the age of 16; 12 young people aged between 16 – 18, with the remaining 17 young people aged over 18. Of concern is the length of time taken for decisions regarding asylum status to be reached and the increasing number of claims that are being rejected. 15 of our young people are still awaiting their asylum claim to be heard, with 10 of those waiting for periods between 1 – 5 years for their claims to be progressed. This is not only causing high levels of anxiety for our young people but is also placing a high level of demand on our housing and resource provision as the young people cannot move on into their own tenancies until leave to remain is granted, thus limiting our ability to accommodate new arrivals when required. Once a young person reaches their 18th birthday the financial support from the Home Office drops dramatically and the young person no longer counts towards our ‘quota’ of 14 UASC. Three years ago, the number of UASC we were looking after was under 10 and this has now trebled. As mentioned, finance for those under 18 years old from the Home Office is adequate, for those over 18 years old it is not. Despite the financial challenges finding accommodation is becoming the bigger issue. In addition to young people arriving in Argyll & Bute through the NTS, we have seen an increase in spontaneous arrivals during the year 24/25 (6 young people) all of whom have been subjected to Human Trafficking and have experienced high levels of trauma. These are young people who are claiming asylum for the first time in Argyll & Bute as opposed to arriving in Kent. Work is ongoing in partnership with our CAMHS service to ensure that services are available to best meet the impact of war, conflict, separation, death and trauma experienced by our young people. Police Scotland are closely involved when there are issues of exploitation. Family Placement Team Recruitment of foster carers is exceptionally challenging. It is national issue and the situation in Argyll a& Bute mirrors the national picture. We recruited and approved only 1 new fostering household in the past year, others who enquired withdrew for a variety of reasons. Over the same period 4 households withdraw from fostering. 3 of those were planned withdrawals following successfully adopting the child/children in their care. Nevertheless, during the period covered by Page 274
Page 275
32 | P a g e this report, we saw a nett decrease in the number of foster carers available to look after our children. The Scottish Government’s national recruitment campaign is welcomed. At the time of writing the campaign had unfortunately not resulted in any new foster carers coming forward. Again Argyll & Bute is not alone in seeing this outcome to local and national campaigns. There were 4 Argyll & Bute children granted Adoption Orders, all now living with adoptive parents and remaining within Argyll & Bute. Additionally, local adopters were matched with 4 children from out with this area, who have also now been granted Adoption Orders. We have 6 couples approved as Adopters who are in various stages of the process. We continue to get more inquiries from prospective adopters than people interested in fostering, but yet again it would appear this mirrors the national picture. Of the 23 children and young people across our 19 active fostering households, there are 11 who are secure in permanent foster care; 3 more who are remaining in continuing care arrangements and 2 unaccompanied asylum seeking children. This does leave a sparse resource for emergency or short- term placements. Continuing care arrangements with previous foster or kinship carers has been strengthened with the decision to retain a supervising social worker from the family placement team to work alongside the carers post their conversion to continuing care providers, offering support to them in this new role of helping the young person transition to independence when ready. This will include annual reviews, which will ensure opportunities are created to keep plans on track. We currently have 3 young people in continuing care in kinship, and 3 with previous foster carers, out of a total of 10 continuing care arrangements. Kinship has seen a lot of development work and a rethink by the Scottish Government, who updated their Guidance in this area of work. To that end we have updated our own policy and procedures and taken most of the work associated with kinship into the family placement team. This has led to a quicker initial assessment being carried out when children go to stay with kin, as well as a smoother transition from Interim to Permanent kinship arrangements, where this is identified as the legal route to permanence for a child. Kinship Carers have enjoyed opportunities to meet up with foster carers and adopters at joint events and have found commonality with them that has meant they have benefited from peer support as well as support from the kinship service. Going forward, we will develop a clearer review process for kinship carers that will ensure we know the circumstances of all kinship carers and the children they care for, including those no longer involved with a child’s social worker. We are soon to introduce Family Group Decision Making, that will make the initial exploration of kinship carers more robust and allow a full discussion including family members who can’t take on the care of a child full time, but who can support another family member to do so. It is hoped that this approach will mean kinship care becomes a robust, secure arrangement for more children where they cannot remain with their birth parents. Another area of new work for the family placement team will be the assessment, training, support and review of Supported Lodgings providers. It is hoped that this will increase the options for young people leaving Care, and ensure they successfully enter the adult world with the support they need still in place. This will be a joint venture with the Through Care and After Care team, who already work alongside family placement social workers where a young person has elected Continuing Care in a family setting. Page 275
Page 276
33 | P a g e Service Quality and Performance Statistical Data 2024/25. A sample of the available data is presented here to provide an overview of Social Work and Social Care activity during the reporting period of 2024/2025. This is compared with the previous year to offer context for performance and activity trends. The transition from CareFirst to Eclipse in June 2023 initially impacted the consistency of year-on-year comparisons for some data elements. Whilst we now have data spanning nearly two years within the Eclipse system, caution is advised when interpreting trends, particularly for data elements most affected during the early stages of implementation. However, it is evident that staff confidence and familiarity with Eclipse have improved over time, and this is reflected in the increased activity levels compared to the initial months following the system’s introduction. Note, the ECLIPSE Care Management System was rolled out across both Adults and Children & Families Social Care Services but also across a range of Community Health services such as Physiotherapy, District Nursing, and Occupational Therapy, and as such there are now over 34000 client records on the Live ECLIPSE system across Argyll and Bute, with new 4501 records created in 2024/25 alone. Children & Families Services Social Work Contacts In 2024/25, there were 2362 Concern Reports worklists started for children, compared to 1258 in 2023/24. This is an increase of 1104, which equates to an 87% increase. In 2024/25, the number of Concern Reports received peaked at 262 in January 2025. This is congruent with reports of increased SCRA referrals noted previously in this report. It requires to be recognised this 87% increase in Concern Reports is taking place at a time when teams are depleted. The monthly average for 2024/25 was 197 Concern Reports, while in 2023/24 the average was 126. (Data ECLIPSE Activity Dashboards 2023/24 & 2024/25) Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar 2023/24 50 131 183 170 139 132 56 122 155 120 2024/25 159 185 183 175 165 205 203 203 206 262 220 196 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 Number of Child Concern Reports by Month and Year Page 276
Page 277
34 | P a g e Child Protection Monthly numbers of children on the Child Protection Register for 2024/25 indicates an overall increase in activity for 2024/25 to date, with an average monthly figure of 36.6 compared to 32.8 for the full year 2023/24 — a rise of 12%. Monthly figures for February and March 2025 (47 and 48 respectively) are notably higher than the same months in 2024. CPR engagement with large or complex family groups may also impact numbers reported. (Data ECLIPSE Dashboards 2023/24 & 2024/25) Care Experienced Children Trend analysis across the year identifies a stable pattern for 2024/25, with March 2025 recording 149 compared to April 2024 at 157; a 5% decrease across the reporting period. The overall average monthly number of care experienced children remains largely consistent at 152 for 2024/25, compared to 153 for 2023/24, suggesting stabilisation following earlier fluctuations. The slight ‘decrease’ noted will be associated with data tidy up from legacy reporting, rather than any actual decrease in service delivery. (Data Dashboards 2023/24 & 2024/25) Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar 2023/24 42 36 34 34 36 31 31 32 32 29 27 29 2024/25 30 37 31 34 37 34 32 34 35 40 47 48 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 Number of Children on the Child Protection Register by Month and Year Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar 2023/24 140 144 141 145 146 149 150 153 155 158 161 159 2024/25 157 145 144 148 152 149 149 144 145 143 148 149 125 130 135 140 145 150 155 160 165 Number of Care Experienced Children by Month and Year Page 277
Page 278
35 | P a g e Adult Services Social Work Contacts Since the Eclipse launch, individual service areas—such as Adult Support and Protection and Telecare—have developed and implemented separate referral pathways. This change in process means that not all referrals are now recorded via the original Eclipse adult referral worklist, which may affect trend visibility and comparability with previous years. Volumes began to stabilise in the latter part of 2024/25, with December through February showing modest increases compared to the same period in the previous year. This period aligns with typical winter pressures. However, a further reduction in March 2025 (82 contacts) was observed, suggesting ongoing shifts in either referral behaviour or recording practices. Given the evolving structure of referral pathways, these figures should be interpreted with caution. (Data Dashboards 2023/24 & 2024/25) In 2024/25, the total Adult Assessments started was 1584, with an average of 132 per month and a peak of 158 noted in Jul 2024. This is an increase on 2023/24, where 1270 Adult Assessments were started and a monthly average of 127 per month was noted. Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar 2023/24 260 225 177 167 128 158 102 146 122 129 2024/25 113 114 85 148 107 105 123 104 113 143 125 82 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 Adult Social Care Referrals by Month and Year Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar 2023/24 103 140 144 115 107 129 85 166 165 116 2024/25 156 119 134 158 141 119 116 135 96 138 127 145 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 Adult Assessments by Month and Year Page 278
Page 279
36 | P a g e (Data Dashboards 2023/24 & 2024/25) In 2024/25, the total Adult Reviews started was 1425, with an average of 119 per month and a peak of 144 was noted in Jan 2025. This is a significant increase on 2023/24, where 749 Adult Assessments were started and a monthly average of 75 per month was noted. The trend across 2024/25 suggests this is likely to increase as more service users reach a care review point in their care journey. Care at Home The average monthly number of adults in receipt of Care at Home for 2024/25 (1368) reflects a marginal 1% decrease compared to 2023/24 (1382), indicating a continued but slowing downward trend. Activity remained relatively stable from August 2024 onwards, with modest increases through to March 2025 (1376). This levelling-off may suggest a more consistent service response following earlier reductions and seasonal pressures. (Data Dashboards 2023/24 & 2024/25) Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar 2023/24 50 55 55 71 66 84 76 114 83 95 2024/25 99 108 90 127 113 124 132 124 97 144 126 141 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 Adult Reviews by Month and Year Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Avrg Total 2023/24 1411 1421 1413 1401 1407 1381 1386 1379 1350 1345 1347 1346 1382 Total 2024/25 1354 1344 1344 1368 1380 1365 1379 1388 1378 1374 1360 1376 1368 1300 1320 1340 1360 1380 1400 1420 1440 Number of Adults in Receipt of Care at Home Page 279
Page 280
37 | P a g e Residential Care With regards to the average number of people in residential care for 2024/25 (610), there is a slight decrease of 1% compared to 2023/24 (618). Trend analysis for 2024/25 shows relative stability across the year, with a steady rise in monthly figures from October through to March, reaching a high of 640. This pattern may reflect seasonal pressures and continued use of interim care home placements to manage demand, particularly during the winter period. (Data Dashboards 2023/24 & 2024/25) Delayed Discharge Delayed discharge data for April to March 2024/25 notes consistent monthly average (47) against data for the previous year 2023/24 (45). The highest number of delays is noted in 2024/25 in May (65), this is 18% higher than 2023/24 peak noted in February 2024 (55). (Data Dashboards 2022/23 & 2023/24) Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar 2023/24 617 622 617 622 626 634 615 617 593 594 635 623 2024/25 607 600 602 587 590 585 628 626 629 608 621 640 550 560 570 580 590 600 610 620 630 640 650 Number of People in a Care Home by Month and Year Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar 2023/24 47 49 44 35 43 36 47 45 43 50 55 40 2024/25 42 65 53 62 52 33 54 47 34 41 46 36 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 Delayed Discharges by Month and Year Page 280
Page 281
38 | P a g e Average Bed Days data across both years notes an overall increase of 9% with (664) in 2024/25 against previous year (610). For the most part the increase bed day trends for 2024/25 is associated with an increase in the numbers of delays in the month. Nov 2024/25 notes the highest number of bed days (881), this is a 1% increase against 2023/24 peak (887) noted for October 2023/24. (Data Dashboards 2023/24 & 2024/25 Delayed discharge is not a statutory Social Work responsibility however these statistics are included as many of those delayed in hospital are there due to awaiting community or social care assessments. Delayed discharge statistics are indicative of the pressures on care in our communities. Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar 2023/24 487 672 561 568 679 610 887 598 577 628 547 501 2024/25 586 608 796 712 561 499 822 881 661 632 578 630 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 Number of Delayed Discharge Bed Days in the Month by Year Page 281
Page 282
39 | P a g e 4. Resources In Argyll and Bute the entirety of Social Work and Social Care are delegated to the Health and Social Care Partnership. As such the financial resources for Social Work and Social Care are intrinsically intertwined with the overall HSCP position. The financial year 2024-25 was challenging and the HSCP overspent its budget, this mainly related to adult social care due to increased demand and costs for care at home and residential care for older people. Overall financial performance is mixed. The HSCP has operated within the resources available to it and still has a small balance of general reserves at the year end. However, it overspent its Adult Social Care budget by £2.1m and has largely funded this using non-recurring savings from the Strathclyde Pension Fund. Additionally, NHS spend in the year was supported using £4.2m of general reserves, as planned in the budget. Most HSCPs are facing similar challenges at present. Service Actual £000 Budget £000 Variance £000 % Variance COUNCIL SERVICES TOTAL 95,855 93,859 (1,996) (2.1%) HEALTH SERVICES TOTAL 281,252 281,497 245 0.1% GRAND TOTAL 377,107 375,356 (1,751) (0.5%) Additional Allocation of Pension Fund Savings 1,751 Year End Balance 377,107 377,107 0 0% The overall HSCP budget for 2024-25 included a savings target of £6.6m. During the year £5.1m or 77% of the target was delivered. The demographic change facing Argyll & Bute is significant, the number of older adults is increasing and projected to do so through to the 2040’s whilst at the same time the working age population is reducing. This is resulting in increased demand for most health and care services. It is also resulting in on-going staff recruitment and retention challenges which in turn are resulting in increased costs as the HSCP has filled service gaps by employing agency workers at increasing scale. Looking ahead, the HSCP cannot continue to overspend its budget as its reserves are now very limited and non-recurring savings, that funded the overspend noted above, are not available in 2026/27. Unless substantial investment from government in social services is forthcoming the HSCP expects to have to make substantial cost savings across several of its services. Given the years of savings which precede the period of this report further savings in the years to come will inevitably impact core statutory services. Page 282
Page 283
40 | P a g e The annual accounts and publicly available financial reports provided to the IJB outline the financial challenges in more detail. Similarly, reports published by Audit Scotland and others highlight the long-term financial challenge associated with demographic change. Page 283
Page 284
41 | P a g e 5. Workforce The Social Work and Social Care workforce are by far our biggest asset. Without their commitment and hard work the people of Argyll and Bute would not be receiving the standard of services they currently do. Throughout this report there is mention of staffing difficulties ranging from a Children and Families team operating at 20% of established staffing levels through to a Mental Health Officer post that was re-advertised 11 times. The only way to partially plug these gaps has been, in some instances, by deploying agency staff. At the same time such an approach is adding to the financial woes of the organisation. Yet they are filling essential statutory roles we are required to provide. In taking a ‘deep dive’ into the patterns across one area, Children and Families, it is also evident that absence, both short and long term, is as big an issue as vacancies. It is worthy of note that while all aspects of Social Work have struggled with recruitment there is an emerging trend of staff leaving certain positions within the profession in favour of others. In children’s services it is easier to recruit to specialist teams such as the Family Placement Team or Through Care and After Care than the general area team. Recruitment to Justice is generally easier. There is no doubt whatsoever that staffing remains the single biggest constraint on maintaining current services never mind developing new ones. It may sound glib however it is worth repeating currently we do not have the people to look after the people. The situation we find ourselves in is unsustainable. Argyll & Bute is not unique however our huge remote geography is adding to the challenges. The British Association of Social Work (BASW) examined the situation in Scotland. They reported: • 25% of Social Workers leave the profession within 6 years of qualifying • 19% of the profession is over 55 years old • 82% of the profession is female • 8-9% vacancy rate across the elements of the profession employed in the public sector. National surveys of staff reveal some of the pressures lying behind the workforce issues. This year’s annual survey of CSWOs by Social Work Scotland identified key themes: • Widespread recruitment, retention and aging workforce issues. All 32 local authority CSWOs confirmed these persistent challenges. An aging workforce was reported to compound the recruitment pressures as experienced staff are lost to the profession • Unsustainable workloads and role capacity constraints. High case loads and workforce shortages leave little room for staff development or systemic improvements. CSWOs themselves having to get involved in complex case work. • CSWO role ‘in crisis’. 97% of CSWOs reporting working significantly beyond their contracted hours. Often beyond 10 hours extra per week. Unlike health professional leads, CSWOs are carrying out their professional leadership role alongside operational management duties. • Resource limitations and structural challenges. Budgets pressures are an incessant pressure. Training, mentoring and systemic development are not taking place. • Mental wellbeing concerns. The high stress levels and unsustainable expectations underscores a need to protect staff. Page 284
Page 285
42 | P a g e Unison published a report “Care Management On It’s Knees” in 2024. Their members reported concerns about • Budget driven decision making leading to ‘tick box’ assessment approaches rather than needs led care. • Chronic understaffing resulting in a dominance of reactive case management rather than pro-active. • High turnover rates and difficulty in in filling vacancies. • Staff concerned there is a focus on structural changes rather than the core issue of funding and resourcing being addressed. Local authorities have responded in various ways to these challenges. Some, such as Glasgow, simply pay more, particularly at the higher end of the wage scale. Clearly an attempt to entice experienced workers to stay or come to the city. This approach however does result in vacancies being created elsewhere in the local government system. BASW simply concluded their study of the workforce by stating, “Given the difficulty in recruiting and retaining Social Workers, the profession must be made more attractive to join and remain in.” They continue, “Social Work pay and conditions lag behind many other public services. This becomes particularly clear when local authority employees work side by side with better paid NHS colleagues in integrated settings. We effectively have a two-tier workforce, with significantly better terms and conditions for NHS employees.” Later in their paper they argue for a return to national pay and conditions for Social Work staff. As noted in last year’s report the potential to even the Social Work and Social Care playing field amongst Local Authorities should also be considered. It is to be wondered if those staff working in our remote and island areas would benefit from the equivalent of the ‘distant islands allowance’ enjoyed in Comhairle Nan Eilan Siar, Orkney and Shetland. The island-based staff in Argyll & Bute are not treated equally to those based in other Scottish islands. Despite these hurdles to progress we have had some successes. Following the review of job descriptions of Social Work Team Managers and Social Work Assistants, including an upgrading in both instances, recruitment to both roles has improved. In the case of Social Work Assistants at times there are 10s of applicants for single posts. As noted earlier there is consideration to instituting the role of Advanced Practitioner for certain roles such as MHO or SCIM child protection staff. Work continues to develop multiple pathways to support staff in paraprofessional roles to undertake formal Social Work training. Enquiry sessions were held for staff in 2024 to offer a wider understanding of routes to becoming a qualified Social Worker across the specialisms. These sessions recruited 4 staff onto the Open University’s BA Hons Social Work Programme funded by the Council’s Social Work Training Board. The anticipated Graduation date for these employees is November 2025. Four of a cohort of six employee’s sponsored on the BA Hons Social Work and PGDip Social Work in 2022/23 are due to graduate between June 2025 and November 2025. Over the course of the next year the model of graduate apprenticeships will be considered. Page 285
Page 286
43 | P a g e While there has been some success in recruiting staff from oversees the requirement for such recruits includes proving that their qualifications have an equivalency to UK ones, and as such they can be registered with the SSSC. This can prove somewhat torturous. For example, the candidate is required to provide a full translation from their native language into English of their course work and placement activity. Where candidates from overseas already have SSSC registration Argyll & Bute is one of only a few local authorities who will sponsor the person to achieve a work visa. This has been a successful recruitment route. The bulk of the Social Work posts being filled continue to be with Newly Qualified Social Workers. The Scottish Social Services Council have now formalised a protected year for any NQSW entering the profession. This is of course welcomed, and it is recognised this will have long term benefits. Nevertheless, the protected year does add to the workload of supervisors and managers. NQSW cannot practice fully in child or adult protection. As highlighted in the previous year’s report, in the research commissioned by Social Work Scotland, titled ‘Setting the Bar’, the number one reason given for leaving the profession was ‘paperwork’. The initial introduction of the Eclipse system undoubtedly added to frustrations about paperwork and bureaucracy. It has been necessary to invest significant administrative, social work and development team time in refining this system. It is taking far longer than would have been hoped however there are some early signs of improvement. It cannot be reported yet that Eclipse is reducing paperwork, however it is still the vision that it will. During 2024/25 local authorities in Scotland began to tentatively introduce an AI based programme called Magic Notes. Magic Notes has an ability to record meetings and almost immediately produce minutes and action plans, thus reducing the time professional staff spend on this. Argyll & Bute are aiming to introduce Magic Notes over the next year, with an initial concentration on Child Protection processes. As mentioned earlier in this report, the Health & Care (Staffing) (Scotland) Act 2019 came into force. It has certainly caused a great deal of activity within health circles. The Act does not cover Social Work staff, however, does cover registered services. While it is early days, the main impact of the Act has been to cause more work on producing reports. This is particularly frustrating when the Care Inspectorate who monitor all regulated services already reference staffing in their reports. There are several issues which have moved little in the last few years and for the sake of completeness are repeated: • The rates of pay for many Social Care staff do not match those that can be obtained in the hospitality and leisure industries in Argyll and Bute. It continues to pay more to clean distilleries and hotels than it does to care for people. In areas of near full employment such as, for example, Islay these problems are particularly acute. While the overall recent cost to the Scottish Government of supporting Social Care rates of pay of some £240m appears large the actual impact on the pay packet of individual staff is relatively minimal and the impact of improving the staffing situation negligible. • There remains uncertainty and concern amongst Justice Social Workers about the enhanced vetting required to use the ViSOR system. Justice staff and their administrative support staff must undergo vetting beyond that of other Social Work employees. There is a sense the demands to vet the individual more deeply and to vet their wider family and loved ones is unacceptably intrusive on their right to privacy. This could impact recruitment and retention Page 286
Page 287
44 | P a g e into Justice roles. A new system, MAPPs is being developed, however that will not change the vetting issues. Fortunately, we do note Justice is an area of practice where we have not had significant difficulty recently in attracting staff. • Elements of Scottish Government funding remain problematic. Short-term ring-fenced grants leave us attempting to recruit to fixed term contracts and in some case part time fixed term contracts. Relatively small discrete grants are being made, yet the aim is for systemic change. The lack of assurance about the recurring or non-recurring nature of these grants leaves significant uncertainty. The grant applications and subsequent reporting can be onerous and often it is Heads of Service who require to carry out these tasks. Nevertheless, for the purpose of balance it is only because of such a grant that Argyll & Bute has been able to push ahead with the Bairns Hoose and develop a sector leading resource. Scottish Government funders have been supportive and flexible throughout. • In Argyll and Bute there are the added complications of a lack of affordable housing and a relatively expensive cost of living particularly in our most remote and island areas. Fuel poverty is high in our area. For those living on islands the unreliability of ferry links, which have continued to be troublesome this last year, are adding to the uncertainty of life in general and the inconsistency of services. Page 287
Page 288
45 | P a g e 6. CONCLUSION In Argyll and Bute, the delivery of Social Work services in 2024/25 has continued to reflect the unique geography, demography, and diversity of our communities. From our island populations to rural towns, our teams have worked with professionalism and compassion to uphold the rights, safety, and wellbeing of children, adults, and families. This year has brought continued pressures: recruitment and retention remain particularly acute in rural and island areas, workforce wellbeing is an ongoing concern, and the complexity of need—for example around mental health, substance use, and social isolation—has deepened. Budgets are as tight now than they have ever been. Yet despite these challenges, our staff have delivered vital statutory and preventative services, supported recovery and independence, and responded to risk with skill and care. Development of services has continued, ranging from refurbishment of a care home in Tiree to the development of a Bairns Hoose service. It is imperative that we are honest and transparent with our communities. The financial context in Argyll and Bute is increasingly constrained. Budgets are tighter than ever, and as we look ahead to 2025/26, the one-off or reserve funds that have previously helped bridge service pressures will no longer be available. This creates a stark reality: we are now operating in a system where long- standing demand pressures are rising, but capacity to respond is shrinking. A different relationship with communities requires to be forged. We are already facing significant workforce constraints, with unfilled posts in key statutory services and increasing difficulty attracting and retaining skilled professionals across our large and diverse geography. The impact of demographic change in Argyll and Bute—an ageing population, population decline in some areas and increasing complexity of need—means that demand is only expected to intensify in the years ahead. Key national developments, including implementation of the Health & Care (Staffing) (Scotland) Act 2019 or proposed Care Reform (Scotland) Act 2025, require careful navigation to ensure local knowledge, professional leadership, and community relationships are not lost. Ensuring compliance with the requirements and essence of the Islands (Scotland) Act 2019. In Argyll and Bute, strong partnership working with health, education, housing, police and the third sector remains essential to sustaining person-centred, integrated support. No amount of political will or policy aspiration will deliver meaningful outcomes without long-term, secure investment in both services and the people who deliver them. We need a collective national and local commitment to sustained funding, realistic workforce planning, and a genuine understanding of the pressures on front-line professionals. As Chief Social Work Officer for Argyll and Bute, I remain committed to working openly with partners, elected members, and communities to ensure that, even within these limitations, we continue to deliver safe, ethical, and rights-based support. But we must be clear-eyed: the sustainability of Social Work and Social Care services is now in question without urgent structural and financial reform. I want to finish by again recognising the extraordinary commitment of our workforce, many of whom go above and beyond in difficult circumstances every day. Their dedication has sustained services during a time of national reform and local pressure. Page 288
Page 289
46 | P a g e David Gibson Chief Social Work Officer Head of Children, Families & Justice Argyll & Bute Health & Social Care Partnership Kilmory Lochgilphead Argyll PA31 8RT Daibhidh MacGileabairt Àrd-Oifigear Obair shòisealta Ceannard Cloinne, Theaghlaichean & Ceartais Com-pàirteachas Slàinte agus Cùram Sòisealta Earra Ghàidheal is Bhòid Chille Mhoire Ceann Loch Gilb Earra Gàidheal Page 289
Page 290
This page is intentionally left blank
Page 291
ARGYLL AND BUTE COUNCIL COUNCIL HSCP 24 SEPTEMBER 2025 CHILD POVERTY ACTION PLAN REVIEW 2024 - 2025 1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Argyll and Bute Child Poverty Action Plan Review 2024-2025 is a review of the Child Poverty Action Plan first published in 2019. It is a requirement under the Child Poverty (Scotland) Act 2017 that local authorities and health boards jointly produce and publish an annual review of their plan, setting out work being undertaken to tackle child poverty in their region. This action is required up until 2030. The Argyll and Bute Child Poverty Action Group, led by Evan Beswick (Chief Officer; Argyll & Bute Health and Social Care Partnership) have produced this year’s review, it reflects a children’s rights approach children and young people are currently coproducing an updated graphic, plan on a page version of the plan. This will be published with the substantive plan. The review also seeks to reflect the vision that: We want an Argyll and Bute where no-one lives in poverty. Everyone should be able to achieve their potential and feel healthy, happy and valued. We want to be a place where everyone understands that tackling poverty is a shared responsibility. We believe that if we act locally, and in partnership, we can make a difference. DETAIL OF REPORT This report notes that although some progress has been made in tackling child poverty in Scotland, because of factors such as the Scottish Child Payment and other national and local actions, child poverty is still very much with us. The Foreword to this report mentions Danny Dorling, who in his Book “Seven Children; Inequality and Britain’s Next Generation” 2024, noted that: In the seven most recent years surveyed by the United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF), 2014 – 2021, child poverty has risen faster in the UK than in any comparable country worldwide. This report also sets out the challenges of tackling child poverty in Argyll and Bute goes on to show what progress has been made in the various key areas of the plan, including employability, housing, education, benefits, data analysis and fuel Page 291 Agenda Item 13
Page 292
poverty. It acknowledges the work of the Council, the Health Board and their partners in continuing to work together to tackle child poverty. Other front Sections of the Report are: • Child Friendly Version of the Plan • Integrated Impact Assessments • Data and Child Poverty • Taking Action on Rural Poverty • Child Poverty and Mental Health • The Promise and Whole Family Support The Main Plan This section of the report reviews progress and changes in key areas of the plan and is laid out as always, in the following sections: A. Increasing Income from Employment and Earnings. B. Increasing Income through Benefits C. Cost of Living D. Helping Families in Other Ways E. Other Planned Work Page 292
Page 293
ARGYLL AND BUTE COUNCIL COUNCIL HSCP 24 SEPTEMBER 2025 CHILD POVERTY ACTION PLAN REVIEW 2024 - 2025 2.0 INTRODUCTION This report is the annual Child Poverty Action Plan Review, for 2024 - 2025. It is a requirement under the Child Poverty (Scotland) Act 2017 that local authorities and health boards jointly produce and publish an annual review of their plan, setting out work being undertaken to tackle child poverty in their region. This action is required up until 2030. Children and young people are currently working with a graphic artist to coproduce a graphic, plan on a page version for children, young people and adults who prefer a briefer, graphic presentation. This will be published alongside main plan. The introduction also discusses the Argyll and Bute picture and the factors that contribute including rurality, cost of living, transport, economic base and housing. Research is cited with regards to these factors. 3.0 RECOMMENDATIONS To approve this plan. 4.0 DETAIL Front Sections of the Report: • Child Friendly Version of the Plan (Graphic plan on a page being coproduced). • Integrated Impact Assessments (Notes the development of the impact assessments and the integration of children’s rights). • Data and Child Poverty (Notes progress in this area since the last review). Page 293
Page 294
• Taking Action on Rural Poverty (TARP) Describes the progress of the project and the Citizen’s Panel). • Child Poverty and Mental Health (Notes the causes and impacts of this key issue and gives information about services in Argyll and Bute). • The Promise and Whole Family Support (Notes progress and focuses on Children’s Residential Houses and Family Placement). The Plan This section of the report reviews progress and changes in key areas of the plan and is laid out as always, in the following sections: A. Increasing Income from Employment and Earnings. • Employability. • Skills Development Scotland Argyll and Bute. • UHI Argyll and University of the Highlands and Islands. • Education and Early Year. B. Increasing Income through Benefits • Benefits. • Social Security Scotland, Argyll and Bute. • Welfare Rights Update 2024-25. • Bute Advice Centre. C. Cost of Living • Housing. • ALIenergy Fuel Poverty & Education Summary (2024–25). • Free School Meals and Holiday Provision. • Infant Food Insecurity Pilot. • My Tribe Free Period Product Initiative. D. Helping Families in Other Ways • Public Health. • Young Carers. • Working with Refugees in Argyll and Bute. • Pre-loved School Uniform Project. • Schools Share and Recycle. • Street Connect. E. Other Planned Work • Establishing a Dedicated Poverty Prevention Service. 5.0 CONCLUSION This report notes the importance of tackling child poverty and for all agencies contributing to that objective to work together and make best use of resources. It also notes that indications are that some small progress is being made as a result of both local and national actions. Page 294
Page 295
Annual statistics published today show that compared with the previous year’s statistics, relative child poverty in 2023-24 reduced from 26% to 22% in Scotland while absolute child poverty fell from 23% to 17%. UK Poverty statistics published today show levels of relative child poverty at 31% and absolute child poverty at 26%. Scottish Government, 27/03/2025. (Scottish Government, 27/03/2025). This picture is reflected in 2023 - 2024 figures released in June 2025, by the End Child Poverty (ECP) coalition. The constituency Argyll and Bute and South Lochaber, shows a rate of 22.1%; the previous year was 23.5% so a small reduction can be seen. 6.0 IMPLICATIONS 6.1 Policy It is a requirement under the Child Poverty (Scotland) Act 2017 that local authorities and health boards jointly produce and publish an annual review of their plan, setting out work being undertaken to tackle child poverty in their region. This action is required up until 2030. 6.2 Financial This report notes the actions taken to improve the financial circumstances of people living in poverty in Argyll and Bute. This includes third sector as well as Council actions. 6.3 Legal It is a legal obligation of the Council to produce a review of the plan on an annual basis up until 2030. The plan requires to be shared with the Scottish Government and published. 6.4 HR There are no HR concerns relating to this report. 6.5 Customer Service There are no customer service implications to this report. The report will be published on the appropriate Council website and hence be available to the public. 6.6 Risk There are no risks relating to this report, it fulfils the Councils reporting duty in this area. 6.7 Climate Change Climate change is not a subject directly addressed in this report, but the challenges of environment and fuel poverty are. 6.8 Fairer Scotland Duty The Fairer Scotland Duty has been addressed by this report which seeks to equity and decrease poverty in Argyll and Bute. Page 295
Page 296
6.9 Equalities - protected characteristics This report notes the particular challenges faced by key groups, such as single parents, young families, those with disabilities and larger families. 6.10 Consumer Duty This report notes this area. 6.11 Island Communities This report highlights the challenges of islands cost of living and how it is being addressed. 6.12 Children’s Rights and Wellbeing This report is about tackling child poverty and therefore covers this area. Children’s voices are being heard, and they are coproducing a graphic version of this plan, which will be published with the main plan. Evan Beswick, Chief Officer – Health and Social Care Partnership 4 September 2025 For further information contact: Mandy Sheridan, Service Improvement Officer Tel: 01631 572952 APPENDICES Appendix 1 – Argyll and Bute Child Poverty Action Plan Review 2024/25 Appendix 2 - Argyll and Bute Child Poverty Action Plan Review 2024/25 - Graphic Page 296
Page 297
Argyll and Bute Child Poverty Action Plan Review 2024 2025 Appendix 1Page 297
Page 298
Page 2 of 64 Argyll and Bute Child Poverty Action Plan Review 2024 – 2025 Contents Argyll and Bute Child Poverty ..................................................................................... 1 Argyll and Bute Child Poverty Action Plan Review 2024 – 2025 ............................. 2 Foreword ................................................................................................................ 3 Introduction ............................................................................................................. 5 Child Friendly Version of the Plan ........................................................................... 8 Integrated Impact Assessments .............................................................................. 8 Data and Child Poverty ........................................................................................... 9 Taking Action on Rural Poverty (TARP) ................................................................ 10 Child Poverty and Mental Health .......................................................................... 12 The Promise and Whole Family Support .............................................................. 18 United Nations Charter on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC) ................................ 20 The Plan ............................................................................................................... 21 A. Increasing income From Employment and Earning ................................... 21 B. Increasing income Through Benefits .......................................................... 39 C. The Cost of Living .................................................................................. 45 D. Helping Families in Other Ways ............................................................. 56 E. Other Planned Work................................................................................... 62 F. References ................................................................................................. 63 Page 298
Page 299
Page 3 of 64 Foreword The Scottish Government has clearly stated its intention to tackle child poverty. On 22 May 2024, the First Minister, John Swinney MSP, set out the priorities that would underpin the work of the Scottish Government and reaffirmed its commitment to address child poverty, saying. My first priority is to eradicate child poverty—not tackle or reduce child poverty but eradicate it. That will be the single most important objective of my Government and my Cabinet, because child poverty stunts the progress of any nation, and it stands in the way of social justice and economic growth. My Cabinet will do everything in our power—including listening to and working with members across the chamber—to achieve our aim. Despite actions taken both nationally and locally in Scotland, we know that we have not yet delivered on this ambition. 2023 - 2024 figures were released in June 2025, by the End Child Poverty (ECP) coalition. The annual analysis by the Centre for Research in Social Policy at Loughborough University looks at local poverty rates after housing costs, which is seen as a more accurate assessment of disposable family income. The constituency Argyll and Bute and South Lochaber, shows a rate of 22.1%; the previous year was 23.5% so a small reduction can be seen. For the same period the Scottish rate of relative child poverty was 23%. Danny Dorling in his Book “Seven Children; Inequality and Britain’s Next Generation” 2024, noted that: In the seven most recent years surveyed by the United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF), 2014 – 2021, child poverty has risen faster in the UK than in any comparable country worldwide. (1) In Argyll and Bute, we acknowledge these barriers to lifting children out of poverty. For us, they are added to others more specific to our area, including the cost of living in our remote, rural and island places, the cost and challenges of travel, housing shortages, wages lower than the national average and the need to address employment opportunities. Despite all of this, the task of combatting child poverty remains a top priority and is coordinated by our Child Poverty Action Group and the Financial Advice and Inclusion Group. These groups, with leadership across the HSCP, Council and NHS Highland, bring together, departments, organisations and partners to tackle child poverty. In all of this we listen to the voices of our communities and children and young people. We work with them to ensure their rights are respected. The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child and the UNCRC (Incorporation) (Scotland) Act 2024 makes these clear including the right to food, a decent standard of living and a safe home (article 27); the best interests of the child to be paramount in all actions affecting them (article 3) and the right to be heard (article 12). Page 299
Page 300
Page 4 of 64 We want to take this opportunity to thank the staff across our respective organisations, and also our partners across the statutory, independent and third sectors for their tireless work in tackling child poverty. That partnership is key. Finally, we want to thank the people of Argyll and Bute, without whose support for each other no progress would be possible. Our vision remains We want an Argyll and Bute where no-one lives in poverty. Everyone should be able to achieve their potential and feel healthy, happy and valued. We want to be a place where everyone understands that tackling poverty is a shared responsibility. We believe that if we act locally, and in partnership, we can make a difference. Evan Beswick Chief Officer Argyll and Bute Health and Social Care Partnership and Chair Child Poverty Action Group Pippa Milne Chief Executive Argyll and Bute Council Fiona Davies Chief Executive NHS Highland Page 300
Page 301
Page 5 of 64 Introduction In 2017 the Child Poverty (Scotland) Act came into force as an attempt to put in place measures that would reduce the concerning increase in child poverty, both on a national and local level. The 2017 Act set four targets, which the Scottish Government committed to achieving by 2024 - 2025 and 2030; these are all measured after housing costs are deducted. The targets for 2024 - 25: • Less than 18% of children are in relative poverty. • Less than 14% of children are in absolute poverty. • Less than 8% of children are in combined low income and material deprivation. • Less than 8% of children are in persistent poverty. Targets for 2030: • less than 10% of children live in relative poverty (relative poverty is less than 60% of average household income for the year taking account of the size and composition of the household). • less than 5% of children live in absolute poverty (absolute poverty is less than 60% of average household income for the financial year beginning 1 April 2010). • less than 5% of children live in combined low income and material deprivation (low income is defined as less than 70% of average household income for the year, material deprivation is when families are unable to afford three or more items out of a list of basic necessities. • less than 5% of children live in persistent poverty (persistent poverty is where a child has lived in relative poverty for three out of the last four years). However, despite good intentions and efforts both locally and nationally, child poverty is still very much with us, albeit at a significantly lower rate than England and Wales. Annual statistics published today show that compared with the previous year’s statistics, relative child poverty in 2023-24 reduced from 26% to 22% in Scotland while absolute child poverty fell from 23% to 17%. UK Poverty statistics published today show levels of relative child poverty at 31% and absolute child poverty at 26%. Scottish Government, 27/03/2025 Child poverty in Scotland falls - gov.scot Child poverty rates in Scotland (24%) remain much lower than those in England (30%) and Wales (29%) and are similar (if slightly higher) than in Northern Ireland (23%). This is likely to be due, at least in part, to the Scottish Child Payment. This highlights the effect benefits can have in reducing poverty. (2) Page 301
Page 302
Page 6 of 64 UK Poverty 2025 The essential guide to understanding poverty in the UK. Joseph Rowntree Foundation. This picture is reflected in 2023 – 2024 figures released in June 2025, by the End Child Poverty (ECP) coalition. The annual analysis by the Centre for Research in Social Policy at Loughborough University looks at local poverty rates after housing costs, which is seen as a more accurate assessment of disposable family income. The constituency Argyll and Bute and South Lochaber, shows a rate of 22.1%; the previous year was 23.5% so a small reduction can be seen. Figures for Scotland also show improvement and reflect the impact of the Scottish Child Payment and mitigation of the two-child cap. A chart showing percentages of constituencies where at least 31% of children are in poverty across the UK in 2023 to 2024. Scotland has the lowest rate at 7%, the highest at 73% is the Northwest of England. Research tells us that certain groups are overrepresented in terms of child poverty, these include: • three or more children in the household. • Households with a disabled member. • Households with children under the age of 1. • Minority ethnic households. • Single parent households. Page 302
Page 303
Page 7 of 64 • Households where the mother is under the age of 25. Where one or more of these factors exist within a household, the probability of child poverty being present increases. However, these groupings do not cover all the family types at higher risk of poverty, with nearly one in ten children in poverty living in households with none of these characteristics. As well, not all families in these groups live in poverty. Geographical factors are also important when looking at child poverty. The Joseph Rowntree Foundation point out commonalties that connect rural areas: The main drivers of poverty vary across different geographies – a greater reliance on renting and higher costs of housing are substantial drivers in larger cities in particular, while lower rates of employment, with fewer employment opportunities alongside a greater concentration of employment in lower paid roles and sectors, are more significant drivers of poverty across many post-industrial and coastal areas. (3) Joseph Rowntree Foundation (2025) UK Poverty 2025 Rurality is an important factor and one which is key to tackling child poverty in Argyll and Bute. A research Project commissioned by the Scottish Government and carried out by Loughborough University, found that, because of specific additional costs, it is more expensive to reach a minimum socially acceptable standard of living in remote rural Scotland, than in other more urban areas. For remote rural areas, in 2023, this “uplift” figure was 14%, as it was for island places. (4) Dr Jayne Glass looked at existing research and data and asked the question, where were the knowledge gaps? Dr Glass gave an overview of the factors that can make living in poverty, and addressing child poverty, particularly challenging in remote, rural and island locations. (5) • Income from work and earnings. • Volatile and unpredictable rural incomes. • Limited access to training and skills development. • Reliance on private vehicles. • Lack of local and flexible childcare. • Rural gender pay gap. • Costs of living. • Higher levels of fuel poverty in remote rural and island areas. • Additional minimum living costs in remote rural and island areas (add 15- 30%). • Unaffordable housing and/or poor housing condition. Page 303
Page 304
Page 8 of 64 The importance of employability factors in rural areas is clear. In Argyll and Bute, the percentage of people employed in low pay sectors in 2023 was 33.3% as opposed to the Scottish average of 28.8% (Annual Population Survey 2023). When looking at earnings for that residence based and working full time, in Argyll and Bute, 2024, for male workers, it was £702.9 per week as opposed to the Scottish average of £740. For female workers it was £645.4, as opposed to the Scottish national average of £701. (Nomis). However, having one parent in employment is often not enough to avoid poverty. In Scotland, six in ten children in poverty live in households where someone is working, and increasingly, only having two parents at work protects against the risk of poverty. Children in Argyll and Bute appear to experience a higher level of in-work poverty; 71.2 percent of children of low-income families live in a household where at least one adult is working (6) This demonstrates the importance of employability measures and the planned economic developments from the Rural Growth Deal. The Rural Growth Deal (RGD) is a 10-year programme that will deliver £70 million of investment to develop Argyll and Bute’s economic potential into a successful future for the area. It is hoped this will generate at least 300 jobs, support business development and attract more visitors to the area. Importantly, it will also look to address key housing shortages that hinder such development. Many of the causes and impacts of child poverty in Scotland’s remote rural and island places are known. In Argyll and Bute, we work to address these and make a difference for our children, young people and families. Key to this is working with partners in the statutory and voluntary sectors, with businesses and with our communities. This report shows some of the ways in which we do that. Child Friendly Version of the Plan Children and young people are currently working with a Graphic Artist to update the existing graphic, plan on a page version of our Child Poverty Action Plan. This coproduced version will be accessible to children, young people and adults who prefer a more condensed / graphic presentation of the elements of this plan. The graphic plan will be published alongside the main version of the plan. Integrated Impact Assessments The council is committed to carrying out impact assessments both to meet our legal obligations and as a matter of good practice. Impact Assessments: • help officers to check they have considered implications and impacts which may arise from their proposals. • help officers to show they have considered implications and impacts. Page 304
Page 305
Page 9 of 64 • help people interested in potential impacts to see impacts have been considered, and how. • enable better / more informed consultation and engagement around proposals while they are still in development. • enable better scrutiny around decisions as potential impacts are made more explicit and transparent. Argyll and Bute Council reviewed its combined impact assessment process in 2024 and launched a new process and online tool in March 2025. The council’s Impact Assessment Tool has been adopted for use by the Argyll and Bute Health and Social Care Partnership. The new Integrated Impact Assessment brings together five impact assessment frameworks into a single process. These relate to equality, the Fairer Scotland Duty, Islands Communities, the Consumer Duty, and Children’s Rights and Wellbeing. Work to include Children’s Rights and Wellbeing Impact Assessments (CRWIAs) has been carried out as part of the council’s activities relating to the incorporation of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. As children’s rights and wellbeing should be considered not only in the context of proposals targeted directly at children and young people but also proposals which may indirectly affect them, proposals from all parts of the council must be screened to check whether a full assessment of impacts relating to children and young people needs to be carried out. In line with Scottish Government’s approach to CRWIAs, our tool impact includes assessment relating to: • The United Nations on the Convention of the Child’s articles, and • The eight wellbeing indicators which are key components with in the Getting it Right for Every Child (GIRFEC) approach. In the course of the tool’s development, we ran the text and questions relating to CRWIAs past our UNCRC Incorporation Group and took advice from the Improvement Service. We will be assessing the tool over summer 2025 to monitor its usability and effectiveness. Data and Child Poverty In Argyll & Bute our council’s Welfare Rights Team makes a real difference in outcomes for families by helping them maximise their uptake of available benefits grants and allowances, securing Client Financial Gain in excess of £4 million per year. However, they’re very dependent on existing referral channels such as through social work and education, i.e. cases where there’s “known” unmet need. There’s a perennial risk that we’re missing some households that don’t come to light through these channels. Hence a lot of our focus is on trying to utilise data to identify Page 305
Page 306
Page 10 of 64 households where there’s as yet “unknown” unmet need; those at risk of falling through the cracks. So, the value to us of having data on families in receipt of Universal Credit and Scottish Child Payment is essentially the same regardless of which benefit they are in receipt of – if these families are known to us, we can: • Check if they have already had a referral for support, such as through social work. If they have not, then… • We would make contact with themg to look to maximise their uptake of other benefits, grants and allowances, especially Council Tax Reduction, School Clothing Grant, Disability Benefits, etc. • We would also help to ensure they are making their claims at the correct rate, e.g. have they applied for Disability Benefits at the correct level, etc. * There is a data governance challenge with a lack of legal gateways through which we could justify direct outreach to households. Working with the Improvement Service and Scalable Approach to Vulnerability Via Interoperability (SAVVI) has been extremely valuable in better understanding the legal constraints around this type of data reuse. In the short term though if we can obtain this data at some sort of aggregated level by location then it would at least allow us to consider targeted outreach say to specific schools where the data suggest, in aggregate, concentrations of unknown unmet need. We hope to achieve more going forward, in terms of being able to use legal gateways to allow us to identify unmet need and approach families directly. If we could increase the current rates of Client Financial Gain by say 15-20% by working with families who would otherwise be missed for lack of referral, but whom we’ve found through data sharing by DWP/SSS, then this would be a measurable and impactful outcome. Taking Action on Rural Poverty (TARP) TARP, set up by the Poverty Alliance, came about as a result of poverty awareness training undertaken as part of Argyll and Bute Council’s child poverty action plan. It aims to • build on the Child Poverty Action Group’s work to strengthen infrastructure within A&B for lived experience to be included in decision making. • support collaboration and networking amongst organisations that work to combat poverty or support their communities with the cost of living. • using learning from these aims, work with local stakeholders to test and learn about locally appropriate ways to reduce the costs of rural living. Page 306
Page 307
Page 11 of 64 In the past year we have: • developed and consolidated a citizens’ panel of people with experience of living on a low income and/or with high costs due to their rural location. • Panel members have participated in 12 sessions, exploring their experiences and priorities; learning about local support and providing a lived experience perspective to inform the work of partners including the Council’s Revenues and Benefits team, Argyll and Bute Third Sector Interface and Citizen’s Advice Bureau. • We have also held joint sessions with our sister panel based in Aberdeenshire. These have been convened to respond to timely national issues of interest. Individual panellists have also participated in regional and national events including meeting with the First Minister during Challenge Poverty Week to discuss the “Best Start, Bright Futures” plan, and contributing to national panels such as the Trussell Trust’s new Scotland-wide lived experience group. • We recently co-reviewed our progress and aims and over the next year the panel’s focus will be on seeking opportunities to engage with and influence decision-making by agencies around local food costs, community resilience and tenant rights. • We have established quarterly networking and learning events, focused on topics of interest identified by local organisations and public sector partners and co- hosted with the TSI. • Our quarterly events include updates and opportunities to share news and practice, and they have been well attended with extremely positive feedback. In the coming year we will continue with this successful model. • Following extensive stakeholder engagement and based on prioritised by the citizens’ panel, we have developed a test of change project in collaboration with ALIenergy. Poverty Alliance will provide funding and support. In dialogue with clients of their Affordable Warmth Service, ALIenergy and their partners will act as delivery partners to o explore the realised and potential cost savings to social tenants from moving to renewable energy (heat pumps with or without solar panels and battery storage). o generate specific information and support to ensure tenants gain the maximum benefit from their renewables. The funding agreement is now in place and over the next year we anticipate the research element of the project will be completed; resource development and project evaluation will be underway. To ensure learning from the panel, network and test of change would best be integrated into strategic planning, TARP has a local oversight group including representation from Argyll and Bute Council and Argyll and Bute TSI. Updates and opportunities are shared via the local Child Poverty Action Group and Financial Inclusion and Advice Group, as well as Community Planning Partnership’s Page 307
Page 308
Page 12 of 64 Area Community Planning Groups (the latter when possible) and by occasional newsletter to a mailing list of over 140 contacts. Other collaborative activity: • TARP’s project team works closed with the Argyll and Bute Climate Action Network to integrate social justice more comprehensively into ABCAN’s climate work across the region, and vice versa. Argyll and Bute Development Officer, Becky Hothersall, has joined ABCAN’s steering group and over the next year will participate in work focused on food security and community resilience. • The Poverty Alliance is building a broad coalition of organisations under the banner “Scotland Demands Better” including a national demonstration and march in October 2025. Child Poverty and Mental Health When planning to address child poverty it is important to consider the 3 drivers of poverty: income through employment, income through benefits, and the cost of living. Beyond that, it is equally important to tackle the impacts, which can harm individuals and families. The ongoing stress and anxiety caused by living in poverty and trying each day to pay the bills and provide for your children, cannot be underestimated. Children are not immune to this as they witness their parents struggle and live with the knowledge that they cannot have the things that their peers take for granted. • Mental Health Foundation - mental health and poverty statistics • Child Poverty Action Group - Priced Out of School. Added to this are the pressures of not having any resources in reserve if things go wrong or wear out. Across the UK in 2023 - 2024, The proportion of families with less than £1,500 in savings was 48%, which was the same as last year. Twenty per cent of families reported that they had no savings, and a further 10% said they had less than £100. (7) A growing body of evidence, mainly from high-income countries, has shown that there is a strong socioeconomic gradient in mental health, with people of lower socioeconomic status having a higher likelihood of developing and experiencing mental health problems. • Children and adults living in households in the lowest 20% income bracket in Great Britain are two to three times more likely to develop mental health problems than those in the highest. • In 2004, evidence from the Child and Adolescent Mental Health Survey found that the prevalence of severe mental health problems was around three times higher among children in the bottom quintile of family income than among those in the top quintile. Page 308
Page 309
Page 13 of 64 • Analysis of data from the Millennium Cohort Study in 2012 found children in the lowest income quintile to be 4.5 times more likely to experience severe mental health problems than those in the highest, suggesting that the income gradient in young people’s mental health has worsened considerably over the past decade. Mental Health Foundation The Mental Health Foundation points out that employment status is linked to mental health outcomes, with the unemployed or economically inactive having higher rates of common mental health problems than those employed. However, mental health is also impacted on by low paid and insecure employment. (8) Housing can also be a factor and those on housing benefit are more than twice as likely to have a common mental health problem than those not receiving it (35.1% vs 14.9%). (9) Action For Children - how children are affected by poverty However, it is the effect of poverty on parents’ and children’s mental health that continues to have the largest impact and accrues throughout all of childhood, thus intensifying mental health problems for both parents and children over time. (10) Having the right kind of services and early intervention will help to mitigate the stresses and mental health impacts of poverty. There are a number of services in Argyll and Bute that help to address and improve mental health and wellbeing, for children, young people and families, whatever the cause. 1. A new free service from Argyll and Bute Council, in partnership with Exchange Families is available for parents and carers to help support their child. A range of support, workshops and resources will be on offer to help better understand common issues and learn how you can help. Exchange Families offers support for parents and carers with concerns about the wellbeing of their children. They provide specialist guidance to families worried about their young people. The organisation helps adults to help their families through workshops, resources, guidance and advice. There are workshops (in person or on-line) with practical strategies for parents and carers to support their children and young people, covering a range of areas: anxiety, neurodiversity, low self-esteem, self-harm, low-mood, bereavement, family break up. Workshops available to book thus far are: • Workshops - Age 4-7 - Promoting confidence and self-esteem in young children • Workshops - Age 8-11 - Building confidence and self-esteem in children Page 309
Page 310
Page 14 of 64 • Workshops - Age 12+ - Techniques for preventing anxiety and panic. Stress management techniques for supporting teens • An online Mental Health Hub - Living Well in Argyll and Bute Exchange Counselling | Mental Health Service Provider 2. Our children, their nurturing education (OCTNE) is the authority wide education strategy that brings together nurture, adverse childhood experiences and trauma- informed practice. This makes a significant contribution to the development of a trauma responsive education workforce. The strategy ensures that children and young people will have access to wellbeing programmes and supports to enhance prevention and early intervention while providing more specialist support where required. The continued support of 58 establishments, including 52 schools and 6 Partnership Providers, through the OCTNE journey has enabled sustained growth in nurturing environments. 3. Rollout of Trauma Informed and Trauma Skilled training has been offered to child and adult services this session. An additional ~120 staff have attended an in- person training since January. Another cohort of Transforming Connections training for trainers will take place in June, and all trainers now have access to a team’s channel, with a view to continuing to roll out a programme of training over the coming year. 4. Best Beginnings Argyll & Bute Infant Mental Health Service, Best Beginnings launched in Spring 2022 and works to support early relationships between babies and their carer’s. There is an ongoing training programme offered to professionals, volunteers and students by the Infant Mental Health Practitioner. 5. Family Nurse Partnership In April 2024 the Family Nurse Programme began to be rolled out across Argyll and Bute; it commenced in the Bute and Cowal area. This programme is established in many parts of the World such as the United States, Australia and Norway. In Scotland it has been successfully working in areas like Greater Glasgow and Clyde for several years. This is a preventative, educational behaviour programme that is run by Nurses and Midwives who have received training in skills that include motivational interviewing, agenda matching and the use of tools such as “Partners in Parenting Education” (PIPE). The programme works with mothers to be who are 21 years old and under; work will begin with participants as early as possible in the pregnancy and continue Page 310
Page 311
Page 15 of 64 until the child’s second birthday. Co-working will take place with Midwives and when the child is born, programme staff will take the place of the Health Visitor until a planned handover to them when the child is two years old. This will be for first time mothers and will offer additional support and learning opportunities that they would otherwise not be able to access. The programme focuses on empowering the mother and listening to her needs and views as well as offering support, signposting to other agencies that will assist her and giving her skills to better care for her baby. FNP the person-centred, preventative intervention programme offered to young first-time mother is now being rolled out to include Mid Argyll Kintyre and Islay. 6. Kooth We now offer a free online mental health and wellbeing resource to all 10–18- year-olds in Argyll and Bute. Kooth offers a wide range of help, with a no-wait, no- referral service so any young person can reach out for support, whenever they need it. Read more about how to access Kooth Kooth – A new mental health and wellbeing tool for children and young people 7. Counselling in Schools School counselling services continues to be available across the authority. Approx. 700 pupils accessed over the past 12 months. 83% of young people and 81% of primary-aged children completing support reported positive clinical outcomes. This is further supported by positive parent feedback, with 100% of parents feeling more confident in supporting their child's emotional and developmental needs and 94% observing positive changes in their child’s wellbeing. 8. Planet Youth Planet Youth is an Iceland-originated framework with the aim to improve young people’s health, wellbeing and relationships. To achieve this aim parents, carers, schools, communities and organisers work together. Argyll and Bute is one of the six local authorities who piloted the framework in Scotland. In 2023 a survey was conducted during school hours among Year 3 and Year 4 students of five selected schools in Argyll and Bute. As part of this, the participants were asked to rate their mental health status. The majority, 38% (n=286), of respondents rated their mental health as ‘good to very good’, 28% (n=210) rated it as ‘acceptable’, 28% (n=208) rated it as ‘bad to very bad’. 5% (n=40) of participants did not answer the question. Planet Youth work with children and young people to provide activities and engagement that improves their wellbeing and reduces their likelihood of drug, alcohol use and other negative behaviours. Page 311
Page 312
Page 16 of 64 9. Family Liaison and Health & Wellbeing Officers Family Liaison and Health & Wellbeing Officers have been further supported in a network created to offer opportunity for career long professional learning (CLPL) and to further strengthen the work they do and impact they are making. Evidence around their impact is strong. They are making a real difference to our most vulnerable pupils and their families through a wide range of support. Partnership work with Bute Advice Centre and ALIenergy for FL/HWB Officers led to co- creation of a ‘Help Leaflet’ signposting families to available supports. This has been distributed to all schools with a FLO/ HWB Officer. 10. Let’s Grow Kids UK Work with parents in Argyll and Bute during the perinatal period and until a child’s third birthday. All staff at LGKUK, (a third sector organisation) are trained in perinatal and infant mental health and infant nutrition. Providing one to one targeted support, they work alongside families helping them to navigate their way through the pressures of family life. Their core programme lasts for 16 weeks, and a parent can stay with the team for as long as they need or until their youngest child is 3. Let’s Grow Kids UK use a combination of several parenting programmes including Solihull, Adult mental health and family programmes such as WRAP and support clients to access specialist services such as Bute Advice. Let’s Grow Kids UK have a tiered system for accessing professional support within the team as well as general wellbeing assistance. Every introduction is triaged, and each parent is allocated the most appropriate professional to work with. We have 3 tests of change ongoing in addition to our core programme. These are • Working with Dads • Working with parents of children with ASN during their Nursery/School transition year • Working with parents with poor mental health by providing Psychotherapy sessions (this work is being delivered in partnership with University of Strathclyde) Let’s Grow Kids Website 11. The HELP Project (Dunoon and Rothsay) This project helps young people with housing, debt and benefit advice, employment and wellbeing issues. Referral criteria are between the ages of 16- 25-years, homeless, at threat of homelessness or care experienced. It offers a range of wellbeing supports, including parenting groups and life coaching. Help Project Website Page 312
Page 313
Page 17 of 64 Help Project Email: info@helpltd.org.uk Help Project Phone: 0800 121 4990 12. Home Start Lorn Home-Start Lorn has been supporting families with young children throughout the whole of the Oban and North Argyll area, including the outlying villages since 1988 and on the Isle of Mull since 2016. Through our home-visiting volunteers we offer a unique service providing practical and emotional support to parents/carers with one or more children under 5. Contacts Phone 01631 566749 Email: homestartlorn@btconnect.com Home-Start Lorn 13. Argyll and Bute Third Sector Interface: Communities Mental Health and Wellbeing Fund The Communities Mental Health and Wellbeing Fund has been awarded for another two years – this will be years five and six of the fund. Argyll and Bute has been awarded £285,765.57 for each of the two years. The Fund ‘is to be made available to support community-based initiatives that promote and develop good mental health and wellbeing and mitigate and protect against the impact of distress and mental ill health within the adult population. Specifically, the Fund aims to: • Tackle mental health inequalities through supporting a range of ‘at risk groups. • Address priority issues of social isolation and loneliness, suicide prevention and poverty and inequality with a particular emphasis on responding to the cost-of-living crisis and support to those facing socio-economic disadvantage. • Support small ‘grass roots’ community groups and organisations to deliver such activities. • Provide opportunities for people to connect with each other, build trusted relationships and revitalise communities. The Fund has a strong focus on prevention and early intervention and aims to support grass roots community groups in tackling mental health inequalities and address priority issues of social isolation and loneliness, suicide prevention and tackling poverty and inequality. Page 313
Page 314
Page 18 of 64 The Promise and Whole Family Support The promise, made by the Scottish Government following work done by the Independent Care Review, to care experienced children and young people is built on five foundations: family, voice, care, people and scaffolding. They show what's important for any child to grow up loved, safe and respected. You can find out more about The Promise here: The Promise – gov.scot Coupled with this was the vision and Principles of Holistic Whole Family Support to promote consistent standards across Scotland which will help to deliver improved outcomes for children, young people and families. In Scotland, Family Support is broadly understood to be a range of services to help families meet their individual needs. The aim is to improve families' wellbeing by providing advice and support to enable them to avoid crisis. The Scottish Government provides grant funding to the Argyll & Bute’s Children’s Partnership through the Whole Family Wellbeing Fund (WFWF). The money is designed to support work towards the Promise through innovative practice initiatives. Projects which are supported through this fund include • The Family Placement Team recruited two extra staff to do initial and full assessments on Kinship Carers. • The Throughcare and Aftercare Team recruited two extra staff to work with young people during their care and aftercare journey. • The Care Experience Health Team was further developed. This allowed for the CAMH’s Team to have formulation meetings with staff from the three residential children and young people’s houses (Shellach View, East King Street and Dunclutha). • A Trauma Coordinator has been appointed, and this is proving to be a key post in helping to further develop the trauma informed approach that all our staff are trained in. • Developing the joint work between the Child and Adolescent Mental Health Service (CAMHS) and Education to support families of children exhibiting emotional distress has proven to be very successful. A Head Teacher for Care Experienced Children and Young People has been appointed and works across schools. Page 314
Page 315
Page 19 of 64 Residential Children’s Houses 2024 - 2025 Work has been undertaken to further develop training for staff in our residential children’s houses. The impact of this training has supported achieving positive destinations for the young people who had been supported to transition to independent living. One house has recruited qualified social workers, colleagues from education and throughcare services. Having a suitably qualified workforce we can consider early intervention in the community to target support to families and provide a response to young people whose needs may be more complex. Staff teams within the Houses have been trained in Therapeutic Theory training by CALM, along with Therapeutic Care Giving training facilitated by CAHMS care experienced team. There is progress in the number of practitioners trained in Dyadic Developmental Psychotherapy (DDP). Family Placement 2024-2025 Recruitment of foster carers is a national problem. We get more inquiries from prospective adopters than people interested in fostering, but it would appear this mirrors the national picture. We continue to work to recruit more foster carers. Continuing care arrangements with previous foster or kinship carers has been strengthened with the decision to retain a supervising social worker from the family placement team to work alongside the carers post conversion to continuing care providers, offering support to them in this new role of helping the young person transition to independence when ready; this will include annual reviews. We have updated Kinship policy and procedures and taken most work associated with kinship into the family placement team. This has led to a quicker initial assessment when children go to stay with kin, as well as a smoother transition from Interim to permanent kinship arrangements. Kinship Carers have had opportunities to meet up with foster carers and adopters at joint events. Going forward, we will develop our review process for kinship carers that will ensure we know the circumstances of all kinship carers and the children they care for, including those no longer involved with a child’s social worker. We plan to introduce Family Group Conferencing, which will make the initial exploration for kinship carers more robust and allow a full discussion including family members who can’t take on the care of a child full time but can support another family member to do so. The Family Placement Team will undertake assessment, training, support and review of supported lodgings providers. It is hoped that this will increase the options for young people leaving Care, this will be a joint venture with the Throughcare team. Page 315
Page 316
Page 20 of 64 United Nations Charter on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC) In October 2023 the Argyll and Bute UNCRC Implementation Group applied for a grant from the Scottish Government, CORRA Foundation led, UNCRC Innovations Fund. This was set up to give Councils the funds to embed children’s rights in their area following the introduction of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (Incorporation) (Scotland) Act 2024. The bid was successful and £53,000 was awarded to achieve the following objectives. 1. In coproduction with children and young people, create a series of celebratory events that inform children, young people and their parents and carers about children’s rights and the new act. 2. Create an awards scheme that, in coproduction with children and young people, will encourage embedding of children’s rights into the work of the Council and its partners. 3. Create materials that can be used going forward to increase awareness of children’s rights in Argyll and Bute. All these outcomes were achieved; key things to note in the work of this project include: • 17 events took place that celebrated children’s rights and informed children, young people and parents / carers and staff about the new act. In total 2475 children and young people were directly involved with events and the coproduction of new materials for use going forward. • An awards scheme was commenced, and children and young people have helped to design badges and plaques that will be used in the scheme. • Two children’s rights workshops were held for parents, carers, staff and other interested adults. • Children and young people have been involved across Argyll and Bute, from our islands, rural places and towns. This has included those from early years, primary and high schools and young people not in school. The range of communities and groups included has been extensive and includes refugee and asylum-seeking children and young carers. • Material created for future work in this area include small libraries of children’s rights / inclusive and LGBTQ books in several schools including Tobermory and Rothsay high schools. Pens provided with the books that will read aloud, allowing children and young people to share them with parents where English may not be a first language etc. A new LBTQ+ flag designed by children and young people, a graphic version of the children’s rights plan, a graphic poster for early years settings and parents that signposts to information about relevant rights and resources and has a QR code which directs people to a Council webpage on resources for parents with babies and young children. A film created by Young Carers about their challenges and the importance of their rights. A variety of materials from individual events that will be visible to children and those in communities going forward, for example bags, fridge magnets, t-shirts and mugs. Page 316
Page 317
Page 21 of 64 All of this combines with key elements like informed leadership, impact assessments that encompass children’s rights, a child friendly complaints procedure, coworking with youth and community groups, the creating of child friendly documents, and the provision of training for staff. Going forward we will keep children’s rights and voices at the centre of the Council’s work and recognise that they must be respected if we are to effectively tackle child poverty. The Plan A. Increasing income From Employment and Earning 1. Employability Delivery of the Parental Employability Support Fund (PESF) continues within the broader context of the No One Left Behind (NOLB) policy direction. Eligible participants must have the right to live and work in the UK and are: • Lone Parents who are unemployed or experiencing in work poverty • Parents with a disability or families who are unemployed or experiencing in work poverty and have a disabled child • Parents who are unemployed or experiencing in work poverty and have 3 or more children • Parents from a minority ethnic background who are unemployed or experiencing in work poverty • Parents who are unemployed or experiencing in work poverty and have a youngest child • Parents who are aged <25 who are unemployed or experiencing in work poverty • Other low-income parents, i.e. kinship carers who are unemployed or experiencing in work poverty. The main objectives/expected outcomes are to support the delivery of the Scottish Government’s Parental Employability Support Fund (PESF) to offer a flexible and user-based model of employability support for the parental groups identified in Best Start, Bright Futures: tackling child poverty delivery plan 2022 to 2026, through appropriate support focusing on intensive Key Worker support. Low-income families are supported to increase their income through work, both through supporting parents to access paid employment and in helping those in lower paid jobs to progress to higher paid employment. Argyll and Bute Council’s Employability Team and Third Sector partner Inspiralba (lead of a large consortium across Argyll and Bute) deliver intensive in and out of work employability support to parents, including person centred support to upskill, apply for jobs, gain progression whilst employment, money advice, health support, motivational support, complete accredited training, etc. Bute Advice and ALIenergy are key partners within Inspiralba’s consortium helping to assist parents to maximise their household income and reduce fuel costs. Page 317
Page 318
Page 22 of 64 The Argyll and Bute Employability Partnership (ABEP) identified lack of childcare as a barrier to work for parents. In response, our Third Sector partner Inspiralba developed a pilot programme to support parents through the process of becoming registered childminders utilising the Child Poverty funding. The pilot recognised that whilst support was available to access childminding, additional coaching and support would enable parents with limited confidence and on a low income to pursue this career and progress into self-employment. All parents who enter the childminding programme are supported by an Employability Coach to build confidence; coordinate training including Paediatric First Aid and Food Hygiene and guide them along their journey. The Scottish Childminding Association (SCMA) provide specialist support, including the ‘Childminding Induction Programme’ and Argyll and Bute Council’s Early Years Team assist with area specific advice. Bute Advice provide specialist benefit advice, and an experienced local Childminder offers additional mentoring. Assistance with set up costs, including purchase of toys, equipment and minor adaptations to the home to ensure Care Commission Compliance is also available. InspirAlba ran the pilot in 2023/24, of the 5 parents who commenced, 4 of which are now in business and the 5th secured a post with Social Work. Due to the pilot’s success a further 4 places were offered in 2024/25, all of which were filled and are doing extremely well working towards becoming fully qualified childminders. When operational these childminders will help to tackle the shortage in childcare in the rural communities of Islay, Tighnabruich, Ford and Tarbert. It is planned a further 2 places will be available in 2025/26. The ABEP also recognised specific gaps relating to family poverty (supporting parents with creative cookery skills for nutritious family meals and access to the hospitality sector). Inspiralba worked in partnership with Fyne Futures to devise a pilot programme. A programme was created to support parents to develop skills, confidence and accreditations to test trade as childminders, which will increase capacity for this gap. As with the childminding this pilot was also successful with further places being available in 2024/25 and 2025/26. Parental Welfare Fund is aimed at parents receiving support through the PESF who successfully secure employment. Applications are welcomed by Argyll and Bute Council’s Employability Team. These monies help with the transition to work and can alleviate any worries. The fund offers up to £1,000 payable over the first 13 weeks of employment. Further information on the Parental Welfare Fund Funded by the Scottish Government a Child Poverty Co-Ordinator was recruited in June 2024 by Argyll and Bute Council’s Employability Team. This post provides critical additional resource within Argyll and Bute Council to support the delivery of commitments set out in the Scottish Government’s policy intent of ‘No One Left Behind’ and ‘Best Start Bright Futures’, by ensuring alignment between the Argyll and Bute Employability Partnership and wrap-around services that support parents’ transition or progression within work, such as childcare and transport. The original postholder has since left however a replacement commenced the role in May 2025. Page 318
Page 319
Page 23 of 64 During 2024/25 a total of 141 parents commenced support under PESF/NOLB A Pie Chart showing parental status at start date. 49% (69 people) were a parent in a couple. 51% (72 people) were single parents. * Please note the above figures are based on parents who have engaged for the first time in 2024/25 and not those who are restarts to the service. A Pie Chart showing economic status at the start date. 61% were unemployed (86 people), 33% were low income employed (including self- employed) (46 people) and 6% (9 people) were economically inactive. 51%49% Parental Status at Start Date Single Parent - 72 Parent in a couple - 69 6% 33% 61% Economic Status at Start Date Economically Inactive - 9 Low Income Employed (incl self employment) - 46 Unemployed - 86 Page 319
Page 320
Page 24 of 64 Of these 141 parents, 64 advised at the outset of support they had a physical or mental health condition or illness lasting or expected to last 12 months or more. In addition to the 141 parents who joined the PESF Service in 2024/25, a further 100 parents still being supported at 31st March 2024, were carried over to continue support in 2024/25. A Pie Chart showing parental status at start. 58% (58 people) were parents in a couple, 42% (42 people) were single parents. A Pie Chart showing economic status at start date. 64% (64 people) were unemployed, 33% (33 people) were low income employed (including self- employed), 3% (3 people) were economically inactive. 42% 58% Parental Status at Start Single Parent - 42 Parent in a couple - 58 3% 33% 64% Economic Status at Start Date Economically Inactive - 3 Low Income Employed (incl self employment) - 33 Unemployed - 64 Page 320
Page 321
Page 25 of 64 Of these 100 parents carried over to continue support in 2024/25, 48 advised at the outset of support they had a physical or mental health condition or illness lasting or expected to last 12 months or more. A total of 97 parents exited the PESF service in 2024/25: 32 commenced employment thus having a positive impact on their household income. Of these job starts, 18 (56.25%) entered self-employment being the ideal option to accommodate their family circumstances. A further 5 parents commenced volunteering, 4 moved into further/higher education and 35 completed accredited training. All PESF programmes continues to be available to continuing parents and new start parents in 2025/26. As an alternative to PESF and NOLB, unemployed parents also have the choice to receive support from the following employability options should they decide this support best meets their needs: UKSPF Work Placements and Training delivered by Argyll and Bute Council’s Employability Team. Both interventions funded by the UK Government. Work placements offer the opportunity to gain skills and knowledge to assist with moving into future employment: • 4, 13 or 26-week duration • 16 or 30 hours per week • Real living wage paid • Up to £100 per person work clothing allowance • Training can be funded on an individual basis • Each participant will have a dedicated Employability Support Worker to assist with job search, interview skills, in work support, etc A total of 10 unemployed parents (1 single parent/9 parent in a couple) completed a work placement in 2024/25. Of these 1 reported a disability or long-term health condition at start date. A total of 7 parents have moved into employment and 3 are currently job seeking. Training monies are also available to apply for full or partially funded accredited training. The aim is to: • Assist those who are unemployed move into work • Help those in low-income employment (earning up to £17,000 per annum) to upskill/retrain to enable them to apply for higher paid positions A total of 42 parents (21 lone parent / 21 parent in a couple) accessed the training intervention in 2024/25. Of these parents 7 were low income employed, 7 low-income self-employed, 26 unemployed and 2 economically inactive. To date 9 parents who were previously unemployed have secured employment, 1 previously unemployed is now self-employed, 2 low income employed and 2 low income self-employed have increased their earnings as a direct result of the training, 1 low income employed remain in their current post and is seeking new employment, 4 have advised they no longer wish to undertake the approved training, 3 are job Page 321
Page 322
Page 26 of 64 seeking and 5 have disengaged and are uncontactable. The remaining 15 parents are still undertaking training. UKSPF Work Placements and Training interventions continue to be available in 2025/26. Parental Employability Support Successes Case Study 1 M is a Ukrainian Refugee and a single parent with 2 children. She was referred to Argyll and Bute Council’s PESF Engagement Worker by the Resettlement Team. M was unemployed for over 6 months, her main barriers to employment were childcare, transport and English not being her first language. M was desperate to find part time employment to fit around school hours. Along with the help from an interpreter, M’s PESF Engagement Worker supported her to complete a CV, look for employment, complete applications and go through mock interviews. She was also supported to attend her Job Centre appointments as she was lacking in confidence to attend alone. Through handing out her CV to hotels, M was offered a permanent job, 20 hours a week which fits around her children and still gives her time to study English. M’s Engagement Worker supported her to complete all the necessary documentation to accept the position. M was able to apply for the Parental Welfare Fund which has been a great help with clothing and travel to and from work. Out with employability support, M's Engagement Worker supported her to apply for a school clothing grant and look for local holiday clubs/activities for her children during the school holidays. M is happy in her employment, in the future once her English improves, she would like to study. Quote from participant: ‘Thank you very much for your help. I admire your kindness and professionalism.’ Case Study 2 B and has 2 children, 1 is only 9 months old. She self-referred as she heard about the programme through a friend who had also benefitted from the programme. B had just started a mobile nail business when she fell pregnant with her youngest. She was building some clientele and going to peoples’ houses. Once she had her baby she was keen to get set back up again. She hoped to look into the possibility of having a shop to work from as this would give her the flexibility for childcare which was one of the biggest barriers. B wanted to be able to expand her business and increase her income, she also wanted assistance with cash flow and business help to see if having a shop in town would be Page 322
Page 323
Page 27 of 64 viable. InspirAlba were able to help B through the process of taking on a lease for a property, provide some basic equipment and support with a cashflow analysis. They then referred her on to Business Gateway for further support and grant assistance. B has now been operational for 10 weeks. She is fully booked with clients and has been successful in sub-letting a chair within her premises to another local person. Case Study 3 J is a single mum of 28 with a young daughter aged 6 months at the beginning of contact. She struggled to find work due to the lack of public transport. J did not have access to a PC and her mobile phone was outdated making access to vacancies and online openings for employment and electronic applications a huge challenge. The importance of face-to-face meetings with J proved valuable for social interaction and a better understanding of both her domestic situation alongside the challenges faced in seeking employment. Initially a laptop was purchased and an updated mobile phone, creating a fairer opportunity for J to approach employers and to have a wider look at local possibilities. This was met with a hugely grateful response from J, giving her an added positive outlook to her future. A driving Theory test was organised and J passed with a score of 96%, this boosted her confidence enormously. This has been followed by driving lessons with a local Driving Instructor. She has concentrated very well on her driving lessons and is considered ready for her up-coming practical test date. J looks forward to with great excitement, recognising the life-changing possibilities this could bring. J’s indicated she would like to train as a massage therapist, but she believed this may not be possible due to her circumstances. She was open to other training offered, including a Paediatric First Aid course which she completed over a 2-day training weekend, with an extremely positive attitude and found the course of great value. She also attended one of Inspiralba’s Creative Cookery sessions. All attendees received a multi cooker and ingredients starter pack, which has been hugely appreciated and given an access to greater diet ideas and nutrition for J and her young daughter. She has been able to begin to introduce new foods and home cooked meals. Feedback from J’s successful completion of the 2-day Paediatric First-Aid course was extremely positive. She was a valued member of the course, with excellent interaction and involvement. J was a positive member of the Creative Cookery session, supporting others with ideas and an upbeat and friendly attitude for successful completion. J received support to apply for jobs and after a successful interview, has now secured her ‘dream job’ as a trainee Massage Therapist in a nearby town. Page 323
Page 324
Page 28 of 64 Quote from participant: "Learning to drive has given me confidence in myself and my abilities. In the long term, once I pass my test, it will open up so many opportunities for me such as driving to work and going for fun days out with my little girl. The freedom I will gain through driving is limitless." Plans Ahead To continue to play an active role in contributing to the reduction of child poverty in Argyll and Bute by marketing all employability support available to encourage parents to sign up to whichever support best meets their individual needs. The receipt of the 2025/26 Offer of Grant from the Scottish Government on 31st March 2025 was much welcomed. This has allowed the Argyll and Bute Employability Partnership (ABEP) to discuss delivery priorities utilising the funding allocation available. As a result, the Parental Employability Support Fund continues to support unemployed and low income employed parents. The Parental Transition Fund will also continue to be available in 2025/26 to provide financial assistance to parents in the first 3 months of employment. The Employability Team has secured additional UK Government funding through the UK Shared Prosperity Fund (UKSPF) to offer unemployed residents of Argyll and Bute pre-employment support, training and work placements. Training will also be available to those in low-income employment who hope to upskill to enable them to apply for higher paid job opportunities. All interventions will continue to be available from April 2025 to March 2026. Full details of all support currently available to assist parents to increase income through earnings 2. Skills Development Scotland Argyll and Bute School Service Offer - Our careers advisers work in partnership with every state secondary school in Argyll and Bute, delivering career guidance to enable young people from S1-S6 to develop their Career Management Skills via a range of groupwork and 1-1 coaching conversations. We work closely with our partners within the school to identify young people who are considered to be most at risk of not making a positive progression from school, helping those young people to develop their career management skills and move onto education, employment or training when they leave school. From 1 June to 31 December 2024, we delivered 3,484 Career Information, Advice and Guidance engagements for 2,418 school pupils through a mix of group and one-to-one sessions. What We Do - Scotland’s Career Service Page 324
Page 325
Page 29 of 64 School Leaver Cohort 23/24 - 796 young people left school during the 23/24 school cohort and our team worked hard over the summer months to follow up whose had left to ensure support was offered. The December 2024 Interim Participation Snapshot showed that of the 3,250 16–19-year-olds in Argyll & Bute 93.7% were in education, employment or training and personal development. Post School Service Next Steps – Our service supports young people aged 16 – 18 (extended to 26 for care experienced young people) who are unemployed, helping them to build up their career management skills and move on to and sustain a range of options as appropriate: Training programmes, employability support, education and employment. From 1 April to 31 December 2024, we delivered 372 Career Information, Advice and Guidance engagements for 243 post-school customers through a mix of group and one-to-one sessions. Post school service: adults & PACE - Working in partnership with a range of partners to support local hubs helping unemployed adults to develop their career management and employability skills and move into employment. In Argyll & Bute our advisers have worked closely with the employability partnership (DWP & CLD) to deliver support via our local community venues format. PACE: Partnership Action for Continuing Employment (PACE) is the Scottish Government’s initiative dedicated to responding to redundancy situations. Through providing skills development and employability support, PACE aims to minimise the time individuals affected by redundancy are out of work. PACE brings together 24 organisations, together with the Scottish Government to provide free and impartial advice, guidance and support for individuals affected by redundancy. PACE support is available to all individuals affected by redundancy. Advisers have extensive experience of dealing with redundancy situations and can: • Help with CV’s, job search, applications, and interviews. • Advise on benefits, staff may be entitled to • Provide information on learning and training opportunities. PACE support is delivered using a variety of delivery methods including Face to face, PACE Helpline, through webinars and enhanced online resources. From 1 April to 31 December 2024, we supported 8 employers and 64 individuals dealing with redundancy. Visit www.redundancyscotland.co.uk for more information or call 0800 917 8000 to speak to an adviser. My World of Work- Our website provides trustworthy, expert information and advice and it’s free to access for people at any stage in their career. The site is designed to support people of all ages and stages, with activities and tools to help them identify the opportunities open to them. Our school, post school and PACE career coaches have been supporting Argyll and Bute customers by sign posting them to my world of Page 325
Page 326
Page 30 of 64 work for opportunities and developing their career management skills. Parents and schools have been using this service to support pupils with their career journey. Find out more at www.myworldofwork.co.uk Local Employability Partnership: Skills Development Scotland (SDS) supports the Local Employability Partnership (LEP) in Argyll and Bute by aligning skills and careers services with the region’s child poverty priorities. This includes: • Targeted support for parents and carers through the No One Left Behind strategy, helping them access training, apprenticeships, and sustainable employment. • Collaboration with local partners to deliver integrated, person-centred employability pathways that reflect Argyll and Bute’s rural challenges and sectoral opportunities. • Contributing to key local priorities such as increasing income from employment, reducing the cost of living, and supporting early years and whole-family wellbeing. • Embedding The Promise and trauma-informed practice in service delivery, ensuring support is inclusive and responsive to families facing disadvantage. 3. UHI Argyll and University of the Highlands and Islands Student enrolment and achievement has improved slightly in the academic year 2024-25 although it has remained a very challenging times for learners. More than 40% of learners now present with some level of learning need or disability, requiring more support arrangements or course adjustments being put in place to help learners to succeed. The greatest rise in support needs has been around mental health, increased numbers of students with neurodivergent conditions, and general social anxiety. The college Mental Health Counsellor has been working at capacity but so far has been able to keep waiting lists down to no more than two weeks. The college has worked on changing some of the course delivery patterns to attempt to make the courses more accessible to students – fitting around school hours, offering shorter courses of 11 or 17 weeks rather than 34 weeks, building course work around projects rather than units, leading to a more holistic style of learning. Cost of living support continues to be a key activity. Students are supported to access any relevant funding that they are eligible for and students who have remained on benefits have been supported with one-off uplift payments. SAAS and the Student Loan Company have increased loan amounts as well as providing a Special Support Loan of £2400 for full time Higher Education students. These measures appear to have been successful as fewer students have applied for college Hardship and Discretionary funds in the year 2024-25. Students are able to apply for the long-term loan of a college laptop for the duration of their course so that they can access online learning on more suitable devices. Page 326
Page 327
Page 31 of 64 Over this current year the college has worked in developing a trauma informed approach. This is an ongoing activity to ensure that the ethos is embedded across the college. Looking forward to the next academic year we will: • Continue to develop our support for Care Experienced students, Student Carers and Estranged students. • Continue to develop our curriculum to better meet the needs of our learners and the communities we serve • Provide more opportunities for work based learning and Modern Apprenticeship courses. 4. Education Early Years We continue to deliver a paid childcare service model on three of Argyll and Bute’s rural island communities and are now looking to extend this into two urban areas in response to the needs of working parents. As we are acutely aware that we have areas where rurality can exacerbate parental difficulties in accessing paid employment, we hope to support parents back into work and/or training. As such, this service prioritises parents who require the childcare to attend work rather than another reason. Increased levels of collaboration centrally have produced an infographic overview of how children’s rights are supported in a multiagency approach across Argyll and Bute. This has been shared with all ELC settings supporting workforce understanding of rights-based practices in relation to community services. Parents also have access to this information, supporting them to access services which support their children. We have continued to develop and review our Career Long Professional Learning Offer (CLPL) approaches to ensure outcome-focused improvements in planning which will support children’s developmental progress, especially those most at risk of diminished outcomes as a result of the poverty-related attainment gap. Our ASN locality networks continue to attract participation and practice sharing across localities. Feedback shows this is developing our workforce understanding of strategies to support children with additional support needs. 16% of ELC settings received blocks of focused literacy interventions by EY excellence and equity leads, targeting children’s listening skills. Data, in relation to closing the poverty-related attainment gap, was used to identify which groups of children were targeted to receive these play-based interventions. In all settings, children’s listening skills improved as a result of the intervention, with almost all children’s skills progressing at pace, as evidenced through tracking and monitoring Page 327
Page 328
Page 32 of 64 data. Practitioner feedback gathered demonstrates increased confidence by almost all staff involved to continue delivering the focused intervention independently, leading to improved literacy attainment within this curriculum organiser for all children within the settings involved. 4% of ELC settings received blocks of focused numeracy interventions by EY excellence and equity leads, targeting the five principles of counting. Data, in relation to closing the poverty-related attainment gap, was used to identify which groups of children were targeted to receive these play-based interventions. Observation and tracking data showed that 100% of children engaged in the project improved their understanding of number and counting and qualitative data from parental feedback reinforced this evaluation. In all 3 settings, practitioners reported that their understanding of teaching number concepts and counting had increased, and all were confident in their capacity to continue this work independently. Our collaboration with health colleagues to deliver parental information sessions via community ‘buggy walks’ has increased, and we now have regular sessions in almost all mainland, urban towns. Parental engagement continues to grow in relation to numbers of parents attending regular sessions, and feedback shows the sessions are delivering early support for parents in the areas of dental health, speech and language development and parental mental health. Primary/ Secondary Education Education Officer for Scottish Attainment Challenge continues to support schools in their planning for Pupil Equity Funding allocations to ensure robust, targeted interventions are in place to help close the poverty related attainment gap. Proportionate visits and supports are made to all establishments in receipt of PEF and work continues to ensure these spends lead to quality impact in improved outcomes for learners and families most affected by the poverty related attainment gap. Schools have been supported in measuring this impact and its sustainability for accelerating progress. Case studies of effective practice have been produced and shared, giving schools the opportunity to learn from each other in a model of self-sustainable improvement. New Lead Officer for data has worked with officers to refresh data packs produced for schools. The development of new school dashboards is assisting schools in analysis of data in a more accessible way with the ability to filter more effectively for children and young people in their settings experiencing / at risk of poverty. Education Management team continues to work closely with Head Teachers to support the analysis of attainment data. Stretch aims set for 23-24 were met in Literacy and Numeracy (P1, P4, P7) Targets set for pupils at SIMD Q1 were met in Numeracy and were within 2pp in Literacy. This reduced the poverty related attainment gap between the lowest and highest SIMD Quintile pupils by a further 2.41pp in Numeracy from the previous year (2023). Due to Page 328
Page 329
Page 33 of 64 increased attainment in SIMD Q5 pupils, the poverty related attainment gap between the lowest and highest SIMD Quintile pupils in Literacy slightly increased by 1.02pp from the previous year (2023). PEF spends over the last 4 years evidence an encouraging upward trend in overall investment spend, rising from 63% investment in 2021/22 to 84% investment in 2024/25 Staffing remains the biggest investment of PEF within our schools. (87% of PEF schools committing to additional staff). The largest proportion is spent on Pupil Support Assistants (44 in post) who are working with targeted groups of pupils with identified gaps in learning to support increased progress in attainment. Additional teaching staff have also been recruited by some schools to target this type of intervention (17 in post) Progress and Achievement data and progress towards stretch aims point to improvements. Another significant proportion is allocated to FL / HWB Officers (19 in post). Four Family Liaison Officers (FLOs) have also been appointed centrally to support the development of the Single Point of Access. With 1 FLO per locality area, this will help ensure a more equitable provision across the local authority. This is in addition to the FLOs who have the specific remit to support our care experienced young people or employed through PEF. Evidence around their impact is strong and features within a Scottish Government case study. They are making a real difference to our most vulnerable pupils and their families through a wide range of support. A research study will be undertaken between August-December 2025 on the work of our FLOs to identify the support areas which derive the greatest impact on our children and young people. This will be used to inform consistency and future planning. Partnership work with Child Poverty Action Group (CPAG) has resulted in a number of schools further examining the cost of their school day. This is leading to strategic planning within those schools to consult with their community to plan and implement strategies to reduce the associated financial pressures facing families. A number of schools participate within CPAG’s national Cost of the School Day Voice network. This ensures the issues associated with rural poverty are better represented. An authority information leaflet will be shared with all schools in June 2025 which can be used to let families know about financial entitlements. Liaison is taking place with Social Investment Scotland in relation to a financial inclusion pilot. This is with the aim of ensuring that every child leaves school with a bank account. We are working with them to consider piloting this in a secondary school where there is limited access to a bank. We are keen to Page 329
Page 330
Page 34 of 64 ensure that we are addressing some of the barriers that young people may have in accessing a bank account in our rural and island areas. £5000 has been earmarked from SEF funding for a participatory budgeting (PB) project to benefit pupils experiencing poverty. Project planning for this is being taken forward to explore a pilot PB project with all the island schools on Islay in 2025/26. 28% of our schools currently provide a Breakfast Club. 95% of these are offered as a universal provision (open to all) and in over a third (38%) they also work with identified families to target the offer. 71% of the provision is funded through PEF with staffing and catering supplies being the highest committed spends. A third of the schools have been able to access additional community funding to support their provision. (33%) Over half of the schools’ evidence impact in improved attendance (62%) and engagement in learning (67%) as a result of their Breakfast Clubs and all schools (100%) would like to continue their provision as a long term and sustainable feature for their establishments. The recent announcement from the Scottish Government on ‘Bright Starts’ grants will give individual schools the opportunity to bid for this additional funding to either provide a new Breakfast Club or to augment / sustain current provision. Professional learning has been offered to all education staff, considering education priorities alongside council wide priorities. An expanded Equity Network has enabled a wider reach beyond FLOs and HWBOs to all interested education staff. Run in partnership with HSCP colleagues, Money Counts training was a new addition to the Education Career Long Professional Learning calendar in 24-25. CLPL Roles within Education Number of attendees Equity Network - CPAG Family Liaison Officers Health and Wellbeing Officers MCR Pathway Coordinators Headteachers Education Support Officers 5 Equity Network – Breakfast Clubs Family Liaison Officers Health and Wellbeing Officers 8 Equity Network – Cost of the School Day Family Liaison Officers Health and Wellbeing Officers 12 Page 330
Page 331
Page 35 of 64 CLPL Roles within Education Number of attendees Headteachers and senior leaders in schools Equity Toolkit Family Liaison Officers Health and Wellbeing Officers Headteachers Education Support Officers 6 Planning for Impact in PEF Headteachers and senior leaders in schools 19 Argyll and Bute remain committed to ‘Keeping the Promise’ for our care experienced children and young people CECYP). Our Care Experienced Education Team consists of a Virtual Head Teacher and four Health and Wellbeing Family Liaison Officers. At any one time, there are approximately 300 CECYP across our authority education settings. We also support young people who are hosted out-with our authority, both in mainstream and specialist settings. CLPL opportunities are supporting staff at all levels to better understand the needs of our CECYP. Comprehensive training such as Keeping the Promise and Designated Manager training is supporting an increased awareness of CECYP needs and how best to support this cohort. This has resulted in an authority wide commitment, including our Chief Officers Group, to continue to work towards Keeping the Promise and having high aspirations for our CECYP. This is demonstrated by CECYP voice being reflected in ‘Our Children Their Future – Thriving Together.’ Ensuring our CECYP have all they require to thrive and achieve their potential, remains a key priority for the council. Education Service actions and data shared with both the Community Services Committee and the Corporate Parenting Board, has been received positively with endorsement given for the work to continue. The funding from the Scottish Government’s Scottish Attainment Challenge CECYP Fund is demonstrating clear effectiveness with progress for our CECYP that align to our outcomes, as evidenced by our data. Enhanced scrutiny and awareness of our CECYP is showing a very good impact on National 4 qualification pass rates. In 23-24, we maintained a 100% pass rate for Level 4 Literacy, Application of Mathematics – 15.5% above the national average. 72% of learners who presented for Higher/Advanced Higher achieved grades A – D, 32% achieved grades B – C. Achievement of Curriculum for Excellence Level (ACEL) data for P1, 4 and 7 evidence three-year positive progress since 2021. CECYP attainment has increased in every area and the attainment gap between CE and no-CE pupils has reduced (whilst non-CE pupils continue to improve). Effective partnership working through Corporate Parenting Board attendance and wider Education Service continues to be refined, enhancing the support available to Page 331
Page 332
Page 36 of 64 our CECYP considering their post school destination. The positive impact of this work is evidenced by 94% of CECYP leaver obtaining a positive destination and 83% being in a sustained destination (2023-24). CECYP Primary attendance in 23-24 was 91.5% and secondary 80.8%. Authority wide polices and effective training such as Maximising Attendance, OCTNE, RRS and We Promise is leading to earlier intervention to support CECYP attendance. This is resulting in personalised attendance support targeted CECYP, including multi agency approaches to offer whole family support. Pupil voice evidences the positive impacts on wellbeing and inclusion Strategic commitment and prioritising of GIRFEC, The Promise and OCTF has led to greater awareness across settings of the positive impacts of bespoke approaches, early intervention and trauma informed approaches. This has resulted in a year-on- year decrease of exclusion since 2020. As a result of this commitment, zero CECYP were excluded in 2023 – 24. As at May 2025, zero CECYP have been excluded in the 2024-25 academic session. As part of our involvement in the testing phase of Scottish Government’s draft framework ‘Improving the Educational Outcomes of CECYP’ (soon to be finalised) we have developed key measures focused on attendance, exclusion, attainment and post-school destinations. In addition, we have identified local outcomes related to the enhancement of professional learning, which collectively support and strengthen our ongoing improvement efforts. The Addressing Non-Attendance (ANA) procedures have been further strengthened by engagement with Education Scotland’s Quality Improvement Programme (QIP) on Addressing Non-Attendance. We will be developing our approach to attendance by sharing the learning from that have been developed from ANA and the QIP. Attendance stretch aims will remain a discussion as part of Education Managers Quality Improvement Visits. In August 2024, Argyll and Bute Council extended its partnership with MCR Pathways to add Rothesay Academy to the existing MCR programmes at Oban High School, Dunoon Grammar School and Hermitage Academy. MCR Pathways is a national charity which seeks to improve the wellbeing and life chances of Care-Experienced or otherwise disadvantaged or vulnerable young people through its mentoring programme, which matches such young people in S3- S6 with volunteer adult mentors for weekly meetings of one hour. The programme brings proven, measurable improvements in attendance, inclusion, attainment and achievement, as well as increasing self-confidence and wellbeing in young people. In each school, the Council employs an MCR Pathways Co-ordinator, Page 332
Page 333
Page 37 of 64 who works to recruit mentors, match identified young people with mentors and prepare identified young people in S1 and S2 for being matched with a mentor in S3. At the end of its second year of implementation, the MCR Pathways programme continues to be highly successful. All targets for recruiting mentors and successfully matching mentors to young people have been exceeded, and the feedback from young people, mentors and schools has been extremely positive. Across the four participating schools, 112 S3-S6 young people are being mentored weekly, and 90 S1/S2 pupils are working towards mentoring in S3. The next steps for MCR Pathways in Argyll and Bute involve the further extension of the programme to Campbeltown Grammar School, Tarbert Academy and Lochgilphead High School. To overcome logistical and funding challenges, innovative approaches to finance and delivery are being put in place or explored. These include sponsorship by local business partners and the development of a hybrid model of delivering the programme in partnership with Developing the Young Workforce and Skills Development Scotland. Over school session 2024/25, Argyll and Bute Council has further developed and extended its programme of Flexible Learning Plans (FLPs). An FLP is an intervention within Getting it Right for Every Child (GIRFEC) which provides a bespoke and fully personalised curriculum to vulnerable young people in S4-S6 who are at risk of disengaging with education. Such disengagement can be the result of any number of factors, including mental health, neurodiversity and poverty-related home circumstances. In conjunction with the young person, parents/carers, employers or Further Education and any other appropriate agencies, schools plan an individualised timetable for each young person, focusing on achievement in Literacy, Numeracy and Health and Wellbeing, which runs in conjunction with learning activities outside of school for an agreed portion of the week. The external element most frequently comprises work placement relevant to the young person’s chosen vocational pathway, or a relevant, appropriate further education course. 2024/25 has seen a 10% increase in the number of FLPs, with 41 in place across all secondary schools. As a result of training and rigorous quality assurance, schools’ skills and capacity to construct appropriate, impactful FLPs for young people has also increased. Evaluation shows that FLPs revitalise engagement with education for disengaged young people and are supporting the young people most at risk of a negative post-school destination into productive and fulfilling participation in employment or further training. Argyll and Bute Council has maintained its commitment to UNICEF’s Rights Respecting Schools Programme; we have signed a MOU to ensure that we continue to develop this work beyond the March 2025 Scottish Government funded period. Page 333
Page 334
Page 38 of 64 We have ensured that 21 out of 22 schools that were inactive, are now accredited and expect the last remaining school to be accredited by the end of June 2025. We are currently on target to meet our goal of having 100% of our schools Rights Respecting Accredited. Since February 2024, we have increased Silver accreditations from 11 to 29 and Gold accreditations from 5 to 9. The development of Rights Respecting Schools Award continues to be important in connecting our school communities with local and global child poverty issues. An example of this would be the work that has been led by pupils in a Primary School on the cost of the school day. In taking a rights-based approach to education, schools have been developing or embedding pupil voice structures within their setting. This was particularly evident in a recent consultation on the Education Strategic Vision and Values with “Equity” being a high priority for our learners to see included in the revised document. Argyll & Bute’s Youth Voice Group continue to discuss issues that align with the Children and Young People’s Commissioner Plan. Commercial Services attended one of these meetings on invite from the group who wanted to discuss the cost of school meals and the provision of fresh fruit. Education has continued to be supported by the Alcohol and Drug Partnership to participate in Planet Youth. We had progressed this work from engagement with 2 secondary schools in 2021 to 5 secondary schools in 2023. In September 2025, we will have all 10 secondary schools engaged in the survey. This work, in partnership with colleagues in Public Health, is developing protective factors for young people with the intention of reducing risk factors. Staff that has been secured through grant funding have helped develop community engagement and awareness of the Planet Youth approach. Through this work, Dunoon have re-established a youth group in the area, making a safe social space accessible for young people. Data gained through the survey is shared with other services to help inform improvements. The ADP have also funded third sector organisations to provide the ADP School Support Services across aArgyll & Bute secondary schools. This provides support for young people who may be affected by drug or alcohol misuse (directly or indirectly). The service also supports the delivery of aspects of the health and wellbeing Curriculum as well as increasing awareness with parents/carers. Smoke Free Me Drama (P7 Production) and You Are Not Alone Drama Productions have continued to be delivered to Argyll & Bute Schools. Changes to the performances were put in place this academic year based on evaluative feedback from all stakeholders. This supported the introduction of vaping as a theme and ensured that delivery of the You Are Not Alone performance was brought done to S2. We are currently working with our partners in health to plan for the introduction of the Daniel Spargo Mabs performances and workshops. A programme of staff and parent workshops will support this development. There will also be a parent/carer workshop Page 334
Page 335
Page 39 of 64 that is to support those with children with an additional support need. The impact of this new programme will be evaluated. The Mentors in Violence Prevention (MVP) programme has continued to be developed across our secondary schools. The Programme is a mentor-based programme that addresses gender-based violence. This work continues to be an important part of the Violence Against Women and Girls Project. Over the academic year 24/25, we have taken the number of secondary schools trained from 7 to 10. This has ensured that we met our ambitious target having staff trained in all secondary schools in Argyll & Bute. We have also developed our training staff team, taking this from 2 to 4 staff trained to deliver staff training and a further 4 trained for the newly introduced Primary and ELC training. Over the next year we will be delivering training to Primary and ELC. The work continues to bring together engagement from partners such as ADP School Support Services, Police Scotland and Argyll & Bute Rape Crisis. We will be looking to develop this work further by connecting this to the new iteration of the anti-bullying policy and increasing engagement in Equally Safe registered schools. Partnership working is an important aspect of our curriculum delivery. We are currently exploring a pilot programme with the Financial Inclusion for Scotland Associate. The aim of the programme is to improve financial inclusion for young people by maximising the opportunity that they have to secure a bank account before they leave school. We will be taking a data informed approach to identifying a pilot school(s) for the programme considering aspects such as rurality, SIMD, ease of access to banks/banking hubs and post 16 destinations. B. Increasing income Through Benefits 1. Benefits The Benefits Team supported people in 2024-2025 with the following grants. Scottish Welfare Fund Crisis Grants Between 1 April 2024 and 31 March 2025 there were 748 awards paid out to the value of £88,171. Scottish Welfare Fund Community Care Grants Between 1 April 2024 and 31 March 2025 there were 790 applications made, and 386 awards paid out to the value of £460,964. Page 335
Page 336
Page 40 of 64 Total Programme Funding For the scheme was £458,284 which resulted in overspend of £90,850, this was met by the Council to enable continued support to vulnerable claimants. Flexible Food and Fuel Fund From 1 April 2024 to 31 March 2025 the Council paid out £109,920 in grants to householders with food and fuel insecurity and successfully referred them for support to advice agencies for further support. The advice agencies were able to support 965 families achieving a combined client gain of £1.357 million in income maximisation through increasing benefit entitlements. Discretionary Housing Payments As of 31 March 2024, our spent and committed amount of Discretionary Housing Payment (DHP) was £0.968m out of a budget of £1.069m. The Council have a duty to pay DHPs to anyone on the benefit cap and looking at ways to automate DHP awards. A review of the DHP policy is being carried out and a new policy will be presented to the Council later this year. Islands Cost Crisis Emergency Fund In 2024/25 the Council received an allocation of £145,000 to support Island Communities from the Scottish Government. The funds were spent as follows: • Scotland Loves Local Cards – 1,256 cards issued in December value of £95. These cards were issued to Council Tax Reduction recipients on our islands. The money on the cards can be spent in a range of local shops. Food Banks - a grant of £16,000 was given to each of the 4 Community Food Organisations (Islay Foodbank, Bute Oasis, Tiree Food Project, and Mull and Iona Community Trust). • Free School Meal Top Ups – 100 eligible pupils received payments of £1.60 per day for the school year from August 2024. 2. Social Security Scotland, Argyll and Bute Headlines Over 200 stakeholders in Argyll and Bute get regular communication/updates There is excellent collaboration with stakeholders to get information out to clients using a range of tools including an increasing amount of social media releases. All of these are available on our website. Stakeholder Resources Page 336
Page 337
Page 41 of 64 Total invested in Argyll and Bute (to Dec 2024) through benefits and grants to lowest income families: £ 72,321,543 Best Start Grant Early Learning and School Age Payments are paid automatically to parents and carers who already receive Scottish Child Payment so no need to apply for this. Early Learning and School Age payments stats fluctuate depending on time of year (enrolment). Social Security published statistics. Apply for our benefits - Social Security Scotland - mygov.scot or by calling our Freephone number on 0800 182 2222 (open from 8am – 6pm). Support to claim our benefits is available – just ask for Local Delivery. Our organisation currently provides 15 benefits 3. Welfare Rights Update 2024-25 Achievements In 2024-25 we have dealt with 1,219 clients generating a total financial gain of £5.4 million and increase of over 1 million from 2023-24 It should be noted this “client gain” is not just a figure. The support provided by Welfare Rights makes a significant impact on individual’s lives. For example, it may mean being able to put heating on, keep a car running, replace a broken appliance etc. Continued engagement with partners and community groups to reach more clients The team gained Scottish National standards for Information and Advice Providers accreditation. Challenges 2024 - 25 Increased demand for benefit and income checks. It’s expected many clients will continue to experience hardship due to the cost-of-living crisis with fuel costs being a major factor. Likely increase in number of clients approaching us for help with the Universal Credit managed migration process as the DWP are now in the process of transferring over the most vulnerable group of clients who typically need more support. Page 337
Page 338
Page 42 of 64 Priorities 2025 - 26 • Continue to promote and deliver a quality and consistent Welfare Rights Service to residents of Argyll and Bute. • Ensure that the residents of Argyll and Bute are not missing out on their entitlement to both UK and Scottish Government administered benefits and other related help. • Provide an enhanced Welfare Rights Service for people affected by cancer. • continue to work closely with NHS colleagues and the improvement Service to develop Welfare Advice and Health Partnerships (WAHP’S) in Argyll and Bute. • Ensure the service is able to deal with the probable increase in demand for assistance due to the continued roll out of UC managed migration and the roll out of further Social Security Scotland benefits such as Pension age Disability Payment, Scottish Adult DLA and Carer’s Support Payment. • Increase the profile of the service particularly in remote island communities and hard to reach groups. • Engage effectively with partners and local community groups • Explore data sharing opportunities in order to identify local vulnerabilities and engage with hard-to-reach clients. 4. Bute Advice Centre Bute Advice Centre has been incredibly busy supporting communities across Argyll and Bute to access £2.45 million from April 2024 – March 2025 (inclusive). Our mission statement dictates that our priority is to “relieve poverty and distress”, this we endeavour to do across the projects we deliver. Many of the client we support have a disability. A Pie Chart showing that 469 disabled clients were supported across April 2024 - March 2025. 51% of these had physical health disabilities, 40% had mental health issues, 5% had addictions, 3% had a learning disability and 1% were hearing impaired. Page 338
Page 339
Page 43 of 64 19 Carers were supported to claim £15,763.04 of grants. From April 2024 – March 2025 advisers supported disability benefit claims totalling £947,302.34. Advisers prioritise ensuring that households with children have access to child specific benefits, including Best Start, Scottish Child Payments, Child Benefit, Pregnancy & Baby Payments, Education Maintenance Allowance and Free School Meals. These claims resulted in a client gain across the year of £60,385.51. Bute Advice Centre are proud to be part of the award-winning Flexible Food and Fuel Project that has a stand-alone gain of £4.5million across the term of the project, supporting many families since January 2021. In addition to the face to face and telephone advice sessions available to clients, staff also take part in events across the region that support engagement. Elizabeth Officer, Welfare Rights Adviser, has been attending ARC on a regular basis in Dunoon to help support those suffering from addiction and their loved ones with welfare rights issues. Ross Semple, Student at Glasgow Caledonia University, supported the delivery of Digital Literacy Lessons in the summer of 2024, helping small groups to use tablets to engage with loved ones, set up internet banking, and use social media. Gifting each participant their own tablet at the end of the 6 introductory lessons, through the Good Things Foundation. 5% 1% 3% 40% 51% 469 Disabled Clients Were Supported Across April 24/March 25 Addiction Hearing Impaired Learning Disabled Mental Health Issues Physical Health Disabilities Page 339
Page 340
Page 44 of 64 Paul Toop, Welfare Rights Adviser, has also played a major role in providing SIM cards/vouchers for mobile phones, helping alleviate digital poverty through the Good Things Foundation. Heather Buchanan, Senior Welfare Rights Officer and Colum Buchanan Welfare Rights Adviser have regularly visited the Bute & Cowal area to support individuals requiring home visits and providing information sessions to community groups. Promoting the ACHA Welfare Rights service and the Flexible Food and Fuel Fund. Manager, Julie Semple, visited Oban for the Minority Ethnic Carers of Older People Project (MECOPP) event supporting the Gypsy & Travelling Community where several partner organisations came together to highlight services. Additionally visits to local foodbanks took place, along with the Community Food Forum meetings. Bute Advice Centre enjoy working in close partnership primarily with Inspiralba, Fyne Futures, Argyll Community Housing Association (ACHA), Argyll & Bute Council, ALIenergy and Argyll and Bute Citizen’s Advice Bureau (ABCAB.) Additionally, Bute Advice Centre took part in Poverty Awareness events in conjunction with Poverty Alliance locally and at government level and engaged with Migration Policy Scotland. Our plans include continuing collaborations with our trusted partners and broadening the scope of the work we do. Over the coming months we will be delivering community group sessions across the region highlighting ways to make budgets spread further including homemade cleaning recipes, growing your own fruit, veg and herbs, baking our daily bread and a host of other suggestions. We have engaged four new members of the team and look forward to an exciting new year. Page 340
Page 341
Page 45 of 64 C. The Cost of Living 1. Housing In their Best Start, Bright Futures – Tackling Child Poverty Delivery Plan 2022-2026, the Scottish Government state that. We will place the prioritisation of tackling child poverty at the heart of the Affordable Housing Supply Programme There is a wide range of activities and actions being undertaken by the Council Housing Service and external partners which can help address levels of child poverty Housing Emergency In July 2023, Argyll and Bute Council recognised the challenges facing the provision of adequate housing stock within its area by declaring a Housing Emergency, the first local authority in Scotland to do so. In addition to national trends and pressures common across Scotland, unique factors such as geographic isolation, the high number of island communities, dispersed communities, exacerbated the challenges for the housing system in Argyll and Bute. Following a multi-partner Housing Summit, an Action Plan was developed to help deliver improved affordable housing provision in Argyll and Bute. A series of metrics have been agreed to help measure progress annually, including the number of homeless applications helping to put one measure of housing related poverty at the heart of the housing emergency response. Scottish Government Housing Bill The Scottish Government’s new Housing Bill is presently at stage 2 of its passage through parliament. Amongst the proposals in the Bill are powers to implement rent control areas. This would place a duty on local authorities to assess rent levels within their area and give powers to the Scottish Government to implement rent controls in areas of concern. There would also be limits on when, and by how much, rents can be increased in these areas. Page 341
Page 342
Page 46 of 64 The Bill will also extend duties relating to the prevention of homelessness to social landlords, and a range of public agencies. Housing Need and Demand Assessment Argyll and Bute Council are undertaking preparatory work for their 2026 Housing Need and Demand Assessment which includes undertaking a Household Survey across the whole area. The survey will include specific questions in relation to child poverty, to gain a better understanding of the pressures that local households with children are experiencing. The outcome of the survey will feed into the development of the next Local Housing Strategy and identify future priorities Number of children in housing need in Argyll and Bute As of March 2025, 3,069 households were on the HOMEArgyll Common Waiting List. 2,120 of these households were in housing need, and of these, 697 (33%) were households with children, with a total of 1,375 children in housing need. Waiting list figures show that of the 909 households with children, 697 (77%) are considered to be in housing need. 54 of these households (encompassing 104 children) are on the homeless list. Affordable Housing Supply Affordable housing is key to tackling child poverty in Scotland. By pursuing an ambitious strategic new build programme in Argyll and Bute, the Council and its RSL partners are committed to a Green Standard which delivers high quality, energy efficient homes, helping to reduce overall housing costs for its tenants. The following actions are being undertaken in Argyll and Bute to increase the supply of affordable housing: • New Builds – In Argyll and Bute, in 2024-2025, 42 new energy-efficient homes were built due to Argyll and Bute’s Strategic Housing Investment Plan (SHIP). • Community Housing Network – Housing Services has established a Community Housing Network to enable Community Housing Trusts and Community organisations to obtain the support they require to deliver affordable housing to their communities, and to share experiences and learning. Mull and Iona Community Trust, for example, are working with the Council to deliver worker housing on Mull with infrastructure improvements being supported by the housing element of the Rural Growth Deal funding. • Buy Backs - The council and HOMEArgyll partners hope to increase the number of homes they are able to buy back from the private sector through the “Argyll and Bute Buy Back Initiative”. This initiative has been promoted both by the Council and RSLs. During 2024/25, 14 private homes have been acquired and added to the affordable rented stock. Page 342
Page 343
Page 47 of 64 • Short-Term Let Legislation – The Scottish Government considered that introducing the legislation will increase the supply of homes available for local residents. In 2022-2023, applications for Short-Term Letting Licences commenced in Argyll and Bute, with the legal obligation to obtain a licence coming into force in 2023-2024. As of March 2025, 3,494 applications for short-term let licences have been received. • Supplying homes in the right places and homes for workers – The Scottish Government Action Plan to address depopulation recognises the importance of housing for workers in addressing a range of linked social issues such as depopulation, employment and child poverty, stating that “Secure and sustainable employment helps lift families out of poverty.” High house prices in remote rural and island communities, coupled with an “additional minimum living cost of 15-30%” can prevent the recruitment and retention of staff, especially those on lower levels of pay such as child-care workers. This is evidenced by the range and detail of support and interactions the Council has with developers of housing projects in remote and island locations. Thus, the links between employment and housing can be fundamental in offering opportunities to avoid falling into poverty. Through the Argyll and Bute SHIP programme, the Strategic Housing Fund (SHF), and the Community Housing Network, Argyll and Bute Council in 2024/25 have supported the development or provision of new homes in a variety of remote or island locations. Additionally, the Council has recently approved measures to allow the SHF to support housing feasibility studies undertaken by local community groups, thus offering financial support to some specific perceived community needs. An additional Empty Homes Officer post which is jointly funded by Argyll and Bute Council and the Health and Social Care Partnership (HSCP), with a focus directly on bringing empty and ineffective homes back into use specifically for HSCP staff. This enables easier recruitment of staff within the HSCP, thus supporting service provision for local communities. The Rural Growth Deal will also increase the number of homes available for workers. The housing element of the Rural Growth Deal is £3m. Two projects are being taken forward, the project in Bowmore, Isle of Islay will focus on housing for sale for principal occupation, and the one in Tobermory, Isle of Mull will provide accommodation for workers. • Supporting Young People A lack of affordable housing opportunities for young people leaving the family home, or seeking employment in rural communities, can often press young people into unsuitable, insecure temporary arrangements such as sofa surfing or staying Page 343
Page 344
Page 48 of 64 with friends. These insecure and precarious housing arrangements can easily result in homelessness. Housing Summit surveys showed that a lack of affordable housing opportunities was a common concern with 64% of respondents stating that “Young people are leaving my community due to a lack of housing options.” This concern has also been reflected in interactions with local communities seeking to identify local housing solutions to perceived local problems. Through its Community Housing Assessment Tool (CHAT) the Council Housing Service has been supporting communities in Arrochar and Dalavich to assess local housing needs. In both cases, lack of housing opportunities for young people, coupled with an ageing population, has been a major concern. • Housing vulnerable families who are more likely to be in poverty The Local Housing Strategy (LHS) aligns with the aims and objectives of the Argyll and Bute Council Child Poverty Action Plan and outlines a series of actions to address disadvantage and alleviate poverty. These include preventing families and young people in certain situations from incurring rent arrears, from becoming homeless, assisting families with a disabled family member and assisting larger families • Insecure tenancies in the Private Rented Sector Many families live in the private rented sector. This sector is often expensive, and tenancies are less secure, with some families living in this sector being pushed into poverty or even homelessness. This is evidenced by the authors of “Affordable Housing Need in Scotland Post 2021”, which stated that the largest proportion of those subjected to formal homelessness assessments in Scotland lived in a private rented property. Scottish Government statistics for 2022/23 show a 74% increase in terminations of Private Rented Sector tenancies due to rent arrears in Scotland, a rate far higher than RSL sectors (21%). In addition to the homelessness risk, there is a risk that the tenancy will end and that the family will have to move to a new area to find a new home, resulting in children having to move schools. Regularly changing schools can affect children’s attainment and, therefore, their life chances. • Homelessness The Housing Options service assists households, including families and individual young people in identifying the type of home they need and can afford. This service also helps in reducing the number of failed tenancies, ensuring more tenants can remain in their homes. Preventative engagement with households reduces Page 344
Page 345
Page 49 of 64 incidences of homelessness, which contributes to reducing child poverty and outcomes that are more positive for households. We have seen a significant decline in the number of homeless children in Argyll and Bute in recent years, from 319 in 2017/18, to 195 in 2024/25, however, this is 6 more children than in 2023/24. In 2024/25, 476 homeless cases were closed, of which 121 involved households with dependent children (amounting to 199 children) and 86 of these households received a positive outcome. There has been a slight reduction in homeless applications between the 1st of April 2024 and the 31st of March 2025. During that period, 459 homeless applications were made, a decrease of 34 applications (7% down) in the same period in the previous year. There are currently 244 statutory homeless households waiting for permanent accommodation, with 55 of these households having children in them. Although there has been a reduction in the number of homeless applications there has been a slight increase in the number of children in homeless households from 189 children in 2023/24 to 195 in 2024/25. Homelessness applications continue to vary by location, with Cowal, Helensburgh and Lomond, and Lorn and the Isles seeing the highest levels of homeless applications. • Large households The Local Housing Strategy aims to provide families with access to housing that is the right size to meet their needs. Research shows that children who live in overcrowded housing find it challenging to find a place to do homework and study, negatively impacting their life chances and keeps them trapped in a cycle of poverty. As of March 2025, of those in housing need with children under 16 years, 135 households on the HOMEArgyll waiting list needed a home with four or more bedrooms. This equates to 19% of households with children with a housing need. Table *: Number of households with housing need, with children in Argyll and Bute by bedroom size in March 2025 Number of households with children under 16 Minimum bedroom size required 312 Two bed 250 Three bed 135 Four+ bed Source: HOMEArgyll Common Housing Register March 2025 Page 345
Page 346
Page 50 of 64 • Families with a disabled family member In Argyll and Bute, considerable work is undertaken to meet the needs of families with a disabled member. In 2024-2025, RSLs built 10 new homes to amenity standards and 2 homes suitable for wheelchair use. A full-time Housing Occupational Therapist (OT) has been employed to work within the housing service to ensure needs are met through the design of new-build housing or by adapting existing public and private sector homes. Children and young people with particular needs will benefit from the bespoke person-centred approach provided by the Housing OT. Housing condition, energy efficiency and affordable warmth The “Improving our Understanding of Child Poverty in Rural and Island Scotland” report states that: “fuel costs are known to be a particular contributor to fuel-related poverty in rural and island communities” The housing condition in Argyll and Bute does not compare favourably with the Scottish average. A higher proportion of homes are in poor condition and fail to meet tolerable standards, mainly due to their failure to meet energy efficiency standards. Living in a cold home has been linked to several health conditions. These conditions often result in children missing school, and this has an impact on their life chances. Data shows that the average energy demand of homes in Argyll and Bute are 37% higher than the Scottish average, with this then being translated into a similar higher average fuel bill of £1,358 (again 37% higher than the national average). Levels of fuel poverty (30%) and extreme fuel poverty (25%) in Argyll and Bute are also significantly higher than the Scottish average, as shown in the graph below. A Bar Chart showing Fuel Poverty and Extreme Fuel Poverty Levels in Argyll and Bute compared to Scotland. Fuel Poverty in Argyll and Bute is 30%, in Scotland it is 25%. Extreme Fuel Poverty in Argyll and Bute is 25% and in Scotland it is 12%. Page 346
Page 347
Page 51 of 64 Source; Home Analytics data and Energy Action Scotland The Council supports discretionary repair and improvement work to private sector properties via the Private Sector Housing Grant. The Council also offers a statutory Scheme of Assistance which can fund housing adaptations. The Local Housing Strategy outlines a series of actions to reduce energy consumption, such as: The SHIP Programme- Houses built through the SHIP programme will have even higher insulation levels than the ‘Greener Standard’ requires. However, new build homes only account for a small portion of the housing stock. Local Heat and Energy Efficiency Strategy (LHEES)- To tackle fuel poverty, the Scottish Government has placed a duty on all local authorities to develop a Local Heat and Energy Efficiency Strategy (LHEES) and delivery plan. The LHEES will be a locally led, tailored approach to transitioning to climate-friendly heating sources and ensuring local domestic and non-domestic buildings are more energy-efficient. The council approved its LHEES in November 2024 and this will be accompanied by an Action Plan which will clarify roles and responsibilities. Homes that are more energy efficient will need less energy to reach a comfortable temperature, lowering heating bills and helping to alleviate child poverty. Energy Efficient Scotland – Area Based Scheme (EES-ABS) – The Area Based Scheme offers grants for the installation of insulation measures to homes of eligible private owners and private rented tenants throughout all areas of Argyll and Bute. Effective insulation makes homes warmer and in turn helps in the reduction of household fuel costs. The Scheme is financed by the Scottish Government and administered by the Council. Argyll and Bute Council continues to utilise their full grant on an annual basis, regularly approaching the Scottish Government for 30% 25%25% 12% 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% Fuel Poverty Extreme Fuel Poverty Fuel Poverty and Extreme Fuel Poverty levels Argyll and Bute Scotland Page 347
Page 348
Page 52 of 64 additional funds. £2,179,827 was awarded for the EES-ABS programme for 2024/25, with the current programme running until 30th June 2025, and the full amount projected to be spent. Energy Efficiency Standards for Social Housing (EESSH)- Social housing landlords have been carrying out works in their housing stock to improve their energy efficiency. Most homes owned by social landlords now meet the Energy Efficiency Standard for Social Housing (EESSH), with most landlords having over 90% of their stock meeting the standard. Gypsy/Travellers – The Housing Service continue to engage with the community and relevant partners through the Gypsy/Traveller Working Group. The purpose of the Working Group is to: • Understand the accommodation needs and preferences of Gypsy/Travellers to inform future provision. • Work with Gypsy/Traveller communities to raise awareness of rights and entitlements. • Ensure that our public services are responsive to Gypsy/Travellers needs and preferences. • Provide leadership to tackle racism and discrimination. • Strengthen community development and engagement. • Work with Gypsy/Travellers to improve their involvement in national and local decision-making. 2. ALIenergy Fuel Poverty & Education Summary (2024–25) Fuel Poverty Support: • Target Area: Argyll, Lomond and the Islands, with a focus on rural households facing high energy costs due to lack of mains gas, poor housing, and low incomes. • Support Provided: Crisis grants (e.g., prepayment vouchers, direct payments, white goods), energy advice (tariffs, meters, insulation, damp issues), and financial guidance. • Client Impact: o Average client gain of £500 (£200 in crisis funds, £300 in energy savings). o In 2024–25, £72,105 in direct financial support was accessed for clients. o Over £6,000 awarded for white goods to families with children; £16,000 in prepayment vouchers issued. Page 348
Page 349
Page 53 of 64 • Demographics: o One-third of households helped had children; one-quarter were single parents. o Concerns continue over high summer energy use, especially among families with children. A Pie Chart showing the housing composition of those helped. No figures are given but by far the largest group are couples with children, over 50%. About 25% are single parents, about 15% are single people and the rest are noted as other. • Challenges Ahead: End of key funding streams (e.g., Home Heating Support Fund), and the upcoming switch-off of radio-teleswitch meters in June 2025, which may disrupt heating for many electric-only households. • Partnerships & Outreach: Collaborated with Argyll & Bute Council, Bute Advice Centre, and others on the Flexible Food & Fuel Fund, which has achieved £5 million in client gains since 2020. • Delivered online Fuel Poverty Awareness Sessions to 62 professionals. • Education & STEM Engagement: Delivered STEM workshops and attended career events in six high schools to promote local career opportunities. • Hosted MAKSTEM Fest with 20+ local employers for S2 students from Campbeltown and Lochgilphead. • Distributed P7 STEM career workbooks to encourage long-term engagement in STEM fields. Household Composition 2024-25 Single Single Parent Couple Couple with Children Other Page 349
Page 350
Page 54 of 64 • Aims to show young people paths to successful local careers, supporting long-term family and economic resilience in the region. 3. Free School Meals and Holiday Provision Free school meals support for entitled pupils has remained a key way of tackling the cost of living challenges for families with children. All children in receipt of 1140 hours of childcare in early years’ settings receive a free school meal, along with free milk and a healthy snack. All pupils in P1 – P5 are now entitled to a free school meal, including children in P6 and P7 in receipt of the Scottish child payment. In addition, all children and young people attending our Learning centres receive a free school meal. Cash payments in lieu of free school meals for those in receipt on the basis of need is currently paid via BACS transfer, at the rate of £2.40 during holiday periods; this is funded by Scottish Government. Pupil feedback continues to be the basis for the development of school lunch menus, and they continue to meet the Food and Drink in Schools standards. One of the Menu Development Assistant key roles is to work with pupils on menu design. Free school meal uptake remains higher than the Scottish average. The Catering service has worked alongside Education to roll out cashless catering and online ordering facilities to all schools, so that every child can access a meal in a non-stigmatising way that protects their identity. Through the pre-ordering app, each child should also be able to have their preferred meal every day at lunchtime, while enabling conversations with parents around meal choices to become normalised. The Council’s Catering Service continues to hold its Soil Association Food for Life Served Here Award at Bronze level, across all primary and Early Years settings, demonstrating its commitment to providing locally produced, sustainable, ethical and locally prepared food, serving food that’s good for pupil’s health, for the environment and for the local economy. The Catering team have been working on producing a food map to identify further opportunities for providing more local food through school meals while supporting community wealth building opportunities for our communities. Food cost inflation continues to put significant pressure on both public sector food provision and on household finances. Paid for School Meals The Council is applying the Cosla Good Practice Principles for school meals debt guidance, along with ensuring that discretionary school meals are available for children who need them when circumstances are appropriate. 4. Infant Food Insecurity Pilot Infant food insecurity has been recognised as a national concern. In 2024 an Argyll and Bute Infant Food Insecurity Group was formed to look at this locally. The following actions were taken: Page 350
Page 351
Page 55 of 64 • A leaflet was created specifically for Health Visitors and Midwives to use to advise parents. Training on the use of the leaflet and offering assistance, was given. • The leaflet itself was shared more widely, for example to advice services, Food banks and the Third Sector; a thousand in total were printed. • Following a request from education, another leaflet was prepared for Family Support Officers to use, and training was also given to them. • A Financial Inclusion Pathway has also been developed. • A six-month, Infant Food Insecurity Pilot was also commenced on the 4th of December and was initially planned to run for 6 months. 60 supermarket gift vouchers, each to the value of £30 were purchased and placed across Health Visitor and Midwifery teams. These vouchers are sufficient for families with an infant to purchase 2 tins of baby formula when they are in crisis and the need is immediate and cannot quickly be met by other means. Third sector organisations can request a voucher for a family by contacting their Health Visiting or Midwifery team. The staff member dispensing the voucher must complete a basic information form. The following information is being collated: • What Area is covered by the team giving out the voucher? • What is the basic family structure? (e.g. two parents, two young children.) • What is the reason for the crisis? (e.g. benefits late) No personal data is collected, and families are asked if they are happy for the basic data to be collected. A leaflet is handed out with each voucher, explaining that this is a limited resource and part of a pilot study and giving information on where to seek advice on benefits etc. Referrals can be made to the Bute Advice Centre, ALIenergy and other services if families are agreeable to this happening. To date 10 vouchers have been given out, two by Midwives and 8 by Health Visitors. Factors contributing to the immediate crisis include no recourse to public funds, homelessness, parents on benefits and struggling to cope, sudden changes in circumstances, disability issues. The pilot will conclude in December, and a report of its findings made. 5. My Tribe Free Period Product Initiative. My Tribe, Argyll and Bute’s free period product initiative, plays a vital role in tackling child poverty by ensuring that no child misses out on education due to Page 351
Page 352
Page 56 of 64 lack of access to essential items. By providing free period products in over 150 community locations and through a user-friendly online ordering system that delivers directly to any household in Argyll and Bute, My Tribe helps ease financial pressures faced by families. The initiative reaches children where they need it most—inside schools. Period products are made available in every secondary school and more than 30 primary schools across the region. Additionally, the My Tribe Champions initiative empowers students in several secondary schools to lead the conversation around period dignity, fostering awareness and peer support. Most young people access products through the My Tribe website, followed by availability in schools— ensuring discretion and convenience. Technical improvements to the platform have made it even easier for children and families to get the support they need, contributing to wider efforts to combat the effects of poverty on young people’s wellbeing and education. D. Helping Families in Other Ways 1. Public Health The Argyll and Bute Community Link Worker service A Community Link Worker is a member of the wider GP practice team that can provide support and advice on many social issues that may be affecting health and wellbeing. They have a wide range of knowledge on local services and community- based groups and activities. Community Link Workers can help people find the right support and provide them with information on a wide range of social issues that can impact on health and wellbeing, this might include: • housing issues • employment and learning • support groups • money worries • physical activity • long-term conditions • caring for relatives and friends • improving emotional wellbeing • social isolation Page 352
Page 353
Page 57 of 64 The service helps to address child poverty in a number of ways including supporting families who are experiencing financial difficulties, supporting people with health and wellbeing challenges that may have an impact on their financial situation, and through the service being targeted at the areas of highest social deprivation and remote/rural isolation in Argyll and Bute. Third Sector organisation ‘With You’ (previously We Are With You) has been commissioned by NHS Highland to provide the Community Link Worker service in Argyll and Bute since April 2022. Rachel McLean, the team lead for Community Link Workers in Argyll and Bute, introduces the service in the this video. Further information on the service is available from - Social prescribing | NHS Highland and from With You website Community Links Scotland | WithYou. In 2024/2025, the service began an expansion process so that more people would be able to benefit from this support. This included the recruitment of three additional Community Link Workers and provision of the service to a further 9 GP practices. This takes the total number of GP practices with patients who can benefit from the service to 21. This year also saw an increase in the number of referrals to the service – an increase from 522 in 23/24 to 699 in 24/25. The top reasons for referrals were mental health and wellbeing, financial advice, housing/essential needs, stress management and loneliness/social isolation. Those who get support from the service are invited to complete a wellbeing questionnaire. 64% of people who accessed support from the service completed wellbeing data at the start and end of the service; 86.5% of whom showed an improvement in wellbeing. Patients also provided feedback in the form of quotes: “I was feeling frustrated by answers of others’ to my housing problems, but [the CLW] instilled a confidence I thought I’d lost & was concise & professional in handling the housing issues I had.” ‘Definitely feel that having the link worker support me and help me find the correct resources has made a huge difference and achieved so much. I am very grateful for the time, effort and compassion that was shown to me and I feel like a lot of people would really benefit from the same experience I had.” Money Counts training The Money Counts Level 1 awareness session was co-developed by the Highland Money Counts Partnership including the Trussell Trust, NHS Highland, Highland Council and Social Security Scotland, in partnership with the Independent Food Aid Network and Nourish Scotland. This is a short, 45-minute awareness session, delivered remotely through Teams for anyone who may feel less confident and experienced about discussing money worries, but may be in a position to have a brief conversation with individuals and signpost on. This session is targeted at Page 353
Page 354
Page 58 of 64 anyone from health, education and social care staff; 3rd sector workers and volunteers; warm place volunteers and anyone who may be able to start a brief conversation about money worries. The session aims to: • Increase understanding of poverty and its impact. • Increase confidence to ask about money worries. • Increase knowledge of support services for money matters. The session helps to promote the Argyll and Bute Worrying about Money leaflet and are delivered jointly by Argyll and Bute and NHS highland The ‘Worrying About Money?’ cash first referral leaflet is a straightforward resource both for people facing money worries and support workers. The step-by-step guide identifies which local agencies are best placed to help people maximise income and access any existing financial entitlements. These leaflets are available for many individual local authorities in the UK. Argyll and Bute - Worrying About Money? As well as in English, this leaflet is now available in Gaelic, Ukrainian, Polish and Arabic versions and all are available to download from the website link above. These leaflets are regularly promoted and distributed throughout Argyll and Bute. In 2024/2025, 5 Money Counts courses were delivered to 33 attendees. Living Well grants In 2024-2025, Argyll and Bute HSCP Public Health team administered £23,000 of grants focused on improving health and wellbeing in rural island communities through ‘connecting people to community activities.’ The aims of the grant programme were: • Connecting people in communities to the right support. • Raise awareness of support available within local communities. • Developing community support for local health, wellbeing and social issues, using collective knowledge, skills or resources within the community. This fund sought to build capacity within communities for social prescribing, which may often involve addressing child poverty through the same routes as Community Link Workers – i.e. linking people experiencing hardship to support available within both statutory and community services. Welfare Advice and Health Partnerships In April 2023, the Scottish Government made funding available to develop Welfare Advice and Health Partnerships (WAHP’s) in Argyll and Bute. WAHP’s provide access to money and welfare rights advice in health care settings. This is achieved Page 354
Page 355
Page 59 of 64 by embedding welfare advice specialists in healthcare settings through partnership working between local authorities, health boards and GP practices. Welfare advice specialists provide an effective support service on all matters relating to welfare benefits and entitlements. The overall aim of the service is to ensure that the correct amount of benefit is paid at the correct time and to assist with budgeting skills so that households can pay their bills, heat their homes, and have a better quality of life. WAHP’s provide GP practices with welfare advice specialists who can support patients to improve their financial situation. This initiative aims to address financial insecurity for individuals who may not seek support from other means of welfare advice. Funding was allocated to Argyll and Bute Council for additional resource for welfare advice specialists, for a 2-year remote and rural pilot for five GP practices. From the start of the initiative in April 2023 to March 2025 the service has had 181 referrals across the five GP practices. Of the patients referred to Welfare rights 47% clients were over 65 years of age and 84% clients had a health condition. The total financial gain from Welfare Rights Intervention for this period was £693,190. The initiative has recently been extended for a further year from 01/04/2025 - 31/03/2026. The pilot has been evaluated on behalf of the Scottish Ministers by the Improvement Service in collaboration with the Scottish Public Health Network. Welfare and Health Partnerships 'Test and Learn' Programme Evaluation 2. Young Carers Throughout Argyll & Bute Young Carers are supported in their caring roles to access Young Carer Support from a range of commissioned third sector services; Crossroads Caring for Carers Cowal & Bute, Helensburgh & Lomond Carers Centre, Mid Argyll Youth Development Services (MAYDS) and North Argyll Carers Centre. These supports ensure that Young Carers are able to access Young Carers Statements, developing an action plan of support to meet individual need. Carers Centres and MAYDS can often be in the position to support Young Carers and their families to assist in times of financial need, for example with access to Benefit Advice, AliEnergy, additional funding, Young Scot’s Young Carers Package, Young Carer Grant and referrals and signposting to a range of organisations. With systems in place, Young Carers are known to our education colleagues, who in turn can ensure referrals and access to Young Carer support, working closely with the services listed above. Providing space and time for Young Carer Support Workers to visit the schools, provide drop in’s, one to one sessions and attend community events in support of Young Carers. Page 355
Page 356
Page 60 of 64 Young Carers in Argyll & Bute have been active participants in Argyll & Bute’s Children’s Rights illustration, Child Poverty illustration, Youth Voice and in producing a Young Carers and Children’s Rights in Argyll & Bute animation. Working with colleagues we are able to ensure that appropriate and accessible information is shared with Young Carers and their families, such as access to the Argyll & Bute Unpaid Carers Consultation, opportunities for Young Carers as well as Benefit advice, Young Carers Action Day, Carers Week and Carers Rights. 3. Working with Refugees in Argyll and Bute The Council’s Resettlement Team works in partnership with other organisations through the Refugee Programme. Work began in 2015 and began with Syrian resettlement, a UK wide scheme whereby local authorities provided accommodation and support. In Argyll and Bute Syrian families and individuals were found homes on the island of Bute and organisations worked together to provide multi-agency, person centred support. This programme continues today and now includes other nationalities; it has proven highly successful, winning a number of awards, including COSLA Excellence Awards and is seen as a benchmark resettlement programme. Work with Ukrainian families is different as it is community based but still resettlement led. Support remains multi-agency and person centred. Some 300 plus Ukrainian citizens have been welcomed to Argyll and Bute. The Council’s Resettlement Team provide support for Ukrainians and this has included: • Housing; • Interpreters; • English Lessons; • Employability support; • Benefits and Grants; • Physical and mental health supports and counselling. Outcomes for people placed across Argyll and Bute are good and provision provided is a notable example of effective multi-agency partnership working. Since the start of 2024, Afghan families have been resettled in Helensburgh through the Afghan Resettlement Programme. All those who are resettled through ARP scheme benefit from full rights and entitlements through Indefinite Leave to Remain, providing them with the certainty and stability they need to rebuild their life here. The local authority receives integration tariffs over 3 years to provide ongoing integration support. As per all resettlement schemes, support is person centred and multi- agency. Page 356
Page 357
Page 61 of 64 In autumn of 2023 we also reviewed our programme of support for unaccompanied asylum-seeking children and young people (UASC). These young people have made their way to the UK without parents or guardians and are seeking refugee status from the Home Office. Our new programme of support sees Resettlement and Social Work working together very closely to provide the best possible support for our young people. 4. Pre-loved School Uniform Project The two-year funded pre-loved school uniform project has come to an end. The project was set up to focus on the reuse of good quality preloved school uniform and the recycling of uniforms that are no longer fit for purpose. Working with schools, community groups, and parent councils across all seven of our main settlements to support Eco-friendly reuse school uniform schemes that cover school uniform for Early Learning Centres, Nurseries Primary and Secondary Schools linked to each school cluster. We investigated, supported and promoted the taking donations of uniform from parents and pupils, ways to launder them and methods of redistributing them as and when they are required. The project has achieved many of the goals we envisaged and many more that developed during the project in a positive and meaningful way. It also highlighted that more work is needed to keep this momentum moving forward. Much of the work and schemes that are now running will continue into the future, but the work has shown that with a little support and encouragement much more could be achieved. Here is a link to a Council web page that will give you details of the project report. School uniform scheme | Argyll and Bute Council 5. Schools Share and Recycle • Rothesay Academy have a school “shop” where pupils can access not just school uniform items but also Christmas jumpers so that they can be used again, and everyone take part in Christmas jumper events. They also have a “shop” where pupils can access formal wear for the school’s Christmas Dance – the biggest event in the school year that replaces a Prom. • Gigha Primary school have a community fridge, which they keep fully stocked with fresh items of food. They have been very surprised at the uptake and need to restock very regularly. • Dalmally Primary School are actively involved with the charity Mary’s Meals – founded in Dalmally. Pupils fundraise and raise awareness. Most of our schools have a Uniform Bank where pupils can access pre-owned items of school uniform. Some extend this to items such as socks and tights. Page 357
Page 358
Page 62 of 64 • Quote from RRSA Silver report for Garelochhead Primary: Children spoke confidently about their involvement and opportunities to participate in many school groups such as House Teams and Garelochhead Guardians. Parents spoke of how proud their children were to belong to these groups. Pupils, staff and parents spoke of the Uniform Swap Shop, with children learning that not everything needs to be bought new. One parent commented, “As a parent, I find that really helpful.” 6. Street Connect Street Connect is a charity that began in Glasgow in 2013. In Argyll and Bute, it is currently working in Dunoon and hopes to extend its activities to Rothsay shortly. It aims to support individuals struggling with addiction and associated issues such as homelessness and poor mental health. In Dunoon it hands out leaflets and runs a drop in café. On Tuesdays it offers a Support Group and can provide some one-to- one support if needed. People can self-refer, and the charity also receives referrals from churches, professionals and prison welfare. E. Other Planned Work Establishing a Dedicated Poverty Prevention Service Work is currently going on looking to establish a dedicated, multi-skilled Poverty Prevention Team within Argyll and Bute Council to coordinate and deliver early intervention strategies aimed at mitigating poverty across the local authority area. The team will provide a strategic, long-term approach to reducing reliance on crisis services and improving life outcomes for residents, building financial resilience and family prosperity. It will look to: • Bring departments and roles together to create a unified strategic framework. • Coordinate funds and try to avoid short term, fragmented funding on key areas increasing impact and sustainability. • Avoid duplication, missed opportunities for early intervention and achieve savings. Key Elements of this change will be: Page 358
Page 359
Page 63 of 64 • Core multi-skilled team: Including expertise in welfare rights, housing support, employability, education, and community engagement. • Dedicated budget: Reducing reliance on short-term grants and ensuring service sustainability. • Coordinated strategy: Unifying current efforts and aligning with local and national priorities. • Integrated data use: Identifying at-risk households early and enabling targeted, effective intervention. • Partnership governance: Involving key stakeholders in health, education, social care, housing, and the third sector. Alignment with National and Local Priorities This proposal supports key local and national priorities, including: • Argyll and Bute Economic Strategy and Action Plan – “People” (p.10) and “Prosperity” (p.22): Focusing on inclusive growth and wellbeing. • Community Wealth Building (CWB): Aligns with the principles promoted by CLES and supports anticipated duties under the CWB Bill. • Argyll and Bute Climate Action Strategy – Contributes to climate justice through fairer access to energy support, transport, and sustainable food systems (p.29). • Scottish Government’s Child Poverty Delivery Plan and Public Health Priorities: Proactive, partnership-based work to prevent poverty and reduce health inequalities F. References Seven Children; Inequality and Britain’s Next Generation; Danny Dorling, Hurst & Company, London, 2024. (1) UK Poverty 2025 The essential guide to understanding poverty in the UK. Joseph Rowntree Foundation. (2) Joseph Rowntree Foundation (2025) UK Poverty 2025. (3) The cost of remoteness: Reflecting higher living costs in remote rural Scotland when measuring fuel poverty 2023 update; Report produced on behalf of the Scottish Page 359
Page 360
Page 64 of 64 Government by the Centre for Research in Social Policy Loughborough University. March 2025. (4) Improving our understanding of child poverty in rural and island Scotland Jayne Glass and Jane Atterton Rural Policy Centre, Scotland’s Rural College; SRUC, Scot Gov. 2022. (5) Child Poverty; Children and young people’s health and wellbeing profiles: supplementary report, PHS / NHS Highland, Publication date: 22 July 2024 (6) Accredited official statistics. Family Resources Survey: financial year 2023 to 2024. Gov.UK; Published 27 March 2025 (7) Mental Health Foundation (8) Action For Children (9) Treanor et al 2023; The indivisibility of Parental and Child Mental Health and Why Poverty Matters. Journal of Adolescent Health 73 (3). (10) Page 360
Page 361
Page 361
Page 362
This page is intentionally left blank
Page 363
ARGYLL AND BUTE COUNCIL COUNCIL DEVELOPMENT AND ECONOMIC GROWTH 24th SEPTEMBER 2025 ARGYLL AND BUTE COUNCIL VISITOR LEVY CONSULTATION REPORT 1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1.1 With various Councils considering a visitor levy to raise investment for their visitor economies, Argyll and Bute Council took the decision to carry out a consultation exercise to gather views on a draft visitor levy scheme. The purpose of this paper is to provide members of Argyll and Bute Council with the findings from the consultation. These findings have been produced by an independent agency (EKOS Ltd) and are set out in the report prepared by EKOS, in Appendix 1. 1.2 The consultation exercise was designed to gather widespread views on a visitor levy by providing different options for getting informed and involved; and to provide an understanding of the reasons behind those views. The exercise achieved the aim of gathering views from residents, businesses and visitors; and considerable insight into the views provided with 3,352 responses received (including hard copy and letter responses) supplemented by four webinars and ten drop-in events held across the region. 1.3 The draft scheme was set in the context of the Visitor Levy (Scotland) Act 2024. It is important to note that there are elements within this Act that Argyll and Bute Council cannot change (see Table 1.1 in the appended report). 1.4 Overall, 57% of survey respondents (when we combine quantitative and qualitative responses) indicated that they did not support a visitor levy being introduced across Argyll and Bute, and a further 16% disagreed with the proposal to set a levy rate, if a visitor levy was introduced, at 5%. 1.5 However, it is estimated that over a 10-year period, the Council could generate between £6.10 and £6.90 in tax revenue for every £1 of costs. 1.6 It is recommended that the Council gives consideration to three options as outlined below: Option 1: not to introduce a Visitor Levy Scheme across Argyll and Bute, noting both the positive and negative medium to longer term consequences of this option. Option 2: to agree to introduce a Visitor Levy Scheme across Argyll and Bute, agreeing a percentage rate, whether to apply a cap and the position of local exemptions to support the long-term future of the visitor economy through financial investment from the Council. If a scheme is agreed by Members, the 18-month lead in period would Page 363 Agenda Item 14
Page 364
begin and implementation would be from 1st April 2027. It is suggested that with this option the scheme could be reviewed after one year of implementation. Option 3: to pause the implementation of the scheme to allow the Council to use the evidence collected in the appended consultation report to inform further work by officers, including: (1) Further consideration as to whether to apply a cap, or not; (2) Consideration of the possibility of local exemptions to support the long-term future of the visitor economy through financial investment from the Council; (3) Supporting Members to lobby both the Scottish and UK Governments on the key concerns raised, specifically the use of a flat rate versus a percentage rate and the concerns over the VAT threshold. In light of the advice outlined in paragraph 4.32, a report is to be brought back no later than Council in September 2026 to advise of progress on the points noted above, and specifically the position of the Scottish Government in regard to revisiting the Visitor Levy Legislation. It should be noted that should this option be accepted, and the Council decide to progress with a visitor levy scheme after this time, it is likely that any revenue collection would not be possible until the financial year 2028/2029 at the earliest. Page 364
Page 365
ARGYLL AND BUTE COUNCIL COUNCIL DEVELOPMENT AND ECONOMIC GROWTH 24th SEPTEMBER 2025 ARGYLL AND BUTE COUNCIL VISITOR LEVY CONSULTATION REPORT 2.0 INTRODUCTION 2.1 With Councils across Scotland considering the introduction of a visitor levy, the Council decided at a special meeting on 20th December 2024, to carry out a consultation exercise to gather views on a draft visitor levy scheme. The consultation exercise ran from 16th January to the 10th April 2025. 2.2 The draft proposals were based on 5% levy (working figure) to apply all year round, taking into consideration the required national statutory exemptions, but with no additional discretionary exemptions at a local level. 2.3 The separate residents, business and visitor surveys received a total of 3,352 responses, and the majority (2,061; 61%) of responses being from residents. The surveys were further informed by four webinars and ten drop-in events held across the region. The findings of each of the three surveys can be found, in full detail, in the appended report, see Appendix 1. 3.0 RECOMMENDATIONS 3.1 It is recommended that the Council gives consideration to three options as outlined below: Option 1: not to introduce a Visitor Levy Scheme across Argyll and Bute, noting the positive and negative medium to longer term consequences of this option. Option 2: to agree to introduce a Visitor Levy Scheme across Argyll and Bute, agreeing a percentage rate, whether to apply a cap and the position of local exemptions to support the long-term future of the visitor economy through financial investment from the Council. If a scheme is agreed, the 18-month lead in period would begin and implementation would be from 1st April 2027. It is suggested that with this option the scheme could be reviewed after one year of implementation. Option 3: to pause the implementation of the scheme to allow the Council to use the evidence collected in the appended consultation report to inform further work by officers, including: (1) Further consideration as to whether to apply a cap, or not; (2) Consideration of the possibility of local exemptions to support the long-term future of the visitor economy through financial investment from the Council; Page 365
Page 366
(3) Supporting Members to lobby both the Scottish and UK Governments on the key concerns raised, specifically the use of a flat rate versus a percentage rate and the concerns over the VAT threshold. In light of the advice outlined in paragraph 4.32, a report is to be brought back no later than Council in September 2026 to advise of progress on the points noted above, and specifically the position of the Scottish Government in regard to revisiting the Visitor Levy Legislation. It should be noted that should this option be accepted, and the Council decide to progress with a visitor levy scheme after this time, it is likely that any revenue collection would not be possible until the financial year 2028/2029 at the earliest. 4.0 DETAIL Views on the Introduction of a 5% Visitor Levy across Argyll and Bute 4.1 Overall, 57% of survey respondents (when we combine quantitative and qualitative responses) indicated that they did not support a visitor levy being introduced across Argyll and Bute and a further 16% disagreed with the proposal to set the levy rate at 5%, as detailed below in Table 1. Table 1: To what extent do you agree with the Argyll and Bute Council proposal to set the levy rate at 5%? Question Businesses Residents Visitors Overall Agree or strongly agree 6% 26% 10% 19% Neither agree nor disagree 4% 8% 6% 7% Disagree or strongly disagree 22% 13% 21% 16% Don’t know 1% 2% 1% 1% I don’t support a levy being introduced across Argyll and Bute 67% 52% 62% 57% Source: Argyll and Bute Council Surveys Base = 727 (businesses); 2,041 (residents); 538 (visitors); Overall (3,306). Views on the Proposed Visitor Levy Scheme Objectives 4.2 The proposed Visitor Levy Scheme objectives aligned with the four strategic objectives/priorities within the Argyll and the Isles Strategic Tourism Partnership Strategy. The objectives were informed during a discussion at a Shadow Visitor Levy Forum meeting on 24th October 2024 to mirror the work already underway by the Argyll and the Isles Strategic Tourism Partnership (AISTP), five members of whom were Shadow Visitor Levy Forum members to prepare a revised strategy during 2025. The Shadow Visitor Levy Forum brings together representatives from the Council, Visit Scotland, HIE, Lomond and Trossachs National Park and Argyll and the Isles Tourism Co-operative (AITC). 4.3 Survey respondents expressed a high level of disagreement with the proposed scheme objectives as outlined in Table 2 below. Page 366
Page 367
Table 2: To what extent do you agree with the visitor levy scheme objectives? Scheme objectives Agree or strongly agree Neither agree nor disagree Disagree or strongly disagree Extending the season and spreading visitors across the destination 29% 22% 50% Reaching new audiences 31% 23% 46% Sustaining and improving the visitor offer 35% 19% 45% The journey towards net zero 23% 25% 52% Source: All respondents from Argyll and Bute Council Surveys 4.4 There was evidence of scepticism and a general lack of trust in the Council’s ability to manage the funds effectively, however, the points that came through in the feedback are all addressed/stipulated in the legislation. Views on Argyll and Bute Councils proposed position on Local Exemptions 4.5 As depicted in Table 3, the majority (59%) of survey respondents did not agree with the Council’s proposed position on local exemptions (i.e. that a proposed visitor levy scheme only includes exemptions set out in the national legislation). Table 3: To what extent do you agree or disagree Argyll and Bute’s (proposed) position on local exemptions? Businesses Residents Visitors Overall Agree or strongly agree 16% 26% 16% 22% Neither agree nor disagree 17% 13% 14% 14% Disagree or strongly agree 60% 57% 66% 59% Don’t know 7% 3% 4% 4% Source: Argyll and Bute Council Surveys Base = 727 (businesses); 2,042 (residents); 538 (visitors); Overall (3,307). 4.6 It was clear from the consultation findings that a ‘one-size-fits-all’ approach to the consideration of local exemptions was not appropriate. Local exemptions from paying a levy, put forward by respondents, are as follows: • all residents of Argyll and Bute registered for council tax. • people staying in Argyll and Bute on a temporary basis for business/work or non-leisure trips (e.g. workers and tradespeople and NHS staff). • micro and small businesses that have consciously structured their business to remain below the £90,000 VAT threshold to avoid the complexity and costs associated with VAT compliance. • carers who accompany/support disabled people on holiday or essential trips and appointments. • charitable accommodation providers and overnight stays for charitable purposes. 4.7 For 22% of respondents who agreed with the Council’s current draft proposals on including national exemptions only, put forward the following points: • local exemptions would have a wider negative impact on scheme administration and/or on accommodation providers. • increase the complexity of scheme administration and could make it too onerous, in particular for smaller accommodation providers. Page 367
Page 368
• risk inconsistency or discrimination between people eligible and not eligible for exemptions. • reduce the revenue available for investment in local infrastructure and services. 4.8 While it was noted that respondents did consider it appropriate and sensible that any scheme should align with national exemptions, there was support for the Council to retain flexibility to add local exemptions. Under the Act, if a local authority decides to add an exemption to a visitor levy scheme, this does not require an implementation period, but a consultation and a report on the consultation findings will be required before a decision could be made to add an exemption to an existing scheme. Views on Capping the Number of Nights of Accommodation where a Levy is Paid 4.9 Just over half (52%) of survey respondents agreed with a cap on the number of accommodation nights that a visitor levy should be paid. The results of this question are outlined in Table 4 below. Table 4: Do you think there should be a cap on the number of nights of accommodation that a visitor should pay a levy? Businesses Residents Visitors Overall Yes 59% 49% 61% 52% No 20% 34% 21% 30% Don’t know 21% 17% 17% 18% Source: Argyll and Bute Council Surveys Base = 289 (businesses); 1,180 (residents); 243 (visitors); Overall (1,712). Note: Respondents who selected ‘Don’t know’ or ‘I don’t support a levy being introduced across Argyll and Bute’ to that question, as noted in Table 1 above, were not asked this question. 4.10 Almost half (48%) either said there should not be a cap or where unsure, reasons for this included: • To simplify the administration of a visitor levy scheme. • To avoid any confusion for visitors and accommodation providers. • Visitors use amenities for the whole of their visit. • It could be a fairer approach for accommodation providers of all sizes. • No cap would unlikely deter visitors as many are short term stays. 4.11 Survey respondents for each survey provided a range for the number of nights after which a cap should apply as follows: • Businesses: one night to 14 nights. Predominantly at the low end of this range. • Residents: one night to 30 nights. Mainly at the lower end of this range (seven nights was mentioned most frequently). • Visitors: one night to 30 nights. Mainly at the lower end of this range (most suggested between one and three nights). Estimated Visitor Levy Cost Benefit Analysis 4.12 Chapter 6 of the appended report provides a detailed analysis of a range of possible economic impacts (estimated direct and indirect costs and benefits) on the accommodation sector and wider visitor economy across Argyll and Bute if a visitor Page 368
Page 369
levy scheme was introduced. The analysis focused on three main areas of uncertainty: • the costs of setting up and administering the scheme. • the impact that the levy might have on the number of visitors and expenditure in the region. • the extent to which the reinvestment of levy monies will create positive economic benefit for the visitor economy sector. 4.13 Terms (metrics) used for the cost benefit analysis are as follows: • Net Present Value (NPV) – tells you how much an investment is worth today, based on the future money it will earn adjusted for risk and time. • Benefit to Cost Ratio (BCR) – is the ratio of the present value of total benefits to the present value of total costs. A ratio > 1 means the benefits exceed costs making it a good investment. 4.14 The financial and economic appraisal work is based on the following assumptions: • The levy is charged at 5%, all price increases are passed on to the consumer, no exemptions, no remitted funds back to accommodation businesses. • All available funding (net of set up and ongoing administration costs) is invested back into the visitor economy under the broad themes as outlined in the Visitor Levy (Scotland) Bill. • Price Elasticity Demand of between a low-end value of -0.2 (least price sensitive response) and a high-end value of -1.50 (most price sensitive response) with a mid-range of -0.85. This is the relationship between the change in demand further to a change in the price. • Investment impact representing the potential effect of levy-funded public sector investment by Argyll and Bute to support the visitor economy. Four values 4%, 2%, 1% and 0%. • The mid-point set up and administration costs scenarios are assumed as a constant to understand the change in visitor behaviour and the impact of investment in the visitor economy from the visitor levy. 4.15 The financial and economic appraisals have been carried out at the local authority level. Ideally the assessment would include separate appraisals to better understand the potential implications for different parts of the region, including island communities. However, there are no data sources sufficiently detailed and robust to support and inform such an analysis. 4.16 The economic impact work has developed several possible scenarios ranging from the most positive (low costs, minimal impact on visitor numbers and high level of benefit from levy reinvestment) to the most negative (high costs, significantly negative impact on visitor numbers and no benefit arising from reinvestment of funds). 4.17 The cost benefit analysis for accommodation sector businesses measures the net present value of the turnover benefit to businesses as a result of public investment in the tourism sector using visitor levy generated funds against the present value direct costs to accommodation businesses and the value of lost turnover due to Page 369
Page 370
price increases brought on by the levy over the 10-year appraisal period. This analysis represents the aggregate financial impact on the cohort of levy-paying accommodation providers. Results are presented in Table 5 below. Table 5: Accommodation Sector Business Cost Benefits Analysis (£ millions) over the 10- year Appraisal Period up to 2035/36 Scenario Turnover uplift Set up and admin costs Turnover lost Total cost Net present value Benefit- cost ratio Best case £122.9.4 £8.5 £5.2 £13.7 £109.2 8.9 Midpoint £54.3 £8.5 £22.3 £30.8 £23.5 1.8 Worst case £0.0 £8.5 £39.4 £47.9 -£47.9 0.0 Note: Midpoint set-up and admin cost scenarios are assumed as a constant to understand the changes to visitor behaviour (PED) and the impact of investment in the visitor economy from a visitor levy. 4.18 The potential financial benefits for accommodation businesses range significantly from an overall loss of £47.9 million to a net gain of £109.2 million over 10 years. However, the mid-point scenario suggests a net gain of £23.5 million over the 10 years. If investment can support at least a 2% annual uplift in tourism sector activity, it is estimated that under any PED scenario and cost scenario that has been modelled, the levy may generate a positive impact on accommodation sector turnover/income. This will be dependent on the investment and time taken to realise an annual uplift in tourism activity. 4.19 The socioeconomic cost benefit analysis measures the present value of the net additional Gross Value Added (GVA) retained in Argyll and Bute as a result of investment of visitor levy generated funds against the present value of the direct costs to the Council plus the direct costs to accommodation business over the 10- year appraisal period. This analysis assesses the overall economic impact generated within the wider Argyll and Bute economy as a result of implementing the levy. Results are presented in Table 6. Table 6: Socioeconomic Cost Benefit Analysis (£ millions) over the 10-year Appraisal Period up to 2035/36 Scenario Net additional GVA Council cost of set up and admin Business cost of set up and admin Total cost Net present value Benefit- cost ratio Best case £173.1 £10.0 £8.5 £18.5 £154.6 9.3 midpoint £47.0 £10.0 £8.5 £18.5 £28.5 2.5 Worst case -£57.9 £10.0 £8.5 £18.5 -£76.5 -3.1 Note: Midpoint set-up and admin cost scenarios are assumed as a constant to understand the changes to visitor behaviour (PED) and the impact of investment in the visitor economy from a visitor levy. 4.20 The potential economic benefits (net additional GVA) for Argyll and Bute range significantly from an overall loss of £76.5 million to a net gain of £154.6 million over ten years. The mid-point is a positive Net Present Value of £28.5 million. 4.21 There was a strong call for more detailed proposals and plans from the Council on how the revenue generated would be spent. For example, further clarity and detail was said to be needed on: • The proportionate funding split across the proposed objectives. • Whether it could comprise revenue and capital funding. • How funding would be allocated across Argyll and Bute. Page 370
Page 371
4.22 It is important to note that the cost benefit analysis provides insight into the impacts that a visitor levy may have; it does not determine which scenario is more likely to occur. From the analysis financial issues are outlined in Table 7 below for Argyll and Bute Council and for the Accommodation Businesses Table 7: Estimated Financial Consequences from a 5% Visitor Levy Impact on Argyll and Bute Council Impact on Accommodation Businesses • For midpoint set-up and administration costs, it is estimated that Argyll and Bute Council could generate net tax revenue over a 10- year period between £59.9 million to £67.7 million at present values (£9.2 million to £11.8 million per annum by 2034/35) from a visitor levy significantly in excess of its expenditure in implementing and administrating a levy. • In short, it is estimated that over a 10-year period, the Council could generate between £6.10 and £6.90 in tax revenue for every £1 of costs. • Across all 36 scenarios for the net additional Gross Value Added (GVA) retained in Argyll and Bute, there are 19 where a visitor levy generates a positive NPV and a BCR greater than 1. • The analysis suggests that from a purely financial perspective, a visitor levy is likely to have a positive impact for investment available for the visitor economy, which could enhance the appeal of what Argyll and Bute offers visitors to keep the area competitive and keep visitors choosing to visit the area. A local Visitor Levy Forum would guide how income was spent • Consequently, this would be a significant loss in potential revenue generation if a visitor levy scheme was not introduced. • When including the low and high set- up and administration costs scenarios, there is a total of 36 modelled scenarios for the net additional Gross Value Added (GVA) retained in Argyll and Bute. For 17 of these scenarios a visitor levy generates a negative NPV and a BCR less than 1. • The analysis presents accommodation and overnight visitor economy businesses in aggregate and the potential turnover losses and gains are assessed on a sectoral basis. It is possible that turnover losses due to the levy may be unevenly distributed across the region. This could have significant impacts on specific businesses and may result in closure of businesses who are particularly impacted. Similarly. business may be differentially impacted by investment in the sector and the potential benefits may not be evenly felt across the region. • The cost benefit analysis estimates that the impact of levy funded investment in the tourism sector will need to support a 2% annual uplift in visitor economic activity per annum. The model is highly dependent on the investment and time taken to realise an annual uplift in tourism activity. Page 371
Page 372
4.23 In addition, council officers have referred to the findings in the consultation report to undertake a detailed integrated impact assessment where consideration has been given to Fairer Scotland Duty; Equalities (protected characteristics), Consumer Duty, Island Communities and Children’s Rights and Wellbeing. The integrated impact assessment is outlined in Appendix 2 to this report. Alternative Funding for the Visitor Economy and Legislative Issues 4.24 The online surveys sought views on alternative means by which Argyll and Bute Council could raise funds to support the visitor economy infrastructure and services rather than through a visitor levy. 4.25 One particular issue, which was again highlighted by the detailed business case studies in Appendix E in the appended report, was the complexity of a percentage- based model rather than a flat rate which could offer more simplicity and fairness to raise revenue for the visitor economy. It is not, however, within the gift of the Council to apply a flat rate as the legislation, as it stands, requires a percentage rate to be applied. Argyll and Bute Council financial perspective 4.26 It is clear from the findings that there is limited support for the introduction of a visitor levy scheme as proposed for Argyll and Bute across businesses, residents and visitors who responded to the survey. That said, to put this in context, it should be noted that the response rate from the residents survey (2,061) is only 2.7% of the resident population, aged 15+ (2,061 out of 76,271 using age cohorts presented by the National Records of Scotland, NRS) who were interested in responding to this scheme policy; 97.3% of the resident population 15+ years did not respond. 4.27 Independent research by EKOS, informed by current industry data, identifies that Argyll and Bute Council could potentially generate net tax revenue over a 10-year period between £59.9 million to £67.7 million at present values. In other words, £9.2 million to £11.8 million per annum by 2034/35. Given current, and forecasted financial challenges, facing the Council this is a significant amount of income that could be a real difference to sustain the public services we provide and the ability of the Council to support the further development of the tourist economy across the whole Council area. 4.28 Scotland’s local authorities are operating in a time of acute financial pressure. In the absence of additional revenue from a visitor levy, the Council may have no other choice but to make difficult budgetary decisions – many of which could affect essential services that currently support the quality of life for residents and enhance the experience of visitors. Some of the services, which could be regarded as tourism related, that the Council may have to consider reducing or stopping without an additional income stream like the visitor levy are as follows: • Provision of public toilets – this is non-statutory service that the Council does not receive any funding for. • Support of strategic events and festivals. • Maintenance of public parks and gardens. Page 372
Page 373
• Floral displays and green infrastructure. • Swimming pools and sports centres (currently run by ALEO Live Argyll). • Reduced hours or closure of libraries (currently run by ALEO Live Argyll). • Subsidies for low demand bus routes. • Reduced support for Council and community led tourism projects. • Grants to tourism organisations like Argyll and the Isles Tourism Co-operative. • Further reduction to general waste collection and management. It should be noted that the above list of Council services is not considered to be an exhaustive list. 4.29 In addition to the reduction, or loss of public facing services, there could be a lost opportunity to invest in our local tourism industry and the infrastructure it currently relies on such as our roads, ferries and ports, resulting in existing assets degrading over time, reducing visitor satisfaction and harming local reputation. Options for consideration 4.30 The consultation report prepared by EKOS Ltd is attached as Appendix 1 in full. It is now for the Council to consider whether to proceed with a visitor levy, or not. 4.31 The minutes of the discussion at the Visitor Levy Short Life Working Group on 15th September 2025, where the Shadow Visitor Levy Forum members were invited to attend to share their reflections on the consultation report, are outlined in Appendix 3. 4.32 COSLA wrote to all council Chief Executives on 16th September 2025 to advise that there will be no amendments to the Visitor Levy (Scotland) Act 2024 agreed during the life of this parliament. There may be an opportunity to revisit the visitor levy legislation after a new Scottish Government is formed in May 2026, however, there are no guarantees that this will be prioritised by a future Government. 4.33 Officers are recommending that there are three options for the Council to consider: Option 1: not to introduce a Visitor Levy Scheme across Argyll and Bute, noting the positive and negative medium to longer term consequences of this option. Option 2: to agree to introduce a Visitor Levy Scheme across Argyll and Bute, agreeing a percentage rate, whether to apply a cap and the position of local exemptions to support the long-term future of the visitor economy through financial investment from the Council. If a scheme is agreed, the 18-month lead in period would begin and implementation would be from 1st April 2027. It is suggested that with this option the scheme could be reviewed after one year of implementation. Option 3: to pause the implementation of the scheme to allow the Council to use the evidence collected in the appended consultation report to inform further work by officers, including: (1) Further consideration as to whether to apply a cap, or not; Page 373
Page 374
(2) Consideration of the possibility of local exemptions to support the long-term future of the visitor economy through financial investment from the Council; (3) Supporting Members to lobby both the Scottish and UK Governments on the key concerns raised, specifically the use of a flat rate versus a percentage rate and the concerns over the VAT threshold. In light of the advice outlined in paragraph 4.32, a report is to be brought back no later than Council in September 2026 to advise of progress on the points noted above, and specifically the position of the Scottish Government in regard to revisiting the Visitor Levy Legislation. It should be noted that should this option be accepted, and the Council decide to progress with a visitor levy scheme after this time, it is likely that any revenue collection would not be possible until the financial year 2028/2029 at the earliest. 5.0 CONCLUSION 5.1 This report presents the full findings of an independent analysis of responses to the Argyll and Bute Council consultation on draft proposals for the introduction of a visitor levy scheme. These findings have been prepared by EKOS taking into account the latest tourism data and are presented in full as Appendix 1 of this report. Whilst the survey results reveal a minority support for the levy as currently presented the further analysis contained within the EKOS report conforms a potentially significant net tax revenue benefit (£9.2 million to £11.8 million annually by 2034/35) for the Council over the next decade. This is highly significant given the Council’s current and forecasted financial challenges to both sustain public services and to further support the future growth of the local tourism industry. Consequently, the report presents three options for Council to consider. 6.0 IMPLICATIONS 6.1 Policy – the visitor level scheme proposals are based on turning key investment into benefit for visitors, residents and businesses through the tourism priorities set out in the Argyll and the Isles Strategic Tourism Partnership’s Strategy 2022-2025. 6.2 Financial – the visitor levy scheme offers one of the few opportunities that the Council has to raise additional income at a local level other than the council tax. The EKOS report attached as Appendix 1 is estimated to generate an income stream for the Council, where tax revenue receipts could be in excess of costs to fund investment in the sector each year in which the levy is in effect. The current estimate is between £9.2 million to £11.8 million per annum by 2034/35. 6.3 Legal – visitor levy schemes need to adhere to The Visitor Levy (Scotland) Act 2024 and the supporting Visitor Levy Guidance document produced by VisitScotland on behalf of the Scottish Government. 6.4 HR – this current work is managed by a study Steering Group comprised of members of the Council’s internal Visitor Levy Officers’ Working Group and supported by ELT. Page 374
Page 375
6.5 Customer Service – none. 6.6 Risk – the introduction of visitor levy for accommodation businesses has the potential risk that higher prices may discourage some visitors from choosing Argyll and Bute, reducing demand. Conversely, there is a risk that an opportunity is missed, if revenue from a levy enables Council investment that enhances the visitor economy, attracting visitors and improving the overall visitor experience. It should also be noted that three councils have already approved the introduction of a levy, and others are currently considering it. Councils that can access the revenue stream of a levy will be able to better support the growth of their local tourism economy. 6.7 Climate Change – none directly arising from this report. 6.8 Fairer Scotland Duty - the Fairer Scotland Duty, Part 1 of the Equality Act 2010, came into force in April 2018. The duty places a legal responsibility on particular public bodies in Scotland, such as Argyll and Bute Council, to pay due regard to (actively consider) how they can reduce inequalities of outcome, caused by socio- economic disadvantage, when making strategic decisions and how this has been implemented. This has been considered as part of the integrated impact assessment outlined in Appendix 2. 6.9 Equalities (protected characteristics) - all activities will comply with all Equal Opportunities policies and obligations. This has been considered as part of the integrated impact assessment outlined in Appendix 2. 6.10 Consumer Duty - all activities will comply with the Council’s Consumer Duty. This has been considered as part of the integrated impact assessment outlined in Appendix 2. 6.11 Island Communities – the visitor levy proposals that were out for consultation covered the whole of the Argyll and Bute Council area, which included all island communities. This has been considered as part of the integrated impact assessment outlined in Appendix 2. 6.12 Children’s Rights and Wellbeing – no direct impact was considered as part of the integrated impact assessment outlined in Appendix 2. Kirsty Flanagan, Executive Director responsible for the Visitor Levy Consultation Council Leader: Councillor Jim Lynch 16th September 2025 For further information contact: Fergus Murray, Head of Development and Economic Growth Tel: 01546 604293 and e-mail: fergus.murray@argyll-bute.gov.uk Ishabel Bremner, Economic Growth Manager Tel: 01546 604375 and e-mail: ishabel.bremner@argyll-bute.gov.uk Page 375
Page 376
APPENDICES Appendix 1: Visitor Levy Consultation Report for Argyll and Bute Council – Full Final Report dated 2nd September 2025. Appendix 2: Argyll and Bute Council: Integrated Impact Assessment. Appendix 3: Minutes from the Visitor Levy Short Life Working Group, 15th September 2025. Page 376
Page 377
Classification: OFFICIAL Draft proposals to introduce a visitor levy scheme in Argyll and Bute: consultation analysis Final Report for Argyll & Bute Council | 2nd September 2025 Appendix 1 Page 377
Page 378
Please consider the environment before printing this document Report prepared by: EKOS Limited St. George’s Studios 93-97 St. George’s Road Glasgow G3 6JA Reg 145099 www.ekos-consultants.co.uk Page 378
Page 379
Contents Executive summary 1 1 Introduction 16 2 Consultation methodology 27 3 Business survey results 39 4 Residents survey results 86 5 Visitor survey results 125 6 Updated impact assessments 157 7 What other local authorities are doing 186 Appendix A: Pre-consultation survey i Appendix B: Wider issues raised ii Appendix C: Webinars v Appendix D: Drop-in events xi Appendix E: Business case studies xvii Page 379
Page 380
1 Executive summary Introduction This executive summary presents the high level findings from an independent analysis of responses to the Argyll and Bute Council (A&BC) formal consultation on draft proposals for the introduction of a visitor levy scheme in Argyll and Bute. The council designed and undertook the consultation exercise, and commissioned EKOS to undertake the independent analysis, which was completed between May and August 2025. The detailed analysis and impact assessment are contained in the main report. Setting the context The Scottish Parliament passed the Visitor Levy (Scotland) Act in May 2024, which gives local authorities the ability to charge a set percentage on overnight accommodation paid by visitors and tourists. There are elements in the legislation which councils cannot change. As examples, this includes the types of accommodation provider included in the legislation and the application of a visitor levy as a percentage of the overnight accommodation room rate. The legislation, however, retains an element of flexibility - councils have the discretion to decide certain aspects of a visitor levy scheme which considers both the characteristics and circumstances of the local area, and consultation findings. As examples, this includes the percentage levy rate set and local exemptions. A&BC’s draft proposals sought views on a proposed levy rate of 5% and set out its current position that there would be no local exemptions beyond those set out nationally in the legislation. This was to ensure administration requirements of the scheme are kept to a minimum, and to maximise the revenues generated to sustain, support, and develop the visitor economy. Visitor levy schemes are intended to generate annual funding to be reinvested locally in the visitor economy and tourism infrastructure services and facilities used by leisure and business visitors and residents. The potential to introduce a visitor levy comes at a time when there is a well-recognised and pressing need for councils in Scotland to transform how they deliver sustainable services in the longer-term – and against a backdrop of constrained financial resources, a need for efficiency savings, growing demand for services, and other cost pressures. Page 380
Page 381
2 In an A&BC context, it is estimated that the net tax receipts a visitor levy could generate is between £8.7 million and £11.8 million per annum by 2034-2035. Over 10 years, it is forecast that a visitor levy may generate a total of £72.2 million - £82.2 million (£59.9 million - £67.7 million at present values). Taking account also of the potential costs of setting up and administering the scheme it is estimated that over a 10-year period, A&BC could generate between £6.10 and £6.90 in tax revenue for every £1 of costs. This analysis suggests that from a purely financial perspective, a visitor levy is likely to have a positive impact and there will be tax revenue receipts in excess of costs to fund investment in the sector each year in which a visitor levy is in effect. What other local authorities are doing Local authorities in Scotland are at different stages of considering or implementing a visitor levy – this is a fluid and evolving situation. At the time of drafting this report, three local authorities in Scotland have approved a visitor levy scheme – the City of Edinburgh, Glasgow City, and Aberdeen City, and several others are at an early stage or are undertaking formal consultations. Other local authorities with large rural, remote and island populations have paused consideration of a visitor levy scheme to allow time for a potential introduction of a ‘point-of-entry’ levy, which could be charged at ports and airports. There are some similarities as well as differences when approved visitor levy schemes and those currently subject to formal consultation are considered. The main differences include: • the percentage levy rate adopted or proposed. • whether local exemptions have been adopted or are proposed. • the proportion that accommodation providers will retain of the total monies collected at their establishment(s) due to the costs incurred in administering the scheme. This highlights that there is unlikely to be a national or standardised visitor levy scheme that operates across those local authorities that approve a visitor levy – it also highlights the critical importance of individual local authorities, including A&BC, understanding and considering: • whether a visitor levy will work for the region, as what is right for one destination will not necessarily be right for others. • the profile of visitors, whether largely domestic or international. • the potential impact of a visitor levy on businesses and visitors within the current economic and competitive travel landscape. • potential impacts of a visitor levy on factors such as price competitiveness, visitor demand, occupancy, and seasonality. Page 381
Page 382
3 The role of the A&BC consultation and the consultation analysis Before a local authority introduces a visitor levy scheme, the legislation states that councils must: • prepare and publicise an outline of the proposed scheme, identify the objectives of the scheme and set out how it intends to measure and report on the achievement of those objectives, and an assessment of the impacts of the proposal in the authority’s area. • consult with local communities and businesses engaged in tourism and tourist organisations. • prepare and publicise a report which summarises the consultation responses received, state whether or not the local authority intends to proceed with the proposal (or the proposal as modified in light of the consultation) and set out the local authority's reasons for whether or not it intends to proceed. The formal consultation designed and undertaken by A&BC on the draft proposals is intended to meet these statutory obligations and to inform council decision-making processes. Should a visitor levy scheme be approved, the council will also consider whether there should be changes to the draft proposals based on the consultation evidence. Consultation respondents The residents, business and visitor surveys received a total of 3,352 responses, the majority of which (61%) were from residents, see Table 1. The surveys were supplemented by four webinars and ten drop-in events held across the length and breadth of the region. As part of the consultation analysis contract, EKOS undertook 13 case studies with a diverse range of accommodation providers and tourism-related businesses. Table 1: Consultation responses Survey Number of online survey responses Revised number of survey responses once hard-copy survey responses have been added Revised final number of survey responses once letter responses have been assigned to a survey(s) Percentage of the total number of responses to the consultation Resident 2,031 2,042 2,061 61% Business 721 727 753 22% Visitor 532 538 538 16% Total 3,284 3,307 3,352 100% Note1: The 45 letter responses do not necessarily follow the online and hard-copy survey structure or format. Letter responses have not been added to the analysis of closed-questions in the survey. Rather, the letter responses have been considered as part of the qualitative analysis of survey open-ended questions instead. Note 2: Respondents could submit one response per survey if appropriate. For example, a local resident who is also a local business owner could submit a response to the resident and to the business survey. Page 382
Page 383
4 Table 2 to Table 9 presents the findings from the closed-ended questions from the survey respondents only. The supporting narrative reflects the qualitative responses provided to the consultation from all submissions. Regardless of how consultation responses were submitted (online survey, hard-copy survey response, letter, case study, etc.), and who they were submitted by (residents, businesses, visitors, other organisations, etc.), broadly common and consistent feedback was provided. Many respondents raised issues which are not in the council’s gift to change. Equally, they also raised points over which the council does have some discretion. This should be borne in mind when reading the executive summary and the consultation analysis report in full. There is limited support for a visitor levy in Argyll and Bute in its current form Overall, the consultation found limited support for the implementation of a visitor levy scheme in its current form. The council’s surveys did not ask an explicit question on whether or not respondents supported a visitor levy scheme for Argyll and Bute. It was clear, however, from a review of open-ended survey question responses that some respondents who selected ‘disagree’ or ‘strongly disagree’ to the closed-ended question ‘To what extent do you agree with the Argyll and Bute Council proposal to set a visitor levy rate at 5%?’ should have selected the ‘I do not support the introduction of a visitor levy in Argyll and Bute’ option. This was slightly more pronounced in the residents’ survey. Table 2 (original survey results) and Table 3 (EKOS recoding) presents the survey results to this survey question. Table 2: To what extent do you agree with the Argyll and Bute Council proposal to set a visitor levy rate at 5%? (original results) Businesses Residents Visitors Overall Agree or strongly agree 6% 26% 10% 19% Neither agree nor disagree 4% 8% 6% 7% Disagree or strongly disagree 29% 22% 27% 24% Don’t know 1% 2% 1% 1% I don’t support a visitor levy being introduced across Argyll and Bute 61% 42% 55% 49% Source: A&BC Surveys. Base=727 (Business), 2,041 (Resident), 538 (Visitor), 3,306 (Overall). Page 383
Page 384
5 Table 3: To what extent do you agree with the Argyll and Bute Council proposal to set a visitor levy rate at 5%? (EKOS recoding) Businesses Residents Visitors Overall Agree or strongly agree 6% 26% 10% 19% Neither agree nor disagree 4% 8% 6% 7% Disagree or strongly disagree 22% 13% 21% 16% Don’t know 1% 2% 1% 1% I don’t support a visitor levy being introduced across Argyll and Bute 67% 52% 62% 57% Source: A&BC Surveys. Base=727 (Business), 2,041 (Resident), 538 (Visitor), 3,306 (Overall). Based on Table 3 results, survey respondents to the consultation can be categorised into two broad groupings, comprising: • 57% of survey respondents that disagreed with the concept and principle of a visitor levy scheme – these respondents did not support the implementation of a visitor scheme in Argyll and Bute in any shape or form. • 43% of survey respondents that may have understood the motivation behind a visitor levy and the potential benefits of the scheme but disagreed with aspects of the national legislation and the council’s proposals or considered the timing not right for a visitor levy scheme to be introduced in Argyll and Bute. These groupings are mirrored in the wider feedback to the consultation. Issues identified with the national legislation Consultation respondents, regardless of grouping, identified aspects of the national legislation that they disagreed with. The appropriateness and currency of the data used to inform the Visitor Levy (Scotland) Bill As an example, consultation respondents often referenced the Scottish Government Business and Regulatory Impact Assessment (BRIA) which used 2019 data in their responses. The main point raised was that the data used to inform the BRIA pre-dates the Covid-19 pandemic, the conflict in Ukraine, and the cost-of-living crisis, etc. The types of accommodation providers covered by the legislation A principal concern raised by all respondent types was that some visitors would not be captured by a visitor levy - for example, motorhome and campervans (off-site), day visitors, wild campers, and cruise ship visitors. Page 384
Page 385
6 Some support for a visitor levy scheme was expressed if the model could ensure that all types of ‘genuine visitors’ contribute (for example, a point-of entry charge was suggested). Concerns were also raised about unintended consequences of the legislation – that is, it might encourage more people to wild camp or stay in motorhomes parked in laybys and unofficial parking areas. The application of a visitor levy as a percentage of the overnight accommodation rate The legislation states that: • the application of a visitor levy must be as a percentage of the overnight accommodation rate. • the cost of separately charged add-ons is not part of a visitor levy, such as: meals or drinks; parking for a vehicle; laundry facilities or services for guests; entertainment; leisure facilities transportation to and from the accommodation. • a visitor levy is subject to VAT. There was consistent feedback from consultation respondents that: • a percentage rate model could be overly complicated to understand and implement for visitors and accommodation providers alike – rather, if a scheme is approved, support was expressed for a fixed flat-rate fee (for example, £1, £2) – a fixed flat-rate fee was also considered more in line with other areas with a visitor levy (for example, Manchester). • micro and small accommodation providers (and others) were particularly concerned that a visitor levy was to be treated as turnover and therefore subject to VAT. Common themes mentioned in responses were that this could, for example: o bring those close to the VAT threshold over the limit, triggering mandatory VAT registration with associated administrative and financial burdens and could create price increases impacting competitiveness in a price-sensitive sector. o result in businesses currently operating close to the £90,000 VAT threshold: reducing turnover through a lower number of rooms/beds available throughout the year; reducing turnover through a lower number of rooms/beds available in the shoulder and winter months and focus on the busy summer months; closing completely during the winter months; or closing the business for good. Page 385
Page 386
7 Issues and concerns with the council’s draft proposals The council’s current position on no local exemptions Overall, the majority (59%) of survey respondents disagreed with the council’s current position on local exemptions, Table 4. These survey respondents disagreed with the council’s current proposal for no local exemptions beyond those set out in the national legislation. Around one-fifth (22%) of survey respondents agreed with the council’s position on no local exemptions and in the main agreed with the council’s reasoning for this – that is, to keep visitor levy scheme administration costs to a minimum, and to maximise the revenues generated to sustain, support, and develop the visitor economy. Table 4: To what extent do you agree or disagree with this position on local exemptions? Businesses Residents Visitors Overall Agree or strongly agree 16% 26% 16% 22% Neither agree nor disagree 17% 13% 14% 14% Disagree or strongly disagree 60% 57% 66% 59% Don’t know 7% 3% 4% 4% Source: A&BC Surveys. Base=727 (Business), 2,042 (Resident), 538 (Visitor), 3,307 (Overall). The qualitative feedback indicates that the majority of all respondents felt that the council should use its discretion to consider and apply local exemptions, and that a ‘one-size-fits-all’ approach was not appropriate. They suggested that local exemptions would allow the council to consider the unique characteristics and circumstances of Argyll and Bute, and in particular island communities – and to ensure that a visitor levy focused on ‘leisure tourists.’ Consultation respondents made various suggestions for local exemptions including: • residents who are registered for council tax (or within a council-tax registered property) in the Argyll and Bute area – all residents, but island residents specifically mentioned regularly travelling long distances for health care appointments, funerals, etc. and that they have planned or unplanned overnight stays in paid accommodation on the mainland (with issues compounded by ferry service cancellations and bad weather). • people that stay in Argyll and Bute on a temporary basis for work or non-leisure trips – for example, workers and tradespeople who regularly stay on islands on a temporary basis (for example, NHS staff, etc.). Page 386
Page 387
8 • micro and small businesses that have consciously structured their business to remain below the £90,000 VAT threshold to avoid the complexity and costs associated with VAT compliance – they argued that this could help protect the viability of smaller accommodation providers, and the diversity of accommodation provision. • carers who accompany/support disabled people on holiday or essential trips and appointments. • charitable accommodation providers – where a property is occupied by a charity or trustee of a charity and overnight stays which are wholly or mainly for charitable purposes. The proposed 5% levy rate Table 3 above shows that 57% of survey respondents indicated that they did not support a visitor levy being introduced across Argyll and Bute, and a further 16% disagreed with the proposed 5% levy rate. Table 5 shows that the vast majority of survey respondents, when asked the follow-on question, said a visitor levy rate should be lower. Table 5: If you do not agree with a visitor levy being 5%, what rate would you consider is appropriate? Businesses Residents Visitors Overall A visitor levy rate should be less than 5% 85% 79% 86% 82% A visitor levy rate should be greater than 5% 1% 3% 1% 2% Don’t know 14% 18% 13% 16% Source: A&BC Surveys. Base=208 (Business), 455 (Resident), 148 (Visitor), 811 (Overall). Respondents who selected either ‘Don’t know’ or ‘I don’t support a visitor levy being introduced across Argyll and Bute’ to the question at Table 2 were not asked this question. These consultation respondents raised similar concerns in their qualitative feedback, including that: • a 5% visitor levy rate was too high – the unique geographical challenges faced by Argyll and Bute and other constraints (for example, seasonality factors) were emphasised - the region was considered very different to urban areas like Edinburgh and Glasgow (both have an approved visitor levy scheme with a 5% levy rate). • Argyll and Bute was already considered an expensive destination, in particular travel to the islands – respondents said that visitors to Scotland paid relatively high levels of tax on their accommodation (through a 20% VAT rate) when compared to other European countries. A concern raised was a visitor levy rate of 5% could make the region less competitive. Page 387
Page 388
9 • aligned to the point above, it could serve as a further disincentive and deter potential visitors from choosing Argyll and Bute as a destination – for example, price-conscious visitors and could encourage some visitors to choose places which do not have a visitor levy. • it could discourage the start-up of new accommodation and hospitality businesses. Table 6 provides a summary overview of what these survey respondents consider an appropriate levy rate to be, albeit absolute numbers here are small. Table 6: What do you consider an appropriate levy rate? (those who said it should be lower than 5%) Businesses Residents Visitors Percentage model 1% to 3% - but preference at the lower end of this range 1% to 3% - with 3% mentioned most often in these responses 1% to 3% - with 2.5% mentioned most often in these responses. Flat-rate per night fee model If a scheme was to be approved all respondent types expressed a preference for a flat-rate per night fee model. Suggestions included: Between £1 and £5 per night but predominantly at the much lower end or a banded fixed fee charging model. Ranged between £1 and £5 per person per night - vast majority expressed a preference for £2 or less. Between £1 and £3 per person per night - predominantly at the much lower end. Whether there should be a cap on the number of nights of accommodation that a visitor should pay a visitor levy Around half (52%) of survey respondents considered that there should be a cap on the number of nights of accommodation that a visitor should pay a visitor levy, see Table 7. Support for a cap was framed by consultation respondents in the following terms: • a cap was considered a fairer approach and could help keep the cost down for visitors – for example, for families, for those on a budget, but also for contractors working on infrastructure projects who typically stayed for long periods of time in Argyll and Bute, for relief nurses, doctors or teachers on a non-time specific contract on an island location, for hospitality workers housed in hotels due to a lack of accommodation, etc. • a cap on the number of nights of accommodation that a visitor should pay a visitor levy might be less likely to deter visitors or penalise visitors who want to stay longer – it could also help ensure Argyll and Bute was not placed at a competitive disadvantage and limit the knock-on negative effect on other tourism and hospitality businesses that rely on visitors. • a cap would align more closely with other places/countries with a visitor levy. Page 388
Page 389
10 Table 7: Do you think there should be a cap on the number of nights of accommodation that a visitor should pay a visitor levy? Businesses Residents Visitors Overall Yes 59% 49% 61% 52% No 20% 34% 21% 30% Don’t know 21% 17% 17% 18% Source: A&BC Surveys. Base=289 (Business), 1,180 (Resident), 243 (Visitor), 1,712 (Overall). Respondents who selected either ‘Don’t know’ or ‘I don’t support a visitor levy being introduced across Argyll and Bute’ to the question at Table 2 were not asked this question. Survey respondents in favour of a cap also highlighted some administrative challenges in implementation – for example, potential issues for online booking platforms, the need for it to be easy to explain and understood by visitors and accommodation providers and be easy to apply in practice. Where suggestions were made by survey respondents (albeit absolute number here were small), on the number of nights a cap could apply, this is presented in Table 8. Table 8: Survey respondents who said there should be a cap - suggestions Businesses Residents Visitors One night to 14 nights mentioned across survey responses. Predominantly at the low end of this range. One night to 30 nights were mentioned across survey responses. Mainly at the lower end of this range (seven nights was most frequently mentioned). One night to 30 nights were mentioned across survey responses. Mainly at the lower end of this range - most suggested between one and three nights. Almost half of survey respondents (48%) either said that there should not be a cap on the number of nights of accommodation that a visitor should pay a visitor levy or were unsure, see Table 7. Survey respondents that were not in favour of a cap – that is, a visitor levy should apply to all nights of accommodation regardless of duration of the duration of stay – held this view for the following reasons: • to simplify scheme administration and collection of a visitor levy. • to avoid any confusion for visitors and accommodation providers. • because visitors used local amenities for the whole of their visit. • it could be a fairer approach on accommodation providers of all sizes. • no cap would be unlikely to deter visitors from coming to Argyll and Bute (many have short stays). Page 389
Page 390
11 The proposed visitor levy scheme objectives Overall, survey respondents expressed a high level of disagreement with the proposed visitor levy scheme objectives for Argyll and Bute, see Table 9, and sizable proportions indicated that they neither agreed nor disagreed with each of the four proposed objectives. There was some positive feedback from consultation respondents on the proposed visitor scheme objectives for Argyll and Bute. This included that: • the objectives (and levy revenue) provided an important opportunity to help sustain and enhance the region's tourism infrastructure. • additional investment in local facilities and services to improve the visitor experience would undoubtedly help to improve Argyll and Bute for the better. • the proposed objectives were considered ‘admirable’, ‘laudable’, ‘commendable’ or that they were objectives that ‘nobody can disagree with.’ Table 9: To what extent do you agree with the proposed visitor levy scheme objectives? (all respondents) Scheme objectives Agree or strongly agree Neither agree nor disagree Disagree or strongly disagree Extending the season and spreading visitors across the destination 29% 22% 50% Reaching new audiences 31% 23% 46% Sustaining and improving the visitor offer 35% 19% 45% The journey towards net zero 23% 25% 52% Source: A&BC Surveys. Much of the consultation feedback on the proposed objectives was framed in more negative terms. There was a strong call for more detailed proposals and plans from the council on how the revenue generated through the proposed levy scheme would be spent (and what it would be spent on). For example, further clarity and detail was said to be needed on: • the proportionate funding split across the proposed objectives. • whether it would comprise revenue and capital funding. • how funding would be allocated across Argyll and Bute – that is, evenly distributed or be reinvested in the locality in which the revenue was raised. Page 390
Page 391
12 There was evidence of scepticism and a general lack of trust in the council’s ability to manage the funds effectively, with the main feedback that: • the funds generated by a visitor levy should not be used by the council to fill its own funding gaps - or to balance its budget or to fund core or existing service provision – that is, consultation respondents emphasised that the funds should be ‘additional’. • the funds should be ring-fenced and strategically reinvested in Argyll and Bute to tangibly enhance the area as a visitor destination and on tourism infrastructure and amenities. • businesses and communities should be meaningfully involved in decisions on how and where the funds are spent. These points are all stipulated in the legislation – and should give confidence that the revenue raised would be used as intended. Some scepticism was also raised across consultation responses regarding the estimated £9 million gross revenue that could be generated per annum through a visitor levy scheme in Argyll and Bute as outlined in the consultation documents – whether that amount could be realistically raised, how much would be left after set-up and administration costs, and with how the remainder of funding would be used to best effect. Potential burden on accommodation providers Accommodation providers were particularly concerned about the potential administrative burden of collecting a visitor levy, paying it to the council and reporting requirements, and that micro and smaller businesses might be disproportionately impacted by the new arrangements. They were also worried about becoming ‘unpaid tax collectors’ for the council. They emphasised the importance of a sufficient lead-in time and a clear timeline to help the sector prepare and adapt, to support accommodation providers (and others, for example destination management companies, tour operators and booking platforms) through any transition and set-up period to ensure compliance, and to ensure that visitors were well-informed and to minimise confusion. Wider points raised included that: • accommodation providers would need financial assistance (alongside other forms of support) from the council to help cover the additional costs they would face from collecting a visitor levy. • visitor levy scheme processes and systems should be clear and simple. • comprehensive information, guidance, and support would be needed to help with the set- up and roll-out of a visitor levy scheme. Page 391
Page 392
13 Timing might not be right for the introduction of a visitor levy Regardless of the two broad groupings described earlier, qualitative responses to the consultation highlighted a common set of concerns, largely relating to the fragile nature of the Argyll and Bute economy. This included: • a fragile Argyll and Bute visitor economy post Brexit and a sector that was said to be still recovering from the pandemic – for example, concern was raised about increasing costs, the ability of accommodation providers to absorb the cost of a visitor levy to remain competitive, etc. • feedback was that visitor numbers have been on the decline - a wider concern raised was that a visitor levy could have a further negative impact on visitor numbers and that it would also be important not to deter visitors to Argyll and Bute. • the cost-of-living crisis which has impacted residents, businesses, and visitors alike. • the challenges facing remote, rural and island communities and businesses, including a higher cost of living and doing business when compared to cities/urban areas. This fed into a wider concern about the potential impact of a visitor levy on island communities and businesses, and on whether this has been sufficiently assessed and understood. There were some calls for an island impact assessment of a visitor levy to be carried out to fully assess the impact of the proposed scheme, including those who considered this should be done for each island. • the impact of the short-term let licence scheme on certain types of accommodation providers who must get a licence to let out accommodation to guests who stay on a temporary basis – implementation of the scheme has not been without issue and has led to increased costs and regulatory requirements. Much of the feedback from consultation respondents was that the proposed visitor levy scheme represented another administrative or regulatory hurdle that could further threaten the financial stability of accommodation providers in Argyll and Bute. A visitor levy was also commonly described as an ‘accommodation tax’ that would deter visitors and affect everyone not just visitors (for example, it would also penalise residents). How investment in tourism infrastructure and services could be paid for The survey asked respondents ‘How would you suggest that investment in our tourism infrastructure and services is paid for?’. The main feedback from across consultation responses was that the council could look to: • streamline council operations, reduce costs, and improve efficiency. Page 392
Page 393
14 • make better and more efficient use of the revenue generated by taxes that residents, businesses, and visitors pay already. • explore ways to increase current revenue streams as well as identify new or alternative revenue streams – examples included a point-of-entry charge. Further, there was some feedback across respondent types that more support for the sector was required from the Scottish Government and the council, for example: • to address existing challenges and issues faced by residents and visitors alike – for example, long-standing challenges relating to ferry services. • to provide greater support to: encourage more indigenous businesses to start up; to give existing businesses the confidence to invest and grow; and attract more inward investment to ensure a welcoming and affordable destination for visitors and a vibrant, prosperous community for residents. Impact assessment EKOS has updated the council’s draft impact assessments and modelled the possible economic impacts on the accommodation and wider visitor economy sector in Argyll and Bute. This work took account of uncertainty in three main areas: • the potential costs of setting up and administering a visitor levy scheme. • the impact a visitor levy might have on the number of visitors and expenditure in the region. • the extent to which the reinvestment of visitor levy monies will create positive economic benefit for the visitor economy sector. The recency of the introduction of visitor levy schemes is such that there is limited evidence on which to base an assessment of these uncertainties. As a result, the impact work has developed several possible scenarios ranging from the most positive (low costs, minimal impact on visitor numbers and high level of benefit from visitor levy reinvestment) to the most negative (high costs, significantly negative impact on visitor numbers and no benefit arising from reinvestment of funds). There is considerable variation in the results, underlining the extent to which the success of the scheme in economic development terms, depends on its impact on visitor numbers and the effective reinvestment of the funds in ways that deliver economic benefit to the visitor economy in the region. Page 393
Page 394
15 Results The Argyll and Bute accommodation sector businesses cost benefit analysis measures the net present value of the turnover benefit to businesses as a result of public investment in the visitor economy using visitor levy generated funds against the present value direct costs to accommodation businesses and the value of lost turnover due to price increases brought on by a visitor levy over the 10-year appraisal period. This analysis represents the aggregate financial impact on the cohort of levy-paying accommodation providers. Results are presented in Table 10. Table 10: Accommodation sector businesses financial cost benefit analysis results (£millions) Scenario Turnover uplift Set-up and admin costs Turnover lost Total cost Net present value Benefit- cost ratio Best Case £122.9 £8.5 £5.2 £13.7 £109.2 8.9 Midpoint £54.3 £8.5 £22.3 £30.8 £23.5 1.8 Worst Case £0.0 £8.5 £39.4 £47.9 -£47.9 0.0 The potential financial benefits range significantly – from an overall loss of £47.9 million to a net gain of £109.2 million over ten years. The socioeconomic cost benefit analysis measures the present value of the net additional Gross Value Added (GVA) retained in Argyll and Bute as a result of investment of visitor levy generated funds against the present value of the direct costs to the council plus the direct costs to accommodation business over the 10-year appraisal period. This analysis assesses the overall economic impact generated within the wider Argyll and Bute economy as a result of implementing a visitor levy. Results are presented in Table 11. Table 11: Socioeconomic cost benefit analysis results (£millions) Scenario Net additional GVA Council cost of set-up and admin Business cost of set-up and admin Total cost Net present value Benefit- cost ratio Best Case £173.1 £10.0 £8.5 £18.5 £154.6 9.3 Midpoint £47.0 £10.0 £8.5 £18.5 £28.5 2.5 Worst Case -£57.9 £10.0 £8.5 £18.5 -£76.5 -3.1 The potential economic benefits range significantly – from an overall loss of £76.5 million to a net gain of £154.6 million over ten years. It should be noted that the summary tables above only present the best, midpoint, and worse case scenarios. The detailed scenario modelling in Chapter 6 highlights the significant variability and sensitivity within the results, with one-third of the modelled scenarios (for each assessment) resulting in a negative overall effect. Page 394
Page 395
16 1 Introduction 1.1 This report This report presents the independent analysis of responses received to the Argyll and Bute Council (A&BC) consultation on draft proposals for the introduction of a visitor levy scheme. The consultation opened on 16th January 2025 and closed on 10th April 2025. Following a procurement exercise and scoring process, A&BC commissioned EKOS to undertake the independent consultation analysis. The research commenced with an inception meeting held between the client working group and the EKOS study team on 9th May 2025, with a follow-on meeting on 13th May 2025. The research was undertaken by EKOS between May and July 2025. A sub-group of the council’s Visitor Levy Officers’ Working Group oversaw and managed the research, including fortnightly progress meetings with the consultants. The sub-group of the Working Group comprised representatives from council functions, such as Economic Growth, Revenue and Benefits, and Communications. The consultation has been undertaken to help inform council decision-making processes. Should a visitor levy scheme be approved, the council will also consider whether there should be changes to the draft proposals based on the evidence base. 1.2 The Visitor Levy (Scotland) Act The Scottish Parliament passed the Visitor Levy (Scotland) Act in May 2024, which gives local authorities the ability to charge a set percentage on overnight accommodation paid by visitors and tourists1. Since the introduction of the Visitor Levy (Scotland) Act, VisitScotland has published statutory guidance (October 2024) for local authorities on the visitor levy at the request of Scottish Government ministers. This guidance has been developed by an Expert Group led by VisitScotland to assist local authorities in considering, and if required, introducing and administering a visitor levy. 1 Separate to the Scottish legislation on overnight accommodation paid by visitors and tourists, the Scottish Government has consulted on a potential cruise ship levy. Responses to this consultation will be analysed over summer 2025 and ministers will consider next steps in due course. Page 395
Page 396
17 VisitScotland has also provided an overview of topics businesses may need to consider regarding the proposed visitor levy scheme on its website, and each question directs the reader to a chapter within the guidance for further information. There are elements in the legislation which councils cannot change. The legislation also retains an element of flexibility - councils have the discretion to decide certain aspects of a visitor levy scheme which considers the characteristics and circumstances of the local area as well as consultation findings. These are described in more detail in Table 1.1. Page 396
Page 397
18 Table1.1: The legislation and what councils can and cannot change Aspect of the legislation What the legislation says What local authorities can and cannot change The types of accommodation covered by the legislation The legislation states that a visitor levy would apply to paid overnight accommodation. This is considered a room or area that is used by a visitor for residential purposes, but is not their only or usual place of residence. Therefore, a visitor levy does not apply to accommodation that is being used as someone’s only or usual place of residence. The legislation states that a visitor levy would apply to: hotels; hostels; guest houses; bed and breakfast accommodation; self-catering accommodation; camping sites; caravan parks; accommodation in a vehicle, or on board a vessel, which is permanently or predominantly situated in one place; and any other place at which a room or area is offered by the occupier for residential purposes otherwise than as a visitor’s only or usual place of residence. The legislation states that the following are not included in the definition of paid overnight accommodation: a local authority gypsy and traveller site or a registered social landlord gypsy and traveller site; and accommodation in a vehicle, or on board a vessel, that is undertaking a journey involving one or more overnight stops. Local authorities are not able to change the types of overnight accommodation covered by the legislation in any way. The application of a visitor levy as a percentage of the overnight accommodation rate The legislation states that the application of a visitor levy must be as a percentage of the overnight accommodation rate. The legislation states that the cost of separately charged add-ons is not part of a visitor levy, such as: meals or drinks; parking for a vehicle; laundry facilities or services for guests; entertainment; leisure facilities transportation to and from the accommodation. The legislation states that a visitor levy is subject to VAT. Local authorities cannot change much of this. For example, local authorities are not able to introduce a flat fee and a visitor levy must be subject to VAT. Local authorities may however, specify that a maximum number of nights may apply in respect of a chargeable transaction for the right to reside in or at that accommodation for a period of consecutive nights. Page 397
Page 398
19 Table 1.1: The legislation and what councils can and cannot change (continued) Aspect of the legislation What the legislation says What local authorities can and cannot change Levy rate The legislation states that there is no limit on how much a visitor levy rate can be in percentage terms, and that it is also to local authorities to decide whether to apply a visitor levy for the whole year, or only for parts of the year. Local authorities have discretion over these two matters relating to a visitor levy rate and how it is applied in their area. Exemptions The legislation states: • that some groups of people would have automatic exemption from paying a visitor levy. These include those who use overnight accommodation as their only or main residence (for reasons like homelessness, poor housing conditions, experiencing domestic abuse, or being an asylum seeker or refugee). • that people who are in receipt of the following: Disability living allowance; Disability allowance; Attendance allowance; Pension age disability benefit; and Personal independence payment are exempt. • that the rate could be different for different trip purposes, which might include business or work, or visits for medical treatment. A couple of other national exemptions are currently being considered. In summary: • where an accommodation provider sells accommodation to a third-party and not the guest - in these circumstances a visitor levy payable is the amount calculated on the accommodation portion of that first sale price and not against any subsequent sales or prices. • at this time, the Act provides that adults in receipt of disability benefits are not required to pay a visitor levy or are eligible for it to be reimbursed. It is intended to extend this to those in receipt of child disability benefits to ensure parity of treatment for children and young people. Local authorities have discretion on exemptions over and above those set out in the legislation (for example, for different trip purposes). Examples include carers or people visiting family in care homes or hospitals. Page 398
Page 399
20 Table 1.1: The legislation and what councils can and cannot change (continued) Aspect of the legislation What the legislation says What local authorities can and cannot change Before implementing a visitor levy scheme Before introducing a visitor levy scheme the legislation states that councils must: • prepare and publicise an outline of the proposed scheme, identify objectives of the scheme and set out how it intends to measure and report on the achievement of those objectives, and an assessment of the impacts of the proposal in the authority’s area. • consult with local communities and businesses engaged in tourism and tourist organisations. • prepare and publicise a report which summarises the consultation responses received, state whether or not the local authority intends to proceed with the proposal (or the proposal as modified in light of the consultation) and set out the local authority's reasons for whether or not it intends to proceed. Local authorities are legally obliged to follow the legislation in terms of how it goes about consulting on a visitor levy scheme before implementing such a scheme. Investing in, and reporting on, the use of revenue generated by a visitor levy scheme The legislation states that: • local authorities must reinvest funds raised to sustain facilities and services which are substantially for or used by people visiting the local authority. • local authorities operating a visitor levy scheme need to use the net proceeds of a scheme for certain specific purposes (that is, the net proceeds are ring-fenced). Those purposes are that the funds must facilitate the achievement of the scheme’s objectives and that they should develop, support, and sustain facilities and services for or used by visitors to a local authority area for leisure or business purposes. • councils have to establish a Visitor Levy Forum that acts as an advisory group on the operation of a visitor levy, and that this must include a balance of tourist organisations, businesses engaged in tourism, and representatives of communities. • it is a statutory requirement for all councils to report annually on how revenue has been reinvested in line with scheme objectives. Local authorities are not able to change any of these stipulations. Where councils do have an element of discretion is in the articulation of scheme objectives at a local level, but within the parameters that net proceeds must be used to develop, support, and sustain facilities and services for or used by visitors to a local authority area for leisure or business purposes. Page 399
Page 400
21 1.3 Exploring a visitor levy in Argyll and Bute Overview Visitor levy schemes have the potential to generate annual funding to be reinvested locally in the visitor economy and tourism infrastructure services and facilities used by leisure and business visitors and residents, and in promoting sustainable tourism practices. The potential to introduce a visitor levy comes at a time when there is a well-recognised and pressing need for councils in Scotland to transform how they deliver sustainable services in the longer-term – and against a backdrop of constrained financial resources, a need for efficiency savings, growing demand for services, and other cost pressures. Argyll and Bute context The intention to explore the development of a draft visitor levy scheme in Argyll and Bute was considered and approved at a Special Council meeting on 15th August 2024. A&BC considered it both timely and necessary in the current environment to explore this opportunity further as: • tourism is a key sector in the region which relies on services that are used by visitors as well as by residents, from roads to waste to leisure and other services - to support a sustainable visitor economy in Argyll and Bute, the council is considering all possible opportunities for investment to raise funds to benefit visitors and residents. Visitors to Argyll and Bute expect to have access to services that local people also use but there are 20 times more visitors to Argyll and Bute than there are in the total population of the region, and this has an impact on the wear and tear of local infrastructure and services. • similar to other local authorities, A&BC faces financial constraints - the council needs to identify significant savings in the current year and future years. An Accounts Commission report (May 2025) shows that the council has a cumulative revenue budget gap of £19.9 million between 2026-2027 and 2027-2028. In this environment, A&BC faces tough decisions about what services to prioritise once statutory commitments have been met. Many of the local infrastructure and services also used by visitors rely on the council’s shrinking budget and are not a statutory duty of a council to fund. Argyll and Bute is a predominantly rural region including 23 inhabited islands – its fragile economy has been affected by a range of factors associated with the impact of COVID-19 and post-COVID- 19 uncertainty coupled with changing economic conditions. The cost of doing business is also challenging. Page 400
Page 401
22 In exploring the potential to introduce a visitor levy, A&BC understands that it needs to consider: • whether a visitor levy will work for the region, as what is right for one destination will not necessarily be right for others. • the profile of A&BC visitors, whether largely domestic or international. • the potential impact of a visitor levy on businesses and visitors within the current economic and competitive travel landscape. • potential impacts of a visitor levy on factors such as price competitiveness, visitor demand, occupancy, and seasonality. To take this exploratory work forward, A&BC established a Visitor Levy Short Life Working Group in October 2024, chaired by the Council Leader and comprising four members of the Administration and two members from the Opposition. This Visitor Levy Short Life Working Group was set up to provide information directly to both the Administration and the Opposition before submission of a paper to full council. At the same time, A&BC established a Shadow Visitor Levy Forum to oversee the development of the draft scheme proposals comprising representatives from A&BC, Argyll and Isles Tourism Cooperative, VisitScotland, Highlands and Islands Enterprise, and Loch Lomond and the Trossachs National Park. This officer and industry group was set up to share progress, information and listen to industry representatives who fed back from their members. A&BC agreed to undertake an initial pre-consultation survey and engagement exercise which was undertaken during October and November 2024. An online survey, which ran from 11th October to 28th October 2024 and aimed at visitors, businesses, and residents received 1,254 responses. Further, six workshops aimed at local businesses were organised and facilitated between 23rd October and 14th November 2024 by members of the Shadow Visitor Levy Forum. A key finding from the pre-consultation survey was that over half of survey respondents (53%) did not think a visitor levy for Argyll and Bute should apply at the same level, all year round – while 35% thought it should, and the remainder (12%) were unsure. A high-level summary of the responses to the closed questions in the pre-consultation survey is presented in Appendix A. The findings of this exercise were used by the council and the Shadow Visitor Levy Forum to inform the content of the draft Argyll and Bute visitor levy scheme and the design of the formal consultation. Page 401
Page 402
23 What this latest consultation sought views on Elected members approved a paper from the council’s Development and Economic Growth Service at a Special Council meeting on 20th December 2024 which sought approval for a draft Visitor Levy Scheme to go out to a 12-week public consultation in early January 2025. This paper: • provided background to the Visitor Levy (Scotland) Act and guidance for local authorities. • contained details of the draft visitor levy scheme and impact assessments and consultation questions – it informed elected members that the exact mechanism for billing and collecting a visitor levy was still under discussion, including the development of a national platform through the Improvement Service (see Section 1.5 for a further update). • advised that the proposed public consultation would comprise online and face-to-face engagement and that: it would be published on the Argyll and Bute Council Visitor Levy web page alongside Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs); there would be regular press releases and social media posts; and a dedicated mailbox for questions would be set up. • set out an indicative timetable of activities for establishing and implementing visitor levy including key council meetings, if the 12-week public consultation was approved. The aim of the draft Visitor Levy Scheme is to sustain Argyll and Bute as an area of outstanding natural beauty, culture, and heritage and to ensure that the impacts of a successful visitor economy are managed effectively for the area. The draft scheme is based on turning levy investment into benefit for visitors, businesses, and residents, through the tourism priorities set out in the Argyll and the Isles Strategic Tourism Partnership’s Tourism Strategy 2022-2025: • Extending the season and spreading visitors across the destination. • Reaching new audiences: marine, coastal, cultural, and outdoor tourism. • Sustaining and improving the visitor offer. • The journey towards net zero. A summary of the draft visitor levy scheme in Argyll and Bute is that: • A visitor levy scheme will operate across the whole of the Argyll and Bute Council area with net proceeds re-invested. • The scheme reflects the strategic priorities set out in the Argyll and Isles Strategic Tourism Partnership strategy developed in partnership by A&BC, Argyll and Isles Tourism Co- operative, Highlands and Islands Enterprise, and VisitScotland. Page 402
Page 403
24 • At present, no local exemptions are being considered (to aid operational simplicity) except for those at a national level outlined in the Visitor Levy (Scotland) Act 2024. • A visitor levy rate of 5% has been proposed on the accommodation charge at a level that aims to work within the price sensitivity of the accommodation sector whilst generating sufficient levy income to have a positive impact when re-invested. The 5% rate aligns to the rate that has been included in the approved City of Edinburgh Council scheme and in the Highland Council draft visitor levy scheme which has recently been consulted on. • The proposed income to be generated from the implementation of a 5% rate has been modelled independently by the University of Edinburgh Business School (in-kind support). Similar work was undertaken to assess the forecasts for the City of Edinburgh Council. • The impact of increased costs to accommodation providers in collecting a visitor levy could be mitigated through a financial contribution made to each business remitting a visitor levy. This will require financial modelling and Subsidy Control consideration. Council officers are considering a visitor levy retention scheme to propose to the council. This scheme could provide accommodation providers with funds to help offset the administrative costs they are expected to incur. Source: Paper to Argyll & Bute Council, A&BC Draft Visitor Levy Scheme, 20 December 2024. 1.4 A&BC and partners have made representation concerning the legislation In reviewing the consultation analysis findings, it is important to note the council and its partners have made continued representation to the Scottish Government and to HMRC relating to their concerns about the Visitor Levy (Scotland) Act. The council has made the case to the Scottish Government to revisit the legislation and, in particular the need to consider moving from a percentage to a banded fixed fee charging model that would be simpler to calculate for businesses. Further, the Highlands and Islands Regional Economic Partnership has written a letter to HMRC (16th April 2025) to outline partners, including A&BC, concerns relating to the VAT consequences for accommodation providers associated with the visitor levy legislation. The HMRC has determined that amounts charged by an accommodation provider for a visitor levy would be included in the turnover used to determine if businesses need to register for VAT. Highlands and Islands Regional Economic Partnership has asked that due consideration be given by HMRC to removing the requirement for a visitor levy to be viewed as turnover and therefore exempt from VAT. Page 403
Page 404
25 The concerns raised by partners in this correspondence to HMRC were that the collection of a visitor levy as business turnover could: • bring those close to the VAT threshold over the limit, triggering mandatory VAT registration with associated administrative and financial burdens and could create price increases impacting competitiveness in a price-sensitive sector. • lead to the distortion of financial metrics, including gross and net margins, potentially impacting lending decisions and the perceived value of a business. • result in businesses currently operating close to the £90,000 VAT threshold: o reducing turnover through a lower number of rooms/beds available throughout the year. o reducing turnover through a lower number of rooms/beds available in the shoulder and winter months and focus on the busy summer months. o closing completely during the winter months. o closing the business for good. Further, the lack of specific reliefs or exemptions for accommodation providers affected in this way might exacerbate these challenges, underscoring the need for careful policy consideration to mitigate unintended impacts on small enterprises. While councils do have the ability to recompense businesses for costs incurred, to exempt businesses below the VAT threshold, and to look at the seasonal and geographic nature of any levy, they think this could make the implementation of such a policy increasingly complex and costly to administer. While it is at the discretion of each local authority to include or exclude businesses that fall below the VAT threshold from a visitor levy scheme, partners consider that this might not solve the issue. As such, local authorities across the Highlands and Islands are giving due consideration to the implications of including all accommodation provider types, listed in the legislation, whether above or below the VAT threshold, in proposed schemes that may come to fruition in the Highlands and Islands area. An extract of the HMRC response (dated 3rd June 2025) is provided below. “I am sorry you are concerned about the application of VAT to a Visitor Levy. I can confirm VAT is due on a Visitor Levy. It is a principle of VAT that it is charged on everything paid by the customer for goods or services they purchase. Other taxes, levies and charges are included in the price. In your example, VAT is chargeable on the £105 paid by the guest. As a result, this sum would also form part of the taxable turnover for VAT registration purposes. Page 404
Page 405
26 We will be inviting tax representative bodies, including the Institute of Chartered Accountants of Scotland, to a meeting to discuss their concerns about how a visitor levy interacts with VAT. This will include the provision of refunds paid directly to guests by local authorities, and the effects on VAT.” Discussions are ongoing at a national level regarding how local authorities could reimburse accommodation providers for costs incurred with a visitor levy scheme, and how this would work in practice. Any remittance costs would need to be approved by the council. 1.5 Online portal The Improvement Service is undertaking work to design an Online Portal. A Visitor Levy Digital Group has been created with representatives from the Improvement Service, A&BC, City of Edinburgh Council, Highland Council, and Glasgow City Council. The system is on track for delivery by spring 2026. Accommodation providers would be able to upload their levy data and payments. The system would also have an admin hub to assist with administrative duties to support the delivery of the scheme. 1.6 Next steps EKOS presented the findings of this independent consultation analysis to elected members at a seminar on 1st September 2025. The report will then be discussed by elected members at a full council meeting on 24th September 2025 to help inform a decision on whether or not to progress a visitor levy scheme in Argyll and Bute. Should it be decided to introduce a visitor levy scheme the council will also consider whether any potential changes might be required to the draft visitor levy scheme in light of the consultation findings, and within the parameters of the legislation. If the approval is granted to take forward a visitor levy scheme in Argyll and Bute, this would trigger the statutory requirement to enter an 18-month implementation period. The earliest a visitor levy scheme could be operational across Argyll and Bute would be April 2027. Page 405
Page 406
27 2 Consultation methodology 2.1 Introduction This chapter provides details of the consultation process and responses, how responses have been analysed and presented in this report, and on consultation challenges and limitations. 2.2 Overview The consultation on draft proposals to introduce a visitor levy scheme in Argyll and Bute ran from 16th January 2025 to 10th April 2025. The resident, business and visitor online surveys were hosted by A&BC using the SmartSurvey platform. There were also opportunities for people to submit a hard-copy survey response or to submit an email or letter response directly to the council via the dedicated visitor levy mailbox. In addition, online webinars and drop-in events supplemented the three main surveys and these sessions were held between February and April 2025. Opportunities to share and submit views to the consultation were promoted by the council on dedicated visitor levy webpages on the council’s webpage, social media (primarily council channels and where possible on local community Facebook pages), through email subscriptions, through the council’s partners, and information was made publicly available in community facilities, including libraries. Figure 2.1 shows summary statistics about visitor levy scheme consultation activity on the A&BC website (and excludes views by council staff from the council’s network). This shows that there was a large spike in activity at the start of the consultation process in January 2025. Page 406
Page 407
28 Figure 2.1: Argyll and Bute visitor levy scheme webpage statistics Source: Figure provided by A&BC. The inception meeting for the consultation analysis contract was held on 9th May 2025. There was ongoing dialogue and engagement between A&BC and EKOS following the award of contract and the inception meeting. A&BC provided the study team with all responses to the consultation and meetings were held to take the consultants through the various response types and to answer any initial queries or points of clarification in advance of the formal inception meeting. 2.3 Resident, business, and visitor surveys The vast majority of responses to the resident, business and visitor surveys were submitted through the online survey platform. In addition, some survey responses were submitted in hard-copy format. EKOS manually entered hard-copy survey responses into the appropriate survey within our master Microsoft Excel sheets for resident, business, and visitor survey responses. Further, A&BC received a number of letter responses to the consultation. Letter responses have been largely submitted by groups and organisations (for example, Community Councils, Destination Management Organisations, etc.) or are joint responses (for example, responses submitted on behalf of several accommodation providers). Letter responses did not necessarily answer the consultation questions (that is, they did not necessarily set out a response in line with the closed and open questions asked within questionnaires). Page 407
Page 408
29 In discussion and agreement with the client team, EKOS: • reviewed the content of each letter response submitted to A&BC. • used our best judgement to decide which survey(s) to add each letter response to – in most cases letter responses raised points from both a resident and business perspective, and so these responses have typically been added to both surveys for inclusion in the analysis. • where a letter respondent indicated in their response that they have submitted an online survey response we sought to identify the online survey response and created a composite response – this means that the online survey and letter response have been considered jointly as a single response in the analysis. • a few letter responses appeared to be a critique of the consultation process and question set, and/or raised questions on the proposals or requested further detail or clarification – as these letter responses did not materially answer the consultation survey questions, the points raised have been reflected in Appendix B which presents wider issues raised by respondents to the consultation (that is, periphery information raised that does not pertain directly to the question set). Table 2.1 provides details of online survey responses and hard-copy and letter responses. Points to note include that: • the consultation received a total of 3,352 responses • the majority (61%) were from local residents. Table 2.1: Consultation responses Survey Number of online survey responses Revised number of responses once hard-copy responses have been added to the relevant survey Revised final number of survey responses once letter responses have been assigned to a survey(s) Percentage of the total number of responses to the consultation Resident 2,031 2,042 2,061 61% Business 721 727 753 22% Visitor 532 538 538 16% Total 3,284 3,307 3,352 100% Note: The 45 letter responses did not necessarily follow the online and hard-copy survey structure or format. Letter responses have not been added to the analysis of closed-questions in the survey. Rather, the letter responses have been considered in the qualitative analysis of survey open-ended questions instead. Note 2: Respondents could submit one response per survey if appropriate. For example, a local resident who is also a local business owner could submit a response to the resident and the business survey. Page 408
Page 409
30 The online surveys were structured in a way that allowed respondents to answer questions independently, in recognition that respondents might answer some questions without expressing views on others – not all questions were answered in all cases, and some responses did not fully answer or align with the specific question asked. There was also significant repetition of views expressed across the open-ended questions. Judgement was applied to determine the most appropriate placement for each theme within each survey chapter. In discussion and agreement with the council each survey has been written up as a separate chapter in this report - this results in considerable repetition of key messages expressed in the report, as similar themes emerged across the surveys. The analysis gave equal weight to all responses, regardless of whether they were submitted by residents, businesses, visitors, or organisations. The analysis has sought to identify the most common themes and issues. It does not report on every single or specific point raised. Summary tables for closed questions are presented in the main report. For open-ended questions, the analysis aims to convey the prevalence of the key themes raised. The qualitative analysis identifies the key themes across responses to each question and these have been quantified in some way to articulate the strength of opinion - for example, we use the terms ‘a small number’ (10% or less of respondents), ‘some’ (11% to 25% of respondents), ‘many’ (26% to 50% of respondents), ‘a majority’ (51% to 74% of respondents), and ‘a vast majority’ (75% or more of respondents). This analysis report includes quotes - this does not indicate that these comments will be acted upon or given greater weight than others. 2.4 Webinars A&BC held four online webinars between February and April 2025 to raise awareness of the consultation and on how to get involved and share their views. The webinars, each one hour in duration, were promoted in a similar way as the surveys. During each webinar a senior council representative (Executive Director level) presented information on the draft proposals and raised awareness of the surveys and drop-in events. To ensure the sessions ran to time and to go through as many questions as possible, only council officers were able to speak. Rather attendees were invited to submit comments and questions prior to the webinar and were also invited to submit questions during the meeting using the chat function in MS Teams. The council answered questions during the sessions and also committed to providing responses to other questions following the webinars (through the FAQs webpage). Page 409
Page 410
31 A total of 148 people attended the webinars – no breakdown was available by type of attendee (that, is resident, business, organisation, etc.), see Table 2.2. Table 2.2: Webinars held and attendance Webinar date Number of people who attended the webinar Number of questions or comments raised 24 February 2025 57 117 6 March 2025 42 35 25 March 2025 17 15 3 April 2025 32 46 Source: Information provided by A&BC. The council provided EKOS with comments and questions raised at webinars to feed into the consultation analysis. A total of 213 comments and questions were recorded by the council, and these have been grouped and analysed thematically. The feedback captured during the webinars largely chimes with that received to the business, resident, and visitor surveys. Please refer to Appendix C for analysis of the input captured at the webinars. 2.5 Drop-in events A&BC arranged 10 drop-in events which were held across the length and breadth of the region between February and April 2025, as illustrated in Figure 2.2. The events were promoted in a similar way to the surveys and webinars. Each event was attended by senior council officers who spoke with local residents and businesses and invited them to share or write-down their comments or questions on the draft proposals. Attendance at the drop-in events varied – from a low of seven people (Bute) to a high of 39 (Mull), and there were a total of 270 attendees, see Table 2.3. The average number of attendees was 27 people. Page 410
Page 411
32 Figure 2.2: Drop-in events Source: Google Maps. Table 2.3: Drop-in events – location, date, and attendees Location Date Number of attendees Number of comments or questions Oban 10 February 2025 40 37 Islay 5 March 2025 23 12 Bute 10 March 2025 7 5 Mull 13 March 2025 39 23 Campbeltown 17 March 2025 29 6 Oban tourism 19 March 2025 21 4 Helensburgh 20 March 2025 32 7 Inveraray 24 March 2025 21 7 Dunoon 28 March 2025 29 3 Lochgilphead 1 April 2025 29 1 Source: Information provided by A&BC. Page 411
Page 412
33 The council provided EKOS with comments and questions raised at each drop-in event. A total of 105 comments and questions were captured, and this information has been grouped to identify common themes. Please refer to Appendix D for analysis of input to the drop-in events held. 2.6 Emails A&BC provided EKOS with a log of the emails received from businesses, residents, visitors, and other organisations (for example, community councils), relating to a visitor levy scheme consultation. Overall, 235 emails were submitted to the council. Questions raised in the emails and at the webinars and events were used by the council to develop and then routinely update a FAQ section on its website (with questions themed and answered). The emails submitted cover a wide range of areas – the legislation, the council’s proposals, and about the consultation process itself. 2.7 Freedom of Information requests Nine Freedom of Information (FOI) requests have been submitted to the council, dated between December 2024 and April 2025, on its proposals to introduce a visitor levy scheme in Argyll and Bute. The council has provided responses. The FOIs contained several questions relating to the council’s proposals, the evidence base that has informed the draft visitor levy scheme, as well as on the consultation process itself. Financial modelling work The FOIs asked various questions relating to the University of Edinburgh’s in-kind work to model revenue projections that could be generated from the introduction of a visitor levy scheme in Argyll and Bute (that is, the estimated gross £9 million per annum figure included in council papers). As examples, this included questions relating to: • what information and data have been used to inform the modelling process. • how many of the 2.7 million visitors stay in the region (as opposed to just day trippers) and what revenue is expected to be generated in the first year from a visitor levy. • who undertook the financial modelling work and what specific calculations were done. • what checks were undertaken of the estimates by the council. • what is the net figure once administration costs, etc. are considered. • whether the financial modelling work and calculations could be shared with the public. • whether the council could share any minutes, background papers, or meeting notes on discussions relating to the proposed visitor levy scheme. Page 412
Page 413
34 • anecdotal feedback from accommodation providers and retail businesses across Argyll and Bute is that there has been a downturn in business for the first two months of 2025 compared with 2023 and 2024 – questions centred on: what economic monitoring the council has in place to measure any changes in the tourism economy in both the accommodation providers and the retail business sectors; frequency of monitoring; time lag issues; and the impact of potential downturns, etc. Impact assessment work Many FOI requests asked the council about what impact assessment work has been done to inform the design of draft visitor levy scheme proposals and whether the council could share this information and data with the general public. For example, there was a reference in the FOIs to whether the council has undertaken specific impact assessments (either already or planned), and if so could the council share any of the following completed assessments: • Business and Regulatory Impact Assessment (BRIA). • Island Communities Impact Assessment (ICIA). • Equalities Impact Assessment (EqIA). • Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA). • Rural Communities Impact Assessment (RCIA). • Economic Impact Assessment (EIA). • Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA). • Sustainability Impact Assessment (SIA). • Tourism Market Impact Analysis (TMIA). Visitor levy scheme consultation process A small number of the FOIs asked questions about the consultation process itself, including, for example: • who would be responsible for designing the consultation questions and what is their experience? • who would be responsible for analysing the consultation responses and what is their experience? • what evidence can the council share to demonstrate there would be a robust methodology used for the consultation analysis? Page 413
Page 414
35 Administering the scheme One FOI related to whether the council had advertised, interviewed and/or filled any posts relating to the operation and/or administration of a visitor levy scheme in Argyll and Bute. 2.8 Business case studies To supplement the main surveys, business case study interviews were undertaken as part of the consultation analysis contract with EKOS. Members of the Shadow Visitor Levy Forum used their networks and connections to raise awareness of the case study research and asked businesses and others (for example, Destination Management Organisations) to put their names forward. The council also asked for business case study participants at the drop-in events and during the online webinar sessions and indicated that requests could also be made using a visitor levy mailbox. EKOS was provided with contact details of 14 businesses/organisations to be potential case studies from which to achieve a total of 10 interviews. The list spanned businesses/organisations: • of different accommodation types - and other types of organisation, for example, tourism- related businesses and a construction company (the latter aligns to intra-regional travel for tradespeople). • located across the four administrative areas of the region, including the mainland and islands. • of different sizes. A semi-structured topic guide for the case study interviews was designed and shared with the client team for review and comment prior to use. It was agreed that the interviews would take place once the surveys had been written up to allow for further probing of key themes which emerged. All 14 contacts were contacted by the council on 23rd June 2025 and invited to participate, and EKOS then followed up directly with each contact. When interview appointments were confirmed, the topic guide was shared with interviewees in advance of the call. A total of 13 interviews were undertaken by EKOS. Some but not all case study interviewees asked that their case study be anonymised. Draft case studies were shared with the individual businesses and organisational participants for review and comment and are included at Appendix E. A summary overview has also been included in this appendix. Page 414
Page 415
36 2.9 Consultation and analysis challenges and limitations The main limitations of the consultation process are outlined below. Self-selecting nature of public consultations Similar to other public consultations, respondents are self-selecting, and the responses might not be representative of the population of Argyll and Bute as a whole. The very nature of public consultations is that they will attract responses from individuals and organisations (and in some cases campaign groups) who hold strong or even polarised views on the subject matter. Comments that did not directly answer the questions/other issues Various comments are made across the three surveys (and webinars and events) that question the consultation process, the question set, and/or the decision-making processes of the council. As these did not directly answer the consultation questions a summary has been provided at Appendix B rather than reflecting these points in the main body of this report. The consultation did not ask a question such as ‘Are you responding to this consultation as an individual or as an organisation’? or a follow on question for individuals or organisations to insert their name. This made it more difficult to identify duplicate or multiple responses from the same person or organisation. Respondents were able to submit one response to each of the three surveys, where appropriate for them to do so. To check for any duplicate or multiple responses (to the same survey) from the same individual or organisation IP addresses were reviewed. As IP addresses are unique to each WiFi router and not to an individual’s device, it was not possible to track individual responses in this way. For example, we identified 83 responses across the three surveys linked to one IP address which is attached to a public Wifi server – this means that this WiFi can be accessed by anyone in that public space/building. There were other responses from the same IP address but this likely relates to two or three people in the same household each submitting a survey response (no identical responses were identified). All responses are valid and have been included in the analysis. Page 415
Page 416
37 It would appear that some groups and organisations were not clear which survey(s) they should complete, and while some organisations did complete the online survey(s) others decided to submit a letter response to A&BC instead. A&BC suggested that organisations who wanted to complete the online survey(s) should specify their organisation name in any of the open-ended text boxes. Impact assessment The impact assessment uses good practice economic modelling techniques and a cost benefit analysis framework which is consistent with HM Treasury Green Book guidance. In assessing the potential costs and benefits associated with a visitor levy, we have taken an approach which estimates a range of possible outcomes based on different model specifications. This approach is driven by the nature of the data and evidence available to us. There are several key variables in the model which are subject to multiple specifications. These are: • set-up/implementation costs and administrative costs for both the council and accommodation businesses - three cost scenarios have been modelled. • price elasticity of demand (PED) values - three PED values have been modelled to reflect uncertainty in the response overnight visitors will have when facing a price increase in the total price of a trip to Argyll and Bute. • investment impact - the impact on accommodation sector and overnight visitor economy turnover driven by levy funded public investment in the Argyll and Bute visitor economy has been modelled using four different values: 0%, 1%, 2% and 4% annual uplifts. Applying all of these specifications in combination has enabled the modelling of 36 distinct model specifications and enables a range of possible results to be analysed. The analysis is not able to determine which scenario is more likely to occur. That is to say, we are unable to comment which PED value is most likely to occur in the real economy. This is also the case for the costs of set-up and administration, and investment impact. What the analysis does provide is insight to a range of possible costs and benefits and an understanding of the magnitude of impact that investment of levy funds will need to generate a positive impact/return. The analysis provides insight into the effects of a visitor levy at the Argyll and Bute level only. No distinction can be made at a sub-regional level, for example, islands versus mainland. While different sub-regions may be impacted differently by a visitor levy, there is insufficient data to disaggregate any regional effects. Page 416
Page 417
38 2.10 The role of social media campaigns There have been various social media campaigns and coverage at a national and local level during the consultation period, primarily by groups that do not support the introduction of a visitor levy. These campaigns have promoted the different ways that residents and businesses can participate in consultation processes as well as highlight key issues and concerns with a visitor levy. They also ask people to share campaign videos and weblinks as a way to encourage critical discussion on the topic and advocate for people and businesses to hold their local councillors accountable for their policy decisions. Page 417
Page 418
39 3 Business survey results 3.1 Introduction This chapter provides the business survey analysis. As described in Chapter 2, a total of 753 responses were received and included in the business survey analysis. 3.2 Business survey respondents The business survey asked questions relating to business location, size, sector, and approximate annual turnover, and responses are presented below. Location Using the postcode data provided, Figure 3.1 maps the location of business survey respondents. Figure 3.1: Postcode map of business survey respondents N=704. Where incomplete postcodes were provided, these responses have not been recorded on the map. Page 418
Page 419
40 Business size Almost all (99%) businesses who answered the question relating to business size indicated that they were Small or Medium-sized Enterprises (SMEs). The vast majority (92%) were micro businesses with less than 10 employees, see Table 3.1. Table 3.1: Please advise on the size of your business? Employment Number Percentage Employ 1 member of staff (including yourself) 314 43% Employ 2-9 staff 353 49% Employ 10-49 staff 37 5% Employ 50-250 staff 18 2% Employ more than 250 staff 4 1% Source: A&BC Business Survey. Base=726. For comparative purposes only, Table 3.2 provides a breakdown of business size by survey responses compared with the business base in Argyll and Bute – responses to the business survey as part of the consultation were broadly representative of the wider business base in the region. Table 3.2: Business size by survey responses and for Argyll and Bute as a whole Business size Survey responses Argyll and Bute Micro (less than 10) 92% 90% Small (10-49) 5% 9% Medium (50-249) 2% 1% Large (250+) 1% 0% Source: A&BC Business Survey. Note: Data for Argyll and Bute is from UK Business Counts, 2024 - an enterprise can be thought of as the overall business, made up of all the individual sites or workplaces. It is defined as the smallest combination of legal units (generally based on VAT and/or PAYE records) that has a certain degree of autonomy within an enterprise group. Sector Respondents were asked to indicate what sector, from a pre-defined list, their business mainly operates in, see Table 3.3. The consultation attracted responses from a diverse range of industry sectors. The most responses were received from: • self-catering accommodation providers. • businesses in the hospitality sector. Taken together, these responses represented 75% of all responses to the business survey - and could be higher for accommodation providers (see below for further explanation). Page 419
Page 420
41 Table 3.3: What sector does your business mainly operate in? Sector Number Percentage Self-catering accommodation 362 50% Hospitality 179 25% Other 41 6% Tourism including visitor attractions 30 4% Retail 25 3% Food and drink 15 2% Trades / construction / engineering 15 2% Professional services 14 2% Culture, heritage and creative industries 9 1% Agriculture and forestry 8 1% Marine services 5 1% Transport / distribution 5 1% Leisure 4 1% Education 4 1% Manufacturing 3 0% Charity 3 0% Beauty / personal services 2 0% Domestic services 1 0% Public sector 1 0% Third sector 1 0% Event management 0 0% Vehicle and motor trade 0 0% Source: A&BC Business Survey. Base=727. From a review of the responses and the qualitative feedback it appeared that a small number of businesses found this question difficult to answer it – choosing to select ‘Other’ rather than selecting a sector from the pre-defined list, even as a ‘best-fit’. This was predominantly, but not exclusively, businesses which said they were other types of accommodation providers such as a guesthouse, bed and breakfast, an Airbnb, a camping and caravan park (or holiday park), or a tour operator. The qualitative responses from these businesses raise various points, including that: • they felt the pre-defined list did not suitably cover different types of accommodation provider - and that this has been an oversight and could skew results. Page 420
Page 421
42 • some would have preferred to select more than one option as they felt their business did not neatly or easily fit into one category – an example of this, was an agricultural business that also provided self-catering accommodation. Approximate annual turnover The vast majority (76%) of respondents to the business survey indicated that they have an approximate annual turnover of less than £90,000, see Table 3.4. Most businesses that responded to the consultation were currently operating below or close to the £90,000 VAT threshold. Table 3.4: What is your approximate turnover? Turnover Number Percentage Up to £85,000 515 71% £85,001 to £90,000 34 5% £90,001 to £250,000 84 12% £250,001 to £1 million 53 7% Over £1 million 37 5% Source: A&BC Business Survey. Base=723. 3.3 Visitor levy scheme objectives The business survey asked respondents the extent to which they agreed or disagreed with the four proposed visitor levy scheme objectives for Argyll and Bute. The main points to note from Table 3.5 include that: • the majority of businesses either disagreed or strongly disagreed with three of the four levy scheme objectives – the exception was the objective on ‘Sustaining and improving the visitor offer’, albeit circa half also disagreed with this visitor levy objective. • agreement (that is, a rating of either agree or strongly agree) with the four visitor levy scheme objectives was lower – this ranged from a low of 21% who agreed with ‘The journey towards net zero’ objective to a high of 36% who agreed with the ‘Sustaining and improving the visitor offer’ levy scheme objective. • a relatively sizeable proportion of businesses neither agreed nor disagreed with each of the four visitor levy scheme objectives. Page 421
Page 422
43 Table 3.5: To what extent do you agree or disagree with the A&BC visitor levy scheme objectives? Objectives Strongly agree Agree Neither agree or disagree Disagree Strongly disagree Number % Number % Number % Number % Number % Extending the season and spreading visitors across the destination – for example, infrastructure, amenities, events, and marketing 75 10% 117 16% 131 18% 91 13% 313 43% Reaching new audiences: marine, coastal, cultural and outdoors tourism – for example, visitor product development, inter-island connectivity, step ashore facilities, showcasing producers, culture, and heritage 72 10% 114 16% 158 22% 98 13% 285 39% Sustaining and improving the visitor offer – for example, transport options, destination investment (including toilets), support for individual tourism businesses to help them improve their products and services (grants, training, advice, toolkits) 101 14% 159 22% 121 17% 78 11% 268 37% The journey towards net zero – for example, investment in sustainable tourism, business advice and support, low-carbon transport networks7 48 7% 108 15% 164 23% 96 13% 311 43% Source: A&BC Business Survey. Base=727 (for each statement). . Page 422
Page 423
44 3.4 Other things business survey respondents would like to see a visitor levy spent on Over half of businesses answered the follow-on question ‘If there are other things you would like to see a visitor levy spent on please tell us here?’. Some businesses did not directly answer this question, and this is reflected in the themes presented below. In part this reflects the fact that this was the first open-ended question in the survey, and businesses wished to express the extent to which they supported a visitor levy scheme in Argyll and Bute or otherwise. Comments related to the proposed visitor levy scheme Most businesses who answered this question took the opportunity to comment on the council’s draft proposals to introduce a visitor levy scheme in Argyll and Bute – and most either said that they: • do not agree with the introduction of a visitor levy scheme. • or do not agree with the national legislation in its current form and/or with the council’s proposals in their current form – this included some who did not consider it in the best interests of Argyll and Bute to introduce a visitor levy at the current time. Firstly, many businesses who were opposed to the introduction of a visitor levy scheme in Argyll and Bute often framed their response to this question in the context of recent and ongoing challenges: • for the visitor economy post Brexit – for example, businesses referred to labour and skills shortages, as well as to the introduction of an Electronic Travel Authorisation (ETA) for European Union (EU), American and Canadian visitors to the UK (£16 for a digital permit) which was considered to have been a ‘blow to the Scottish visitor economy.’ • for the visitor economy arising from the pandemic, associated lockdowns, and post COVID-19 recovery – for example, businesses referred to lost income, reduced profit margins, and repaying debt (Bounce Back Loan Scheme). • for visitors, businesses, and residents due to the impact of the cost-of-living crisis – some businesses perceived Scotland to be an expensive holiday destination that lacked quality road/ferry/infrastructure compared to other destinations, and that visitor numbers were declining due to the cost-of-living crisis (and other factors). Page 423
Page 424
45 • small, remote, rural and island businesses in particular faced a challenging trading environment, including a higher cost of doing business when compared to cities for example - recruitment difficulties2, rising business rates, rising operating/running costs, rising cost of paying staff, increased costs of goods, increasingly intense competition for international visitors, a shrinking domestic market, and shrinking margins, were all mentioned by businesses. • the impact of the short-term let licence scheme – many small businesses said they were struggling with the strain of the costs and bureaucracy associated with the implementation of this scheme. Some said they have already passed some additional costs onto customers, while others said that they knew of accommodation providers who had closed or who were only just keeping afloat. The proposed visitor levy scheme was said to represent another administrative or regulatory hurdle that could further threaten the financial stability of accommodation providers in Argyll and Bute. The main message raised by these businesses was that the introduction of a visitor levy scheme in Argyll and Bute could make the current trading situation worse, and that it might not be the time to introduce another tax to the fragile rural economy. Responses often used language such as ‘unfair’ and ‘excessive’ – businesses believed the introduction of a visitor levy scheme in Argyll and Bute could place considerable additional financial pressure and administrative burden on a sector which has not fully recovered from the pandemic, or the more recent cost of living crisis, and with population decline still prevalent. These points were further reflected in the selected business survey respondent quotes below. “Our fragile visitor economy is struggling to recover post-pandemic, with tourism businesses operating on the margins. Now is most certainly not the time to make our destination even more expensive and to burden our tourism businesses with the costs and administration of an additional tax.” “It would put so many businesses to the wall where we are all already struggling with the government’s continuous increase in minimum wage and the increase in employers’ national insurance.” 2 For example, responses mentioned that a lack of affordable housing for staff, the proportion of second- home ownership and the lack of new affordable housing in the region can adversely affect the ability of businesses to attract, recruit and retain staff. Page 424
Page 425
46 “If you introduce this you will kill small businesses such as mine. If I have to pay this on top of the short-term let licence scheme it is not worth operating the business.” “We are not planning on continuing our business beyond 2026 as the short-term let licence is such a huge workload, and this visitor levy is the final nail in the coffin.” “Working towards meeting the Argyll and Bute Rural Growth Deal’s stated target to attract an additional 77,000 visits in 2025/2026 (versus the previous year) will become increasingly unattainable if our destination’s international and domestic competitiveness is undermined by making an already very expensive destination even more costly.” “The timing for imposing yet another cost on businesses could not be worse. We are already seeing many hospitality businesses closing in the area and we fear more will follow, making the area difficult to sell as a visitor destination.” Second, many businesses considered the Scottish Government visitor levy legislation and the A&BC proposals flawed. This was further reflected in survey responses that suggested a visitor levy legislation and/or the council’s proposals were ‘not fit for purpose’, ‘unworkable’, ‘poorly thought through’, ‘the wrong model for Argyll and Bute’ or which suggested that ‘a rethink’ was needed. Some but not all of these businesses disagreed with the principle of a visitor levy. Businesses agreed that the visitor economy plays a significant role in the local economy – and that it the tourism economy depends on attracting a broad and diverse range of visitors. The visitor economy was described in responses as a key sector and employer for the local economy which also supports small and remote communities. Businesses also understood the difficult financial decisions that councils needed to make and the need to explore new ways to generate revenue. However, they suggested doing anything that could deter tourism/visitor numbers and reduce expenditure in Argyll and Bute would be ‘counter intuitive’. This point is reflected in the business survey respondent quotes below. “I believe this levy, if introduced, would be detrimental not only to those who directly provide accommodation, such as hotels, guesthouses, and Airbnb hosts, but also to every business and individual who relies on the visitor economy as a critical part of their livelihood. Many businesses, particularly small and family-run enterprises, rely on the seasonal influx of tourists to support their workforce and sustain them through the quieter months.” Page 425
Page 426
47 “Argyll and Bute is very dependent on tourists who spend money in the area. The council have to be careful that they do not alienate these much needed visitors.” Many businesses then provided comment on the detail of the Scottish Government legislation and the council’s proposals – these points are covered in more detail at the appropriate survey questions in this chapter. However, in summary these comments related to: • strong levels of disagreement with the fixed percentage model. • strong levels of disagreement with the council’s proposed 5% visitor levy rate in Argyll and Bute and with the council’s current position on local exemptions. • concerns about the additional cost and burden the proposed visitor levy scheme would place on accommodation providers, and in particular on micro and small (and island) businesses. Most businesses provided examples of how the introduction of a visitor levy scheme in Argyll and Bute could be detrimental to the visitor economy and to the local economy. Negative impacts were consistently identified across these responses as: • fewer visitors will come to Argyll and Bute and/or there will be fewer overnight stays – businesses said that the market for travel was competitive and that a visitor levy could deter bookings as some visitors might choose to go elsewhere as Argyll and Bute would become even more expensive and less appealing than places that, for example, did not have a visitor levy scheme. It was suggested that this could place Argyll and Bute at a competitive disadvantage and reduce income for accommodation providers which could then have implications for business hours/ availability/jobs, etc. And that it could place island businesses at an even greater disadvantage – “Prices here already reflect higher costs due to the nature of the island’s location and remoteness from the mainland and we are concerned that our businesses would face a further blow that would not apply to other similar businesses within Argyll and Bute.” • visitors will have less money to spend in the local economy – businesses suggested that the additional costs to visitors from a visitor levy would mean they might have less to spend on eating, drinking, shopping in the local area and that a visitor levy could have a negative impact beyond accommodation providers to other local hospitality, leisure, and retail businesses. A drop in visitor numbers would impact all businesses. • some accommodation providers might have less money available for business investment – and that a resultant lack of investment in their properties would also affect the income of local tradespeople (for example, builders, plumbers, electricians, tilers, roofers, heating engineers, etc.). Page 426
Page 427
48 • some businesses might/will close as a result of the introduction of a visitor levy – points raised by businesses included that: smaller accommodation providers might be less able to any absorb additional costs associated with collecting a visitor levy; a reduction in visitors would reduce income and result in tighter profit margins for accommodation providers; it would place extra burdens upon accommodation providers who raised concerns that the administration and collection of a visitor levy could be complex and time consuming, in particular for micro and small businesses; and that if some of these accommodation providers closed this could result in less choice for visitors when looking for accommodation in the area. Taken together, this could make it increasingly difficult for some accommodation providers to remain viable businesses. • a visitor levy scheme could penalise local residents and visiting workers – for example, businesses considered a visitor levy scheme would result in higher costs for local residents who would be penalised for visiting friends and family, for island residents who stayed overnight on the mainland for a hospital appointment, and for those who came to the islands to work on infrastructure related projects, etc. • already slim margins would be under even greater pressure and could harm the travel sector more widely – for example, as operators, particularly in the travel agent and tour operator sector, might not be able to pass on the full cost of a visitor levy to their customers. Some businesses emphasised that the current timing and economic circumstances might not be right for introducing a visitor levy scheme in Argyll and Bute – and called on the council to pause or delays its deliberations. There were also calls for the council to undertake detailed economic impact assessments (for example, on different percentage models) as well as further consultation and engagement to consider the unique circumstances of Argyll and Bute (for example, its predominantly rural character) and additional cost pressures facing island residents, businesses, and their visitors. The points raised were broadly reflected in the responses below. “Introducing a successful visitor levy scheme is about the right application, right place, and right time, if it is to act as a force for good that enhances our visitor offer and appeal… none of these conditions of success are currently in place in Argyll and Bute and it should not proceed with introducing a scheme at this time. A rush to introduce a visitor levy will damage the essential tourism and hospitality businesses that local economies rely on to support jobs and attract visitors. Although the timeline to introduce a potential scheme in Argyll and Bute from January 2027 onwards is sensible, the current visitor levy scheme proposals and the questions asked in the business, visitor and resident surveys are lacking in the level of detail needed to make a proper informed decision about whether to proceed with a scheme. Page 427
Page 428
49 We would consider these surveys as a pre-consultation stage. Considering the difficult economic climate and the emerging complexity of the current charging model, we would urge A&BC to take a pause and instead use its time wisely to carry out detailed economic and island impact assessments, conduct a competitor analysis, and to continue to listen to the views of its local businesses by working closely with its destination management organisations, chambers of commerce and industry organisations.” “We maintain that the Scottish Government's percentage model is not fit for purpose and urge Argyll and Bute Councillors to pause the entire process until the complexities and flaws of the percentage charge model are recognised by the Scottish Government and addressed in revised legislation, as we and the Scottish Tourism Alliance on behalf of Scotland’s tourism industry are urging MSP’s and Ministers to do so. Argyll and Bute is one of Scotland’s most geographically challenged regions. We should take time and effort to ensure that introducing a visitor levy that disproportionately impacts our area does not harm our economically fragile region and communities.” “We remain opposed to the flawed percentage tax model required as part of the Scottish Government’s Visitor Levy legislation. The proposed model disproportionately impacts our region relative to urban areas, which have a more significant percentage of larger businesses with more resources. Many of our members trade below the VAT threshold. Including a visitor levy in taxable income will result in our small businesses facing higher costs and more complicated tax obligations with no additional management resources. Many operators will reduce their availability to ensure they stay below the VAT threshold, which will detrimentally impact the provision of tourism facilities. The board strongly believes that introducing the proposed Visitor Levy, in its current form, to Argyll will offset any benefits gained from a visitor levy’s intended purpose of supporting local tourism development and risks damaging our destination's welcoming reputation and competitiveness. We respectfully request that the council delay implementing the proposed visitor levy scheme in Argyll and Bute until a comprehensive evaluation of the model and its potential unintended consequences is conducted at the local authority and Scottish Government level. We urge Argyll and Bute Council to request the Scottish Government recall and revise its flawed Visitor Levy legislation and do so following meaningful engagement with Scotland’s tourism industry.” Accountability and transparency in how revenue generated through the proposed levy scheme would be spent in Argyll and Bute There was acknowledgement in the responses that a visitor levy scheme could provide a key opportunity to sustain and enhance the region's tourism infrastructure. Page 428
Page 429
50 That being said, many businesses called for more detailed proposals and plans from the council on how the revenue generated through the proposed levy scheme in Argyll and Bute would be spent. Businesses expressed strong support that the revenue generated through a visitor levy scheme should: • not be used by the council to fill its funding gaps - or to balance its budget or to fund core or existing service provision – that is, the funds should be viewed as ‘additional’. • be ring-fenced and strategically reinvested in Argyll and Bute to tangibly enhance the area as a visitor destination and on tourism infrastructure and amenities. • be equally and fairly distributed and reinvested across Argyll and Bute mainland and island communities - that is, not only reinvested in the main resident population centres. An alternative viewpoint expressed was that it should be reinvested in the locality in which the revenue was raised. Other common messages from businesses included that accommodation providers/communities should be represented on, and input to, any Visitor Levy Forum set up to inform decisions on how the revenue raised through the proposed visitor levy scheme would be reinvested. And that it would be equally important to recognise that different communities/places in Argyll and Bute may need different things. Businesses agreed that the council should routinely report on, and account for, how the revenue generated through a visitor levy scheme has been spent in Argyll and Bute. Points raised included that this reporting should cover: • how much revenue would be/has been allocated to each core objective and activity. • how much revenue would be/has been distributed across the mainland and islands. The following business respondent quotes were broadly reflective of the points raised. “Would levy money ever be returned to the community to improve infrastructure - I would be concerned that it may become engulfed in general funds.” “I can’t answer these questions because there is no guarantee that the money raised in one area will be spent in that area. My area brings in a lot of visitors and yet may not benefit from investment in local services.” “When visiting places that apply a tourist levy, I hesitate to book. It is an unwelcoming tax. It undermines the apparent goodwill. It feels like advantage is being taken of the visitor. The proposed levy's obvious and overt aim is to fill a much wider budget blackhole.” Page 429
Page 430
51 “The only way a visitor levy should be introduced is if the money is ring-fenced locally and decided how to be spent locally. So each island, each town gets to decide on its own priorities.” “If a visitor levy is approved, funds raised should be used for tourism only, but this should be decided by business committees and not the council. Similar to a Business Improvement District (BID) set up and organisation.” “Visitor levy money should be ringfenced for spending in the area in which it is collected… and subject to participatory budgeting in order to be distributed according to the needs and wishes of the local community.” Many businesses who indicated that they do not support the introduction of a visitor levy scheme in Argyll and Bute perceived the council would use a visitor levy as a way to raise funds for things that it should already be funding or took issue with the term ‘visitor levy’ or think its proposed introduction was at the expense of accommodation providers who would be responsible for collecting a visitor levy. These points were further reflected in the business respondent quotes below. “This is misleading as a visitor levy includes residents’ overnight visits which are not recreational or business. These types of stays are much more likely for island communities and therefore a visitor levy is a tax on island life. A visitor levy is an accommodation tax on everyone who has a paid overnight visit for whatever reason.” “This is not a visitor levy but a tax. A visitor levy is a fixed fee. The ‘levy’ if gathered should not be used as a substitute which allows the council to deflect their accepted limited resources to fulfil their social budget responsibilities to items like filling potholes in roads (topping up roads budgets). “The council is pursuing this levy idea purely as a means of raising a quick buck at the expense of accommodation providers for whom this will be yet another detrimental layer of admin.” “The visitors levy is a poor excuse to attempt to raise additional funds that will have a detrimental effect on local accommodation providers which in turn will result in lower tourist levels.” Page 430
Page 431
52 Further, most businesses intimated that the introduction of a visitor levy would result in additional costs to accommodation providers in terms of scheme administration – they called for support and guidance to help mitigate both the financial and administrative burdens caused by the introduction of a visitor levy scheme in Argyll and Bute. Comments on the proposed visitor scheme objectives Positive feedback on the scheme objectives A small number of businesses provided positive comments on the proposed visitor scheme objectives for Argyll and Bute. Points raised by these businesses suggest that additional investment in local facilities and services to improve the visitor experience would undoubtedly help to improve Argyll and Bute. There was feedback that the proposed objectives were ‘admirable’, ‘laudable’, ‘commendable’ or that they were objectives that ‘nobody can disagree with.’ There was also support in principle among these businesses for revenue generated through a visitor levy scheme to be used to further support ‘the priorities of the strategy agreed by the Argyll and Isles Strategic Tourism Partnership as well as the national tourism strategy.’ The council’s proposals for accommodation providers to retain a percentage of what they collected to help cover costs were also very much welcomed by businesses, albeit there was some feedback that estimates ‘appear low’ – note: the Scottish Government still needs to agree what can be done in relation to this at a national level. There were, however, calls for there to be a further opportunity for businesses and key stakeholders to comment on more detailed plans and proposals on what this would look like and how it would work in practice. Negative feedback on the scheme objectives Many businesses were sceptical about whether the revenue generated by the council would be used to improve the visitor experience – these included businesses who agreed or those who disagreed with the principle of a visitor levy and/or with the proposed scheme objectives. Other businesses called for an opportunity to comment on more detailed proposals or plans for how revenue generated through a visitor levy could be used in Argyll and Bute. The following business survey respondent quotes were broadly reflective of points raised. “At the moment detail of how the monies raised will be spent are unclear and the industry is concerned, in the current public financial climate, that funds will be spent on services which are not incremental. There is also concern on how funds will be divided across the region, where by definition some areas will raise more than others.” Page 431
Page 432
53 “Whilst I agree that additional funding to support the infrastructure of Islay would be of great benefit, particularly due the high number of visitors compared to other areas of Argyll & Bute council there is no suggestion that levy income generated by Islay would be spent on Islay.” “Funds raised via the tax will be swallowed by the costs of administering it.” “All of the objectives are areas where investment is required for Argyll & Bute residents too, so there’s no point in dressing it up as specifically for tourism.” “While I agree with their objectives, I don't believe the council will spend money in these areas. Already, our cinema in Oban has been closed. We lost our Rare Breeds Park at Glencruitten a few years ago. We also lost our bowling alley, and our Sealife Centre at Barcaldine. We've also lost our local Oban FM radio station. Rockfield Community Centre is on the brink of closure with very little support from the council. The council is doing nothing to support tourism.“ Further, some businesses referred to recent issues with the short-term let licence scheme – these responses suggested an element of distrust that the council would administer a visitor levy scheme ‘efficiently and effectively’. Among businesses who did not agree with a visitor levy for Argyll and Bute, the survey question ‘To what extent do you agree or disagree with the A&BC visitor levy scheme objectives’ was considered ‘arbitrary’ (for the reasons described above), and they suggested that a visitor levy scheme in Argyll and Bute could be ‘counter-productive’. That is, these businesses highlighted the potential negative impacts and unintended consequences of a visitor levy on businesses and on the visitor economy in Argyll and Bute and/or considered there to be issues with the national legislation itself. The following business survey respondent quotes were broadly reflective of points raised. “I would agree with the objective of extending the season but clearly a visitor levy scheme would do the opposite, with levy amounts added to turnover those businesses that are close to the VAT threshold will have to reduce their season or cease to trade, thus reducing availability and shortening the season.” “While I strongly agree with the objectives, I can't see how a visitor levy can conceivably achieve these. Putting a tax on an already expensive country to visit is as likely to put visitors off as it is to encourage. We need tourists for our business and the local economy to survive, so potentially discouraging them makes no sense whatsoever.” “I do not think a visitor levy will improve any of the above (objectives), it will harm the visitor economy as a whole including shops, distilleries, attractions and restaurants.” Page 432
Page 433
54 “I think the season cannot be extended by levy or other incentives, although I can see people not choosing anymore for the destination in the peak season due to introducing a visitor levy.” These businesses generally considered the introduction of a visitor levy might not be ‘the best way’ to support the achievement of the proposed objectives or thought ‘the objectives can be achieved in other ways’ or ‘do not agree that a visitor levy is a good way to fund them’ or thought it could ‘send the wrong message’ to domestic and international visitors. Others considered that it would be vitally important that a visitor levy was ‘used in ways that help boost business opportunities and drive additional revenue’ for Argyll and Bute. The following business survey quotes were broadly reflective of the points raised. “All these things are required but would be funded more simply by a change in the rates system”. “To achieve these objectives, you need to enable and support hospitality and accommodation providers, rather than impose extra challenges.” “We would like to see more focus on destination promotion and a focus on key issues like enforcement and business support. These must be addressed to ensure the scheme delivers real benefits to businesses, communities, and visitors.” “While all these objectives look admiral the simple fact of the matter is that a visitor levy in Argyll and Bute will have the opposite impact to what is proposed. It will involve increase costs to businesses, reduce demand and have a negative impact on the economy of Argyll and Bute. The council needs to be savvier in how it raises money for these objectives, there are ways they could do this without the negative impacts that a visitor levy will bring. For example, a visitor levy can potentially be avoided by visitors with motorhomes, which are the very group who don't make the same level of contribution to hotels and restaurants, etc. The challenge to the council is to think more creatively about how to grow the economy of Argyll and Bute and the answer is to create an environment which encourages, not discourages business.” “It would help if we had a reliable ferry service. We are already losing a lot of our customers due to CalMac and you want us to add another charge on visitors. This will put people off”. “I don't think a visitor levy will achieve any of these objectives. I fear that a visitor levy will discourage tourists. This is the purpose of tourist taxes in cities like Barcelona, New York, Edinburgh etc, which are trying to discourage tourists as there are too many. A&B does not have this problem.” Page 433
Page 434
55 “A solution to the issues has to be changes to the planning laws to allow more affordable housing, particularly in small communities, to sustain schools and community shops and pubs, rather than driving down tourism and forcing hospitality services to close during the winter season, and risking extending the off-season or driving tourists elsewhere altogether.” “While the goals…sound positive in theory, a visitor levy itself places an unfair and unsustainable burden on both visitors and small businesses. The knock-on effect will damage the very economy the council claims to protect. If a visitor levy were introduced (which I oppose), I would want it ring-fenced strictly for frontline infrastructure used by both residents and visitors; like road maintenance, waste services, and public toilets. It should not be spent on marketing or vague 'product development'. That said, I believe a visitor levy is the wrong solution. I am a small business owner who relies on work from other local businesses, most of which are in tourism. If those businesses suffer from reduced visitor numbers or extra admin and tax burdens, I suffer too. The council should explore alternative funding models that don't discourage tourism or penalise small operators.” Further, it was clear from the analysis of qualitative responses to this question, some businesses found it difficult to answer the closed question ‘To what extent do you agree or disagree with the A&BC visitor levy scheme objectives?’. This issue was best reflected in the following respondent quote. “I've answered neither agree nor disagree to the previous questions as there are many different options within each question, some of which I agree with, many which I don't.” Finally, a small number of businesses indicated that they disagreed with the need for more tourism infrastructure investment and highlighted other reasons why people visited Argyll and Bute. “People come here for the wildness and the beauty they don’t want more infrastructure and marketing.” “People don't visit for urban features. They like desolate landscapes, unspoilt beaches”. “In terms of infrastructure, one of Coll's greatest assets is its unspoilt rural beauty. I would be totally opposed to installing infrastructure such as public toilets at beaches, as it would ruin this. There would also be issues about how upkeep and maintenance would be funded.” Specific comments related to the four proposed objectives Many businesses took the opportunity to comment specifically on one or more of the proposed objectives. Business survey respondent quotes which broadly reflected points raised are provided below. Page 434
Page 435
56 Extending the season and spreading visitors across the destination “While extending the season is, arguably, a laudable objective, it seems to suggest that the function of a visitor levy will be to discourage people to come at peak season (when it will be more expensive and therefore a percentage levy would increase the cost even more) and to come at a quieter period of the extended season instead - the very purpose of a visitor levy therefore seems to be to suppress tourism. Likewise, spreading visitors across the destination seems to suggest that people should be discouraged from staying in the more expensive parts of the region where, again, a percentage based visitor levy would make the stay even more expensive, and be encouraged towards the less popular and more competitively priced parts of the region. Again it seems that the very purpose of a visitor levy is to suppress tourism.” “All small accommodation providers, like us, work seven days a week during the season, from March until the end of October. Purpose built self-catering and B&B accommodation providers have no time off for eight months of the year. It is not feasible for the attractions and restaurants to remain open for the whole of the year even if there is a small increase in visitor numbers. The cafes and restaurants within the isles are often run by family teams - they don't have lots of staff to take on shifts throughout the year. All our businesses need time to redecorate, improve, carry out repairs, keep up to date with administration that can only be done in the off season.” “A strong visitor economy relies on active investment in attractions and destination marketing. If businesses are to collect and contribute to a visitor levy, they must see clear returns through increased demand. Without a defined plan for marketing investment, a visitor levy could harm rather than support the sector, impacting local jobs. Accommodation providers should receive direct promotional support to offset the administrative burden. Members are also concerned about council spending on off-park overnight motorhome parking and poor enforcement of irresponsible visitor behaviour. Unmanaged tourism causes environmental damage, waste issues, fire risks, and overuse of public areas. A visitor levy must fund proper management of these problems to ensure tourism remains sustainable and benefits both residents and visitors. This must not disadvantage licenced, rate-paying businesses.” “We would certainly agree that any levy should be used to support promotion of destinations to encourage greater visitor numbers in support of local communities and extending the season beyond peak months. Our primary concern is that a visitor levy is utilised effectively on the areas set out above, and not used to fill funding gaps within local authorities.” Page 435
Page 436
57 Reaching new audiences “We broadly agree with the scheme’s objectives, particularly the use of funds to reach new audiences of travellers. However, it should always be remembered that Argyll and Bute’s tourism economy depends on attracting a broad and diverse range of visitors. The introduction of a visitor levy would be an additional cost to tourists, especially during peak times when accommodation prices are already high. If a visitor levy is to be introduced, it must be as simple as possible for accommodation providers to administer and be careful not to discourage demand for tourism in the local area. Otherwise it is likely to act counter to the above objectives.” “With the domestic market declining, holiday parks would welcome more international visitors.” “Is reaching new audiences a sensible objective for A&BC when this is already covered at a national level by bodies such as VisitScotland or by already established local groups (such as Argyll & the Isles Tourism Co-operative Ltd)?” “I don't think the council has a better idea of how to reach new audiences than existing businesses, who've been doing this for years. I don't want help from the council for grants training or toolkits - none of that is necessary. If I wanted or needed it, I'd already be doing it myself.” Sustaining and improving the visitor offer “While sustaining public services and infrastructure is important, many fear a visitor levy will be used to fill gaps in statutory funding rather than delivering additional benefits for tourism- related infrastructure which the council is required to do via the legislation. Maintaining roads, waste management, and public services should remain a core responsibility of local government funding, rather than being supplemented by a visitor levy that disproportionately impacts the visitor economy.” “Maintaining roads, waste management, and public services should remain a core responsibility of local government funding, rather than being supplemented by a visitor levy that disproportionately impacts the visitor economy. Transparency on how funds will be allocated is essential to ensure they genuinely enhance visitor infrastructure rather than replace existing public funding commitments.” The journey towards net zero “The journey to net zero is a goal with much wider scope, not specific to tourism, and should not be part of a visitor levy scheme.” Page 436
Page 437
58 “There are already considerable resources for businesses to strive for sustainable tourism and net zero, though Green Tourism, Business Gateway, Carbon Trust, Mull and Iona Community Trust.” “The journey towards net zero should be a council objective for ALL residents of the area - it is not right to use a visitor levy to pay for this.” “Promoting net-zero will do nothing to bring extra visitors.” 3.5 Exemptions Businesses who agreed with the council’s current position on local exemptions Less than one-fifth (16%) of businesses said that they either agreed or strongly agreed with the council’s current proposal that there should be no local exemptions beyond those set out nationally in the visitor levy scheme legislation, see Table 3.6. Table 3.6: To what extent do you agree or disagree with this position on local exemptions? Number Percentage Strongly agree 71 10% Agree 45 6% Neither agree nor disagree 126 17% Disagree 75 10% Strongly disagree 361 50% Don’t know 49 7% Source: A&BC Business Survey. Base=727. Businesses who agreed or strongly agreed with the council’s position on local exemptions: • considered it appropriate and sensible that A&BC kept exemptions aligned to the national visitor levy legislation – that is, they agreed that there should be no local exemptions beyond the groups or individuals identified as nationally exempt. • thought minimal local exemptions could help to ensure that funds were raised efficiently for local amenities and infrastructure - while maintaining clarity in understanding, ease of administration, and effective enforcement. Page 437
Page 438
59 • expressed support for certain groups or individuals identified as nationally exempt – disabled people were frequently mentioned by these businesses as it was considered important that some groups of people were not disadvantaged as a result of a visitor levy. A further suggestion made was that the council could retain flexibility to amend/add local exemptions once a visitor levy, if approved, has been introduced and based on experience. Businesses who disagreed with the council’s current position on local exemptions A majority (60%) of businesses either disagreed or strongly disagreed with the council’s current position on local exemptions, and most of these strongly disagreed, see Table 3.6. First, many of these businesses considered the council should exercise its discretion to apply local exemptions. The main arguments made included that a one-size-fits-all approach might not be appropriate, and that local exemptions would allow the council to consider the unique characteristics and circumstances of Argyll and Bute. These businesses noted in their responses that: • Argyll and Bute cannot be considered the same as large urban cities in Scotland (for example, Edinburgh or Glasgow) or further afield – due to its large island and remote, rural population and shorter tourist season. • Scotland was different to other countries which have a visitor levy - for example, where VAT levels were said to be much lower than in Scotland. Further, some businesses recommended that the council undertake updated impact assessment work (which is part of this commission, see Chapter 6) to help make an evidenced-based decision about whether local exemptions should be adopted under an Argyll and Bute visitor levy scheme. These responses often mentioned that the financial impact on Island residents having to pay a visitor levy was unfair. Most businesses who disagreed with the council’s position on local exemptions set out specific examples of local exemptions that the council could consider when deciding on whether to introduce a visitor levy in Argyll and Bute. The most frequently identified examples of potential local exemptions included: • residents of Argyll and Bute – albeit others go further and suggest that residents in Scotland should be exempt from the Argyll and Bute visitor levy – as they ‘pay enough in taxes’ or ‘should not have to pay to visit their own country’. Page 438
Page 439
60 • people staying in Argyll and Bute for business or work, or visits for medical treatment or essential appointments, school visits/trips, visiting family, etc. (that is, strong support is expressed for a visitor levy to account for different trip purposes and ‘non-tourist’ visitors/stays). There is wide reference across responses to residents in remote and rural regions regularly having to travel distances for treatments, health care, dentists, car servicing, etc. and as a result, many, especially island residents, must spend an overnight stay (planned or unplanned due to the ferry service/bad weather).And that it could become even more difficult to find skilled labour to work in island and remote rural areas, and that the cost of services could also increase. • micro and small businesses that have consciously structured their business to remain below the £90,000 VAT threshold to avoid the complexity and costs associated with VAT compliance – businesses make arguments relating to: the large number of small family run businesses that contribute to the local tourism economy but which currently operate on tight margins; concerns about the additional administrative and financial burden of a visitor levy on micro and small businesses; and that the operational costs of a visitor levy may outweigh profit leading to some micro and small businesses deciding to stop trading altogether or consider reducing their availability during the year. It is suggested that excluding these businesses could ‘protect the viability of smaller accommodation providers while still achieving the intended benefits of the scheme.’ Pushing some accommodation providers over the VAT threshold was said to have various disadvantages, including extra time, effort, cost and expertise required. • people who accompany/support disabled people on holiday or essential trips and appointments - for example, carers, including paid carers. • charities and overnight stays for charitable purposes – for example, where a property is occupied by a charity or trustee of a charity, or overnight stays which are wholly or mainly for charitable purposes. A few business respondent quotes which are broadly reflective of the points raised are provided below. “We frequently have to travel to see a specialist doctor. Because of distance and an unreliable ferry service, I often have to stay overnight.” “Locals are not tourists and already contribute. This will also affect the price of tradesmen and of seasonal staff which we already struggle to find.” “Scottish residents should not have to pay an additional tax to stay in their own country! Especially when some of it is for work/personal reasons, not a holiday.” Page 439
Page 440
61 “Islanders have to travel on ferries to reach the mainland. These ferry services have proved to be unreliable and therefore subject travellers to many occasions when they might have to be faced with an un-scheduled overnight stop which under the proposals would incur a visitor level charge. There is a requirement to bring in contractors to cope with the infrastructure and building on the Island. These contractors, if they have to pay a visitor levy will have to pass on the cost to the local project, thereby significantly increasing the cost of getting something done on the Island…it is already significantly more expensive and more time consuming to get done than the mainland.” Due to the time requirements of travelling off an island, Mull and Iona residents will suffer increased cost of living by having to pay a visitor levy when they book an essential overnight stay in Mull, Oban or other areas, for health visits, to visit their children at Oban High School, go to funerals and many other reasons for travel that can normally be achieved in one day for those who don’t live on an island. The increase in cancelled ferries due to the failing ferry infrastructure has increased the need for unplanned overnight stays in Oban and on Mull for residents which would become even more expensive. A Visitor Levy should not apply to island residents. Questions were also raised around whether a visitor levy should apply to the whole of Argyll and Bute, as reflected in the respondent quote below. This point was typically framed in the context of factors such as: • living and running a business on an island has more challenges and is more expensive compared to the mainland. • the islands are still recovering from a lack of the return of overseas visitors - meanwhile the domestic market is weak due to the cost of living crisis. • a lack of confidence in the ferry service (for example, breakdowns, reduced service, operational uncertainty, etc.) has impacted island’s economies and continues to affect visitor numbers - and a visitor levy could make a visit to the Islands more unattractive (adding additional costs for visitors to what is already an expensive destination and hard to access). “There are no formal statistics for Mull and Iona’s tourism, which is very different from that of Argyll and Bute as a whole. The council cannot make a decision that a visitor levy is appropriate for the Islands without a feasibility study”. Further, many businesses who disagreed with the council’s position on local exemptions were unhappy because the national legislation and A&BC proposals did not cover some forms of overnight accommodation or types of visitors. Page 440
Page 441
62 These responses frequently mentioned: • people who stayed in motorhomes and campervans - that is, those who were not staying in registered camping sites or caravan parks. • cruise ships tourists. • wild campers. • day trippers. The main arguments put forward by businesses were that these visitors also use local services and infrastructure, and that it was vitally important to maintain the attractiveness, natural beauty, and cleanliness of Argyll and Bute – not least as there was considered to have been a large increase in motorhomes and wild campers in the region in recent years which has created a range of challenges for infrastructure and services in rural and island communities. “A visitor levy is less punitive to forms of tourism that have associated problems due to the pressure they put on fragile island infrastructure, whilst punishing lower-intensity, longer- staying, visitors. Due to its proximity to the mainland, Mull already receives a high number of day visitors, which puts a strain on the road infrastructure. With day visitors not having to pay a visitor levy, day visits would increase, with less incentive for visitors to stay overnight. Cruise ships are excluded from a visitor levy, despite being a potential valuable source of income and a way of managing the overcrowding which affect the quality of residents’ lives when a cruise ship visits.” “It is discriminatory to small rural, remote accommodation providers – whilst campervan visitors, which are massively on the increase; they clog the roads and have a much more damaging impact on the environment whilst bringing less visitor pounds into the local economy are exempt from this Levy – clearly in the absence of unpaid tax collectors.” The government legislation and the council’s proposed visitor levy scheme were viewed as ‘unfair’ in this regard, and these businesses also thought it could create an ‘uneven playing field’ as visitors who stayed in paid accommodation ‘already contribute towards local businesses.’ Other respondents to the business survey made the case for certain types of accommodation to be exempt from the proposed scheme and called on the council to use its discretion to apply local exemptions. For example, ‘Holiday Parks offer a unique type of stay and it is not comparable to booking a hotel room’. Page 441
Page 442
63 Among the arguments made this included: the impact of a visitor levy on domestic visitors – holiday parks predominantly attract lower-spend domestic visitors, who might shorten stays or be deterred entirely by a visitor levy; type of stay - parks provide low-cost accommodation for holiday- makers as well as for visitors with family or friends in hospitals or prisons, carer respite breaks, or for engineering or construction work, meaning stays were not always leisure-focused; and small business burden - family-run parks, unlike large hotel chains, lack resources and experience in implementing complex levy collection systems. Others raised some similar points relating to their view that campsite pitches should be exempt from the scheme (for example, arguments made included small family-run businesses, limited income which was often ancillary to rural businesses such as farming and often below the VAT threshold and offered a low facility option at very low cost). These organisations referred to Clause 4(3)(b) of the legislation which they say states that accommodation in a vehicle making overnight stops is not chargeable as it is not defined as overnight accommodation when making their case for holiday parks and campsite pitches to be exempt from a visitor levy scheme in Argyll and Bute. Further, they noted that an unintended consequence of a visitor levy which would apply to campsites was that this may encourage more people to wild camp or stay in motorhomes parked in laybys and unofficial parking areas. Another organisation requested an exemption based on its ‘charitable purposes and work with educational establishments, young people and families’, that all of it work was ‘dedicated to generating surpluses that are reinvested into the organisation to maintain our facilities and services and to support our youth and family programmes’, and that the implementation of a visitor levy could ‘directly impact the affordability mission of the charity to provide affordable accommodation, therefore undermining our commitment to accessibility.’ Finally, a small number of businesses said that they disagreed with the council’s position on local exemptions as they considered that there should be ‘no exemptions’ for people or types of accommodation providers at all. The main points raised in support of this view was to ensure a fair and level playing field or to reduce the cost or complexity of administrating the scheme. Businesses that neither agreed nor disagreed with the council’s current position on local exemptions or don’t know The remainder (24%) of businesses said that they neither agreed nor disagreed with the council’s position on local exemptions or were unsure, see Table 3.6. Page 442
Page 443
64 These businesses in the main raised points which have been described below in the ‘Other points raised’ sub-section – for example, they asked questions or called for greater clarity on how exemptions would be managed and on how the process would work in practice or indicated that steps would need to be taken to minimise the administrative and financial burden that local exemptions could have on accommodation providers. Additional points raised by businesses who neither agreed nor disagreed with the council’s position on local exemptions or who were unsure included that: • they considered there should be minimal local exemptions to maximise local investment of the revenue generated by a visitor levy or that there could be an option for the council to introduce new local exemptions if there was an identified need. • others felt that there should be no visitor levy at all or that they could not see any benefit in having a visitor levy scheme in Argyll and Bute. • a small number of businesses said they were unclear on which groups or individuals were identified as nationally exempt and did not feel able to make an informed response to this question. Further, some businesses who said that they neither agreed nor disagreed with the council’s position on local exemptions or who were unsure expressed support for local exemptions for residents, for non-tourism related purposes (for example, for work, for hospital appointments, etc.). Other points raised Other points raised in business survey responses related to how the exemption process would be managed and work in practice, including: • businesses considered it important for the council to minimise the complexity of administering the scheme – for example, responses mentioned the potential administrative and financial burden that local exemptions could have on accommodation providers as well as the administrative burden on exempt visitors who would need to take steps to receive the relevant reimbursement. • businesses called for further clarity on: o how exemptions would be assessed by accommodation providers – as an example, disability was often mentioned in these responses (that is, who would investigate and determine eligibility). Some concern was raised that ‘proposed rebates for disabled people appear complex and discriminatory’. o the type of information or documentation accommodation providers would need to see from exempt visitors. Page 443
Page 444
65 o how national and any local exemptions would be enforced, and whether accommodation providers would face penalties for errors or non-payment, even if unintentional. • there would need to be clear and tailored messaging and communications on local exemptions to ensure a shared understanding among visitors and accommodation providers – alongside the provision of guidance for accommodation providers to ensure that the process was transparent, understood, and not open to misuse. 3.6 Proposal to set a visitor levy rate at 5% Businesses who did not support a visitor levy being introduced in Argyll and Bute The majority of businesses (61%) selected ‘I don’t support a visitor levy being introduced across Argyll and Bute’ to the question ‘To what extent do you agree with the council’s proposal to set a visitor levy rate at 5%?’, see Table 3.7. EKOS note: a small number of businesses who selected disagree or strongly disagree to this question then provided qualitative feedback that would actually suggest they did not support a visitor levy in Argyll and Bute (that is, they did not select the ‘I don’t support a visitor levy being introduced across Argyll and Bute’ option). This suggests that the proportion of businesses who disagree with the proposed levy rate of 5% would be lower while the proportion who do not support the introduction of a visitor levy would be higher than what has been presented in the table below. See also Table 3.8. Table 3.7: To what extent do you agree with the Argyll and Bute Council proposal to set a visitor levy rate at 5%? Number Percentage Strongly agree 16 2% Agree 25 3% Neither agree nor disagree 27 4% Disagree 29 4% Strongly disagree 179 25% Don’t know 7 1% I don’t support a visitor levy being introduced across Argyll and Bute 444 61% Source: A&BC Business Survey. Base=727. Page 444
Page 445
66 Table 3.8: To what extent do you agree with the Argyll and Bute Council proposal to set a visitor levy rate at 5%? (EKOS recoding) Number Percentage Strongly agree 16 2% Agree 25 3% Neither agree nor disagree 27 4% Disagree 26 4% Strongly disagree 137 19% Don’t know 7 1% I don’t support a visitor levy being introduced across Argyll and Bute 489 67% Source: A&BC Business Survey. Base=727. Businesses who do not support a visitor levy being introduced considered a visitor levy rate of 5% ‘excessive’, ‘too high’ or it was considered ‘narrow-sighted’ or ‘unworkable’ for rural, remote and island areas like Argyll and Bute. Businesses pointed to the unique geographical challenges faced by Argyll and Bute and other constraints including seasonality. Further, a one-size-fits all approach to setting a visitor levy rate at 5% like other cities (for example, Edinburgh, Paris, and Barcelona was mentioned by businesses) was not considered appropriate within a rural Argyll and Bute context. These businesses said that Argyll and Bute did not have comparable visitor numbers, attractions, or events, and that it did not suffer from overtourism like some other destinations. These businesses expressed strong support for continued efforts to ‘welcome and encourage more visitors’ to Argyll and Bute rather than ‘penalising them with an increase in accommodation costs.’ Other businesses made the point that visitors to Scotland already paid relatively high levels of tax on their accommodation (through a 20% VAT rate) when compared to other European countries. They suggested that a 5% levy rate on top of this could make Argyll and Bute less competitive domestically and internationally and that it could ‘risk dampening the tourism demand on which the Argyll and Bute economy depends’ and ‘further damage an extremely fragile business sector.’ These businesses emphasised the different ways that a visitor levy late of 5% could have a detrimental impact on the Argyll and Bute economy and as a visitor destination and reiterated the importance of impact assessment work to better understand the impact of the council’s proposals. (as noted above, see Chapter 6). Page 445
Page 446
67 Businesses raised a variety of concerns and said that a visitor levy rate of 5% could: • be a further disincentive and deter potential visitors from choosing Argyll and Bute as a destination – increased costs for visitors might mean some are ‘priced-out’ and decide to look to other visitor-friendly and affordable places thereby positioning Argyll and Bute businesses at a competitive disadvantage. Others said that Argyll and Bute was a ‘marginal destination’ compared to other comparable areas in Scotland, reported domestic tourism in the region to be ‘dwindling’ or ‘in decline’, or considered Argyll and Bute an expensive destination, in particular ‘travel to the islands.’ They also suggested that a visitor levy could act as a further ‘disincentive for repeat visits’ when factors such as the Scottish weather, an unreliable ferry service and poor road infrastructure were also considered. • compound and exacerbate existing challenges faced by tourism and hospitality businesses in Argyll and Bute – businesses felt that a visitor levy rate of 5% could: reduce income for accommodation providers; exacerbate issues with seasonality; reduce investment in businesses; be difficult for accommodation providers to absorb the additional costs associated with a visitor levy, in particular micro, small and island businesses; risk damaging Argyll and Bute’s welcoming reputation and competitiveness; further reduce profit margins; and reduce income for other local tourism and hospitality businesses as visitors might have less disposable income. • force micro and small accommodation businesses who operate below the VAT threshold to either change their operating model or to close – many businesses disagreed that the proposed levy rate of 5% should be added to accommodation providers turnover as this risks undermining this business model and might force many businesses to become VAT registered ‘rendering the business non-viable, unless they in turn lower their prices to attempt to stay below the threshold or limit their availability making the season much shorter which could also put a squeeze on the supply of accommodation.’ Some accommodation providers might be forced to reduce their prices to be able to fund a visitor levy, whilst staying below the VAT threshold and remaining competitive with the rest of Scotland. They also raised concerns about the potential knock-on implications of business closures on jobs for local residents and add to existing depopulation challenges. • discourage the start-up of new accommodation and hospitality businesses – businesses suggested that a visitor levy rate of 5% could also discourage new small-scale tourism enterprises that were ‘essential to the diversity and character of Argyll and Bute’s visitor economy and local employment.’ Page 446
Page 447
68 • be overly complicated and onerous for small businesses to administer – concerns were raised about the complexity of the scheme proposed and many requests from businesses for the council to minimise or mitigate the extra burden on accommodation providers to collect and remit a visitor levy on behalf of the council by: collecting a visitor levy themselves; using a streamlined national platform for collection and reporting; exploring alternative ‘centralised methods’ of collecting a visitor levy and administering the scheme; or considering using ‘QR code technology’ to remove the need for accommodation providers to administer this charge ‘on top of all the other challenges they face.’ Businesses said that an alternative approach would not only reduce complexities in scheme management for accommodation providers (for example, complexities arising from calculating a visitor levy charge, from the different ways a booking can be made, and for accommodation providers that use dynamic pricing) but also to ensure the ‘cost of scheme administration does not outweigh potential benefits of a visitor levy scheme’. Businesses who disagreed with the proposal to set a visitor levy rate at 5% A sizable proportion (29%) of businesses either disagreed or strongly disagreed with the council’s proposal to set a visitor levy rate at 5%, see Table 3.7. Many of the points raised by these businesses were similar to those identified by businesses who did not support the introduction of a visitor levy (for example, could dampen demand) and for brevity have not been repeated in full here. Other points raised by businesses that disagreed with the council’s proposal to set a visitor levy rate at 5% either: • said it should be lower than 5% - and standardised across accommodation providers to minimise complexity for accommodation providers and booking platforms, making a visitor levy easier to calculate, collect, and remit. See also Section 3.8 of this chapter. • expressed a preference for a flat rate payment/ fixed amount per person per night (capped). Suggestions ranged between £1 and £5 per night but were predominantly at the much lower end of this range) or a banded fixed fee charging model. As described in Chapter 1, this is outside the discretion of local authorities, Further, local authorities have made representation on this specific issue during the Visitor Levy Bill consultation process. Many of these businesses said that the percentage tax model was ‘flawed’ and could disproportionately impact the region relative to urban areas. They also suggested a flat rate payment/ banded fixed fee charging model might be ‘much fairer and simpler scheme’ than a percentage model. Page 447
Page 448
69 Many said that the operating landscape in which a visitor levy would be introduced was more ‘uncertain’ and ‘unsettled’ than when the concept was originally conceived and first developed, and that the evidence base and assumptions which underpinned the visitor levy legislation and A&BC proposals in their current forms were ‘outdated.’ Most notably, these businesses emphasised the negative impact of the pandemic and the cost of living crisis on the visitor economy and on rural, remote and island communities, recent increases to employers National Insurance contributions and to the Real Living Wage, and in the case of short-term lets, licensing and planning costs and difficulties with the process as well as the increase in Council Tax on second homes. Some businesses expressed support for calls made by the STA to the Scottish Government for a flat per night fee scheme if a visitor levy scheme was approved in Argyll and Bute, and/or also referred to other parts of the UK (for example, Manchester, Wales were mentioned in responses) and other European countries which have adopted or propose a similar charging model. Further, these businesses intimated that an alternative charging approach could: • be a fairer and more acceptable approach for visitors - in particular those on low incomes and families, as well as fairer for accommodation providers aimed at different parts of the market or different customers. • help simplify scheme administration - a percentage rate on the accommodation element was considered complex to calculate, apply and manage in practice (for example, challenges associated with separating out the costs for things like food and drink) – and it could also help ensure the scheme was easy to explain and clearly understood by visitors and accommodation providers. • have the potential to be applied nationally – businesses suggested that this could help to bring uniformity and consistency in rates applied across local authority areas in Scotland (which decide to introduce a visitor levy scheme) and to minimise the potential for confusion. • mitigate the potential for abuse – for example, to avoid scenarios where accommodation providers ‘offer overnight accommodation at a very low cost and then charge the remainder for breakfast’, etc. Businesses that agreed with the proposal to set a visitor levy rate at 5% Few businesses (5%) either agreed or strongly agreed with the council’s proposal to set a visitor levy rate at 5% in Argyll and Bute, see Table 3.7. Where further feedback was provided the main points raised in these responses included that a visitor levy rate of 5% in Argyll and Bute: • was reasonable and appropriate as it would be in line with other destinations which have a visitor levy. Page 448
Page 449
70 • would enable a significant amount of revenue to be raised and reinvested in Argyll and Bute for the benefit of visitors and residents alike. • would be unlikely to act as a deterrent to visitors. Other points raised by businesses who expressed support for a visitor levy rate of 5% was that this should be the maximum rate in order to avoid any future increases, or that there could be a sliding scale used depending on, for example, the duration of the visit. 3.7 How investment in tourism infrastructure and services could be paid for Businesses who selected ‘I don’t support a visitor levy being introduced across Argyll and Bute’ to the previous question, were asked ‘How would you suggest that investment in our tourism infrastructure and services is paid for?’. All of these businesses provided a response. The main theme that emerged was that businesses reiterated the council should not use a visitor levy as a way to replace existing funding for tourism infrastructure and services. Some businesses also felt particularly strongly that visitors, residents, and businesses ‘should not be penalised’ for a perceived mismanagement of council budgets and finance over the years. Accommodation providers expressed frustration that they would become ‘unpaid tax collectors’ for the council and some felt strongly that the burden should not ‘rest upon the accommodation sector alone’. Suggestions made by businesses for other ways the council could further invest in tourism infrastructure and services, ‘in addition to current council spending’, included the following. Streamline council operations, reduce costs, and improve efficiency Businesses suggested that the council could: • assess the efficiency and effectiveness of how existing council funding was used and targeted – including as a way to identify cost savings and operational efficiencies, prioritise core services, reduce bureaucracy and any unnecessary internal spending – businesses suggested that this could help to ensure services, including tourism infrastructure and services were well-managed, efficient and effective, and that the council could redirect funds to high-impact tourism infrastructure projects. • make greater use of technological developments to automate some processes and reduce administrative costs – to increase efficiency and free up resources for reinvestment. Page 449
Page 450
71 • identify and dispose of surplus capital council assets – businesses suggested that the council could dispose of less utilised council owned buildings and premises due to more hybrid working, for example. Make better and more efficient use of the revenue generated by taxes that residents, businesses, and visitors pay already Businesses suggested that the council could: • use some of its reserves. • ring-fence an element of the revenue generated through existing taxes (for example, Council Tax, Non-Domestic Rates, Short-term Let Licence, Business Improvement District, Income Tax and Road Tax were all mentioned in responses) to pay for investment in tourism infrastructure and services – there was widespread reference to the council making use of the additional revenue generated through recent increases in taxes such as Council Tax. Explore ways to increase current revenue streams as well as identify new or alternative revenue streams Businesses suggested that the council could: • introduce or increase fees and charges, alongside ensure better enforcement – such as parking charges and fines, park and ride, charges for use of public toilets, and that the council could consider a road and bridge toll charge instead. Other suggestions, albeit not raised to a large extent, fall outside the control of local government, and included references to charges for prescriptions, school meals, and tuition fees (with appropriate exemptions). • increase existing taxes or introduce new taxes – for example, the council could increase Council Tax (including on second homes and on properties that have been unoccupied for long periods of time), increase Non Domestic Rates, introduce a taxation on windfarms, introduce a taxation on distilleries, or introduce a taxation on large corporate businesses ‘damaging the local ecology and environment’ (for example, hydro stations, forestry, fisheries were mentioned in survey responses). • explore other sources of grant funding that supported these types of activities and services – for example, Growth Deal funding. • introduce voluntary donation points – placing QR codes at strategic location points that asked visitors to contribute to enhancing local tourism infrastructure. Page 450
Page 451
72 • explore alternative income sources – suggestions included through the BID model or adopting a similar Accommodation Business Improvement District (ABID) initiative like Manchester, which is only charged by hotels with a rateable value of £75,000 or more, and within Manchester city centre and a small adjoining part of Salford. Business survey respondent quotes which broadly reflect some of these points are provided below. “In the same way that it has been paid for over the last several decades.” “Cut council staff numbers, plus huge wage rises. Spend more wisely.” “There is a massive council funding shortage to pay for your pension fund and you either need to ask Scot Government for more funds or raise Council Tax…but manipulating the figures for tourism and the income this levy could generate is misleading…and you will drive many small businesses (in hospitality, retail, wildlife tours, boat trips, etc.) out of business with this poorly thought out stealth tax.” “How much is spent specifically on the visitor economy now? Not much I imagine…The council need to carry out a top-down review of staffing/salaries/expenses and how they do business over the area.” “Using the money from the taxes we already pay.” “I would strongly suggest that infrastructure is paid for by the existing taxation that is in place already and paid by all working people and all of those spending money in the area who are subject to a 20% VAT on goods and services.” There was also feedback from businesses that either suggested that it was difficult for people /businesses to know how tourism infrastructure and services in Argyll and Bute could be paid for or that suggested other organisations (such as the council and Scottish Government) might be better placed to answer this question. These points are reflected in the following business survey respondent quotes. “The public already pays taxes in other ways for services and infrastructure. It is not the public’s place to suggest how (tourism infrastructure and services) is paid for when the public do not want this visitor levy.” “I don’t know how you expect a member of the public to answer (this question).” Page 451
Page 452
73 While the majority of businesses indicated at an earlier question that they did not support a visitor levy being introduced across Argyll and Bute, some of the feedback regarding how investment in tourism infrastructure and services could be paid for suggests an element of support for ensuring all types of visitors contribute. In the main these businesses were unhappy with definitions within the legislation for overnight accommodation or the requirement to set a visitor levy as a percentage of the chargeable transaction. As a way to raise additional revenue, many of these businesses suggested that the council could: • consider a visitor levy which applied to visitors in motorhomes and campervans (off-site) and wild campers – businesses raised negative impacts for the environment from these types of visitors such as pollution, congestion, and litter. • consider an approach whereby a visitor levy was collected directly by ferry operators, tour buses, cruise ships, and airports/airline companies. • consider a fixed amount per person and not a percentage or a banded fixed fee charging model – businesses considered this a more proportionate response and suggested it could generate additional revenue for the council to invest in tourism infrastructure and services. • consider a scheme on overseas visitors applied at point of entry or use number-plate recognition technology to charge visitors – these businesses suggested that local residents would ‘require to have a transmitter in their vehicle that excepts them from the charge.’ A further suggestion, albeit only mentioned by a small number of businesses, was that if a scheme is to be introduced, it should be a flat rate, preferably nationwide. More support for the sector is required from the Scottish Government and the council Some businesses did not consider a visitor levy the right solution for Argyll and Bute at this time, for the many and varied reasons outlined earlier in this chapter, including economic uncertainty and a downturn in the visitor economy and that in its current form they believed that a visitor levy could also deter visitors to the region and penalise residents. Here, support was expressed for solutions which saw the Scottish Government and A&BC doing more to: support more indigenous businesses to start up; support existing businesses to invest and grow; and attract more inward investment across the region to ensure a welcoming and affordable destination for visitors and a vibrant, prosperous community for its residents. The following business respondent quotes are broadly reflective of the points raised. Page 452
Page 453
74 “We need solutions that grow the economy, not ones that risk shrinking it under the weight of new charges”. “Future investments in tourism infrastructure is more likely to come from the private sector, by the set-up of new businesses, or expansion of existing ones.” “Argyll's tourist infrastructure goes hand in hand with the local economy, so continued investment in our towns and villages will ensure a viable population to support the tourist economy, and the infrastructure to facilitate it.” “There is an opportunity for all parties to engage on a discussion on what an appropriate, simple and effective scheme would look like - but this not what is in the legislation.” Alternative suggestions put forward by businesses included that: • the Scottish Government could: o address underfunding of local government in Scotland as a route to improving tourism infrastructure and services in local areas – with feedback that investment in tourism infrastructure and services should be ‘paid for through central government.’ o lobby for a ‘reduction in VAT for hospitality businesses’ to align with some European countries and to help make Scotland less expensive as a holiday destination. o lobby the UK Government to ensure that ‘existing tax revenue is getting to the Argyll and Bute communities that need it and in which it is raised’ – a further point made is that ‘local councils should see more of the tax revenue that comes from the sector through VAT, Air Passenger Duty, business rates and alcohol duty.’ • A&BC could: o seek targeted Scottish Government support for tourism infrastructure, especially from national funds earmarked for rural development or net zero targets. o make further investment in roads and infrastructure to improve connectivity and to make Argyll and Bute more accessible as well as ensure a more reliable ferry service – businesses considered that these improvements would encourage more visitors to the area and encourage them to stay for longer. o reduce obstacles and delays to planning permissions – to help reduce red tape and bureaucracy and to encourage hospitality businesses to invest in their properties. Page 453
Page 454
75 o enhance partnership working with stakeholders who have a role and remit to support the enhancement of tourism infrastructure and services or who directly benefit from an enhanced visitor offer and experience – the private sector, Destination Management Organisations, tourism boards, ferry companies, and large hospitality chains were all mentioned by businesses - another viewpoint expressed was that the council should ‘leave this to more appropriate organisations who are already doing this.’ o working with local businesses and tourism stakeholders to develop initiatives that encourage sustainable tourism, such as promoting off-season visits, diversifying the types of visitors Argyll and Bute attracts, and increasing the length of stays. o explore more targeted or voluntary levies that do not place such a heavy burden on accommodation providers alone. Collaboration with other local authorities or even the introduction of region-wide initiatives could help spread the financial responsibility more evenly. No further investment in tourism infrastructure is needed A counter argument, albeit raised by a small number of businesses to this question, was that Argyll and Bute does not need further investment in tourism infrastructure – this point was reflected in the business survey respondent quotes below. “Tourists come here for the landscape, outdoor activities, hill walking, the hospitality provided in quality accommodation and for the natural environment and what that offers, along with the quality food and drink offerings.” “The charm of our area is its lack of infrastructure - it does not need developing.” “There should be no investment if a visitor levy puts people out of work and puts visitors ahead of residents…. Visitors are coming to see the scenery, visit shops, cafés, restaurants…Visitors don’t need more toilet blocks or improvements in infrastructure. They benefit from thriving businesses and if a visitor levy comes in some places will be like ghost towns.” 3.8 What levy rate do you consider appropriate Businesses who selected either disagree or strongly disagree to the question ‘To what extent do you agree with the Argyll and Bute Council proposal to set a visitor levy rate at 5%?’ were asked ‘What rate would you consider is appropriate?’. Page 454
Page 455
76 The vast majority (85%) of these businesses said that a visitor levy rate should be less than 5%, see Table 3.9. Almost all of the remainder (14%) said they were ‘unsure’. Table 3.9: If you do not agree with a visitor levy being 5%, what rate would you consider is appropriate? Number Percentage A visitor levy rate should be less than 5% 177 85% A visitor levy rate should be greater than 5% 2 1% Don’t know 29 14% Source: A&BC Business Survey. Base=208. Note: the base number is low compared to the total number of business survey responses as survey routing means that those who selected options other than disagree or strongly disagree to the question ‘To what extent do you agree with the Argyll and Bute Council proposal to set a visitor levy rate at 5%?’ were not asked this question. Businesses who said that if a visitor levy is approved for Argyll and Bute then a visitor levy rate should be less than 5% raised similar concerns to those set out at previous questions. In summary, concerns were raised that a visitor levy rate as high as 5% in Argyll and Bute: • was not considered fair or proportionate. • would have a negative impact on the competitiveness of the region as a destination. • would have a detrimental impact on a sector that was struggling post COVID, with increased regulation, and within the current economic climate – and that it could constrain future growth. • would deter rather than encourage visitors to Argyll and Bute, including those on low incomes and families – businesses said that visitors already paid relatively high levels of tax on their accommodation (through a 20% VAT rate), and that a visitor levy would further increase costs for visitors. These businesses also expressed concerns: • that a visitor levy was not considered appropriate to particular aspects of the visitor economy on the Islands. • with other elements of the legislation - for example, how a visitor levy would be collected, the percentage funding model, etc. • on wider issues they considered would need addressed prior to the introduction of a visitor levy scheme in Argyll and Bute (and were also considered issues a visitor levy could not solve) – for example, a reliable ferry service, more reliable/accessible public transport, and better road infrastructure were often mentioned by businesses. • with other aspects of the A&BC proposals – for example, its current position on local exemptions. Page 455
Page 456
77 • that they did not believe the revenue generated would be invested by the council in improving tourism infrastructure and services. Only a small number of businesses suggested what a lower percentage levy rate could be considered appropriate in Argyll and Bute. Rather common responses were that ‘5% is very high’, ‘too expensive’, ‘Doesn't need to be as much as that’, ‘less than 5%’, or they even say that there should be ‘no visitor levy at all3.’ Where businesses provided an alternative percentage (absolute numbers were small), this ranged from 1% to 3%, and was mainly at the lower end of this range. As noted above, many others simply reiterated support for a nominal fixed amount per person rather than a percentage model – if a visitor levy was to be introduced at all. 3.9 Should there be a cap on the number of nights’ accommodation Setting business survey responses to this question in context Not all businesses that answered the question ‘Should there be a cap on the number of nights of accommodation that a visitor should pay a visitor levy?’ supported the introduction of a visitor levy and/or supported the legislation or council proposals in their current form. As illustrative examples, comments made by these businesses included ‘The cap should be 0 as there should be no levy at all’, and ‘0 nights, don’t do it’. The points raised in these responses are covered elsewhere in this chapter and have not been included in the analysis below to this specific question. Yes, there should be a cap Almost 60% of businesses asked this question said there should be a cap on the number of nights of accommodation that a visitor should pay a visitor levy, see Table 3.10. 3 As noted earlier, some respondents who selected disagree or strongly disagree to the question ‘To what extent do you agree with the Argyll and Bute Council proposal to set a visitor levy rate at 5%?’ go on to provide qualitative feedback to various questions that they do not support a visitor levy in Argyll and Bute (that is, they did not select the ‘I don’t support a visitor levy being introduced across Argyll and Bute’ option to this earlier question). Page 456
Page 457
78 Table 3.10: Do you think there should be a cap on the number of nights of accommodation that a visitor should pay a visitor levy? Number Percentage Yes 170 59% No 58 20% Don’t know 61 21% Source: A&BC Business Survey. Base=289. Note: the base number is lower than the total number of business survey responses as only businesses which did not select ‘I do not support a visitor levy in Argyll and Bute’ at the question ‘To what extent do you agree with the Argyll and Bute Council proposal to set a visitor levy rate at 5%?’ were asked this question in the survey. The pros of a cap on the number of nights of accommodation that a visitor should pay a visitor levy were framed in the following terms across these business survey responses: • a cap could be a fairer approach and help to keep the cost down for visitors – for example, for families, for those on a budget, for contractors working on infrastructure projects who typically stayed for long periods of time in Argyll and Bute, for relief nurses, doctors or teachers on a non-time specific contract on an island location, for hospitality workers housed in hotels due to a lack of accommodation, for cultural production staff and performers who stayed in temporary accommodation were all frequently mentioned (unless it was decided that non-tourist trips would be exempt). Visits to the islands in particular were also said to be expensive already. • a cap on the number of nights of accommodation that a visitor should pay a visitor levy might be unlikely to deter visitors or penalise visitors who want to stay longer – and also help ensure Argyll and Bute was not placed at a competitive disadvantage and not have a negative effect through all hospitality sectors as well as all the business sectors that rely on them. • a cap would align more closely with other places/countries with a visitor levy – these businesses said that other places/countries tend to have a cap on the maximum number of nights of accommodation that a visitor was required to pay a visitor levy. The following business respondent quotes are broadly respective of points raised. “It is important to consider the length of stay by workers who need to stay in the area.” “For any visitor, domestic or international, paying a visitor levy in every council area throughout an itinerary at a percentage rate will add a significant amount to a trip, in a destination that is already very expensive compared with many other destinations where visitors could choose to go. A cap on three nights gives enough to boost funds to support the visitor economy, which will also benefit local residents but without the optics of a visitor levy being purely financially motivated at the expense of visitors.” Page 457
Page 458
79 “We need to encourage visitors to the region, not push them elsewhere (where they don't have to pay extra fees). It also fails to support island residents who may have no choice but to utilise accommodation in the region for example pre-natal women from our islands are advised to spend up to a week, prior to their due date, on the mainland – a visitor levy will now add to that considerable cost.” Among businesses who thought there should be a cap on the number of nights of accommodation that a visitor should pay a visitor levy, the number of nights suggested ranged from one night to 14 nights but is mainly at the much lower end of this range. While not mentioned to a great extent, an alternative suggestion was that there could be a cap on the number of nights of accommodation that a visitor should pay a visitor levy at the agreed levy rate, and then a lower levy rate could be charged on nights stayed beyond this. Challenges with a cap were also highlighted by businesses who expressed support for a cap, including administrative challenges and potential issues for online booking platforms. Other comments made by businesses who expressed support for a cap included that it would need to be easy to explain and understand by visitors and accommodation providers, and easy to apply in practice. A common question asked by businesses was as follows. ‘What happens when (as is often the case) a visitor stays at several locations within Argyll and Bute?’ However, a small number of businesses said it was difficult to form an informed view on the maximum number of nights of accommodation that a visitor should be required to pay a visitor levy when a final decision has not been made by the council on a visitor levy rate – that is, they suggested their response to this question might differ if a visitor levy rate was set at 5% or if it was set lower than this. A further suggestion made was that the council could consider whether not to apply a visitor levy at different times of the year or in certain parts of the local authority boundary to tactically deploy a visitor levy to attract visitors during the low visitor season and encourage greater dispersal of visitor activity to less busier parts of their boundary to support sustainable tourism. And that there was also the potential to not apply a visitor levy to make visiting cheaper at certain times and potentially extend the visitor season. A point made was that not applying a visitor levy all year would also ‘help support some small accommodation businesses to not go over the £90,000 VAT threshold.’ Page 458
Page 459
80 No, there should not be a cap One-fifth of businesses said there should not be a cap on the number of nights of accommodation that a visitor should pay a visitor levy, see Table 3.10. These businesses thought a visitor levy should apply to all nights of accommodation regardless of duration of the duration of stay: • to simplify scheme administration and collection of a visitor levy – points raised included that it might be easier for businesses to calculate a visitor levy and for record keeping if there was no cap, that a cap could be a logistical challenge for booking platforms, and questions were raised about how a cap would work in practice for visitors who stayed with various accommodation providers during their visit. • to avoid any confusion for visitors and accommodation providers - for example, it was suggested that greater efforts would be needed around communication of a cap, including that a stay in the local area would need to be across a continual period and would not apply if staying overnight outside the local authority at points during a trip. • because visitors used local amenities for the whole of their visit. • it could be a fairer approach on accommodation providers of all sizes – as an example, it was suggested that a cap could make ‘week-long stays in self-catering properties more appealing than stays of one to three days in multiple hotels/B&Bs.’ • no cap would be unlikely to deter visitors from coming to Argyll and Bute – for example, for many visitors who came for shorter stays. Some of the points raised above are further reflected in the business respondent quote below. “Given average stay lengths vary considerably it is difficult to determine what the maximum number of chargeable nights should be. We would also note that the calculation and display of a visitor levy that only applies to a certain number of nights from the start of the stay is complex and would involve additional administrative work from accommodation providers and booking platforms. To ensure simplicity, we do not believe there should be a cap.” Unsure whether there should be a cap The remainder of businesses (21%) said that they were unsure whether there should be a cap on the number of nights of accommodation that a visitor should pay a visitor levy, see Table 3.10. Page 459
Page 460
81 3.10 Set-up and operational support for businesses The final survey question asked all businesses ‘What set-up and/or operational support for your business would you welcome, if a visitor levy scheme is agreed?’ Many businesses took the opportunity to restate points raised previously, for example, that they did not agree with a visitor levy for Argyll and Bute, or that they disagreed with elements of the legislation or the council’s proposals which were not considered fit for purpose for rural and island communities (for example, the proposal that a visitor levy is considered as business revenue and not exempt from VAT and other taxes, penalises island residents who at times have to stay on the mainland for non-leisure or business trips), or that they considered that best support the council could provide ‘would be to not introduce a visitor levy.’ Support to reduce the burden on accommodation businesses A common theme to emerge from across responses is that businesses (and key stakeholders) would welcome ongoing discussion and engagement with the council, should the council decide to proceed with a visitor levy for Argyll and Bute, about ‘how to reduce the burden on accommodation businesses.’ Indeed, the visitor levy guidance (referenced in Chapter 1) specifies that it is important that the administrative burden for smaller businesses is reduced to a minimum. There were renewed pleas by businesses for scheme processes and systems to be clear, efficient, and simple to use and that paperwork and reporting requirements should be easy to use/complete to help reduce additional regulatory burden placed on accommodation providers. A key concern was that micro and small accommodation providers might lack the resources and experience to implement complex levy collection systems. Some of this feedback was set in the context of businesses’ personal (negative) experiences of the Short-term Let Licence Scheme, and the importance of the council learning the lessons from the implementation of this scheme – and in terms of the additional ‘stress and anxiety’ the introduction of a visitor levy could cause business owners. Clear guidance and timelines Most businesses called for the provision of comprehensive information, guidance, and support, to help with the set-up and roll-out of a visitor levy scheme – as it would take time to adjust to the introduction of a new levy, not least ‘given the complexity of updating global platforms and accommodation systems.’ Page 460
Page 461
82 Suggestions included that the council would need to provide step-by step guidance, in-person and online information and training sessions, an advice phone line/email to help deal with queries, and a clear timeline. The ability for accommodation providers to be able to talk to someone in the council regarding any questions was considered vitally important to aid understanding and compliance. Businesses recommended that clear and concise guidance for accommodation providers should include how they calculate, apply, and collect a visitor levy (including for those providers who take direct bookings and use other booking platforms, to accommodate seasonal pricing, etc.) and information on data protection, etc. They also called for ongoing engagement and involvement of accommodation providers/industry “to identify any issues and solve them well in advance of a scheme going live” and “with teething problems thoroughly tested before the scheme is rolled out.” An appropriate lead-in time was further emphasised by businesses, as outlined in the legislation. Responses suggested that an 18-month timeline could provide sufficient opportunity to help the sector prepare and adapt, to support accommodation providers (and others, for example destination management companies, tour operators and booking platforms) through any transition and set-up period to ensure compliance, and to ensure that consumers were well-informed and to minimise confusion. Charging model and system Many businesses reiterated concerns about the percentage charging model and would welcome the support of the council to continue to make the case to the Scottish Government to revisit the legislation and to move to, for example, a banded fixed fee charging model that would be simpler to calculate for businesses. Further, many businesses reiterated concerns about the need for accommodation providers to administer and collect a visitor levy, and the implications this would have for businesses in terms of the time and costs associated with systems development - that is, ensuring appropriate systems were in place for collecting, processing, accounting for and payment of a visitor levy. Other support requirements identified by businesses included that the council could continue to explore alternative centralised methods of collecting a visitor levy and administering the scheme or using ‘QR code technology’. It was suggested that there would also need to be ongoing discussions with others, including online booking platforms and third party booking agents so that a visitor levy was deducted at source – these businesses suggested that alternative approaches could remove the need for accommodation providers to administer the charge or reduce the burden placed on them. Page 461
Page 462
83 Some business respondent quotes outlined below further illustrate the points raised. “In the islands it could be collected by CalMac, this could easily separate non tourist visitors from locals and business/essential workers especially with their new online booking system.” “From a business perspective, each business will need to have support in how a visitor levy is collected on behalf of the council and paid to the council. This will involve time and cost to the business, similar to submitting VAT Returns and will involve more expense for the business. The council will need to supply a digital accounting system and online support in order to manage a visitor levy separately from income accounts. I should not have to pay an accountant additional time to manage a visitor levy and the VAT on a visitor levy, this should be done by the council who will need to offer a simple online system to manage this easily and accurately.” The council should “develop a system that can deal directly with visitors - and verify with hosts when payment has been made - after which the host would confirm a holiday booking. This would be simpler and cheaper to administer…it should not be added to hosts income - it should be accounted for separately, perhaps through a dedicated account like the schemes that manage rental deposits. This would keep monies separate, would be much simpler to administer and would save hosts from being tax collectors and therefore vulnerable to punishment for mistakes.” Business cost recovery Linked to the afore-mentioned theme, many businesses emphasised the need for financial assistance (alongside other forms of support) from the council to help meet or cover the additional costs they would face from collecting a visitor levy – that is, ‘financial compensation or tax relief to offset the time, resources, and potential loss of business incurred through implementing a visitor levy.’ Administrative and funding support to cover the costs associated with IT systems development, IT systems upgrades or enhancements, automated systems to manage levy collection and reporting, new software related to booking systems and accounting programmes/packages, accountancy fees, marketing and communications, and website development and maintenance were all mentioned by businesses. Some business respondent quotes outlined below further illustrate the points raised. “As a visitor levy will be included within booking fees, meaning hosts will be paying that levy, a money-back system to repay hosts would be welcome to prevent us going out of business.” Page 462
Page 463
84 “We welcome that business cost recovery is factored into Argyll and Bute Council’s plans. However, we would encourage the council to carry out a detailed cost estimate for accommodation providers setting up and administering the visitor scheme to gauge an appropriate amount to help meet the additional costs they will face from collecting a visitor levy.” “Financial recompense to act as additional TAX collector plus support with all software and accounts suppliers to update accounting services. Information on how packages on rooms, food and leisure facilities are to be split on what areas any % levy is attributed. Business does not show package split to guests. Operational support required on how to manage this process.” “Funding to cover additional costs and time in managing and collecting funds on the behalf of the Council… if private business will, in effect, administer the scheme on behalf of the Council, they should be paid for it.” “If a visitor levy is greed, and I hope it is not, at the very least we should be given the 2% reimbursement that has also been agreed with Edinburgh. That should at least help us cover some of the costs and time associated with this scheme.” “Full compensation for administrative time and a reimbursement for lost income due to lower visitor numbers and less economic growth.” “If a scheme is introduced businesses will need 100% set up costs, including integration with existing systems and platforms, plus also costs for administering the scheme on an ongoing basis.” “If A&BC does introduce a visitor levy then they should ringfence the income to cover ALL costs incurred by businesses in collecting a visitor levy. This includes set-up costs / admin of levy / reporting requirements / covering vat on levy / covering card payment costs / covering any addition tax burden as a visitor levy is counted as income / covering costs if dealing with exclusions / compensating businesses for loss of earnings when it decimates the industry.” Role of a local Visitor Levy Forum A small number of businesses referred to the role of a Visitor Levy Forum in their response to the question which asked about set-up and operational support businesses might need if a visitor levy scheme for Argyll and Bute was agreed. Page 463
Page 464
85 Points raised included that a Visitor Levy Forum: • could have a central role in informing the final decisions made about how a visitor levy would be spent and reviewing the scheme, acting as a crucial safeguard that levy revenue was spent as the legislation intended and that it benefits the businesses who have the burden of collecting the charge. • ensure transparent and regular reporting on how revenue generated would be allocated and on expenditure and ensure business and community input. • could work closely with the council on a regular basis during the first 18 months of implementing a scheme to monitor if it has caused any damage to the sector and its businesses. • could undertake periodic reviews (at the one and three year mark were suggested) of the scheme to evaluate/determine whether it should remain in place – and that the review process should include engagement with industry. • remain open to the possibility that the council might want to withdraw a visitor levy scheme if it was not working effectively for Argyll and Bute, local businesses, and the wider visitor economy, ensuring there were mechanisms in place to pause or end the scheme. The points raised in survey responses are broadly covered in the visitor levy guidance which local authorities need to follow. Other feedback from businesses A small number of businesses suggested that more detail would be required on the council’s proposals in order to make an informed view on set-up and operational support requirements. There were also comments that suggested it was difficult for accommodation providers to identify the nature and scale of support required to mitigate the additional administrative cost and burden of a visitor levy. A few business respondent quotes outlined below further illustrate the points raised. “Until this levy is actually put in place (if it goes ahead) no one can actually say what they'll need.” “A visitor levy is a negative step for tourism in Argyll and Bute. It is difficult to see what support could mitigate this.” “The support needed would outweigh any revenue that we could collect.” Page 464
Page 465
86 4 Residents survey results 4.1 Introduction This chapter presents the residents survey analysis. A total of 2,061 responses were received from residents and included in the survey analysis, as described in Chapter 2. 4.2 Residents survey respondents Using postcode data, Figure 4.1 maps the location of residents’ survey respondents. Figure 4.1: Postcode map of resident survey respondents Base=1,934. Where incomplete postcodes were provided, these responses have not been recorded on the map. Page 465
Page 466
87 4.3 Visitor levy scheme objectives The survey asked residents the extent to which they agreed or disagreed with the four visitor levy scheme objectives for Argyll and Bute, see Table 4.1. Feedback was mixed, including that: • the highest level of agreement was with the objective on ‘Sustaining and improving the visitor offer’ – over half (52%) of residents either agreed or strongly agreed with this objective. • the level of agreement was more mixed with the other three objectives - this ranged from 37% who agreed or strongly agreed with ‘The journey towards net zero’ objective’ to 45% for ‘Reaching new audiences.’ • there was a high level of disagreement with all four objectives – this ranged from 34% who disagreed or strongly disagreed with the ‘Sustaining and improving the visitor offer’ objective to 44% for ‘The journey towards net zero’ objective. Some residents provided specific comments on the proposed visitor levy objectives. While there was some agreement with the proposed visitor levy objectives, many of these residents’ raised concerns or disagreed with the objectives in some way – as was reflected in the responses to the closed question. While there was some agreement that the objectives were ‘admirable’ or broadly acceptable in principle (‘nothing to disagree with’), some residents questioned how deliverable and achievable the proposed objectives were given the existing financial pressures the council faced. Further, some residents considered the council’s proposals lacked a clear, evidence-based rationale for the introduction of a visitor levy scheme and its contribution to achieving the proposed objectives. Residents were also concerned that the level of revenue estimated to be generated through a visitor levy scheme might be ‘insufficient’ to address these objectives. “I cannot see how raising up to £8-£9million per annum max will achieve these vague objectives? That is, improving inter-island connectivity needs ships that cost way more. Plus £8 million over the whole of the Argyll area realistically equates to about £1million per main population area, for example so Oban might get £1m? This will not cover all you mention above.” “I do not believe you have stated how a visitor levy will fund better facilities etc. for tourists, so I cannot agree with the aims and objectives.” Page 466
Page 467
88 Some residents said that the objectives were too general – this fed into a view expressed that any visitor levy scheme revenue should be treated as ‘additional’ and not used to cover statutory obligations of the council. They also questioned the need for a visitor levy scheme if improvements in infrastructure and services could be covered by other means (for example, council taxation). Some residents expressed disagreement with a couple of the objectives, most notably: • the ‘Extending the season’ objective - most residents who provided feedback on this objective did not consider it appropriate. The main points raised in survey responses included that extending the season could place additional strain on existing infrastructure, and there was a need to strike an appropriate balance between meeting the needs of residents/communities first and foremost and efforts to attract visitors. • the ‘Journey to net zero’ objective - while some residents supported this objective in principle, others felt it was too specific or questioned its relevance. Another viewpoint expressed was that net zero should be a core and overarching aim for the council rather than dependent on tourism-related revenue generated by a visitor levy scheme. “The primary objective however is concerning - extending the season and spreading demand seems to suggest that the very purpose is to drive away demand from the busier, more expensive, times of year and parts of the region as a percentage will make them even more expensive and therefore drive demand to a time and area of cheaper rates where the percentage levy would be less impactful.” “A visitor levy scheme objectives are interesting and in some ways contradictory - aims to increase tourism will increase the pressure on already strained services and I am not convinced the income from a visitor levy scheme will compensate for this.” “I don't see why net zero is a factor in this visitor levy. Surely any new transport connection (mentioned in other aims) should be low carbon options in this day and age. Net Zero should be an overall aim of the council not a separate aim of a visitor levy.” “The journey to net zero is a goal with much wider scope, not specific to tourism, and should not be part of a visitor levy scheme.” “These four broad aims are supported by many other Government and Council initiatives, (for example, net zero) and do not need to be duplicated by a visitor levy.” Page 467
Page 468
89 Table 4.1: To what extent do you agree or disagree with the A&BC visitor levy scheme objectives? Objectives Strongly agree Agree Neither agree or disagree Disagree Strongly disagree Number % Number % Number % Number % Number % Extending the season and spreading visitors across the destination – for example, infrastructure, amenities, events, and marketing 341 17% 503 25% 351 17% 245 12% 602 29% Reaching new audiences: marine, coastal, cultural and outdoors tourism – for example, visitor product development, inter-island connectivity, step ashore facilities, showcasing producers, culture and heritage 378 19% 537 26% 342 17% 236 12% 549 27% Sustaining and improving the visitor offer – for example, transport options, destination investment (including toilets), support for individual tourism businesses to help them improve their products and services (grants, training, advice, toolkits) 540 26% 524 26% 276 14% 189 9% 513 25% The journey towards net zero – for example, investment in sustainable tourism, business advice and support, low-carbon transport networks 385 19% 372 18% 398 19% 236 12% 651 32% Source: A&BC Residents Survey. Base=2042 (for each statement) Page 468
Page 469
90 4.4 Other things residents would like to see a visitor levy spent on Half of residents answered the follow-on question ‘If there are other things you would like to see a visitor levy spent on please tell us here?’. Some residents did not directly answer this question and is reflected in the themes presented below. Similar to the business survey, residents were keen to express the extent to which they supported a visitor levy scheme in Argyll and Bute or otherwise. Comments related to the proposed visitor levy scheme Many residents who answered this question took the opportunity to state that they: • did not agree with the introduction of a visitor levy scheme in Argyll and Bute. • or did not agree with the national legislation or with aspects of the council’s draft proposals in their current form. Many of these residents expressed disagreement as they thought a visitor levy scheme could have a negative impact on tourism and local businesses in Argyll and Bute. These residents highlighted risks that a visitor levy could have on deterring visitors, particularly in an area where the industry was said to be struggling and where the cost-of-living crisis was increasingly said to be influencing visitors’ choice of destination. Another view expressed by residents was that a visitor levy scheme might reduce the region’s competitiveness and affordability as a destination compared to similarly attractive rural areas in Scotland and the UK (for example, the Lake District and Cornwall were mentioned in a small number of responses). These residents felt that Argyll and Bute might be placed at a disadvantage as many similar rural destinations did not currently have a visitor levy and/or were not planning to introduce a visitor levy. Another point raised was that residents considered Argyll and Bute to be different to other areas which have decided to introduce a visitor levy – for example, cities where people would visit ‘regardless’ of a visitor levy (for example, Edinburgh and elsewhere abroad). Residents raised concerns that a visitor levy could reduce footfall and revenue/income for local businesses - many of which were said to operate on the ‘slimmest profit margins’ within the hospitality and visitor economy. Points raised included that a visitor levy could accelerate business closure, affect the many seasonal staff employed by these businesses, leading to job losses or reduced working hours (as well as constrain future employment growth), and result in a broader decline in the vibrancy of towns and communities across Argyll and Bute. Page 469
Page 470
91 Compounding existing financial pressures faced by the visitor economy/accommodation providers with the introduction of a visitor levy or ‘accommodation tax’ was described by residents as a potential ‘nail in the coffin’ for local businesses. The rising cost-of-living pressures on residents and visitors was also emphasised within these survey responses, including reference to the increased costs of ferry services and Council Tax in Argyll and Bute. Some of the points raised above are reflected in the following resident quotes: “I would prefer a visitor levy were not introduced, as it immediately places Argyll and Bute at a disadvantage compared to the many areas of Scotland that have opted not to introduce a visitor levy, and therefore will be priced more competitively. In a cost of living crisis, with the current travel market in Scotland down compared to recent years, adding an extra financial cost on top just makes people more likely to rule Argyll and Bute out, in favour of other, equally lovely, parts of Scotland that will be by definition more affordable alternatives as a result of not having a visitor levy.” “If you expect owners to fund a visitor levy themselves, to keep rates competitive with areas without a visitor levy, then you are pushing them out of business. On top of the huge expense of the short-term lets licensing scheme, owners simply won't be able to keep going, causing job losses, lost income and knock-on effects of reduced tourist spending in the area, as fewer will be able to stay. It is short sighted on all fronts”. “…the legislation and proposed mechanism in its current form is fatally flawed. It’s anti- business and anti-tourism and risks damage to Argyll’s fragile visitor base economy.” “It will severely impact local businesses and residents within Argyll and Bute. Our economy is dependent on visitor spending in the region. Expecting visitors to pay more to stay in the area will simply drive them to seek a cheaper option abroad or elsewhere in the UK.” “Coming on top of a 19.5% ferry fares hike in just over two years, the Council Tax rise of 9.9%, increased National Insurance and lowering payment thresholds, energy cost increases along with a variety of other substantial cost uplifts, we strongly consider that it would be further damaging for our economy and for the well-being and welfare of our community.” Residents also provided comment on the council’s current position regarding no local exemptions (see Section 4.5 of this chapter for more detail). The main point raised was that no exemptions could further penalise local residents, particularly those living in island communities, who often travelled and stayed overnight on the mainland to access healthcare or employment opportunities and who already paid Council Tax. Page 470
Page 471
92 A related point made was that Island residents often faced unavoidable travel disruption due to ferry delays or cancellations which necessitated unplanned overnight accommodation on the mainland. Albeit to a lesser extent, residents also mentioned the proposed 5% levy rate in Argyll and Bute as well as a visitor levy being set as a percentage rate rather than a flat rate at this question. For some residents, the proposed rate was considered ‘excessive’ and could further deter tourists/ visitors to the area, while they thought that the percentage rate would place an additional administrative burden on accommodation providers. What should visitor levy revenue be spent on? Many residents answered the follow-on question ‘If there are other things you would like to see a visitor levy spent on please tell us here?’ by identifying specific areas for investment. The main themes identified relate to investment in infrastructure that benefits both residents and visitors, transport infrastructure, environmental sustainability, visitor-related services, and business support and sustainability. Investment in infrastructure that benefits residents and visitors Many residents stated that, if introduced, revenue generated from a visitor levy scheme should be invested transparently and directly into local infrastructure and services which benefit both residents and visitors and to help offset the impacts of tourism. These residents suggested that infrastructure could not be easily differentiated as visitor infrastructure as it was used by residents and visitors alike. Indeed, some residents said that visitors often have a disproportionate impact on local infrastructure and services, particularly during peak seasons and on fragile island infrastructure, and that this was exacerbated when existing infrastructure was not routinely maintained or improved. “As visitors use all the facilities that we as residents use, and potentially cause more wear and tear, any extra money is a great idea and should be used to improve local infrastructure across Argyll and Bute.” “Without Argyll and Bute being attractive to residents, it will not be perceived as attractive to would-be visitors. Make the place attractive to those who stay here will help and contribute to pride, positivity and welcoming. In other words, make sure 'here' is the best it can be to protect, encourage and sustain the local community FIRST. That means investment in the quality of existing amenities, services and infrastructure used day-to-day by locals.” Page 471
Page 472
93 “If a visitor levy goes ahead, it must be spent on visitor facilities, ideally those which have a positive benefit for local communities, e.g. public transport, amenities such as parking and toilets, signage...after all as residents we are also very often leisure visitors to our own area.” Transport infrastructure Many residents identified transport and roads as a priority for what revenue generated by a visitor levy scheme could be spent on. These residents said that roads throughout Argyll and Bute were in poor condition, with wide reference in responses to potholes, a lack of adequate parking provision, and a lack of a safe and sustainable traffic flow management systems which could create dangerous ‘choke points’ around certain areas (for example, the A82 was frequently mentioned in responses). These residents highlighted that the introduction of a visitor levy scheme could encourage a further increase in wild camping, camper vans and motorhomes (off-site) in Argyll and Bute. Responses highlighted an increasing number of motorhomes etc. as a main cause for degradation of road infrastructure in Argyll and Bute as well as causing other problems, such as littering. They suggested that visitor levy revenue could be invested in the increased provision of basic amenities and facilities, such as toilets and waste disposal points, to support or mitigate any unintended consequences of introducing a visitor levy scheme in Argyll and Bute. Some residents considered a visitor levy scheme to be ‘unfair’ or ‘inconsistent’ as it did not apply to off-site motorhomes or campervans, which residents felt places increased pressure on local infrastructure and services, particularly roads and verges. These residents felt that a visitor levy scheme, if introduced, should also apply to visitors in campervans and motorhomes (off-site) to mitigate this impact. However, the practical challenges of collecting contributions from off-site visitors (aside from a donations box suggestion) was also acknowledged. “Campervan waste/water facilities, infrastructure to provide more lay-bys for camper vans to 'wild' camp overnight. An accommodation levy will make campervans, staying outside campsites, much more appealing. If you create a problem, you should add in a fix for that problem.” “…my main concern is that applied as proposed, such a visitor levy could have the unintended consequence of increasing the number of camper vans and wild campers to the area. These visitors pay nothing and are responsible for many of the issues, especially litter and anti-social behaviour.” Page 472
Page 473
94 “Islay has many motorhome visitors, which is not an issue in itself. But a lack of camping options on the island is pushing more motorhome users to 'wild camp' in popular spots. This leads to an increase in littering. Due to no public toilet facilities being by these spots, it leads to other unfavourable results too.” “My concern is that if a visitor levy is only applied to paid accommodation, it could drive even more visitors to camping and camper vans. We need to spend money on improvements to camp and caravan sites but include a camp or campervan permit based on when they arrive and depart from a region or county as many seem to think that “wild camping” should be free.” Some residents said more reliable ferry services were a priority area for investment. Residents emphasised that ferry travel was a vital part of the region’s transport network (for residents and visitors) due to the large number of islands and peninsulas in Argyll and Bute. Responses referred to ‘well-documented failings’ and disruptions with the Caledonian MacBrayne’s ferry service in recent years. Wider suggestions for investment included reopening Helensburgh Pier and reversing the decline of the Dunoon-Gourock passenger ferry. “In Campbeltown, we have been told once again by CalMac that the ferry from Ardrossan via Brodick to Campbeltown will be taken for an island route… We need a reliable ferry route for locals and visitors alike. Putting on a catamaran which would take us to the real mainland would be possible with money from a visitor levy.” “The failings of the MacBrayne’s ferry replacements are very well documented. While the “finger pointing” on who is to blame continues, the plain fact is that the islanders are the ones who suffer.” Linked to ‘The journey to net zero’ objective, some residents reported that visitor levy scheme revenue could be used to provide more publicly available rapid Electric Vehicle (EV) charging points throughout Argyll and Bute – they suggested that this could help to accommodate the large amount of peak tourist traffic as well as futureproof the region’s transport infrastructure. Environmental sustainability Many residents emphasised the importance of visitor levy revenue being invested in activities that contributed towards environmental sustainability. These residents identified the need to mitigate the negative impacts of tourism such as increased waste and litter, particularly around key visitor sites such as beaches. Page 473
Page 474
95 The most common suggestion made by residents included greater provision of good-quality and well-maintained public toilets followed by a plentiful supply of bins (which were regularly uplifted). Other suggestions included beach cleaning throughout Argyll and Bute. “A visitor levy should fund improvements to amenities and the towns to make visiting towns across Argyll and Bute more attractive. For example, the beaches at Ganavan in Oban - the council has done nothing to enhance Big Ganavan since it sold off the ground for house building. It should be a beautiful destination for locals & visitors but it’s not! You don’t provide the greatest asset (view looking out across the sea) but you could make Ganavan a more attractive place to sit and relax or enjoy water sports/activities.” “Undertaking regular beach cleaning around villages and waste disposal uplift from public areas, this would make a huge environmental impact and can be enjoyed by communities and visitors.” “Upgrading of local environments – for example, village pavements, (enforced) external painting for prominent unsightly premises, rural footpaths, public toilets, signage, information boards, fast charging points, financial aid for re-use of derelict or unused property, some form of grant assistance where needed for local artists, boat-based and other wildlife tours, restaurants, gift-shops, and similar tourist oriented small businesses, sponsoring and encouraging book/food/art etc.-festivals, working to attract new small businesses into the area.” Visitor-related services Some residents suggested that visitor levy revenue could contribute to increased provision of visitor-related information services, such as local tourist offices as they said that some had closed in recent years. Further, residents considered provision such as information boards and campaigns important to help mitigate the environmental impact of tourism by educating and supporting visitors to have a ‘smaller footprint’ when they visited Argyll and Bute. “Keeping tourist offices open so that visitors can get in-person advice suited to their individual needs rather than generic information online that might not be ideal for their particular circumstances.” “Information for visitors to let them understand that Argyll & Bute is not primarily just a holiday destination. To be aware that inconsiderate behaviour such as driving too slowly and not allowing overtaking, parking in appropriate places, dumping rubbish at the roadside, can adversely affect the day to day lives of residents and businesses here.” Page 474
Page 475
96 “Investment in a tourist information centre at a local level to encourage people to come to the area and spend money locally.” Business support and sustainability A small number of residents suggested that visitor levy revenue could be used by the council to proactively support more local businesses to startup, survive and/or grow. These responses emphasised the role of a healthy, thriving, and vibrant business community (and towns) that offered a diverse range of food, accommodation, and leisure activities as a way to help attract visitors to Argyll and Bute. Wider suggestions made by residents included that reduced business rates could also help to address issues such as empty/derelict/vacant units in the region. Residents also suggested that accommodation providers would require financial and other forms of support to help them cover the additional costs/effort required to administer the proposed visitor levy scheme. “Financial support or incentives to make tourism businesses more sustainable.“ “Desperately need to support businesses and tourism providers to continue to exist and enhance their offering. Very few pubs, eateries, local food providers to facilitate tourism.” “Helping small business shops start up with zero council taxes for a few years etc. rents in shop fronts already kill off a small shop business in the beginning. Then taxes and fuel costs too make it unsustainable.” “I would love to see it go to local small businesses, as we have seen many of them close down over the last few years here on Islay.” Transparency in how revenue generated through the proposed levy scheme would be spent Many residents called for full transparency in how any visitor levy revenue would be spent in Argyll and Bute to ensure residents could hold the council to account (that is, to ensure the revenue was used for its intended purpose). Scepticism and a general lack of trust was expressed in residents' survey responses on the council’s ability to manage funds effectively, which fed into a wider negative view expressed that the proposed visitor levy scheme was a ‘money-grabbing’ exercise or simply another form of taxation. For example, some residents pointed to the recent increase in Council Tax and questioned the need for a visitor levy scheme as a way to generate additional revenue for tourism infrastructure. Page 475
Page 476
97 To mitigate these concerns, many of these residents believed that visitor levy revenue should be ring-fenced, retained and spent in the area and community it was raised. This was considered ‘fair’, in particular for those areas in Argyll and Bute which have the most visitors and therefore additional pressure on local infrastructure and services. To a lesser extent, some residents said that the revenue raised should be distributed equitably across Argyll and Bute. There were strong calls from these residents for communities to have a meaningful say in how the revenue generated through a visitor levy scheme would be spent – survey responses emphasised that residents and communities were best placed to identify and understand local needs and priorities. A concern raised was that a visitor levy might not benefit rural communities, especially smaller towns and areas that already struggle with tourism-related issues. ‘Participatory budgeting’ was highlighted in responses as a potential useful mechanism for involving communities in decision-making processes. “There is a requirement to invest the funds to help manage tourism impacts and the visitor experience but how will this investment be allocated? How could we be sure that funds would be spent locally, for example, here on Lismore? What will the funds be spent on and will communities have any involvement in decisions on how and where the funds are spent?” “A visitor levy should be passed on, in full, to local groups who can then decide how best to spend the money raised. Under no circumstances would I support a visitor levy if it were to be added to general funding for wider public services. Any money raised locally should be funnelled back into the local community.” “We want transparency on how the funds generated are allocated; that communities are involved in how and where the funds are utilised and that a clear undertaking will be provided on the allocation and use of funds locally.” “A visitor levy must absolutely be ring-fenced for the specific part of Argyll and Bute it is collected in. You say a visitor levy is to support the tourists that place demand and strain on an area and public services, therefore by your own reasoning, it must be re-invested proportionately with the locations in which it is collected - so funds collected on Mull, are reinvested on Mull, funds collected in Oban, reinvested in Oban.” “A proportion of the money should be split between areas/committees for participatory budgeting purposes to allow residents and businesses in local areas to have a say in what the money gets spent on.” Page 476
Page 477
98 “The funds raised on Coll from a visitor levy would not be ring-fenced and used here but would go into a general fund to be spent (probably) elsewhere. There certainly are services that could benefit here from specific funding in order to manage tourism impacts but unless the Coll Levy revenue is retained here, it is highly unlikely that the island will see any benefit from it. Coll is a very small island with virtually no voice within Argyll and Bute. If a visitor levy were to go ahead, we would have no say in how the money was to be spent so that future consultation would automatically leave us at a disadvantage compared to louder and more numerous voices.” 4.5 Exemptions Residents who agreed with the council’s current position on local exemptions Around one-quarter of residents (26%) either agreed or strongly agreed with the council’s current proposal that there should be no local exemptions beyond those set out nationally in the visitor levy scheme legislation, see Table 4.2. As noted earlier, the council’s current position is that this would ensure administration requirements of the scheme are kept to a minimum and would maximise the revenues generated to sustain, support, and develop the visitor economy. Table 4.2: To what extent do you agree or disagree with the council’s current position on local exemptions? Number Percentage Strongly agree 291 14% Agree 249 12% Neither agree nor disagree 261 13% Disagree 248 12% Strongly disagree 927 45% Don’t know 66 3% Source: A&BC Residents Survey. Base=2,042. Most residents who agreed or strongly agreed with the council’s current position on local exemptions said that this was ‘reasonable’ or ‘fair’ – for example, survey responses expressed support for exemptions identified at a national level, in particular for disabled people (the extra cost of disability argument), and that it made sense for alignment at this level. Some residents were supportive of the council’s current position on local exemptions as they considered it important that the council struck the right balance in allowing exemptions for certain groups and individuals while also ensuring the ‘efficient’ administration of a visitor levy scheme. Page 477
Page 478
99 These residents were cautious about applying local exemptions as they considered that this could: • increase the complexity of scheme administration and could make it too onerous, in particular for micro and small accommodation providers – these residents emphasised that any visitor levy scheme should be easy to understand and implement. • risk inconsistency or discrimination between people eligible and not eligible for exemptions – for example, a view expressed was that too many exemptions might undermine trust in a visitor levy as it could be perceived to be unfair by those who were not exempt. • reduce the revenue available for investment in local infrastructure and services – these residents mentioned that local exemptions could increase the administrative cost and could also dilute the scheme’s overall effectiveness and impact. A few residents’ quotes which further illustrate these points are provided below. “If a scheme is introduced it needs to be simple and clear. The more exemptions there are the more it will be resented by those who pay it "Am I the only visitor who is actually paying this thing?" “I feel it is fair enough since I imagine adding further checks on if someone is a local or not, would just be an extra burden and annoyance on the businesses involved.” “I believe that limiting exemptions is important since watering this down will open the door to large numbers of exemption requests and complaints and effective progress will be stymied.” “Administration should be mapped onto national agreed systems and processes.” “The national stance should be adopted locally, unless there is good reason not to.” Residents who disagreed with the council’s current position on local exemptions Over half (57%) of residents either disagreed or strongly disagreed with the council’s current position on local exemptions – most of whom strongly disagreed, see Table 4.2. A point raised was that the draft scheme made ‘no differentiation between tourists and essential visitors.’ Residents should be exempt from a visitor levy Overwhelmingly, the most common reason expressed by residents who disagreed with the council’s current position on local exemptions was that they believed local residents should be exempt from payment. Page 478
Page 479
100 Most of these residents said that a lack of local exemptions penalises residents, particularly those living in island communities, who often travel and stay overnight on the mainland for essential non- leisure reasons, such as health appointments, shopping, visiting family, livestock sales, supplies for their businesses and other purposes, and face at least a one or two night stay if not more. Further, many residents considered that a visitor levy would mean they would be charged an ‘accommodation tax’ in addition to the Council Tax they already paid – including when the overnight stay in paid accommodation was unplanned due to, for example, ferry delays or cancellations. A small number of residents who disagreed with the council’s current position on local exemptions went further and suggested that residents who live in Scotland and the UK should also be exempt. Some quotes which reflect the points raised are presented below. “We have unique geographical restrictions which require islanders, pregnant ladies and NHS workers to stay locally, and I think that it is unfair to apply a visitor levy to them.” “If a visitor levy applies to people living in Argyll and Bute (A&B) then it is not a visitor levy. Many residents need to stay overnight in other parts of A&B for things such as hospital visits, work, or due to a cancelled or missed ferry.” “Argyll and Bute covers a vast area, and residents sometimes have to stay in accommodation for many reasons other than leisure i.e. in preparation for a hospital stay, caring for/visiting relatives/friends in hospital, awaiting next connecting ferry or bus/train, breakdown of travel services (esp. ferries but could include bus/train services or even personal transport), relatives visiting i.e. children visiting parents in a care home/funeral. If levy was purely visitors/leisure purposes, there would be more sense to it but applying it across the board will financially impact some relatives at a time they least need it.” “I understand the need to introduce a visitor levy for visitors who use the services in Argyll and Bute, but residents already pay council tax. I think there will be a lot more support for a visitor levy if local people are made exempt.” “Argyll has many island communities who already have higher living costs due to ferry freight costs etc. Coll is penalised by its ferry timetable generally requiring check-ins by 6.30am meaning an overnight stay in Oban. To have to also pay more for workers to come to the island and have friends or family to stay is hardly taxing tourists… A significant part of this tax will be funded directly or indirectly by island residents.” Page 479
Page 480
101 “A visitor levy would apply to Coll residents staying overnight in Oban who were only on the mainland to, for example, attend an appointment within Argyll & Bute. Such appointments are not just confined to medical or dental needs but include all and every service not available on Coll – this could be anything from a haircut to an MOT. This has nothing to do with tourism. It is not and has never been possible for Coll residents to travel to and back from the mainland in one day by ferry.” “The principle behind a visitor levy, that those non residents who impact on our local services and environments, should be responsible for any damage they do to our communities has some support, but as demonstrated in our previous comments, this is not the way to do it, It needs to be much better thought through so that residents, businesses and those who have to visit the island to meet island needs in terms of services are protected, perhaps by a resident or island pass like the ferry pass.” Some residents highlighted that living and working in the region has become increasingly challenging and costly in part due to centralised service delivery (for example, healthcare was mentioned in responses) as well as the cost-of-living crisis. Survey responses referred to the ‘rural premium’ (that is, people in remote and rural areas paid higher prices for goods and services relative to those in urban areas). Further, some residents queried whether the council’s current position on local exemptions complied with the Islands (Scotland) Act 2018 and whether an Island Impact Assessment of the proposed visitor levy scheme has been conducted and/or published by the council4. These residents called for a human-rights based approach to ensure that a visitor levy scheme in Argyll and Bute did not penalise local residents, in particular in terms of residents’ access to healthcare. Some quotes which reflect the points raised are presented below. “Under the Islands Act there is a responsibility for the council to consider the 'differentiated impact' of policy on islanders. For those of us living in an island and working across Argyll it is often difficult or even impossible to attend to work on the mainland or in other islands without an overnight stay.” 4 See also Appendix 2 of the Special Council meeting on 20 December 2024. Page 480
Page 481
102 “The proposed Visitor Levy is clearly discriminatory against islanders. Tiree residents have no option but to travel to the mainland to attend hospital clinics, specialist livestock sales, shops or family re-unions on what is classified as a ‘lifeline route’. Early sailing times usually necessitate an overnight stay in Oban. A Visitor Levy will therefore be a tax on island life.” “We would draw attention to key findings from the Scottish Human Rights Commission study into the Economic, Social and Cultural Rights in the Highlands and Islands published in 2024. Particular human rights concerns raised by the Commission in rural areas recorded ‘inaccessible health care services’; ‘transport connectivity to essential public services’; and ‘access to technology or poor internet connectivity” are highlighted. All of which can contribute to local people requiring to stay away from home to exercise their right to health. We would encourage the council, as duty-bearers, to make policy-based decisions around the introduction of a Visitor Levy using a Human Rights Framework; that local policy is non- retrogressive, that barriers to accessing health are not inadvertently strengthened and rather, that a progressive realisation approach underpins local policy making which seeks to improve citizens’ rights.” Further, residents emphasised that local exemptions would be necessary to ensure ‘fairness’ and did not agree that these would increase the administration requirements of the scheme to an ‘unreasonable’ level. These residents made several practical suggestions, such as using existing travel passes or a proof- of-address system (similar to the Highland Railcard) to support a straightforward and simple exemption process which could be replicated across Argyll and Bute. “A system similar to the Highland Railcard should be used; whereby providing proof of main residential postcode entitles users to a reduced rate. A similar system should be used for Argyll residents who need to stay over in other parts of the region for work / healthcare reasons because of the geographical complexities of the region. Failure to do this will just penalise locals even further.” “Anyone living in Argyll should be exempt from a visitor levy. This can be easily recorded by giving the address and drivers licence as proof. Just as we have to prove when applying to the Scottish Rail for the Highland Rail Card and Council for the Bus Pass.” “You are penalising people to make the administration easier and maximise income without proper consideration of locals and their needs especially those impacted heavily by island living and its challenges.” Page 481
Page 482
103 “I believe that all residents of Argyll and Bute should be exempt from a visitor levy and if this is not possible due to the burden of administering this, I would not be supportive of a visitor levy at all.” Workers and tradespeople that stay in the region should be exempt Many residents raised concerns about the impact of a visitor levy on, for example, tradespeople and essential workers (for example NHS staff), who often required short-term accommodation in Argyll and Bute. Residents noted that a visitor levy could make it difficult for local employers to recruit and retain staff and that it could also increase the costs of goods and services, some of which might be passed on by tradespeople to customers, further penalising local residents. “A visitor levy would also increase the cost of hiring contracts, both for individuals and businesses, if the contractor needs to stay overnight, which is often the case in remote areas.” “Business visitors should not be charged a visitor levy in Argyll & Bute: this includes contractors carrying out work that cannot be sourced locally; e.g. SSE, Scottish Water, Openreach etc, building contractors, stranded delivery drivers, those delivering essential training, locum doctors, midwives, supply teachers etc. All such visitors bring vital services essential to our local economy and are not 'tourists'.” “Ambulance service personnel are often required to stay in visitor accommodation and any levy imposed would be a further burden on the health service.” “We already struggle to bring tradespeople, plumbers, builders, roofers and other essential workers such as NHS and care staff to the island, especially in winter with our minimal winter ferry service which means they may have to stay here several nights. They always have to stay at least one night even in the summer, with only one ferry a day and the weekly air service being unreliable and frequently booked up. It will mean the islanders one way or another will be paying the extra costs which will be passed on to them.” Carers accompanying people with a disability should be exempt Many residents in their response to this question suggested that paid and unpaid carers accompanying a person with a disability should be exempt from a visitor levy charge. Residents referred to the example in the consultation paper, whereby the person with a disability would be exempt but not their carer(s). They noted that carers were essential and helped support disabled people to visit Argyll and Bute, and that their stay could be considered as essential work rather than a leisure trip. Page 482
Page 483
104 A wider point raised was that a visitor levy could further penalise those disabled people who have paid for a carer and who might then also be required to pay their carer(s) visitor levy charge too. A suggestion made was that a local exemption could be capped at one carer per person with a disability “My husband is living with dementia and needs a carer to accompany him on any journey. His carer should be allowed to travel with the same consideration as him.” “Carers of people with disability have a lot of additional expense already. They are not usually ‘on holiday’ but are almost always ‘on duty’. so should not pay any levy.” “As a disabled resident I cannot go to hospital appointments in the mainland alone. They often require an overnight stay and my husband taking time off work to take me. I would get a reduction in my half of the bill, but not his? That is ridiculous.” “An unpaid carer accompanying someone with a disability may not have the means to pay nor the choice not to accompany them.” “An individual who suffers a disability and who wants to visit the area, will be penalised because the carer that may need to accompany them, will be subject to paying a visitor levy. This is a ridiculous position to put carers into and many will just not be in a position to support the person with the disability therefore the person being cared for is automatically disadvantaged.” There should be no exemptions A small number of residents suggested that there should be no exemptions at all (that is, they also disagreed with the nationally identified list of exemptions). The main arguments for this viewpoint can be summarised as to: • ensure administration requirements of the scheme were kept to a minimum. • maximise the revenue generated. • ensure a level playing field. “Any exemptions would become a minefield for administration. This levy needs to be simple for all to understand and administer.” “Exemptions dilute the returns you obtain from the visitors and if they are on holiday they must be expecting to spend money on enjoying the experience.” “Why should I as a disabled person be exempt from paying? I use the roads, the infrastructure like anyone else!!!” Page 483
Page 484
105 Visitors in motorhomes and campervans (off-site), and wild-campers should not be exempt from a visitor levy Some residents disagreed with the national legislation and suggested that visitors to Argyll and Bute who stay in motorhomes and campervans (off-site) and wild-campers should not be exempt from a visitor levy. These residents pointed to the increasing number of motorhomes in Argyll and Bute and the impact of these visitors and wild-campers on the local infrastructure and environment (for example, degradation of roads, littering). “There should be no exemptions for campervans and they could pay a visitor levy online or at parking meters and display a ticket.” “The problem is in using registered local accommodation to collect fees, which will miss campers, mobile homes, etc.” “In terms of campervans; this is clearly complex to police - but it feels unfair that they can use local facilities and not contribute to the community. However, it could be that encouraging them into areas with decent camp sites and good, well stocked local shops / visitor attractions, will bring their custom and contributions in other ways.” “Campervans should not be exempt. They visit Argyll and Bute in huge numbers, using roads, facilities, lay-bys to park in, etc. so should be expected to contribute to this in the same way as other visitors.” “The whole thing is a mess, you are going to tax workers, hospital related stays but not camper vans.” “A visitor levy would not apply to campervans outside official sites and some of our businesses and residents are fearful that this could increase campervan traffic to Coll which is an island that does not currently have any policy restrictions on “free” campervan parking. This IS about tourism but it’s excluded.” The process for reimbursing exempt visitors should be easy to understand and implement A small number of residents emphasised the importance of ensuring processes for reimbursing exempt visitors should be easy to understand and implement, and that the council’s proposed process might be challenging for some groups of people (for example, disabled people, low- income households). Page 484
Page 485
106 “Also concerned as it has been said that people with a disability (although exempt) would still have to pay a visitor levy upfront then try and claim it back afterwards - this system sounds very confusing and vulnerable people may be penalised.” “This should be an automatic exemption and not have to be reclaimed. Any reclaim programme is set to disadvantage those on lower income and in vulnerable financial positions from being able to book accommodation in the first place.” Residents that neither agreed nor disagreed with the council’s current position on local exemptions or don’t know The remainder (24%) of residents said that they neither agreed nor disagreed with the council’s current position on local exemptions or were unsure, see Table 4.2. These residents suggested that the council would need to provide more information and detail to help them provide an informed view on this question. A small number of these residents noted in their response that the national exemption for disabled people was ‘well-intentioned’, but questioned how this exemption would work in practice and that processes should not risk ‘contravening the Equalities Act.’ 4.6 Proposal to set a visitor levy rate at 5% Residents who do not support a visitor levy being introduced in Argyll and Bute Almost half of residents (42%) selected ‘I don’t support a visitor levy being introduced across Argyll and Bute’ to the question ‘To what extent do you agree with the council’s proposal to set a visitor levy rate at 5%, see Table 4.3. EKOS note: some residents who selected disagree or strongly disagree to this question then provided qualitative feedback that indicated they did not support a visitor levy in Argyll and Bute (that is, they did not select the ‘I don’t support a visitor levy being introduced across Argyll and Bute’ option). This suggests that the proportion of residents who disagree with the proposed levy rate of 5% would be lower while the proportion who do not support the introduction of a visitor levy would be higher than what has been presented in the table below, see Table 4.4. Page 485
Page 486
107 Table 4.3: To what extent do you agree with the Argyll and Bute Council proposal to set a visitor levy rate at 5%? Number Percentage Strongly agree 230 11% Agree 297 15% Neither agree nor disagree 162 8% Disagree 143 7% Strongly disagree 311 15% Don’t know 35 2% I don’t support a visitor levy being introduced across Argyll and Bute 863 42% Source: A&BC Residents Survey. Base=2,041 Table 4.4: To what extent do you agree with the Argyll and Bute Council proposal to set a visitor levy rate at 5%? (EKOS recoding) Number Percentage Strongly agree 230 11% Agree 297 15% Neither agree nor disagree 162 8% Disagree 117 6% Strongly disagree 143 7% Don’t know 35 2% I don’t support a visitor levy being introduced across Argyll and Bute 1057 52% Source: A&BC Residents Survey. Base=2,041 Most residents who did not support the introduction of a visitor levy said that the proposed rate of 5% was “too high” or “excessive”. Residents survey responses highlighted that accommodation in Argyll and Bute was expensive and that an additional 5% levy would likely further deter visitors – particularly those most affected by the cost-of-living crisis. Residents considered that the proposed levy rate risks tipping the balance against choosing Argyll and Bute as a holiday destination, especially when competing with other regions or countries that either do not impose a visitor levy or operate a lower percentage or flat-rate charge. “5% feels discouraging. The value should be large enough to make a difference to a visitor levy, yet small enough not to notice for our visitors. France has a successful 'Taxe de séjour' system that varies the rate based on star ratings and amenities; if you hire a castle you can afford to pay more, if you're camping in the cheapest place to go kayaking you can't.” Page 486
Page 487
108 “Accommodation is already expensive in Argyll due to high costs of operating in this area. Anything additional will be a disincentive for visitors to come.” Further, residents considered a 5% levy rate would further penalise local residents who have to travel and stay in paid overnight accommodation for non-leisure trip purposes. “5% is way too high especially as this will impact residents having to spend a night away for hospital, etc.” “Due to the time requirements of travelling off an island, Mull and Iona residents will suffer increased cost of living by having to pay a visitor levy when they book an essential overnight stay in Mull, Oban or other areas, for health visits, to visit their children at Oban High School, go to funerals and many other reasons for travel that can normally be achieved in one day for those who don’t live on an island.” Residents who disagreed with the proposal to set a visitor levy rate at 5% Over one-fifth of residents either disagreed or strongly disagreed with the council’s proposal to set a visitor levy rate at 5%. As noted above, it is likely lower than this. Points raised by residents who disagreed with the proposed levy rate were similar to those identified by residents who indicated that they did not support the introduction of a visitor levy in Argyll and Bute, and for brevity have not been repeated here. Residents who disagreed with the proposed levy rate suggested a lower levy rate, typically between 2% and 3% - they considered this more ‘reasonable’, not least to test whether there was a negative impact on visitor numbers (see also Section 4.7 of this chapter). There were repeated calls for a flat-rate approach rather than a percentage-based model to ensure a visitor levy scheme was straightforward and easy to implement for accommodation providers and to mitigate the impact of increased costs to these businesses, many of whom were considered to be operating with tight margins. “5% is too high. I would suggest 2%, which is similar to rural areas and towns in Italy (only big cities charge as much as 5%).” “Too high. Comparable schemes in European countries are set at a lower rate. 3% would be fair.” “I think it would be wise to start with a lower rate, with the potential to increase.” “Residents think the proposed levy rate of 5% may increase over time.” Page 487
Page 488
109 Some residents disagreed with the proposed levy rate of 5% as they thought it would likely be increased over time once a visitor levy scheme was firmly established in the region. They suggested that further increases would certainly deter visitors and have a much bigger impact on accommodation providers in Argyll and Bute. “5% now. And when that money has been spent, it will become 10%, then 15%. What is to stop this from increasing further?” Residents who agreed with the proposal to set a visitor levy rate at 5% Around one-quarter of residents (26%) either agreed or strongly agreed with the council’s proposal to set a visitor levy rate at 5% in Argyll and Bute, see Table 4.3. Where further feedback was provided, the main points raised by these residents included that a visitor levy rate of 5% in Argyll and Bute: • was ’reasonable’ and ‘fair’ for visitors (but not residents) as it would be broadly in line with other destinations which have a visitor levy scheme – and would be unlikely to deter visitors. • could generate a significant amount of revenue to be invested in facilities and services which were used by people visiting the area and residents – some of these residents called for a higher percentage rate to maximise impact but acknowledged that this could risk deterring visitors. Residents’ quotes which broadly reflect the points raised are provided below. “It is highly unlikely that visitors would be put off by a £5-£10 increase for a hotel room, and I would wager hotel prices would have already increased beyond that by implementation in 2027 despite claims that such a rise would decimate the area’s visitor economy” “5% is a manageable extra amount for the majority of visitors using budget and mid-market accommodation. Increasing numbers of international visitors expect to contribute towards local services in addition to direct accommodation costs.” “5% is a reasonable rate - unlikely to deter visitors but capable of raising a significant amount of money.” “5% makes administration of the scheme (just about) worth doing. Anything less is just an additional cost that local people need to cover for public sector jobs.” Page 488
Page 489
110 4.7 What levy rate do you consider appropriate Residents who selected either disagree or strongly disagree to the question ‘To what extent do you agree with the Argyll and Bute Council proposal to set a visitor levy rate at 5%?’ were asked ‘What rate would you consider is appropriate?’. Most residents (79%) thought a visitor levy rate should be lower than 5% and a sizable proportion were unsure, Table 4.5. Table 4.5: If you do not agree with a visitor levy being 5%, what rate would you consider is appropriate? Number Percentage A visitor levy rate should be less than 5% 360 79% A visitor levy rate should be greater than 5% 12 3% Don’t know 83 18% Source: A&BC Resident Survey. Base=455. Note: the base number is low compared to the total number of residents survey responses as survey routing means that those who selected options other than disagree or strongly disagree to the question ‘To what extent do you agree with the Argyll and Bute Council proposal to set a visitor levy rate at 5%?’ were not asked this question. Residents who thought a visitor levy rate should be less than 5% The vast majority (79%) of residents asked this question said that a visitor levy rate should be less than 5%, see Table 4.5. As noted above, some residents who indicated that a visitor levy rate should be less than 5% actually thought there should be no visitor levy scheme at all. This was reflected in comments at this question such as: “There should be no levy at all”; “Fully disagree with this levy”; “It should be 0%”; and “I don’t think there should be a visitor levy at all.” Other residents said that the proposed levy rate of 5% was too high. These residents typically noted in their response that a 5% levy rate: • could deter visitors as it could make Argyll and Bute more expensive relative to other areas, and that steps should be taken to welcome visitors to the region rather than deter them – and that it could make accommodation providers less competitive than other places. • is high when compared to visitor levies in other places/countries which have a flat rate of, for example £1 to £2 per night – preference was also expressed for a flat rate as it could be easier to administer and understand. Points raised are broadly reflected in the resident quotes below. “Setting too high will stop visitors coming to places that are already high in cost.” Page 489
Page 490
111 “The proposed 5% seems excessive and would deter the less financially well off from visiting, which creates further inequality between those with greater financial means and those who are less well off.” “Cities charge more than rural areas. I know the city of Amsterdam is charging something like £12/night, but then they want to discourage tourists, as I said Venice charged me £2.50/night, so yes I think 5% is rather high for our area.” “Not to price our area out of the market as a fall in numbers is not good for our economy.” “5% is a very big number when businesses are trying to be competitive.” “A visitor levy in Europe is around 1.5 Euros so make it a fixed amount rather than a percentage.” “I think a percentage is unworkable and would be more likely to support a flat rate collected directly from visitors.” A small number of residents provided an alternative suggestion for a visitor levy rate – this ranged from 1% to 3%, with 3% mentioned most often in these responses. Residents who thought a visitor levy rate should be greater than 5% Only 3% of residents asked this question said that a visitor levy rate should be less than 5%, see Table 4.5. These residents hold this view as they thought a visitor levy rate higher than 5%: • would maximise investment for tourism related infrastructure and services. • might deter irresponsible visitors to the area. A very small number of residents who thought a visitor levy rate should be greater than 5% specified an alternative visitor levy rate – this ranged from 7.5% to 15%, and 10% was mentioned most often in these responses (absolute numbers were small). An alternative view expressed by these residents was that a banded levy rate could be used – to reflect lower to higher cost accommodation A few residents’ quotes which broadly reflect the points raised are presented below. “I believe a visitor levy should be set higher, potentially 10-15% assuming that money raised would be available for projects locally. Living on an island means we get very little in the way of funding from council funds - services continue to deteriorate.” Page 490
Page 491
112 “If a visitor levy is enforced it should be graded so that the higher the cost of the accommodation the greater a visitor levy should be making it more proportionate.” “10% will allow for greater compensation and functionality. It must be considered that the volume and duration of visitors to the area is of greater detriment to the environment and communities than benefit. Any benefit of their presence is purely financial and limited personally to a small percentage of the population or more specifically their bank accounts - there must be some compensation for the communities as a whole.” 4.8 How investment in tourism infrastructure and services could be paid for Residents who selected ‘I don’t support a visitor levy being introduced across Argyll and Bute’ to the previous question, were asked a follow-on question ‘How would you suggest that investment in our tourism infrastructure and services is paid for?’. Almost all of these residents provided a response to this question, and most raised multiple points. This particular point is best reflected in the following respondent quote. “The optimal solution would likely combine multiple approaches rather than relying on a single funding mechanism. The key challenge is finding a balance that adequately funds necessary improvements without placing undue burden on either local residents or the tourism businesses that drive economic activity in the region.” More efficient council operations and use of funding Many residents emphasised in their response to this question that the council could explore ways to become a more efficient, effective, and streamlined organisation – a council that ‘manages its finances better’, was able to ‘balance its books’, and which ‘lives within its financial means.’ These residents frequently identified the different ways they thought the council could improve how it operated to identify costs savings and efficiencies and to reduce bureaucracy, as well to identify funding that could be ‘redirected’/used to support investment in tourism infrastructure and in order to maximise the impact from that investment for the benefit of local visitors, residents, and businesses alike. Suggestions made by these residents included that the council could: • be better at the planning, prioritisation and targeting of how it used existing funding – a greater focus on ‘core’ rather than ‘non-essential’ provision. Page 491
Page 492
113 • review how existing budgets and grants could be better directed to high-impact tourism projects. • review its staffing complement/need, salaries, and other employment costs. • review how much it paid elected members/councillors. • dispose of council buildings and assets that it no longer needed. A few resident quotes which further reflect points raised are provided below. “The council needs to manage its finances better. Perhaps less money wasted on unwanted initiatives and looking at ways of being more efficient might be more appropriate.” “The council budget should be used more sensible and practically, as it is in other places who are not imposing this tax.” “A thorough audit of council services to rule out waste and excessive red tape. This would generate enough finance to pay for improvement.” “Is this not what our council tax is for? Maybe if councillors didn’t give themselves such a big pay rise that would also help.” “Stop wasting funding doing things that local councils are against and building white elephants the community have already clearly stated they’re against.” “Impact investing focuses on generating social and environmental benefits alongside financial returns. By attracting impact investors, Argyll and Bute can fund projects that promote sustainable tourism, support local communities, and preserve cultural heritage. This could include initiatives like community-based tourism or conservation projects.” “Less spending on local vanity projects, reduction in the number of people employed by the council, prudent use of (what should be) finite financial resources.” More effective use of revenue generated through existing taxes Many residents also felt that the council should make ‘better use of taxpayers money’ to invest in tourism infrastructure. They added that this should be achieved in the same way that it has always been funded prior to consideration of a visitor levy, and via ‘existing mechanisms.’ Here, there was widespread reference in residents survey responses to recent increases in taxes such as Council Tax, Income Tax, and Business Rates – they suggested that the council could use the additional revenue generated through tax increases to support further investment in tourism infrastructure in Argyll and Bute. Page 492
Page 493
114 In addition, there was widespread reference in residents survey responses to other forms of taxation and charges that raised revenue for the council to support investment at a local level – BID charges, Short-term Licence Scheme, VAT on good and services were all mentioned by residents. A few resident quotes which further reflect points raised are provided below. “I pay Council Tax and VAT, taxes which go toward the physical infrastructure. That is, roads, toilets etc. Other investment will come from the business operations themselves.” “How about using some of the Council Tax taken from second homeowners.” “Put Council Tax to better use.” “Tourism incentive should be encouraged within the local business community funded by the Council from the business rates.” “As it always has by local taxation on businesses by way of business rates.” “From our ever-increasing Council Tax and Income Tax.” “Out of the exorbitant taxes we already pay.” “When visitors come to our area, they already spend money on social, catering, food and drink and purchase goods from our businesses.” Activities to encourage tourism could create additional investment for tourism infrastructure Some residents felt that a visitor levy was not the right solution (at all or at the current time) and identified other things that the council could do in order to: • address a perceived underinvestment (or limited or reducing) investment in tourism infrastructure by the Scottish Government and the council in Argyll and Bute – some also considered existing tourism infrastructure poorly maintained. • revitalise communities across Argyll and Bute and generate much-needed revenue. • encourage tourism in Argyll and Bute which would support the private sector to create additional local employment opportunities and make further investment in tourism infrastructure. This point is best reflected in the resident respondent quote below. Page 493
Page 494
115 “The local economy relies on tourism. By introducing a visitor levy you will drive away a number of tourists, close a number of tourism businesses, and cripple other local businesses that rely on tourists (attractions, restaurants, etc). Many already can’t open through the winter as it is not viable. You need to encourage tourism, which in turn increases local spending by tourists and boosts the local economy.” Some of these residents considered that the Scottish Government and/or the council have not made sufficient investment in tourism infrastructure in Argyll and Bute in recent years. These responses frequently highlighted concerns such as: • challenges associated with an ‘unreliable ferry service’. • the closure or pending closure of ‘Tourism Boards’ or ‘Tourist Information Centres’ in the region, and the negative impact this has/will have for visitors to Argyll and Bute. • a lack of Countryside Rangers to help educate the public about responsible tourism and the Scottish Outdoor Access Code. • the current state of roads and pavements in Argyll and Bute. • the perceived underinvestment in, and state of disrepair of, some towns in Argyll and Bute. • issues related to local bin and litter collections. A small number of residents said that they were ‘not sure what investment’ has been made into tourism infrastructure over recent years, or they ‘do not understand how the council invests in tourist infrastructure and services.’ On the one hand, arguments made under this theme by some residents was that the council could focus its efforts on addressing or fixing the issues and challenges outlined above (that is, ferry service, roads, etc.) – for the benefit of local residents and businesses in the first instance, and prior to further consideration of introducing a visitor levy. Points raised are broadly reflected in the resident quotes below. “We need basic infrastructure first to support the people who live here.” “What is tourism infrastructure and services, as distinct from infrastructure and services for use by everyone? It is nonsense to attempt to distinguish between the two.” “If there are issues outside the remit of the council, these should be highlighted to the appropriate body.” “Leave it up to businesses. Locals need decent roads, decent transport, clean streets, and we pay enough Council Tax to expect them.” Page 494
Page 495
116 On the other hand, some residents put forward a case for additional activity that: • promoted Argyll and Bute as a place to visit – for example, ensuring a broad range of activities that meet the needs and interests of tourists, such as cultural and historical tours, adventure trips, and eco-tourism initiatives. • encouraged and supported business start-up, growth and investment in Argyll and Bute, as well as attracted more inward investment to the region. • reduced any unnecessary bureaucracy and financial burden for tourism related businesses - for example, ‘streamlining planning processes’ was mentioned by residents in their responses, as well as offering incentives such as ‘tax relief or subsidies’ to tourism- related businesses or investors. • encouraged greater collaboration between the council and local businesses. A few resident quotes which broadly reflect points raised are provided below. “By doing all you can to ensure Argyll’s visitor economy is assisted (and not penalised) and by marking Argyll as a region free of visitor taxes you will foster a thriving local visitor economy and help strengthen our destination’s desire ability for visitors…do that and you will see all the benefits through increased visitor spend and tourism business growth.” “By entrepreneurship. Every £1 collected in a visitor levy is a £1 less spent in our shops and restaurants.” “More people that visit means local businesses make money to support local jobs etc. Thriving business make an area attractive for other businesses to set up.” “Local business being busy with more tourists who are then charged taxes by the government who then give money to councils, not rocket science.” “Support for private investment in Tourism businesses depends on shops having realistic rents and rates.” “Businesses fund their own improvements, upgrades, and development from revenue from their customers while still remaining competitive. Customer demand drives improvement, investment and services, if you want to help, streamline and speed up planning, remove red tape, and allow businesses to develop organically.” Page 495
Page 496
117 At the same time, some residents felt that the council could make better use of its influencing and lobbying role to: • leverage additional funding from the Scottish and UK Governments (and from other funding sources) to address perceived ‘disparities in funding of rural, remote, and island communities.’ • push for ‘more local retention of business rates.’ A point made by these residents was that this revenue should be retained locally and used to provide essential investment for tourism infrastructure projects in Argyll and Bute. Explore ways to increase revenue from existing sources and identify new income streams to support investment in tourism infrastructure Some residents suggested that the council could explore ways to increase revenue from existing sources as well as identify new income streams to support investment in tourism infrastructure in Argyll and Bute. The main suggestions from residents to increase revenue from existing sources included by: • increasing Council Tax – for example on ‘high value properties, ‘second homes’ which were run as a business, for ‘holiday let properties’, ‘for everyone’. • increasing existing fees and charges – for example, ’car parks’ in high-tourism areas, a ‘differentiated pricing model’ for attractions and services where visitors pay premium rates while residents receive discounted access, ‘piers and harbour fees and charges’, ‘for events’, ‘self-catering letting fees’ – as well as supporting better enforcement with revenue specifically allocated to infrastructure improvements. • increasing taxation on windfarms – for example, increasing the non-domestic rates on properties where windfarms are located to generate additional revenue for the council, and to maximise the use of grant funding for investment in tourism infrastructure. • increasing Corporation Tax - increasing taxation on ‘large businesses’ or ‘large corporations’. • a higher road tax on campervans and motorhomes. The main suggestions from residents to increase revenue from new sources included by: • exploring other potential sources of grant funding, subsidies, or targeted government funding for rural and tourism-dependent areas at a national, regional, and local level. • working collaboratively with VisitScotland and national tourism agencies to secure targeted investment. • exploring other donation, fundraising, crowdfunding, and sponsorship opportunities. Page 496
Page 497
118 • exploring additional funding opportunities through public-private partnerships. • exploring creative funding through community bonds or tourism improvement districts or green bonds. • introducing additional taxation/charges on sectors that residents considered benefited from visitors to the area and/or which they considered damage local road infrastructure in some way (for example, due to the use of large lorries and trucks) – for example, distilleries, windfarms, forestry, fish farms, and electricity companies were all mentioned by residents. • introducing a road toll and charges for motorhomes and campervans or incorporate and additional charge for ferry ticket purchases. • a ‘wealth tax’ or ‘taxing the rich’ or ‘taxing wealthy land owners’. A few resident quotes which further reflect points raised are provided below. “The fact that local councils froze council tax for years has seriously damaged their offerings to constituents.” “Put an additional charge on the companies killing Kintyre with windfarms.” “A voluntary donation scheme integrated into accommodation bookings and major attractions.” “Set up parking / toilet etc facilities for campervans and charge them for it.“ “An emphasis on cost-sharing with VisitScotland and other regional tourism bodies could also help fund sustainable infrastructure improvements without deterring visitors or overburdening local businesses.” “Perhaps require camper van (or travellers van) permits to cover their more than average use of roads, and an additional fee for waste collection, plus enforced rules for disposal.” “Crowdfunding platforms can be used to raise funds for specific tourism projects by appealing directly to the public. This method can generate significant interest and support from both locals and tourists who are passionate about the region. Projects such as the development of new tourist attractions or the enhancement of existing facilities can benefit from crowdfunding campaigns.” Page 497
Page 498
119 Residents who expressed some support for a visitor levy Some residents reiterated support for the council to introduce a visitor levy as a mechanism to raise additional revenue for investment in tourism infrastructure – albeit not in the form proposed by the Scottish Government legislation or in the council’s proposals. This point is reflected in the resident quote below. “We’re not opposed to investment – we’re opposed to a poorly designed mechanism that makes us more vulnerable.” Rather, these residents typically expressed support for a visitor levy that: • only charges genuine visitors to the area – that is, not local and/or Scottish residents, etc. • included other forms of overnight accommodation or type of visitor – campervans, motorhomes, wild campers, and cruise ship visitors were all mentioned by these residents. • charged visitors a fixed rate and was collected by the council or via a centralised mechanism. A few resident quotes which broadly reflect points raised are provided below. “Maybe a visitor levy on more general tourism areas so to include wild camping or caravanning visitors as well so that all visitors contribute to the system. Maybe on arrival in Argyll pay a tourism tax similar to a toll.” “The whole investment structure needs to be addressed, not just a short sighted money grab. The amount of camper vans who use the area for free, litter, park anywhere and will not even be included in the accommodation tax.” “Find a way to include wild camping motorhomes and only tax tourists then I'd support it”. “Departure taxes for international visitors, as is used in many other countries.” “Tax on ferries for visitors only. Tax on camper vans.” “Perhaps like some countries, there could be a one off fee when visitors land at the airports. A similar tax could be applied when passengers disembark from the cruise liners.“ “I agree we need a tax of some sort but not one that affects people who actually live in Scotland as we all pay council tax and should not pay any visitors tax as we live here.” “May be some merit in a visitor levy in the busier locations, for example, Oban where the income generated by a visitor levy is most likely to be spent.“ Page 498
Page 499
120 The council should identify how additional investment for tourism infrastructure could be secured A small number of residents said that they were either unsure where funding for investment in tourism infrastructure could come from or felt that this was a role for the council to explore and identify possible options for further consideration by residents. No need for further investment in tourism infrastructure A small number of residents said that there was no requirement for further investment in tourism infrastructure in Argyll and Bute. The main argument put forward by these residents was that people visit the region for the ‘views, wildlife, scenery and peacefulness’, for the ’beauty and unspoiled nature’ of Argyll and Bute, and for its ‘landscape and its history.’ Other points raised by these residents included that they were not sure whether additional investment in tourism infrastructure and services was required or felt tourism could cause damage to areas like Argyll and Bute or said that the council (and other organisations and agencies) could do more to support and preserve the natural beauty of Argyll and Bute rather than invest in additional tourism infrastructure. A few resident quotes are provided below which seek to illustrate the main points raised above. “People come to Argyll and Bute because of it's unspoiled, wild, and remote nature. Don’t turn it into just another place to visit.” “Most tourists come here for the natural beauty - that is free.” “People come for the getaway element of nature, cycling, walking so don't see what you need the money for.” “I believe we pay enough in Council Tax to support investment in tourism without a visitor levy. The money should be invested in supporting the natural beauty of the area.” “I am not convinced that "tourism infrastructure and services", as separate facilities, are even needed; most of the examples you cite of the "services used by visitors and shared with residents" are actually basic services needed by residents and shared with tourists! Therefore, I find this question redundant.” Page 499
Page 500
121 4.9 Should there be a cap on the number of nights accommodation Setting resident survey responses to this question in context Not all residents who answered the question ‘Should there be a cap on the number of nights of accommodation that a visitor should pay a visitor levy?’ supported the introduction of a visitor levy and/or supported the legislation or council proposals in their current form. As illustrative examples, comments made by residents included ‘0 nights with levy’, and ‘0 nights should be the cap for Islanders’. The points raised in these responses are covered elsewhere in this chapter and have not been included in the analysis to this specific question. This point aside, feedback from residents to this question was mixed – and more so than responses received to the business and visitors’ surveys. Yes, there should be a cap Almost half of residents (49%) asked this question said there should be a cap on the number of nights of accommodation that a visitor should pay a visitor levy, see Table 4.6. Table 4.6: Do you think there should be a cap on the number of nights of accommodation that a visitor should pay a visitor levy? Number Percentage Yes 578 49% No 399 34% Don’t know 203 17% Source: A&BC Resident Survey. Base=1180. Note: the base number is lower than the total number of resident survey responses as only residents which did not select ‘I do not support a visitor levy in Argyll and Bute’ at the question ‘To what extent do you agree with the Argyll and Bute Council proposal to set a visitor levy rate at 5%?’ were asked this question in the survey. Many residents, regardless of their support or otherwise for the introduction of a visitor levy, considered that a cap could be a ‘reasonable’ middle ground as well as a ‘more affordable’ option for visitors who would be required to pay a visitor levy. “There shouldn't be a visitor levy at all, but if you do introduce one it should certainly be capped. Otherwise it is just a deterrent to stop visitors staying longer. Longer stays are good for accommodation rentals as they require less servicing.” “Without a cap, the amount will quickly add up and may become unaffordable for some.” Page 500
Page 501
122 Some residents who thought there should be a cap on the number of nights of accommodation that a visitor should pay a visitor levy said that this might encourage some visitors to stay longer in Argyll and Bute, in particular families. These responses also touched on the range of benefits and more sustainable impacts that this could have for the local economy. Further, there was also some support for a cap if local residents and temporary workers were not made exempt from a visitor levy for non-leisure trips – albeit there were repeated calls for the council to use its discretion to apply local exemptions. Many of the residents who thought there should be a cap on the number of nights of accommodation that a visitor should pay a visitor levy provided details of how many nights this could be in their response. Suggestions ranged from one night to 30 nights (when a stay becomes a short-term residency) and were mainly at the lower end of this range (seven nights was most frequently mentioned) as a way to encourage longer visits to Argyll and Bute. An alternative suggestion made by residents, albeit raised to a lesser extent, was that there could be a cap on the number of nights of accommodation that a visitor should pay a visitor levy at the agreed percentage levy rate, and then a lower levy rate could be applied on nights stayed beyond this. “I think most visitors stay for 3-5 nights therefore I think the cap should be anywhere between 3 and 5 nights, where after this there would not be a visitor levy since this would be considered a longer visit (for work or other) and should be seen as a local use.” “I think there should be a cap at 7 nights. We are trying to encourage tourism and visitors to the area, having to pay a visitor levy might already be contentious so at least if someone was planning to come for longer they wouldn't be paying for every night of their stay which would hopefully be seen as a positive measure. This would then encourage people to come rather than put them off.” A small number of residents suggested that the council could use a data-driven approach – for example, they suggested that it would be important to understand the average duration of stay for overnight visitors to Argyll and Bute, and that this could then be used to identify an appropriate number of nights of accommodation that a visitor should pay a visitor levy. Further, some residents who supported the introduction of a cap acknowledged in their response that this could make the administration process for the scheme more complex. “Extended holidays are to be encouraged. At the very least a visitor levy might be adjusted down for longer stays. Whilst I can see that this might be administratively difficult, a visitor levy scheme should not be compromised because of potential administrative difficulties.” Page 501
Page 502
123 “I think a cap could be considered but I also think this could complicate even more the administration of a visitor levy which is being expected of accommodation providers, many of whom are small guest houses, B&Bs and self-catering options who will find it difficult to take on this administrative role.” No, there should not be a cap Around one-third of residents (34%) thought there should not be a cap on the number of nights of accommodation that a visitor should pay a visitor levy, see Table 4.6. Some of these residents highlighted that visitors used local services and infrastructure every day of their stay, therefore it was ’reasonable’ that a visitor levy should apply for their whole visit. Indeed, some residents went further and suggested that the introduction of a cap could ‘unfairly’ penalise short-term visitors who, for example, were said to have less of an impact on tourism infrastructure and services. Another view expressed by residents who did not support a cap was that if an individual could afford to visit the area for a longer visit then they should also be able to afford to pay a visitor levy for the duration of their stay – and that this might represent a relatively small proportion of their total accommodation costs. “I think a visitor levy should be applied for the extent of the visit, bearing in mind that services will likely be used on a daily basis for the duration of the stay, for example, transport use, generation of waste, use of public facilities such as public toilets.” “Such a proposal would be illogical: those who can afford to stay the longest can afford to budget and pay a commensurate levy.” “Putting a cap on the number of nights for which a visitor levy is paid seems to defeat the purpose, when the facilities used will increase with the length of stay.” Other arguments made by residents who did not think there should be a cap on the number of nights of accommodation that a visitor should pay a visitor levy, was to help ensure the scheme was simple to administer for accommodation providers, and to avoid any unnecessary complexities. They also mentioned that many visitor stays were short-term (a few days on average) and that a cap would be unlikely to influence visitor behaviour. “Makes collecting even more complicated. You're going to put enough strain on local businesses in collecting this as it is. Keep it simple!” “Hard to administer a cap if a visitor is moving around within Argyll & Bute”. Page 502
Page 503
124 “Any cut off point would be an admin nightmare and impossible to police.” A small number of residents considered it more important for the council to apply local exemptions than a cap – to ensure a visitor levy was aimed at genuine tourists. They also emphasised the importance of the council setting the percentage levy rate at a ‘reasonable’ level, but with repeated calls for a fixed flat fee instead to simplify the administration process and to ensure the scheme was easy to understand. Residents who were unsure whether there should be a cap The remainder of residents (17%) said that they were unsure whether there should be a cap on the number of nights of accommodation that a visitor should pay a visitor levy, see Table 4.6. Only three residents who were unsure provided further comment - feedback was limited and has not been presented due to the small number of responses. Page 503
Page 504
125 5 Visitor survey results 5.1 Introduction This chapter presents the visitor survey analysis. A total of 538 responses were received from visitors and included in the analysis, as outlined in Chapter 2. 5.2 Visitor survey respondents Location Using postcode data, Figure 5.1 maps where respondents to the visitor survey live. Figure 5.1: Postcode map of visitor survey respondents – UK and Ireland respondents Base=538. Other international locations included United States of America (9), Canada (1), France (1), Netherlands (1), Germany (1), and Malaysia (1). Page 504
Page 505
126 Many (28%) respondents to the visitor survey were residents of Argyll and Bute who visited and stay in paid accommodation in other parts of the region for a range of purposes, including for leisure and non-leisure related trips. What attracts visitors to Argyll and Bute By far the main motivating factor which attracted visitors to Argyll and Bute was the scenery and landscape (81%), see Table 5.1. This was followed by to explore Argyll and Bute and surrounding areas (49%) and to visit friends and family (46%). Table 5.1: What attracts you to Argyll and Bute? Sector Number Percentage The scenery and landscape 437 81% To explore Argyll and Bute and its surrounding regions / rest of Scotland 262 49% To visit family and friends who live in Argyll and Bute 248 46% Holidayed before and wanted to return 204 38% The history and culture 164 30% The friendly local people 109 20% Other 98 18% Value for money 89 17% Personal event / celebration (anniversary, wedding etc.) 86 16% To visit a particular attraction 49 9% Other special event (music concert, sports match etc.) 39 7% Argyll and Bute’s reputation 34 6% The climate and weather 33 6% To visit a film location 6 1% Source: A&BC Visitor Survey. Base=538. Multiple response question where visitors could select more than one option and all that applied. Percentages may total more than 100% as a result. ‘Other’ responses include: to stay at a holiday/second home, to take part in sport and leisure activities, to visit distilleries, previously lived in Argyll and Bute, for work, to use the ferry, and for the wildlife. Type of accommodation visitors are staying in Most visitors said that they were staying in self-catering accommodation (49%), B&Bs/guest houses (35%), or hotels (34%) while visiting Argyll and Bute, see Table 5.2. Page 505
Page 506
127 Table 5.2: As a visitor to Argyll and Bute, what type of accommodation are you staying in? Sector Number Percentage Self-catering 264 49% B&B or guest house 186 35% Hotel 185 34% Staying with friends and families 107 20% Caravan / campervan 93 17% Homestay, for example, Airbnb 89 17% Campsite 66 12% Student accommodation 0 0% Source: A&BC Visitor Survey. Base=538. Multiple response question where visitors could select more than one option and all that applied. Percentages may total more than 100% as a result. 5.3 Visitor levy scheme objectives Visitors to Argyll and Bute were asked the extent to which they agreed or disagreed with the four proposed visitor levy scheme objectives for Argyll and Bute, see Table 5.3. The main points to note from the closed question included that: • more than half of visitors either disagreed or strongly disagreed with each of the four proposed objectives – most prominently visitors disagreed with the objectives relating to ‘Extending the season and spreading the visitors across the destination’ (60%), and ‘The journey towards net zero’ (58%). • agreement (that is, rated either agree or strongly agree by visitors) with the four proposed visitor levy scheme objectives was much lower among visitors – the exception to this was a sizable proportion of visitors (33%) agreed with the objective relating to ‘Sustaining and improving the visitor offer’. • a relatively sizeable proportion of visitors neither agreed nor disagreed with the proposed visitor levy scheme objectives. Page 506
Page 507
128 Table 5.3: To what extent do you agree or disagree with the A&BC visitor levy scheme objectives? Objectives Strongly agree Agree Neither agree or disagree Disagree Strongly disagree Number % Number % Number % Number % Number % Extending the season and spreading visitors across the destination – for example, infrastructure, amenities, events, and marketing 52 10% 69 13% 96 18% 80 15% 241 45% Reaching new audiences: marine, coastal, cultural and outdoors tourism – for example, visitor product development, inter-island connectivity, step ashore facilities, showcasing producers, culture and heritage 51 9% 85 16% 107 20% 67 12% 228 42% Sustaining and improving the visitor offer – for example, transport options, destination investment (including toilets), support for individual tourism businesses to help them improve their products and services (grants, training, advice, toolkits) 83 15% 99 18% 82 15% 58 11% 216 40% The journey towards net zero – for example, investment in sustainable tourism, business advice and support, low-carbon transport networks 51 9% 70 13% 101 19% 65 12% 250 46% Source: A&BC Visitor Survey. Base=538 for each objective with the exception of ‘The journey to net zero’ objectives (537 responses). Page 507
Page 508
129 Some visitors provided specific comment on the proposed visitor levy objectives. Some stated that they felt the objectives were ‘worthy’ or noted their agreement with them. Though, in most instances this was caveated with more negative feedback and on the ability of the objectives to be achieved through the introduction of a visitor levy scheme. Visitor comments tended to focus on the: • ‘Extending the season’ objective – some agreed with the objective of extending the season, though they noted that the introduction of a visitor levy scheme could make this ‘unachievable’, as it could actually deter visitors. A small number of visitors went further and stated that a visitor levy could result in business closures which would further hinder the ability to extend the season. • ‘The journey to net zero’ objective – a small number of visitors considered this to be a ‘nonsense’ and ‘fantasy’ objective. Other visitors raised concerns that a visitor levy would be ‘counterproductive’ as it could encourage a greater number of campervans and motorhomes (off-site) and increase the frequency of wild camping. And that this could have a negative impact for the environment as well as an income loss for campsites. These points are further reflected in the selected visitor survey respondent quotes below. “This will have the opposite impact on the desired effects; it will shorten the tourism window, limit tourism in new audiences and have no net zero benefit as it will simply redirect tourists to other cheaper locations who do not prioritise carbon efficiency.” “These are worthy objectives, however taxing visitors will not in any way spread/extend the season, it will discourage new audiences as they will perceive Argyll and Bute as excessively expensive” “The journey to net zero is a goal with much wider scope, not specific to tourism, and should not be part of the VL scheme.” 5.4 Other things visitors would like to see a visitor levy spent on Over half of visitors answered the follow-on question ‘If there are other things you would like to see a visitor levy spent on please tell us here?’. Some visitors did not directly answer this question, and this is reflected in the themes presented below. As this was the first open-ended question in the visitor survey, some used this question to express their thoughts and opinions on the proposed visitor levy scheme more generally. Page 508
Page 509
130 The themes identified from a review of visitor survey responses to this question were broadly similar to those outlined previously in the business and resident surveys. Comments related to the proposed visitor levy scheme More than half of visitors who answered this question provided comments relating to the proposed visitor levy scheme, overwhelmingly these visitors stated that they: • did not agree with the introduction of a visitor levy in Argyll and Bute. • or did not agree with aspects of the council’s proposals or did not consider the national legislation fit for purpose. Many visitors who were opposed to the introduction of a visitor levy scheme in Argyll and Bute framed their response to this question in the context of the recent cost-of-living crisis, noting that Scotland was an expensive holiday destination for visitors. They suggested that the introduction of a visitor levy could deter some people from visiting Argyll and Bute or from making a repeat visit – for example, it was suggested that some visitors may decide to seek out cheaper destinations (at home or abroad) that do not have a visitor levy. A small number of visitors said that they did not consider Argyll and Bute to have a significant issue with overtourism and that the introduction of a visitor levy scheme could be counterintuitive in this regard. They said it could result in some accommodation providers taking the decision to close their business, not least as the cost of doing business has also been increasing (for example, business rates, energy costs, etc.). Further many visitors noted in their response that a visitor levy scheme could have a negative impact on other local businesses in Argyll and Bute. Here, there was wider reference to some visitors reducing the length of their stay due to the additional accommodation costs, and that they might also spend less in other businesses within the local economy (for example, food and drink, day trip operators, etc.). These points are further reflected in the selected visitor survey respondent quotes below. “…the more tourists have to pay for their accommodation the less they will have to spend in local businesses to the detriment of the rural economy.” “Visitors support local businesses, attend local events and plough money into local communities. It is extremely sad that given the current cost of living crisis and general world instability that visitors are seen as ‘cash cows’. Visitors are a great asset to an area, but they do not have bottomless pockets.” Page 509
Page 510
131 “I strongly disagree with a visitor levy full stop. It will discourage visitors and tourists from visiting specific areas due to heightened costs. They will simply go elsewhere thus negating any positive impact.” “VisitScotland show the tourist economy has shrunk in recent years, particularly in Argyll and Bute. On top of that, we are all in the midst of a cost-of-living crisis. Don't make it more expensive to holiday here when parts of Scotland won't be, you will cripple Argyll and Bute tourism.” “I do not agree with a visitor levy, it will drive tourists away and increase the decline in the area, the levies are ok for areas where there are too many tourists such as Barcelona, but the area needs more tourists to increase businesses to deliver more taxes to make the area thrive.” Visitors’ suggestions for what revenue should be spent on Some visitors provided feedback on the things they would like to see revenue generated through a visitor levy scheme spent on in Argyll and Bute. The most common themes were expenditure on: • infrastructure. • transport. • tourist/visitor facilities. Infrastructure Many of the visitors who made suggestions for what the revenue should be spent on said this should include infrastructure improvements within Argyll and Bute. Predominantly, these visitors mentioned improvements to roads (for example, fixing potholes, signage, etc.), pavements, parking (short and long-term parking provision), as well as EV charging points. They suggested that this could help the region deal with the increased number of people visiting Argyll and Bute and travelling across the area over the peak summer months. These points are further reflected in the selected visitor survey respondent quotes below. “Improving the roads - I am a regular visitor and often bring up others with me and without exception they all comment on how appalling the roads are - quite often puts them off returning and as there are no public transport options.” “There are not enough EV chargers in Argyll and Bute. This is causing EV owners to take extension leads and use electricity from self-catering accommodation without permission from the owner. Tourist tax could be used to provide more EV chargers.” Page 510
Page 511
132 “Please can some of a visitor levy be used to: 1. Provide proper signage at ferry terminals on how to drive on single track roads. 2. For similar instructions to be handed out with tickets by CalMac for all visitors to the islands 3. Induce CalMac to make a safety announcement before disembarkation for all visitors to the islands. Safe and courteous driving is pivotal to harmony and security for visitors and residents, this has been a growing problem for years. The existing blue signs are inadequate and unfit for purpose. The slip of paper that CalMac has already produced and available in Oban is excellent and should be compulsory reading.” Tourist/visitor amenities, services, and facilities Many visitors who made suggestions for what the revenue should be spent on recommended additional amenities, services, and facilities to help Argyll and Bute deal with the increased number of visitors the area received during the peak summer season. The most common point raised by visitors was an identified need for Argyll and Bute to have increased provision of public toilet facilities for visitors. Responses frequently mentioned a lack of toilet facilities in the area or considered existing provision to be poor quality. Further, a small number of visitors thought there should be more accessible visitor information available, including the ability to speak with visitor information staff who were knowledgeable about the region and local attractions, places to visit, things to do, etc. Here, there was reference to recent/planned closures of Tourist Offices (or similar) in Argyll and Bute and the impact such closures have for visitors in terms of reducing access to information that could help visitors get the most out of their trip. These points are further reflected in the selected visitor survey respondent quotes below. “You’ll need a lot of money to improve the toilets and facilities in Argyll and Bute. I’ve holidayed here for over twenty years continuously and I see a vast decline in facilities for tourists.” “Improving visitor facilities is vital for Argyll and Bute as many areas have poor facilities and cannot cope with visitor numbers at peak times. The council appears to not have enough money to provide some of the basics that is needed to keep up with other places. For example, electric charging points for visitors, new campsites, places to find out information and clean and up to date public toilets.” “Retain Tourist Office and Visitor Information Offices staffed by people who can answer queries and have local knowledge.” Page 511
Page 512
133 Transport Some visitors who made suggestions for what the revenue should be spent on mentioned transport infrastructure issues such as quality, reliability, connectivity, etc. These responses typically highlighted difficulties visitors experience in travelling to and from Argyll and Bute, and within the region. Points raised included that: • public transport (for example, buses) was not considered fit for purpose and that visitors often have to rely more heavily on private transport (cars) to get about – for example, responses suggested there was a need for more regular (and affordable) bus services in rural areas such as Argyll and Bute, and that more car use placed increasing pressure on the quality of existing road infrastructure in the region. • current ferry service provision in Argyll and Bute was felt to be unreliable and resulted in additional accommodation costs for unplanned stays, etc. – for example, responses highlighted the practical and logistical challenges caused by ferry cancellations, as well as wider issues such as ageing ferries or ferries being out of action during the peak season. These points are further reflected in the selected visitor survey respondent quotes below. “As a visitor, safe and cost-effective transportation is a big tick in the box. As a motorist I want to see good quality roads with no potholes on tarmac surfaces. As a user of public transport, low cost, reliable and efficient services are key to making a holiday relaxed and enjoyable. Cleanliness and comfort is expected on public transport.” “A better ferry service (more reliable, more affordable for residents) would help. We don't need more marketing or events. We do just fine. More loos and a better bus service would be great.” “Public transport in remote Kintyre is rare and tourists require cars to get about.” “Improved ferry services, which are critical to residents and also benefit visitors.” Concerns about how the revenue would be spent A small number of visitors were not confident that the council would invest the revenue generated by a visitor levy scheme in the ways proposed in the consultation document and emphasised the need for this revenue to be ring-fenced in order to contribute towards levy scheme objectives (and regularly reported on to the public how this has been done). They added that such measures would help to ensure revenue generated could not be used by the council to ‘fill gaps’ in its financial budget. Page 512
Page 513
134 As described in Chapter 1, the legislation is clear that local authorities must use the net proceeds of a visitor levy scheme for certain specific purposes (that is, the net proceeds are ring-fenced) – to develop, support, and sustain facilities and services for or used by visitors to a local authority area for leisure or business purposes. There is also a statutory requirement for all councils to report annually on how revenue has been reinvested in line with scheme objectives. A small number of visitors expressed the view that any visitor levy revenue should be spent within the area from which it has been collected. These visitors believed that the revenue generated from a visitor levy should be given to local community groups, such as community councils, to ensure it went towards tourism infrastructure and services. Contrastingly, a small number of visitors raised the opposite viewpoint, and stated that if a visitor levy was introduced, they would like to see revenue used across Argyll and Bute to benefit the area as a whole. These points are further reflected in the selected visitor survey respondent quotes below. “None of the above proposals have been ring fenced and there is no guarantee that funds will be spent to the benefit of tourism.” “I don’t believe a penny of it will be ringfenced and spent back where the money is raised. You are basically charging me more tax to visit. No doubt the cash raised will just be spent on your statutory obligations.” “There is no guarantee that the revenue will be invested in the community, or that they will benefit all areas equally. Instead, it is likely that any money raised will disappear into bureaucratic black holes. while our local economy suffers.” “If a Visitor Levy is unavoidable then it is essential that it is spent in the areas from which it is collected. That is best achieved by putting the finance under the control of local community councils who are best placed to spend the monies wisely and cost effectively. Control of the collected finances by central authorities is bound to result in inefficiencies and waste and runs the risk of being misspent for other purposes.” 5.5 Suggestions for how the visitor offer could be improved in Argyll and Bute Most visitors (66%) provided a response to the survey question ‘As a visitor to Argyll and Bute, do you have any suggestions for how the visitor offer could be improved in our area?’. Page 513
Page 514
135 The majority of visitors provided suggestions for how the visitor offer could be improved, and these were broadly in line with their responses to the earlier question ‘If there are other things you would like to see a visitor levy spent on please tell us here?’. Further, some visitors survey responses also contained more general comments on the detail of the proposed visitor levy scheme in Argyll and Bute. Road investment Some visitors noted in their response that road investment could help to improve Argyll and Bute’s visitor offer – stopping further deterioration as well as improving road condition – albeit there were also responses which suggested that the maintenance and improvement of roads is an existing role for the council, and that visitor levy monies might not be an appropriate use for this funding. Much of the feedback relating to road investment mirrored that set out in Section 5.4 of this chapter. Additional points raised included: • roads such as the A85 and A83 were said to be in poor condition, due to potholes and uneven surfaces – and that challenges have reduced confidence in visitors' ability to access the region. • quality road infrastructure was considered important given the number of single-track roads in the region, the volume of traffic experienced during the peak tourist season, as well as for those who were less familiar with driving (and driving conditions) in a rural region like Argyll and Bute. • road investment at a more local level was also mentioned by visitors – for example, points raised included that local roads struggle to handle the volume of traffic experienced during the peak tourist season, and there was also said to be a lack of passing and/or stopping places. • a lack of opportunities for visitors to safely stop to admire the Argyll and Bute’s scenery and landscape without causing issues for other road users. • roadside littering was noted as a particular concern - particularly due to the increase in the number of campervans and motorhomes (off-site) who make use of lay-bys or other roadside facilities. It was suggested that additional bins and more frequent bin collections could help. Points raised are further reflected in the selected visitor survey respondent quotes below. “Road surfaces and markings need to be improved. More lay-bys and roadside parking for stopping for a break or to see scenery and wildlife. More toilet facilities. Cafes and visitor centres.” Page 514
Page 515
136 “Repair of the roads would be great. The number of potholes is really off-putting and causes damage to vehicles.” “Please, please make people aware of how to drive safely and courteously on single track roads.” “…proper infrastructure/overnight parking for campervans so they do not cause congestion for everyone else parking up by the side of the road as there's nowhere else for them.” Investment in transport projects and parking Some visitors noted that various transport related projects could help to improve Argyll and Bute’s visitor offer. Again, feedback on transport investment was broadly similar to that presented earlier. Further, a need for additional free car parking facilities/spaces was also mentioned, albeit only by a small number of visitors. They suggested that this: • could encourage visitors to stay in the area for longer and encourage more visitor spend. • could provide much needed overnight parking facilities for the many campervans and motorhomes - easing road congestion and improving roadside conditions and facilities. A point raised was that an unintended consequence of a visitor levy was that it might encourage more people to wild camp or stay in motorhomes parked in lay-bys and unofficial parking areas. A small number of visitors suggested that improved public transport provision within Argyll and Bute could help to improve the visitor experience – these responses noted that travelling both within and outside the region is not always easy or as accessible as it could be. For example, it was suggested that more regular bus and coach services from Argyll and Bute to other key destinations such as Glasgow and Edinburgh could help to encourage people to visit the region. And that more reliable ferry services were vitally important. These points are further reflected in the selected visitor survey respondent quotes below. “Improve the frequency, range and availability of bus and coach connections to and within Argyllshire for those without their own transport. For example, to get to Inveraray from Glasgow there are only two buses a day!” “More sustainable services – public transport particularly.” “Increased transportation options. More ferries. More local bus routes. More transportation rental options. E bikes, Mini cars/trucks/vans, and jeeps.” Page 515
Page 516
137 “The ferry services desperately need to be improved. We know this to be a serious problem to our local permanent resident friends, and it has become problematic for family and friends trying to visit us when we are in Mull. We have incurred overnight stays in Oban simply because we have been unable to book a later ferry to Mull the day before or have been delayed by an accident/heavy holiday traffic… The cancellation of a morning ferry to the mainland caused our young son missed train connections south, so he missed the event he was due to attend in London, since which he always leaves earlier than necessary, which disadvantages the island economy.” Better public toilet facilities As noted earlier, some visitors felt that better public toilet facilities could help to improve the visitor offer in Argyll and Bute. Wider points raised about public toilet provision included that: there was a lack of year-round access to public toilet facilities in some areas; some public toilet facilities were being closed or have closed altogether; or that there could be free access. These points are further reflected in the visitor survey respondent quotes below. “Provide sufficient clean and properly maintained public toilets.” “There is a real need for much better public toilets especially on the main roads. It is a shame the facilities at Arrochar were shut, especially given the number of visitors there throughout the year.” Tourist information, marketing, and promotion Some visitors noted in their response that more physical and online tourist information services, marketing and promotion, and signage could help to improve Argyll and Bute’s visitor offer. These responses suggested that a lack of tourist information and signage made it difficult for visitors to know what Argyll and Bute has to offer, key attractions, and places to visit, etc. These points are further reflected in the visitor survey respondent quotes below. “I do think Dunoon in particular would benefit from more marketing of what it already has to offer. This includes the woodland walks on a nice day, Belmore Gardens, Castle House to name a few. A lot of visitors just don't know about these things.” “Cultural activities that enhance the visitor experience. Visitor centre that provides helpful information and services, etc.” Page 516
Page 517
138 More hospitality and leisure facilities Some visitors suggested that more and a greater range of hospitality and leisure facilities could help to improve Argyll and Bute’s visitor offer (as well as provide benefit for residents). Suggestions included more cafes, coffee shops, bars, restaurants, as well as things/activities to do indoors when the weather was bad and during the off-peak season (for example, bowling, cinema, and soft play facilities were specifically mentioned in these responses). Earlier opening times were also mentioned as well as more family friendly activities/facilities, and dog-friendly spaces. While not mentioned to any great extent, visitors also mentioned the impact of empty shops and units across the region, particularly in more remote and rural areas, on the visitor experience. They suggested that the council could explore ways to address this issue to increase the vibrancy of towns and communities. These points are further reflected in the selected visitor survey respondent quotes below. “Lots of hospitality seems to have either closed completely or have very limited opening hours. Can only see a visitor levy exacerbating this.” “Also don't rely so much on scenery - bad weather rules put a lot of outdoor activities which leaves nothing to do. Other parts of Scotland have great scenery and a lot more to do.” “Over the years I have been visiting Argyll & Bute, the choice of hospitality venues for food and drink, and shopping options has reduced. In some areas it is impossible to find anywhere to eat an evening meal anymore or even find a cafe for lunch during the day. The council should do more to support local businesses, not charge visitors more & discourage them from visiting.” “Support tourist businesses rather than tax them more than other businesses. Help local towns thrive with interesting high streets - at the moment e.g. Lochgilphead has relatively little to offer.” “Local SMEs are struggling, we visit Argyll monthly, and we are seeing a decline in service, decline in staffing, decline in availability of services. The council needs to help these pubs and hotels out.” Comments related to the proposed visitor levy scheme Some visitors raised comments on the proposed visitor levy scheme instead. As noted at earlier questions, these visitors typically mentioned that they were opposed to a visitor levy in principle or aspects of the council’s proposals. Further, many said that they would be unlikely to visit Argyll and Bute should a visitor levy scheme be introduced. Page 517
Page 518
139 Points raised included that: • holidaying in Scotland was expensive and introducing a visitor levy could result in some visitors staying for shorter periods or choosing other destinations to visit due to the additional accommodation costs. • residents of Scotland should not have to pay to stay in areas within their country of residence - they should not be seen as visitors. • the council could focus on cutting costs and reallocating their existing budgets to invest in tourism, rather than placing an additional tax on visitors. • residents of Argyll and Bute should not be charged a visitor levy to stay in the region for healthcare, family visits/occasions, funerals and other non-leisure purposes. • a visitor levy could negatively impact local businesses as visitors might not have as much money to spend in shops and restaurants during their visit. These points are further reflected in the selected visitor survey respondent quotes below. “Government should provide local councils with the funding required to maintain and improve local amenities. So many of Scotland's holiday towns are a badly run down and in need of major investment, this situation is a result of many years of neglect by councils due to lack of government funding. Now the government is making up schemes to try and claw more money out of people who are already struggling in order to pay for work they should have been responsible for in the first place. We can barely afford a short holiday as it is without it potentially becoming even more expensive.“ “Please don't charge us any more money to visit. It's expensive enough and will become impossible for us to visit family, even returning for funerals will be taxed by the council - abhorrent.” “If visitors pay a visitor levy they will have less money to spend in local business and I wouldn’t be able to afford to go out for dinner as much.” “I disagree wholeheartedly that by imposing this tax that the council will “improve” the visitor experience in any way. The effect I believe will be entirely the opposite. This tax will deter visitors.” No improvements are needed to improve Argyll and Bute’s visitor offer A small number of visitors suggested that Argyll and Bute’s visitor offer did not need to be improved as most people visit for its scenery and landscape. Page 518
Page 519
140 Rather than make infrastructure improvements they suggested that the council (and others) could do more with existing resources to preserve the natural landscape within Argyll and Bute to help keep it ‘unspoiled’ for residents and visitors alike. These points are further reflected in the visitor survey respondent quotes below. “Visitors want to see the Scottish wildlife and local culture. Supporting the local people who care for the environment and also those who keep the culture and history alive, is vital to the survival of Scotland as we know it.” “It's rural and I love it as it is. Please don't add more tarmac (apart from potholes) and paths. The beauty is to see as much of Argyll in its raw form!” 5.6 Exemptions Visitors who agreed with the council’s current position on local exemptions Less than one-fifth (16%) of visitors said that they either agreed or strongly agreed with the council’s current proposal that there should be no local exemptions beyond those set out nationally in the visitor levy scheme legislation to aid operational simplicity, see Table 5.4. Table 5.4: To what extent do you agree or disagree with this position on local exemptions? Number Percentage Strongly Agree 57 11% Agree 29 5% Neither agree nor disagree 76 14% Disagree 63 12% Strongly Disagree 289 54% Don’t know 24 4% Source: A&BC Visitor Survey. Base=538 Most visitors who agreed with the council’s current position on local exemptions felt that this was a fair and proportionate approach - they expressed support for the exemptions set out at national level as: • adding local exemptions could create added complexity for scheme implementation – support was expressed for a consistent approach. Page 519
Page 520
141 • adding local exemptions could risk an unlevel playing field between those eligible and ineligible for an exemption. Similar to the residents’ survey, a view expressed was that too many exemptions might undermine trust in a visitor levy as it could be perceived to be unfair by those who are not exempt. • this would ensure administration requirements of the scheme were kept to a minimum – and at the same time maximise revenue generated to improve the visitor offer. Some visitors who agreed with the council’s current position on local exemptions caveated their response in some way. For example, not all agreed with a visitor levy being implemented in Argyll and Bute - but if it was to go ahead, they expressed support with the council’s current position on local exemptions. A couple of visitor quotes which further illustrate these points are provided below. “Sounds sensible to keep administration costs as low as possible. Ensures funds can be spent on projects to improve the visitor offer in Argyll and Bute. More exemptions also opens the door for potentially fraudulent activity.” “Meeting national standards provides a consistent approach.” Visitors who disagreed with the council’s current position on local exemptions The majority (66%) of visitors said that they either disagreed or strongly disagreed with the council’s current position on local exemptions, and most strongly disagreed, see Table 5.4. A visitor levy should not be implemented Some visitors who disagreed with the council’s current position on local exemptions fundamentally did not agree with the introduction of a visitor levy scheme in Argyll and Bute. Points raised have been covered elsewhere in this chapter. Residents should be exempt from a visitor levy scheme Some visitors who disagreed with the council’s current position on local exemptions believed residents should be exempt from the scheme. Different views were expressed here, with terms such as ‘local’ ‘island’, ‘Scottish’ and ‘UK’ residents all mentioned in these responses to varying degrees. Page 520
Page 521
142 Responses which expressed support for Argyll and Bute residents (and particular groups, for example pregnant women) to be exempt frequently mentioned that local residents required to stay in paid accommodation within Argyll and Bute for non-leisure purposes (for example, to access healthcare/medical attention, family events and funerals, education, and for work were all mentioned). They mentioned that it was not always possible for those residents who live on the islands to travel to and from the mainland in one day. Poor ferry services, delays and cancellations were also frequently mentioned in these responses. These visitors suggested that the council could use its discretion to apply local exemptions related to the trip’s purpose – as non-leisure trips were considered different to genuine visitors. Some visitor responses also highlighted the fact that local residents paid their taxes and contributed to the local economy – and that a visitor levy could be considered ‘double tax’ – they suggested that everyone would be negatively affected by a visitor levy scheme – it was described by some visitors as an ‘accommodation tax’ or ‘room tax’ rather than a visitor levy aimed at genuine tourists. Another point raised by visitors, albeit to a lesser degree, was that Scottish and UK residents could also be made exempt – a view expressed was that there was a risk that some domestic visitors to Argyll and Bute, including those most impacted by the cost-of-living crisis, might simply choose alternative locations or regions where there was no levy. Some quotes which reflect the points by visitors raised are presented below. “Local residents in island communities often have no option other than to [stay] overnight on the mainland as a result of the unavoidable restrictions to travel imposed by ferry services, which are subject to weather and timetabling restrictions. Hospital/dental appointments, shopping trips, onward travel, often necessitate an overnight stay. These people should be exempt from having to pay any visitor levy as they are not "visiting" for pleasure but out of necessity.” “We regularly need to visit from an island which requires an overnight stay to catch ferries. We are local residents and should not be required to pay an extra room tax.” “I am a resident of Argyll and Bute, but I like to holiday within my local area to discover more of it. If I had to pay a visitor levy, I would probably choose to holiday elsewhere.” “A visitor levy would discourage visitors in general, we already live in Scotland and find accommodation can be pricey for a staycation, a visitor levy would encourage me to stay elsewhere in Scotland or overseas.” Page 521
Page 522
143 “The position of islanders must be considered. 1) Missed last ferry home due to delays on the mainland roads (landslips, accidents, etc.) – I have to pay a visitor levy. 2) Cancelled last ferry due to weather/breakdown/repositioning due to berthing problems – I have to pay a visitor levy. 3) Workmen come to the island. They pay a visitor levy on their accommodation, but we have to reimburse them. 4) Pregnant ladies are advised to leave the island three weeks prior to their delivery date and consequently have to stay somewhere. They pay a visitor levy. (There may be some ability to claim back from the NHS but this is never 100% even before a visitor levy.) 5) Hospital appointments on the mainland requiring an overnight stay – I have to pay a visitor levy (There may be some ability to claim back from the NHS but this is never 100% even before a visitor levy).” “Accommodation is already too expensive and additional cost will keep visitors away.” Workers and tradespeople should be exempt from a visitor levy Some visitors called for the council to apply its discretion to make those who work and live in Argyll and Bute on a temporary basis exempt from a visitor levy. Key workers were mentioned in these responses (such as those who work in health and social care) as well as tradespeople. Responses highlighted wider concerns around the recruitment and attention of skilled people to work in rural areas such as Argyll and Bute, in particular in island communities, where staff shortages were said to be commonplace. They added that a visitor levy could exacerbate this issue as well as increase the costs associated with employing the services of tradespeople. Some quotes which reflect the points raised are presented below. “There are many exemptions to consider for example, people staying in order to provide services should be exempt (for example, nurses, builders) they are here to support our community and/or keep the economy moving.” “Local companies have to bring in staff from outside the area due to skills shortages, and put them up in accommodation, this is just another form of tax that will hit local business and in turn mean job losses.” “A Visitor Levy should not be charged for healthcare or other workers who have to go to the islands (or elsewhere in Argyll and Bute) for their work - they are not visitors in the tourism viewpoint - they are there to work and shouldn't be penalized.” Carers accompanying people with a disability should be exempt While disabled individuals would be exempt from paying a visitor levy (under national exemptions) those accompanying them would not be exempt unless a local authority applied its discretion to apply a local exemption. Page 522
Page 523
144 Some visitors suggested that carers accompanying people with a disability should be exempt from paying a visitor levy – they mentioned that many disabled people required a carer/companion to help support them travel to and from different places – be that on holiday or for non-leisure overnight trips (for example, healthcare and hospital appointments, etc.) and without this they might not be able to travel at all or be less inclined to do so. The additional cost for disabled people to pay a visitor levy might also be prohibitive, including for their unpaid carers – responses suggested that many disabled people might not be able to cover/absorb this additional cost. Some quotes which reflect the points raised are presented below. “In other areas throughout Scotland, companions are offered elements, such as free travel or reduced prices in cinemas, I believe this would serve to show that the island retains a sense of keeping in touch with other regions.” “The person accompanying the disabled person, maybe a carer and not financially able to afford the increase of 5%.” “There are times that exemptions need to be considered, people with a disability travelling may require support and that should be accounted for.” “Carers in many cases are unpaid and individuals with profound disabilities or learning difficulties will be challenged to take a holiday without accompaniment if the carers cannot afford a holiday due to the potential increase in nightly stays.” There should be no exemptions A small number of visitors said that there should not be any exemptions to a visitor levy (that is, they disagreed with the nationally identified list of exemptions). The main argument made by these visitors was that it would be ‘unfair’ to have exemptions. They suggested that all visitors used tourism infrastructure and facilities when visiting Argyll and Bute and so, everyone should be subject to a visitor levy charge. Further, they suggested that providing exemptions for disabled individuals could be seen as ‘positive discrimination.’ These points are further reflected in the visitor survey respondent quotes below. “It must be a blanket charge for everyone, if everyone is using the facilities, everyone should pay.” “If you wish to impose this tax it should be imposed on all, irrespective of poverty, disability, etc.” Page 523
Page 524
145 Neither agreed nor disagreed with the council’s current position on local exemptions or don’t know The remainder (14%) of visitors said that they neither agreed nor disagreed with the council’s position on local exemptions or were unsure, see Table 5.4. Many of these visitors indicated that they did not support the introduction of a visitor levy (for the reasons described earlier), while others identified points which have been covered above (including support for Argyll and Bute residents to be exempt). A couple of quotes which reflect the points raised by these visitors are presented below. “Current proposal seems generally fair to visitors outside the region. Very unfair to residents of Argyll who want to travel and holiday within their own region.” “I don't think a visitor levy is appropriate for Argyll and Bute so don't have an opinion on exemptions.” 5.7 Proposal to set a visitor levy rate at 5% Visitors who did not support a visitor levy being introduced in Argyll and Bute More than half of visitors (55%) selected ‘I don’t support a visitor levy being introduced across Argyll and Bute’ to the question which asked the extent to which they agree or disagree with the council’s proposal to set a visitor levy rate at 5%, see Table 5.5. EKOS note: a small number of visitors who selected disagree or strongly disagree to this question then provided qualitative feedback that indicated they did not support a visitor levy in Argyll and Bute (that is, they did not select the ‘I don’t support a visitor levy being introduced across Argyll and Bute’ option). This suggests that the proportion of visitors who disagree with the proposed levy rate of 5% would be lower while the proportion who did not support the introduction of a visitor levy would be higher than what has been presented in the table below. See also Table 5.6. Page 524
Page 525
146 Table 5.5: To what extent do you agree with the Argyll and Bute Council proposal to set a visitor levy rate at 5%? Number Percentage Strongly agree 26 5% Agree 29 5% Neither agree nor disagree 32 6% Disagree 32 6% Strongly disagree 115 21% Don’t know 7 1% I don’t support a visitor levy being introduced across Argyll and Bute 297 55% Source: A&BC Visitor Survey. Base=538 Table 5.6: To what extent do you agree with the Argyll and Bute Council proposal to set a visitor levy rate at 5%? (EKOS recoding) Number Percentage Strongly agree 26 5% Agree 29 5% Neither agree nor disagree 32 6% Disagree 28 5% Strongly disagree 85 16% Don’t know 7 1% I don’t support a visitor levy being introduced across Argyll and Bute 331 62% Source: A&BC Visitor Survey. Base=538 The proposed levy rate of 5% is too high Many visitors who did not support the introduction of a visitor levy scheme said that the proposed levy rate at 5% was ‘unreasonable’ or ‘too high’. Responses mentioned that visitors already paid relatively high levels of tax on their accommodation (through a 20% VAT rate), and that a visitor levy would further increase costs for visitors. These visitor survey responses also mentioned that a visitor levy rate of 5% was too high within the context of the cost-of-living crisis, and that some visitors might choose to visit other places in Scotland with no visitor levy. These points are further reflected in the visitor survey respondent quotes below. “It’s too high. And is also subject to VAT making it 6%. Businesses are going to struggle. A lot of visitors will stay away especially with the cost-of-living crisis” Page 525
Page 526
147 “Already a challenge to visit these areas, financially and geographically, so increasing costs will not attract more visitors” “A two week stay at £100 per night would cost £70 more. Too much in these hard financial times. High end accommodation costs considerably more than £100 [per night] so a 5% levy could make it unattainable. To attract overseas visitors the best accommodation at a fair price needs to be available.” Additional points raised included that a small number of visitors suggested that Argyll and Bute does not suffer from severe overtourism issues (like some places/cities in Europe) - these visitors did not think a visitor levy was warranted. An argument made was that the council could do more positive things to encourage visitors to the area rather than deterring visitors via a visitor levy scheme. These points are further reflected in the selected visitor survey respondent quotes below. “A visitor levy is not right for a rural area that is struggling and needs visitors. I stay regularly in Argyll and support lots of businesses. If I, and many visitors, don’t stay then businesses will suffer and many will close.” “There are already fewer tourists visiting this will encourage potential visitors to look elsewhere. In Europe these levies are in place to reduce tourist numbers, but A&B should be trying to attract more.” Visitors who disagreed with the proposal to set a visitor levy rate at 5% A sizable proportion (27%) of visitors either disagreed or strongly disagreed with the council’s proposal to set a visitor levy rate at 5%, see Table 5.5. As noted above, it is likely that a lower proportion of visitors disagreed with this proposal, and that the proportion who did not support the introduction of a visitor levy scheme is higher. Points raised by visitors who either disagreed or strongly disagreed with the council’s proposal to set a visitor levy rate at 5% were broadly similar to those identified by those visitors who did not support the introduction of a scheme (for example, it is too high, etc.). Some of these visitors felt that a visitor levy should be a flat rate (such as that adopted in Manchester and other European countries), rather than a percentage of the total accommodation cost. These responses mentioned that this would be a fairer approach and would be clearer and easier to understand for visitors. Page 526
Page 527
148 Others suggested that a percentage rate of 5% might encourage some visitors to opt for shorter stays in Argyll and Bute instead or to look for cheaper accommodation potentially at the expense of higher-end accommodation provision. These points are further reflected in the visitor survey respondent quotes below. “Have travelled to some of Europe’s most popular destinations and have paid there, but they had a much simpler flat fee that was more like ten euros for a week. 5% penalises people like us who like to visit for longer, and favours more short-term stays.” “We have paid visitor levies all over the world and this levy is one of the higher amounts. The vast majority of levies are a flat fee, and I could support this approach. A flat fee would be much easier to apply for the hotel/B&B owners and would not be unfairly punitive toward the higher priced lodgings. If the goal is to raise funds, it shouldn’t be punitive toward the people who are required to administer a visitor levy.” Visitors who agreed with the proposal to set a visitor levy rate at 5% Few visitors (10%) either agreed or strongly agreed with the council’s proposal to set a visitor levy rate at 5% in Argyll and Bute, see Table 5.5. Most visitors who agreed with the proposal to set a visitor levy rate at 5% felt that this rate was ‘fair’ and ‘reasonable’ and would be unlikely to deter them or visitors staying in Argyll and Bute. There was reference in these responses to visitor levies established in other places/countries in further support of this viewpoint. They also considered a visitor levy rate of 5% could help to maximise the revenue generated for reinvestment in Argyll and Bute. Some quotes which reflect the points raised by these visitors are presented below. “It’s not a significant amount to deter people, any less and it wouldn’t provide enough benefit.” “I think this will provide enough funding to make a real difference in improving the area for visitors and residents. I also hope it can be used to help businesses and improve marketing of the area. If there is there is no levy, I think other areas with one will quickly move ahead of Argyll and Bute with better facilities.” “5% is a fair charge especially if it means improving the infrastructure” Page 527
Page 528
149 5.8 How investment in tourism infrastructure and services could be paid for Visitors who indicated that they did not support a visitor levy were asked ‘If you do not support a visitor levy, how would you suggest that investment in our tourism infrastructure and services is paid for?’. Most visitors responded to this question. Investment could be paid for from the council’s existing budget Many visitors suggested that investment in tourism infrastructure should be paid for from the council’s existing budget – and most of these responses also appeared to criticise the council’s management of its finances – points raised included that that the council was felt to be struggling to ‘balance its budget’ or that the council’s budget could be used ‘more efficiently’ in order to invest in tourism infrastructure. The main points raised by these visitors included that the council: • could look to streamline its operations and services and to focus on ‘core’ services and provision. • could undertake a review of internal staffing requirements, salaries and other administrative costs as a way to manage its finances better and to ensure there was sufficient funding for investment in tourism infrastructure in order to attract people to spend time and money in the area. These points are further reflected in the visitor survey respondent quotes below. “Roads are already in council budgets. Caravan parks are generally in private hands. Public toilets are pay for use and if the need is that great then they will be self-funding. Car parks are generally pay for use. I don’t see the need for additional funding through tax.” “You invest by managing your budget. Your council and every other council should be looking at investments to create more revenue through visitors and residents spending more of their time and hard-earned money in your areas, growing the local economy. Taxing us even more just reduces our disposable income, which will ultimately curtail our spending in our own country.” “Through better management of local funds issued to the local councils, investment in local companies and shops to bring in a wider spectrum of people, which in turn spend putting money back into the area.” Page 528
Page 529
150 Investment could be paid for from revenues generated through existing taxes Many visitors suggested that the council could use revenue generated through existing taxes, paid by businesses, residents, and visitors, to invest in local tourism infrastructure – as has long be the case (for example, investment in roads, pavements, etc. was mentioned in these responses). There was also widespread reference to VAT, Council Tax and Road Tax in visitor survey responses. As well as to recent increases in, for example Council Tax in Argyll and Bute, to further support this viewpoint – it was suggested that additional revenue from increased taxation could ‘help’ support continued investment in tourism infrastructure. These points are further reflected in the visitor survey respondent quotes below. “We are a nation that has until now funded tourism infrastructure from central government funds and business taxation on tourist businesses.” “Rural Scotland is already one of the highest taxed communities in Europe. Priorities for government spending need to be reviewed at national level to make sure rural communities are not strangled by additional taxation.” “Via the existing tax system.” “Council Tax has just increased 9.9% - this should support it.” Investment in tourism infrastructure and services should be funded in the same way as it always has been A small number of visitors expressed the view that tourism infrastructure and services should be funded in the same way it always has been – for example, through existing budgets, revenue from taxation, businesses paying for it, visitors spending money in local area, etc. These points are further reflected in the visitor survey respondent quotes below. “Any form of "tourism infrastructure" that I use is of a commercial nature and is funded through the profits of the businesses that you are charging rates to. I really don't see what the council is "giving" us that we don't already have to pay for.” “We have enjoyed all of our visits to date so I can only assume that whatever is currently in place is working just fine.” “In the same way that it has always been paid for. Tourists, who visit responsibly, pay a considerable amount of money to visit the area and sleep, eat, and drink.” Page 529
Page 530
151 Additional investment in tourism infrastructure was not required Some visitors reported that additional monies might not be required to support investment in tourism infrastructure across Argyll and Bute. As noted earlier, visitors said that the scenery, landscape, and wildlife were the main factors that attracted visitors to Argyll and Bute (not tourism infrastructure). They emphasised that existing infrastructure should, however, be properly maintained for residents and visitors alike, and that efforts to protect and enhance the natural environment should be a key focus of investment efforts. These points are further reflected in the visitor survey respondent quotes below. “You don’t have “tourism infrastructure”. You just have infrastructure that everyone... both residents and visitors use as does everyone else. As a tourist there is nothing that is provided for me and cannot be and is not used by locals. “The tourism infrastructure is the day-to-day infrastructure.” Other suggestions provided by visitors Visitors provided an array of other suggestions for how investment in tourism infrastructure could be paid for. Suggestions mentioned most often included: • operating a flat rate visitor levy, rather than a percentage rate. • exploring voluntary donation points at strategic locations. • incentivising more hospitality and tourism businesses to startup in Argyll and Bute by offering low tax/business rates – as a way to attract people to the area and to spend money. • increasing council tax charges. • charging holiday homeowners business rates on their properties. • increasing road tax on campervans and motorhomes. Some of these points are further reflected in the visitor survey respondent quotes below. “There are hundreds of other ways that the council could generate this extra income. For example, increasing council tax on 2nd homes or charging business rates for holiday homeowners rather than them not paying anything.” “Incentivising big businesses from elsewhere to set up in Argyll in exchange of low tax/ low business rents etc. so that more jobs are created to boost local economy.” Page 530
Page 531
152 The council should determine how investment in tourism infrastructure and services could be paid for A small number of visitors expressed the view that it was for the council to determine how it could pay for tourism infrastructure and services in Argyll and Bute. Points raised are broadly reflected in the visitor survey respondent quotes below. “This question is unacceptable. It is up to a council to use its resources to create the conditions for tourism to thrive.” “That’s for politicians to work out. This survey should just be seeking opinions of those potentially affected.” 5.9 What levy rate do you consider appropriate Visitors who selected either disagree or strongly disagree to the question which asked, ‘To what extent do you agree with the Argyll and Bute Council proposal to set a visitor levy rate at 5%?’, were asked what rate they considered appropriate. The vast majority (86%) of visitors asked this question said that a visitor levy rate should be less than 5%, see Table 5.7. Table 5.7: If you do not agree with a visitor levy being 5%, what rate would you consider is appropriate? Number Percentage A visitor levy rate should be less than 5% 127 86% A visitor levy rate should be greater than 5% 2 1% Don’t know 19 13% Source: A&BC Visitor Survey. Base=148. Note: the base number is low compared to the total number of visitor survey responses as survey routing means that those who selected options other than disagree or strongly disagree to the question ‘To what extent do you agree with the Argyll and Bute Council proposal to set a visitor levy rate at 5%?’ were not asked this question. A visitor levy rate should be less than 5% As noted, the vast majority (86%) of visitors said that a visitor levy rate should be less than 5%. Many of these visitors (45%) went on to say that there should not be a visitor levy scheme in the area. The main themes from other visitors who thought a visitor levy rate should be lower than 5% are described below. Page 531
Page 532
153 Preference for a flat fee over a percentage fee Many of the visitors who said that a visitor levy rate should be less than 5% suggested that a visitor levy should be a flat rate, rather than a percentage fee. Points raised are broadly reflected in the visitor quotes below. “A flat fee, not a percentage would be a much simpler system.” “It should not be a percentage. If anything, it should be a flat rate like many other cities and countries.” “A flat rate then we know exactly what's on top of the charge. Nothing to work out. The figure is there in front of you to add on.” The proposed levy rate of 5% was too high Many visitors who felt that a visitor levy rate should be less than 5% state that this was ‘too much’ and that it could reduce the number of visitors to Argyll and Bute – not least as accommodation costs were considered high already. Where an alternative percentage rate was provided, a small number of visitors suggested a range of between 1% to 3% - this was viewed as more appropriate and would be less likely to deter visitors. Points raised are broadly reflected in the quotes below. “To add 5% to accommodation costs is excessive and will deter visitors.” “Increasing the overall cost of accommodation will decrease the number of visitors. People won't come. They can holiday somewhere else where there is no extra charge.” “Affordability is the key issue as hotel costs are already expensive.” A visitor levy rate should be greater than 5% Only 1% of visitors said that a visitor levy rate should be higher than 5%, see Table 5.7, and qualitative feedback was limited. Page 532
Page 533
154 5.10 Should there be a cap on the number of nights of accommodation Setting business survey responses to this question in context Not all visitors who answered the question ‘Should there be a cap on the number of nights of accommodation that a visitor should pay a visitor levy?’ supported the introduction of a visitor levy and/or supported the legislation or council proposals in their current form. As illustrative examples, comments made by these visitors included ‘It should be charged on 0 nights. No tourist tax’, and ‘It should be 0 nights. No levy’. The points raised in these responses are covered elsewhere in this chapter and have not been included in the analysis to this specific question. Yes, there should be a cap The majority (61%) of visitors who were asked answered the question ‘Do you think there should be a cap on the number of nights of accommodation that a visitor should pay a visitor levy?’ felt that there should be a cap, see Table 5.8. Table 5.8: Do you think there should be a cap on the number of nights of accommodation that a visitor should pay a visitor levy? Number Percentage Yes 149 61% No 52 21% Don't Know 42 17% Source: A&BC Visitor Survey. Base=243. The base number is low compared to the total number of visitor survey responses as survey routing means that those who selected options other than disagree or strongly disagree to the question ‘To what extent do you agree with the Argyll and Bute Council proposal to set a visitor levy rate at 5%?’ were not asked this question. Many visitors did not specify the number of nights of accommodation that a visitor should pay a visitor levy. However, where this was provided, figures ranged from one night to 30 nights, though it was largely at the lower end of this range, with most suggesting between one and three nights. Again, there were some calls for a flat fee model rather than a percentage rate. A cap would ensure visitors were not deterred from visiting the area and could also encourage longer stays Many visitors who supported a cap on the number of nights’ accommodation a visitor levy was paid suggested that this could ensure visitors were not deterred from visiting Argyll and Bute and could also encourage visitors to stay in the area for longer. Points raised are broadly reflected in the quotes below. Page 533
Page 534
155 “If there was no cap on the number of nights payment was required, my thought is that it would decimate holiday parks, if not with the increased prices of a two-week holiday or of lodge owners who visit numerous times in a season then there is the administrative cost for the management of the holiday parks.” “No cap on number of nights could also encourage an increase to the number of shorter stays which in turn creates more traffic which is not going to improve the road infrastructure or any net zero ambitions.” “It would be enticing to get some nights 'free' of a visitor levy.” A cap would benefit temporary workers and those travelling for non-leisure purposes Some visitors expressed the view that a cap could benefit temporary workers and those staying in Argyll and Bute for non-leisure purposes (for example, health and social care workers, tradespeople were mentioned in responses). Responses suggested that these workers stayed in the region on a temporary basis (but at times for a long period), primarily on the islands, to provide essential services for local communities. The staff recruitment and retention argument made earlier was repeated here. A further repeated point made was around local residents making non-leisure trips within Argyll and Bute (for example, caring for elderly family members, attending family events (such as funerals), and visiting family and friends. Points raised are broadly reflected in the quotes below. “Many people use local accommodation for work purposes, that is, living whilst working on local projects, etc. Many for months at a time, many of whom are sole traders.” “Workers in the area for example can spend weeks staying in accommodation as they carry out jobs on construction.” “If someone is staying beyond two weeks then it may be due to work or care duties. Not everyone staying is on holiday.” No, there should not be a cap One fifth of visitors (21%) believed that there should not be a cap on the number of nights of accommodation that a visitor should pay a visitor levy, see Table 5.8. Page 534
Page 535
156 No cap could help to ensure the scheme is simple to administer A small number of visitors said that no cap could help to ensure a visitor levy scheme was easier to implement for accommodation providers – in terms of both minimising the administrative burden and making calculations more straightforward. These visitors also asked questions around how a cap would work in practice and emphasised the need for a clear and shared understanding of this should a cap be introduced – for example, for visitors who stayed with various accommodation providers during their visit to Argyll and Bute Points raised are broadly reflected in the quotes below. “How would accommodation providers know how many nights a visitor has previously spent in A&B were the number of nights to be capped? If I stay in one location for a number of nights and then move to another, if there was a cap on the number of nights, how does the second accommodation owner know not to charge me if I’ve paid my maximum at the first location.” “Too difficult to apply, because visitors often travel around, for example, on island rover tickets.“ Visitors who stay for longer periods use tourism infrastructure and facilities more than those who have a short stay A small number of visitors suggested that there should not be a cap on the number of nights a visitor levy was charged – the argument made was that those visitors who stayed in the area for longer periods might use tourism infrastructure and facilities more often those on a short trip. This was considered a fairer approach. Points raised are broadly reflected in the quotes below. “The longer a person stays, the more they use roads and other local facilities provided by the council and others.” “If you are staying longer. you are using more of the facilities - only fair you should pay more.” “If I stay for 28 days. I'll drive for 28 days. Use 28 days’ worth of bins and toilet roll. If I stay for 1, I'll use one. Charge a flat rate per day.” Unsure whether there should be a cap The remainder of visitors (17%) said that they are unsure whether there should be a cap on the number of nights of accommodation that a visitor should pay a visitor levy, see Table 5.8. These visitors did not provide additional feedback. Page 535
Page 536
157 6 Updated impact assessments 6.1 Introduction EKOS has carried out an independent impact assessment of the proposed draft visitor levy scheme for Argyll and Bute. We have developed a bespoke financial and economic model within a cost benefit framework in accordance with HM Treasury Green Book guidance. The model quantifies a range of costs and benefits associated with the set-up and implementation of a visitor levy scheme in Argyll and Bute and has allowed for three distinct analyses: 1. a financial cost benefit analysis from the perspective of A&BC measuring the tax revenue generated against the cost of implementing and operating a visitor levy. 2. a financial cost benefit analysis from the perspective of Argyll and Bute accommodation providers who would be subject to paying a visitor levy. This considers the: • benefits - uplift in business turnover/income as a result of investment by A&BC in the visitor economy using funds collected from a visitor levy. • costs: o direct costs to accommodation businesses for the implementation and ongoing administration of a visitor levy. o indirect costs in terms of business turnover/income lost due to consumer behavioural changes in response to price increases (price elasticity of demand). 3. an economic cost benefit analysis from a regional economic development perspective assessing the net additional economic impacts (Gross Value Added) generated through visitor levy funded investment against the public sector and private (accommodation) sector costs of implementing and operating a visitor levy. Approach In assessing the costs and benefits associated with a visitor levy, we have taken an approach which estimates a range of scenarios based on different model specifications. This approach is driven by the nature of the data and evidence available, which is presented as a range of possible values, and the uncertainty around the impacts of visitor levies in general, which have only been recently introduced in a select number of areas and cities globally. There is also an increased level of uncertainty around the effects of a visitor levy in a rural region such as Argyll and Bute as visitor levies, thus far, have typically been introduced in urban areas and cities with significant international tourism appeal. Page 536
Page 537
158 There are several key variables in the model which are subject to multiple specifications. Where feasible and data allow, to avoid the use of assumptions we have used data available from official published sources and the Scottish Government’s Financial Memorandum to the Visitor Levy Scotland Bill5. The key variables are: • set-up/implementation costs and administrative costs for both A&BC and accommodation businesses. Three cost scenarios have been modelled including low, mid and high-cost scenarios based on data from Scottish Government’s Financial Memorandum to the Visitor Levy Scotland Bill. • Price elasticity of demand (PED) values. Three PED values have been modelled to reflect uncertainty in the response overnight visitors will have when facing a price increase in the total price of a trip to Argyll and Bute. Specification with a low-level responsiveness (PED of -0.2), medium-level responsiveness (PED of -0.85) and high-level responsiveness (PED of -1.50) based on evidence in Scottish Government’s Financial Memorandum to the Visitor Levy (Scotland) Bill have been modelled. • investment impact. The impact on the accommodation sector and overnight visitor economy turnover driven by visitor levy funded public investment in the Argyll and Bute visitor economy. As there is no detail available on the scope and scale of any specific investment projects, the potential effects have been modelled using four different values: 0%, 1%, 2% and 4% annual uplifts. This is a ‘project level assumption’ (based on VisitScotland data which show that the total spend in the visitor economy, 2022-2023 grew by +3%6) and allows for a comparison of the effects of varying level of return on investment. Applying all of these specifications in combination has enabled the modelling of 36 distinct model specifications and enables a range of possible results to be analysed. Technical note and key assumptions The financial and economic analysis considers the following technical elements and key assumptions which have been informed by HM Treasury Green Book guidance for undertaking economic and financial appraisals. 5 Source: Visitor Levy (Scotland) Bill – Financial Memorandum Financial Memorandum accessible 6 Driving the visitor economy, VisitScotland’s Corporate Plan 2025 – 2028 Page 537
Page 538
159 Constant Prices - are prices that have been adjusted to remove the effects of inflation. This allows a comparison of costs and benefits over time in real terms, also known as ‘real prices’. Expressed in terms of the prices prevailing in a selected base year and used to isolate the real change in value over time, without the distortion caused by inflation. Within the appraisal we have set the base year as the first year that implementation costs associated with a visitor levy would first be realised. We have assumed that a visitor levy could be approved in the Financial Year 2025-2026. Present Value - is the value today of a stream of future costs or benefits, discounted to account for the Social Time Preference to reflect the concept that a pound today is worth more than a pound tomorrow. This has been calculated at the HM Treasury recommended discount rate of 3.5%. Appraisal Period – we have set the appraisal period (the timescale over which the model estimates costs and benefits) at 10 years to consider the longer-term implications that could be driven by the introduction of a visitor levy. Assumptions: • a 5% visitor levy has been applied on the assumption that the full cost is passed through to the end consumer. At the time of appraisal, no definitive information was available regarding the scope or criteria for local exemptions, nor on the potential for remittance or redistribution of visitor levy proceeds to accommodation providers. As such, this constitutes a conservative (worst-case) modelling scenario. Should further clarification or policy guidance become available on exemption mechanisms or fund allocations, it is recommended that the financial impact assessment be revisited and updated accordingly. • all available funding (net of set-up and ongoing administration costs) is invested back into the visitor economy under the broad themes as outlined in the Visitor Levy (Scotland) Bill: o maintaining and improving tourism infrastructure. o environmental management. o cultural and heritage projects. o public transport and local services. o promoting sustainable tourism. Islands vs Mainland – ideally, the assessment would include disaggregated appraisals to evaluate the differential impacts of a visitor levy across distinct sub-regions, particularly given the heightened economic sensitivity of island communities to external influences. However, there is a lack of sufficiently granular and reliable official data to accurately quantify the size, structure, and performance of the islands’ accommodation sector or wider visitor economy. Consequently, it is not currently possible to determine whether the introduction of a visitor levy would have a proportionately greater or lesser effect on island areas relative to the mainland. Therefore, all financial and economic modelling has been conducted at the local authority level. Page 538
Page 539
160 Figure 6.1, over provides a visual representation of the methodology, including the assessment of benefits and costs and benefit to cost ratios, and how they relate to the accommodation sector baseline forecast and the PED and investment impact effects. Below we have outlined a summary of all relevant calculations for ease of reference. 𝑁𝑒𝑡 𝑎𝑐𝑐𝑜𝑚𝑚𝑜𝑑𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝑠𝑒𝑐𝑡𝑜𝑟 𝑡𝑢𝑟𝑛𝑜𝑣𝑒𝑟 𝑐ℎ𝑎𝑛𝑔𝑒 (𝑻𝒂𝒃𝒍𝒆 𝟔.𝟗) = 𝐵𝑒𝑛𝑒𝑓𝑖𝑡𝑠 (𝑻𝒂𝒃𝒍𝒆 𝟔.𝟔𝒂) − 𝑇𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙 𝑐𝑜𝑠𝑡𝑠 (𝑑𝑖𝑟𝑒𝑐𝑡 𝑐𝑜𝑠𝑡𝑠,𝑻𝒂𝒃𝒍𝒆 𝟔.𝟐 + 𝑖𝑛𝑑𝑖𝑟𝑒𝑐𝑡 𝑐𝑜𝑠𝑡𝑠,𝑻𝒂𝒃𝒍𝒆 𝟔.𝟓) 𝐴𝑐𝑐𝑜𝑚𝑚𝑜𝑑𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝑠𝑒𝑐𝑡𝑜𝑟 𝐵𝑒𝑛𝑒𝑓𝑖𝑡 𝐶𝑜𝑠𝑡 𝑅𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜 (𝑻𝒂𝒃𝒍𝒆 𝟔.𝟏𝟑) = 𝐵𝑒𝑛𝑒𝑓𝑖𝑡𝑠 (𝑻𝒂𝒃𝒍𝒆 𝟔.𝟔𝒂) ÷ 𝑇𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙 𝑐𝑜𝑠𝑡𝑠 (𝑑𝑖𝑟𝑒𝑐𝑡 𝑐𝑜𝑠𝑡𝑠,𝑻𝒂𝒃𝒍𝒆 𝟔.𝟐 + 𝑖𝑛𝑑𝑖𝑟𝑒𝑐𝑡 𝑐𝑜𝑠𝑡𝑠,𝑻𝒂𝒃𝒍𝒆 𝟔.𝟓) 𝑁𝑒𝑡 𝑡𝑎𝑥 𝑟𝑒𝑣𝑒𝑛𝑢𝑒𝑠 (𝑻𝒂𝒃𝒍𝒆 𝟔.𝟖) = 𝐺𝑟𝑜𝑠𝑠 𝑡𝑎𝑥 𝑟𝑒𝑣𝑒𝑛𝑢𝑒 (𝑻𝒂𝒃𝒍𝒆 𝟔.𝟕) − 𝐴&𝐵𝐶 𝑠𝑒𝑡 𝑢𝑝 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝑖𝑚𝑝𝑙𝑒𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝑐𝑜𝑠𝑡𝑠 (𝑻𝒂𝒃𝒍𝒆 𝟔.𝟏) 𝐴&𝐵𝐶 𝐵𝑒𝑛𝑒𝑓𝑖𝑡 𝐶𝑜𝑠𝑡 𝑅𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜 (𝑻𝒂𝒃𝒍𝒆 𝟔.𝟏𝟐) = 𝑁𝑒𝑡 𝑡𝑎𝑥 𝑟𝑒𝑣𝑒𝑛𝑢𝑒𝑠 (𝑻𝒂𝒃𝒍𝒆 𝟔.𝟖) ÷ 𝐴&𝐵𝐶 𝑠𝑒𝑡 𝑢𝑝 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝑖𝑚𝑝𝑙𝑒𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝑐𝑜𝑠𝑡𝑠 (𝑻𝒂𝒃𝒍𝒆 𝟔.𝟏) 𝑁𝑒𝑡 𝑐ℎ𝑎𝑛𝑔𝑒 𝑖𝑛 𝑒𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑜𝑚𝑖𝑐 𝑎𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑣𝑖𝑡𝑦 𝑤𝑖𝑡ℎ𝑖𝑛 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑤𝑖𝑑𝑒𝑟 𝑜𝑣𝑒𝑟𝑛𝑖𝑔ℎ𝑡 𝑣𝑖𝑠𝑖𝑡𝑜𝑟 𝑠𝑒𝑐𝑡𝑜𝑟 (𝑻𝒂𝒃𝒍𝒆 𝟔.𝟏𝟏) = 𝐵𝑒𝑛𝑒𝑓𝑖𝑡𝑠 (𝑻𝒂𝒃𝒍𝒆 𝟔.𝟔𝒃) − 𝐷𝑖𝑟𝑒𝑐𝑡 𝑐𝑜𝑠𝑡𝑠 (𝑻𝒂𝒃𝒍𝒆 𝟔.𝟐) + 𝐴&𝐵𝐶 𝑠𝑒𝑡 𝑢𝑝 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝑖𝑚𝑝𝑙𝑒𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝑐𝑜𝑠𝑡𝑠 (𝑻𝒂𝒃𝒍𝒆 𝟔.𝟏). 𝑊𝑖𝑑𝑒𝑟 𝑜𝑣𝑒𝑟𝑛𝑖𝑔ℎ𝑡 𝑣𝑖𝑠𝑖𝑡𝑜𝑟 𝑠𝑒𝑐𝑡𝑜𝑟 𝐵𝐶𝑅 (𝑻𝒂𝒃𝒍𝒆 𝟔.𝟏𝟒) = 𝐵𝑒𝑛𝑒𝑓𝑖𝑡𝑠 (𝑻𝒂𝒃𝒍𝒆 𝟔.𝟔𝒃) ÷ 𝐷𝑖𝑟𝑒𝑐𝑡 𝑐𝑜𝑠𝑡𝑠 (𝑻𝒂𝒃𝒍𝒆 𝟔.𝟐) + 𝐴&𝐵𝐶 𝑠𝑒𝑡 𝑢𝑝 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝑖𝑚𝑝𝑙𝑒𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝑐𝑜𝑠𝑡𝑠 (𝑻𝒂𝒃𝒍𝒆 𝟔.𝟏). Page 539
Page 540
161 Figure 6.1: Methodology summary Page 540
Page 541
162 6.2 Limitations of the analysis While the financial and economic analysis is based on the best evidence available and provides a range of possible costs and benefits to A&BC, accommodation sector businesses and the wider Argyll and Bute economy, it is important to recognise the limitations of the analysis. The analysis is not able to determine which scenario is more likely to occur. That is to say, we are unable to comment on if the PED is value is more likely to be -0.2, -0.85 or -1.50. This is also the case for the costs of set-up and administration, and investment impact. What the analysis does provide is insight to a range of possible costs and benefits and an understanding of the magnitude of impact that investment of visitor levy funds will need to generate a positive impact/return. The analysis provides insight into the effects of a visitor levy at the Argyll and Bute level only. No distinction can be made at a sub-regional level, for example, islands vs. mainland. While different sub-regions may be impacted differently by a visitor levy, there is insufficient data to disaggregate any regional effects. The analysis also presents accommodation and overnight visitor economy businesses in aggregate and the potential turnover losses and gains are assessed on a sectoral basis. It is possible that turnover losses due to a visitor levy may be unevenly distributed across the region. This could have significant impacts on specific businesses and may result in closure of businesses who are particularly impacted. Similarly, businesses may be differentially impacted by investment in the sector and the potential benefits may not be evenly felt across the region. 6.3 Costs This section outlines the approach to estimating costs only - this includes the costs borne by A&BC and those borne by the Argyll and Bute accommodation providers as a result of implementing a visitor levy scheme. Section 6.4 and Section 6.5 provide detail on the benefits and cost-benefit analysis, respectively. Local authority costs As set out in the Visitor Levy (Scotland) Bill Financial Memorandum local authorities will face two sets of costs as result of implementing a visitor levy scheme. These are: • one-off set-up and implementation costs. • ongoing costs associated with administration of a visitor levy. Page 541
Page 542
163 Set-up and implementation costs These costs include developing new processes and systems to collect visitor levy payments made by accommodation providers. There will also be costs associated with recruitment and/or training of staff and for awareness raising and wider comms – for example, informing accommodation providers how to collect and pay a visitor levy. The Financial Memorandum estimates the total set-up costs as £100,000 to £460,000. The memorandum also suggests that set-up costs will occur over a two-year period which precedes a visitor levy officially coming into effect. EKOS has used these estimates to inform lower and higher cost scenarios and have also developed a “mid” cost scenario based on the midpoint between these lower and upper bounds. Ongoing visitor levy administration costs These costs are expected to come from core operational staff who will undertake several additional activities such as collecting tax returns, undertaking monitoring enforcement duties such as debt recovery and audit procedures, issuing penalties, and handling complaints, etc. There will also be ongoing costs associated with the maintenance of new IT systems and ongoing communications with stakeholders and the accommodation sector. Scottish Government estimates core staffing requirements to be between 3 and 5 full-time equivalent members of local authority administrative staff and that the likely range of staff costs would be £105,000 to £185,000 per annum (this cost range is consistent with actual staff costs within A&BC and across Scottish Councils with the average cost per employee (including salary, pensions, NI is £35,000 - £45,000 per annum). Government also estimates the need to budget for ‘non-staff costs’ at a rate of +25% to ongoing visitor levy administration costs. Therefore, the lower and upper bound of ongoing administrative costs are £145,000 to £240,000 with a midpoint estimate of £192,500 per annum. EKOS has used these ranges to inform three costs scenarios. Total local authority costs Using the lower bound, midpoint and upper bound costs estimates described above and applying these on an annual basis over the 10-year appraisal period, Table 6.1 summarises three costs scenarios. Page 542
Page 543
164 Table 6.1: A&BC visitor levy set-up and administration costs Cost Scenario Cost Type 2025/26 2026/27 2027/28- 2034/35 (per annum costs) Total Present Value Low Implementation £50,000 £50,000 £0 £100,000 £98,309 Administration £0 £0 £145,000 £725,000 £654,683 Total £50,000 £50,000 £145,000 £825,000 £752,992 Mid Implementation £140,000 £140,000 £0 £280,000 £275,266 Administration £0 £0 £192,500 £962,500 £869,148 Total £140,000 £140,000 £192,500 £1,242,500 £1,144,413 High Implementation £230,000 £230,000 £0 £460,000 £452,222 Administration £0 £0 £240,000 £1,200,000 £1,083,613 Total £230,000 £230,000 £240,000 £1,660,000 £1,535,835 Please note that the Mid Cost Scenario values are carried forward throughout the remainder of the analysis presented in this chapter. This is done so that the effects of different PED and investment impact values can be assessed directly. Note that the costs presented in Table 6.1 above are the set of costs that are netted off gross tax revenue to calculate net tax revenue that could be generated by a visitor levy. Argyll and Bute accommodation provider costs Direct costs Accommodation providers in Argyll and Bute who would be subject to a visitor levy would be required to calculate and collect a visitor levy payable by visitors staying on the premises and remit all levies collected to the council. To comply with these requirements, accommodation providers would be subject to the following direct costs: • one-off set-up and implementation costs. • ongoing costs associated with administration of a visitor levy. The assessment of these costs is based on Scottish Government’s Financial Memorandum to the Visitor Levy (Scotland) Bill. One-off set-up and implementation costs These costs will include upgrading existing or purchasing new property management system (PMS) software or adapting existing practices to update booking and invoicing processes to account for the inclusion of a visitor levy. Page 543
Page 544
165 These costs may vary by business size depending on the sophistication of their booking channels. There also may be costs associated with adapting practices in businesses’ data collection and record keeping to meet local authority requirements. For example, providing disaggregated bills which separate accommodation charges out from other “package” services such as dining or spa services. Businesses with turnover > £1,000,000 The Financial Memorandum estimates that for a small to medium sized business7 the one-off fee charged by a PMS supplier is between £1,000 to £3,000 and staff time required to implement all other set-up activities is between 10 and 30 working days or between £2,000 to £7,000. This estimates a total set-up cost for SMEs of between £3,000 and £10,000 per accommodation provider. Businesses with turnover < £90,000 (below VAT threshold) For businesses operating at turnover levels below the VAT registration threshold, the Financial Memorandum assumes that these businesses will face lower set-up costs. Set-up activities are assumed to absorb between 2 to 5 days of a business owner time equating to between £150 and £1,100. Businesses with turnover >£90,000 but < than £1,000,000 There are no estimates provided on businesses who are above the VAT registration threshold but that generate under £1,000,000 in turnover per annum. We have assumed that the set-up cost for businesses of this size are the average of SMEs (businesses with turnover > £1,000,000) and micro businesses (businesses with turnover >£90,000 but < than £1,000,000) provided by the Scottish Government. This is £1,575 to £5,550. The Financial Memorandum assumes that businesses will incur set-up and implementation costs one year prior to a visitor levy being officially implemented. Ongoing visitor levy administration costs Accommodation providers would have to calculate the additional costs of a visitor levy and ensure that this amount is collected at each sale. Providers would also need to process and file quarterly returns to the council. 7 Turnover between £1,000,000 and £4,999,999 per annum. Page 544
Page 545
166 These activities are likely to induce increased administrative burden, the scale of which will vary depending on existing PMS or manual processes and how these will need to be adapted, the complexity of revenues streams and the size of the business. The Financial Memorandum estimates the following ongoing administration costs for accommodation businesses: • businesses with turnover > £1,000,000: £300 to £400 per business per annum. • businesses with turnover < £90,000 (below VAT threshold): £200 to £850 per business per annum. Again, no cost estimates are provided for businesses above the VAT threshold but below £1,000,000 in turnover, so an average of the above is applied. The estimated annual cost for accommodation businesses of this size is: £250 to £625 per business per annum. Total accommodation sector business costs To assess the total cost direct costs of implementing and administering a visitor levy, the costs estimates are multiplied by the number of accommodation providers falling within each turnover band. It is challenging to determine that exact number of accommodation businesses in Argyll and Bute as the majority are non-VAT registered and therefore not captured in official government data sets. At the local level they are tracked based on the number of properties registered for non-domestic rates, though a single business can own multiple properties. Using a variety of data sources including NOMIS, Co-Star, STEAM and data held by A&BC the number of accommodation businesses within each turnover band is estimated as follows: • businesses with turnover between £1,000,000 and £5,000,0008: 36. • businesses with turnover between £90,000 and £999,999: 191. • businesses with turnover below VAT-registration threshold (<£90,000): 1,703. Table 6.2 presents three costs scenarios for accommodation businesses based on the ranges described above as the lower and upper bounds estimates and a midpoint estimate. 8 It is estimated that there are 6 businesses with annual turnover between £5,000,000 and £9,999,999. However, as there are no cost estimates for this cohort, they have been included in the £1,000,000 to £5,000,000 turnover band. Page 545
Page 546
167 Table 6.2: Argyll and Bute accommodation businesses visitor levy set-up and administration costs Cost Scenario Cost Type 2025/26 2026/27 2027/28- 2034/35 Total Present Value Low Implementation £0 £664,275 £0 £664,275 £641,812 Administration £0 £0 £399,150 £3,193,200 £2,650,956 Total £0 £664,275 £399,150 £3,857,475 £3,292,767 Mid Implementation £0 £1,978,813 £0 £1,978,813 £1,911,896 Administration £0 £0 £990,238 £7,921,900 £6,576,665 Total £0 £1,978,813 £990,238 £9,900,713 £8,488,561 High Implementation £0 £3,293,350 £0 £3,293,350 £3,181,981 Administration £0 £0 £1,581,325 £12,650,600 £10,502,375 Total £0 £3,293,350 £1,581,325 £15,943,950 £13,684,355 It is estimated that the total direct costs to accommodation providers for set-up and ongoing administration could be £3.3m to £13.7m over the 10-year appraisal period. Note that this is the aggregate cost to all businesses in the sector and the actual cost paid by each individual business will vary. Again, please note that the Mid Cost Scenario values are carried forward throughout the remainder of the analysis presented in this chapter. This is done so that the effects of different PED and investment impact values can be assessed directly. Indirect costs In addition, we must also account for an indirect cost of a visitor levy in the form of decreased business turnover/income. These costs are based on a financial modelling exercise undertaken by EKOS. The application of a 5% visitor levy to the cost of accommodation will increase the overall price of a consumer’s overnight stay to Argyll and Bute. Economic theory suggests that as the cost of goods increases, the quantity demand of that good decreases. The relationship between the magnitude of the price change and the magnitude of the quantity demanded change is known as the price elasticity of demand (PED). This is expressed as the following ratio: PED =% change in quantity demand / % change in price. Rearranging to solve for % change in quantity demand (which in this context is turnover/income to accommodation providers), the relationship: =% change in quantity demanded = PED * % change in price. Page 546
Page 547
168 Estimates for the PED for an overnight trip vary widely and the academic literature does not suggest a consensus. Scottish Government commissioned research into estimating a PED for the Scottish Overnight Tourism Sector with the study suggesting a low-end value (that is, least price sensitive response) of -0.2 and a high-end value (that is, the most price sensitive response) of -1.50. To support the development of a range of scenarios to estimate the impact of a price increase on sector turnover, EKOS has employed the above PED values as low and upper bounds and have included a midpoint value of -0.85 to inform low, mid, and high impact scenarios. It is important to note that the PED estimates are calculated based on the total cost of an overnight trip which include not just accommodation but all other spending (travel, paid activities, food and drink, etc.). The proposed 5% visitor levy therefore increases the overall cost of an overnight trip by less than 5%. To estimate the percentage change in price we rely on STEAM data which segments overnight visitor spending by category of spend. The data suggests that in 2024, accommodation accounted for c. 41% of total trip expenditure. Therefore, the value of the price increase due to a visitor levy is 5% * 41% or 2.08%. We then apply the 2.08% and the low, mid and high estimates for PED to calculate the magnitude of turnover decrease in the wider overnight visitor economy. Table 6.3 presents the percentage decrease in sector turnover induced by the proposed 5% visitor levy at the three PED scenarios. Table 6.3: Estimated impact on overnight visitor economy turnover – indirect costs PED Levy % Change in Price % Change in Turnover -0.2 5% 2.08% -0.4% -0.85 5% 2.08% -1.8% -1.5 5% 2.08% -3.1% Depending on the PED value, the additional indirect costs are estimated to decrease turnover generated in the overnight visitor economy by between -0.4% and -3.1% annually. Please note that these forecast effects do not take account of any potential uplift from targeted investments which are considered in Section 6.4 and Section 6.5 in this chapter. Page 547
Page 548
169 To estimate the absolute value of this impact on business turnover, EKOS has developed a baseline sector forecast for the overnight visitor economy. A&BC has supplied forecast data prepared by the University of Edinburgh on overnight accommodation expenditure which provides forecast values up to 2029/30. To extend this forecast to the end of this 10-year appraisal period, EKOS has applied the average annual expenditure growth rate from 2028/29 to 2029/30 (0.4%) to all subsequent years on an annual basis up to 2035/36. We assume that the proportion of all visitor expenditure on accommodation (41%) remains constant through this period. We can apply the percentage change in turnover at each PED scenario, to estimate the expected overnight visitor economy and accommodation specific loss in turnover. This is presented in Table 6.4. Page 548
Page 549
170 Table 6.4: Forecast sector baseline and forecast estimated turnover impacts (£millions) total Sector Turnover 2027/28 2028/29 2029/30 2030/31 2031/32 2032/33 2033/34 2034/35 Baseline Overnight Visitor Economy £440.3 £453.2 £455.0 £456.8 £458.6 £460.4 £462.2 £464.0 Accommodation Sector £183.4 £188.7 £189.5 £190.2 £191.0 £191.7 £192.5 £193.2 PED Turnover change -0.2 Overnight Visitor Economy -£1.8 -£1.9 -£1.9 -£1.9 -£1.9 -£1.9 -£1.9 -£1.9 Accommodation Sector -£0.8 -£0.8 -£0.8 -£0.8 -£0.8 -£0.8 -£0.8 -£0.8 -0.85 Overnight Visitor Economy -£7.8 -£8.0 -£8.1 -£8.1 -£8.1 -£8.1 -£8.2 -£8.2 Accommodation Sector -£3.2 -£3.3 -£3.4 -£3.4 -£3.4 -£3.4 -£3.4 -£3.4 -1.5 Overnight Visitor Economy -£13.8 -£14.2 -£14.2 -£14.3 -£14.3 -£14.4 -£14.4 -£14.5 Accommodation Sector -£5.7 -£5.9 -£5.9 -£5.9 -£6.0 -£6.0 -£6.0 -£6.0 Note: Figures rounded to nearest £0.1m Note that there is no impact on the forecast size of the overnight and accommodation sectors in year 2025/26 and 2026/27 as a visitor levy would not yet take effect. Therefore, these years are not shown in the table above. Depending on the price sensitivity of the market, it is estimated that the accommodation sector could decline between -£0.8m and -£6.0m in turnover per annum. Please note that these forecast effects do not take account of any potential uplift from targeted investments which are considered in Section 6.4 and Section 6.5 in this chapter. Considering the wider tourism economy, the price increases due to a visitor levy could induce a reduction in the turnover of the overnight visitor economy between -£1.8m and -£14.5m per annum. Page 549
Page 550
171 Total costs to accommodation sector businesses Assuming the “mid” direct cost scenario, the total costs to businesses at each PED scenario is presented below in Table 6.5 Table 6.5: Total costs to accommodation sector businesses (£millions) over 10 years PED Costs PV total -0.2 Direct Costs £8.5 Indirect Costs (turnover change) £5.2 Total Cost £13.7 -0.85 Direct Costs £8.5 Indirect Costs (turnover change) £22.3 Total Cost £30.8 -1.5 Direct Costs £8.5 Indirect Costs (turnover change) £39.4 Total Cost £47.9 Note: Figures rounded to nearest £0.1m and discounted at 3.5% annually. The costs presented in Table 6.5 above are used in the Cost Benefit Analysis for Argyll and Bute accommodation sector businesses as described in Section 6.5 later in this chapter. 6.4 Benefits This section outlines the potential benefits arising from the introduction of a visitor levy and considers the following benefits: • financial returns to A&BC in the form of tax receipts collected from a visitor levy. • increased turnover/income within the accommodation sector and wider overnight visitor sector generated by visitor levy funded investment in the visitor economy. • the net additional GVA generated within the visitor economy as a result of the net change in sector turnover/income accounting for the effect of public sector investment and consumer responses to price increases associated with a visitor levy. To estimate these benefits, we developed a forecast model for turnover within the overnight tourism and accommodation sectors, using the baseline position presented in Table 6.4 as a starting point. Page 550
Page 551
172 We then applied three levels of PED (accounting for the indirect costs/change in turnover presented in Table 6.5) and four levels of investment impact, representing the potential effect of visitor levy funded public investment by the council to support the visitor economy. The investment impact scenarios reflect assumed annual compounding uplifts in sector turnover of 4%, 2%, 1%, and 0%. Tables 6.6a and 6b present the resulting sector forecasts across all combinations of PED and investment impact scenarios. It is assumed that a visitor levy takes effect in year 3 of the appraisal period (after set-up and implementation) and that the investment impacts are first realised in year five allowing for funds to first be collected in year 3, invested in year 4 and the impact beginning to be realised in year 5. Table 6.6a: Argyll and Bute accommodation sector forecasts (£millions) PED Investment impact 2025/26 2026/27 2027/28 2028/29 2029/30 2030/31 2031/32 2032/33 2033/34 2034/35 Baseline Not Available* £183.4 £188.7 £189.5 £190.2 £191.0 £191.7 £192.5 £193.2 -0.2 0% £182.6 £187.9 £188.7 £189.4 £190.2 £190.9 £191.7 £192.4 1% £182.6 £187.9 £190.6 £192.5 £194.4 £196.3 £198.3 £200.3 2% £182.6 £187.9 £192.4 £196.3 £200.2 £204.2 £208.3 £212.5 4% £182.6 £187.9 £196.2 £204.0 £212.2 £220.7 £229.5 £238.7 -0.85 0% £180.1 £185.4 £186.1 £186.8 £187.6 £188.3 £189.1 £189.8 1% £180.1 £185.4 £188.0 £189.8 £191.7 £193.7 £195.6 £197.6 2% £180.1 £185.4 £189.8 £193.6 £197.5 £201.4 £205.5 £209.6 4% £180.1 £185.4 £193.5 £201.3 £209.3 £217.7 £226.4 £235.5 -1.5 0% £177.6 £182.8 £183.5 £184.3 £185.0 £185.7 £186.5 £187.2 1% £177.6 £182.8 £185.4 £187.2 £189.1 £191.0 £192.9 £194.8 2% £177.6 £182.8 £187.2 £190.9 £194.8 £198.7 £202.6 £206.7 4% £177.6 £182.8 £190.9 £198.5 £206.4 £214.7 £223.3 £232.2 Note: Figures rounded to nearest £0.1m * The sector forecasts presented are based on time series analysis conducted by the University of Edinburgh. This methodology produces robust estimates for years where sufficient historical data patterns are available. However, it does not extend to the 2025/26 and 2026/27 financial years, and therefore no figures are provided for these periods. These columns have been intentionally left blank. This reflects the limitations of applying time series analysis beyond its forecast horizon. Importantly, this gap does not affect any estimates of the potential impact of a visitor levy. As such a measure could only be implemented from the 2027/28 financial year onward due to the required 18-month implementation period if a visitor levy scheme is agreed in the autumn of 2025/26. Page 551
Page 552
173 Table 6.6b: Argyll and Bute wider overnight visitor sector forecasts (£millions) PED Investment impact 2025/26 2026/27 2027/28 2028/29 2029/30 2030/31 2031/32 2032/33 2033/34 2034/35 Baseline Not Available* £440.3 £453.2 £455.0 £456.8 £458.6 £460.4 £462.2 £464.0 -0.2 0% £438.5 £451.3 £453.1 £454.9 £456.6 £458.4 £460.2 £462.1 1% £438.5 £451.3 £457.6 £462.2 £466.8 £471.4 £476.2 £480.9 2% £438.5 £451.3 £462.1 £471.3 £480.8 £490.4 £500.2 £510.2 4% £438.5 £451.3 £471.1 £490.0 £509.6 £529.9 £551.1 £573.2 -0.85 0% £432.5 £445.2 £446.9 £448.7 £450.4 £452.2 £454.0 £455.8 1% £432.5 £445.2 £451.4 £455.9 £460.4 £465.0 £469.7 £474.4 2% £432.5 £445.2 £446.9 £448.7 £450.4 £452.2 £454.0 £455.8 4% £432.5 £445.2 £464.7 £483.3 £502.6 £522.7 £543.7 £565.4 -1.5 0% £426.6 £439.0 £440.8 £442.5 £444.2 £446.0 £447.7 £449.5 1% £426.6 £439.0 £445.1 £449.6 £454.1 £458.6 £463.2 £467.8 2% £426.6 £439.0 £449.5 £458.5 £467.7 £477.0 £486.6 £496.3 4% £426.6 £439.0 £458.3 £476.6 £495.7 £515.5 £536.2 £557.6 Note: Figures rounded to nearest £0.1m * The sector forecasts presented are based on time series analysis conducted by the University of Edinburgh. This methodology produces robust estimates for years where sufficient historical data patterns are available. However, it does not extend to the 2025/26 and 2026/27 financial years, and therefore no figures are provided for these periods. These columns have been intentionally left blank. This reflects the limitations of applying time series analysis beyond its forecast horizon. Importantly, this gap does not affect any estimates of the potential impact of a visitor levy. As such a measure could only be implemented from the 2027/28 financial year onward due to the required 18-month implementation period if a visitor levy scheme is agreed in the autumn of 2025/26. Tax revenue generated The tax revenue generated is assessed based on collecting 5% of overnight accommodation sector turnover as presented above in Table 6.6a. As noted at the beginning of this chapter, the estimate is based on a proposed 5% levy with no local exemptions, no cap on the number of nights of accommodation on which a visitor levy is charged, no remittance to accommodation businesses and that a visitor levy goes into effect in year 3 after a two-year implementation period as required by legislation. The estimates for gross tax receipts are presented in Table 6.7. Page 552
Page 553
174 Table 6.7: Gross annual tax receipts (£millions) PED Investment impact 2025/26 2026/27 2027/28 2028/29 2029/30 2030/31 2031/32 2032/33 2033/34 2034/35 -0.2 0% £0.0 £0.0 £9.1 £9.4 £9.4 £9.5 £9.5 £9.5 £9.6 £9.6 1% £0.0 £0.0 £9.1 £9.4 £9.5 £9.6 £9.7 £9.8 £9.9 £10.0 2% £0.0 £0.0 £9.1 £9.4 £9.6 £9.8 £10.0 £10.2 £10.4 £10.6 4% £0.0 £0.0 £9.1 £9.4 £9.8 £10.2 £10.6 £11.0 £11.5 £11.9 -0.85 0% £0.0 £0.0 £9.0 £9.3 £9.3 £9.3 £9.4 £9.4 £9.5 £9.5 1% £0.0 £0.0 £9.0 £9.3 £9.4 £9.5 £9.6 £9.7 £9.8 £9.9 2% £0.0 £0.0 £9.0 £9.3 £9.5 £9.7 £9.9 £10.1 £10.3 £10.5 4% £0.0 £0.0 £9.0 £9.3 £9.7 £10.1 £10.5 £10.9 £11.3 £11.8 -1.5 0% £0.0 £0.0 £8.9 £9.1 £9.2 £9.2 £9.2 £9.3 £9.3 £9.4 1% £0.0 £0.0 £8.9 £9.1 £9.3 £9.4 £9.5 £9.5 £9.6 £9.7 2% £0.0 £0.0 £8.9 £9.1 £9.4 £9.5 £9.7 £9.9 £10.1 £10.3 4% £0.0 £0.0 £8.9 £9.1 £9.5 £9.9 £10.3 £10.7 £11.2 £11.6 Note: Figures rounded to nearest £0.1m It is estimated that a visitor levy could generate between £9.4m and £11.9m per annum by 2034/35. Over the 10-year appraisal period, it is forecast that a visitor levy may generate a total of £73.6m-£83.6m (£61.1m-£68.9m at present values). The net tax receipts consider the set-up and implementation costs (as presented in Table 6.1) borne by A&BC and this figure represents the maximum funding that would be available for investment in the visitor economy, before any exemptions, caps, business payments are considered. Table 6.8 presents net tax receipts assuming the “mid” cost scenario. Table 6.8: Net tax receipts (£millions) PED Investment impact 2025/26 2026/27 2027/28 2028/29 2029/30 2030/31 2031/32 2032/33 2033/34 2034/35 -0.2 0% -£0.1 -£0.1 £9.0 £9.3 £9.3 £9.3 £9.4 £9.4 £9.4 £9.5 1% -£0.1 -£0.1 £9.0 £9.3 £9.4 £9.5 £9.6 £9.7 £9.8 £9.9 2% -£0.1 -£0.1 £9.0 £9.3 £9.5 £9.7 £9.9 £10.1 £10.3 £10.5 4% -£0.1 -£0.1 £9.0 £9.3 £9.7 £10.1 £10.5 £10.9 £11.3 £11.8 -0.85 0% -£0.1 -£0.1 £8.9 £9.1 £9.2 £9.2 £9.2 £9.3 £9.3 £9.4 1% -£0.1 -£0.1 £8.9 £9.1 £9.3 £9.4 £9.4 £9.5 £9.6 £9.7 2% -£0.1 -£0.1 £8.9 £9.1 £9.4 £9.5 £9.7 £9.9 £10.1 £10.3 4% -£0.1 -£0.1 £8.9 £9.1 £9.5 £9.9 £10.3 £10.7 £11.2 £11.6 -1.5 0% -£0.1 -£0.1 £8.7 £9.0 £9.0 £9.1 £9.1 £9.1 £9.2 £9.2 1% -£0.1 -£0.1 £8.7 £9.0 £9.1 £9.2 £9.3 £9.4 £9.5 £9.6 2% -£0.1 -£0.1 £8.7 £9.0 £9.2 £9.4 £9.6 £9.8 £10.0 £10.2 4% -£0.1 -£0.1 £8.7 £9.0 £9.4 £9.8 £10.2 £10.6 £11.0 £11.5 Note: Figures rounded to nearest £0.1m Page 553
Page 554
175 It is estimated that the net tax receipts a visitor levy could generate is between £9.2m and £11.8m per annum by 2034/35. Over the 10-year appraisal period, it is forecast that a visitor levy may generate a total of £72.2m - £82.2m (£59.9m-£67.7m at present values). Accommodation sector and overnight visitor sector turnover The net impact on accommodation sector turnover and the net impact on the wider overnight visitor economy sector (which considered visitor expenditure in additional areas such as dining, retail, transport, recreational activities, etc.) depends on the magnitude of turnover decrease due to price rises caused by a visitor levy (see Table 6.5, Turnover change rows) set against the turnover increase induced by visitor levy funded investment in the sector. Table 6.9 below presents the net impact on the accommodation sector across a range of PED and investment impact values. This is calculated by assessing the difference between the baseline accommodation sector forecast in the first row of Table 6.6a and the accommodation sector forecasts presented in the subsequent rows of Table 6.6a which considers PED and investment impact effects. Page 554
Page 555
176 Table 6.9: Net accommodation sector turnover (£millions) PED Investment impact 2025/26 2026/27 2027/28 2028/29 2029/30 2030/31 2031/32 2032/33 2033/34 2034/35 Total Present Value -0.2 0% £0.0 £0.0 -£0.8 -£0.8 -£0.8 -£0.8 -£0.8 -£0.8 -£0.8 -£0.8 -£6.3 -£5.2 1% £0.0 £0.0 -£0.8 -£0.8 £1.1 £2.3 £3.4 £4.6 £5.8 £7.1 £22.7 £17.4 2% £0.0 £0.0 -£0.8 -£0.8 £3.0 £6.1 £9.2 £12.5 £15.8 £19.2 £64.3 £49.8 4% £0.0 £0.0 -£0.8 -£0.8 £6.7 £13.8 £21.2 £29.0 £37.1 £45.5 £151.8 £117.7 -0.85 0% £0.0 £0.0 -£3.2 -£3.3 -£3.4 -£3.4 -£3.4 -£3.4 -£3.4 -£3.4 -£26.9 -£22.3 1% £0.0 £0.0 -£3.2 -£3.3 -£1.5 -£0.4 £0.8 £1.9 £3.1 £4.3 £1.7 £0.1 2% £0.0 £0.0 -£3.2 -£3.3 £0.4 £3.4 £6.5 £9.7 £13.0 £16.4 £42.8 £32.0 4% £0.0 £0.0 -£3.2 -£3.3 £4.1 £11.1 £18.4 £26.0 £33.9 £42.2 £129.0 £98.9 -1.5 0% £0.0 £0.0 -£5.7 -£5.9 -£5.9 -£5.9 -£6.0 -£6.0 -£6.0 -£6.0 -£47.5 -£39.4 1% £0.0 £0.0 -£5.7 -£5.9 -£4.1 -£3.0 -£1.9 -£0.7 £0.4 £1.6 -£19.2 -£17.3 2% £0.0 £0.0 -£5.7 -£5.9 -£2.3 £0.7 £3.8 £7.0 £10.2 £13.5 £21.2 £14.2 4% £0.0 £0.0 -£5.7 -£5.9 £1.4 £8.3 £15.5 £23.0 £30.8 £39.0 £106.3 £80.2 Note: Figures rounded to nearest £0.1m. Present values discounted at 3.5% annually. The estimated net impact on accommodation sector turnover is dependent on the PED and investment impacts values. In the “best case scenario” where PED is low at -0.2 and investment impact high at 4% annually, a visitor levy could support an increase in accommodation sector turnover of up to £45.5m per annum by 2034/35 and have a cumulative impact of £151.8m (£117.7m at present value) over the 10-year appraisal period. In the “worst-case scenario” where PED is high at -1.50 and investment impact is low at 0% annually, a visitor levy may reduce accommodation sector turnover by up to -£6.0m per annum by 2034/35 and have a cumulative impact of -£47.5m (-£39.4m in present value) over the 10-year appraisal period. A “midpoint scenario” where PED is -0.85 and the investment impact is 2% annually, a visitor levy could support an increase in accommodation sector turnover of £16.4m per annum by 2034/35 and have a cumulative impact of £42.8m (£32.0m at present value) over the 10-year appraisal period. Page 555
Page 556
177 To estimate the turnover impact across the wider overnight visitor economy we rely on STEAM data which suggests that accommodation expenditure accounted for 41% of total overnight visitor expenditure in 2024. Assuming this proportion remains constant over the appraisal period, Table 6.10 below presents the net impact on the wider overnight visitor economy across a range of PED and investment impact values. This is calculated by assessing the difference between the baseline accommodation sector forecast in the first row of Table 6.6b and the accommodation sector forecasts presented in the subsequent rows of Table 6.6b which considers PED and investment impact effects Table 6.10: Net overnight visitor sector turnover (£millions) PED Investment impact 2025/26 2026/27 2027/28 2028/29 2029/30 2030/31 2031/32 2032/33 2033/34 2034/35 Total Present Value -0.2 0% £0.0 £0.0 -£1.8 -£1.9 -£1.9 -£1.9 -£1.9 -£1.9 -£1.9 -£1.9 -£15.2 -£12.6 1% £0.0 £0.0 -£1.8 -£1.9 £2.6 £5.4 £8.2 £11.1 £14.0 £16.9 £54.5 £41.9 2% £0.0 £0.0 -£1.8 -£1.9 £7.1 £14.6 £22.2 £30.0 £38.0 £46.2 £154.4 £119.5 4% £0.0 £0.0 -£1.8 -£1.9 £16.2 £33.2 £51.0 £69.6 £89.0 £109.2 £364.4 £282.5 -0.85 0% £0.0 £0.0 -£7.8 -£8.0 -£8.1 -£8.1 -£8.1 -£8.1 -£8.2 -£8.2 -£64.6 -£53.6 1% £0.0 £0.0 -£7.8 -£8.0 -£3.6 -£0.9 £1.9 £4.7 £7.5 £10.4 £4.2 £0.2 2% £0.0 £0.0 -£7.8 -£8.0 £0.9 £8.2 £15.7 £23.4 £31.2 £39.3 £102.7 £76.7 4% £0.0 £0.0 -£7.8 -£8.0 £9.8 £26.6 £44.1 £62.4 £81.5 £101.4 £309.9 £237.5 -1.5 0% £0.0 £0.0 -£13.8 -£14.2 -£14.2 -£14.3 -£14.3 -£14.4 -£14.4 -£14.5 -£114.0 -£94.5 1% £0.0 £0.0 -£13.8 -£14.2 -£9.8 -£7.2 -£4.5 -£1.7 £1.0 £3.9 -£46.2 -£41.5 2% £0.0 £0.0 -£13.8 -£14.2 -£5.4 £1.8 £9.1 £16.7 £24.4 £32.3 £51.0 £34.0 4% £0.0 £0.0 -£13.8 -£14.2 £3.4 £19.9 £37.2 £55.2 £74.0 £93.6 £255.3 £192.6 Note: Figures rounded to nearest £0.1m Page 556
Page 557
178 The estimated net impact on the overnight visitor economy turnover is dependent on the PED and investment impacts values. In the “best case scenario” where PED is low at -0.2 and investment impact high at 4% annually, a visitor levy could support an increase of up to £109.2m per annum by 2034/35 and have a cumulative impact of £364.4m (£282.5m at present value) over the 10-year appraisal period. In the “worst-case scenario” where PED is high at -1.50 and investment impact is low at 0% annually, a visitor levy may reduce accommodation sector turnover by up to -£14.5m per annum by 2034/35 and have a cumulative impact of -£114.0m (-£94.5m in present value) over the 10-year appraisal period. A “midpoint scenario” where PED is -0.85 and the investment impact is 2% annually, a visitor levy could support an increase of £39.3m in net turnover by 2034/35 and have a cumulative impact of £102.7m (£76.7 at present value) over the 10-year appraisal period. Socioeconomic benefits – net additional GVA To estimate the net additional impact on the regional overnight visitor sector economy we have converted net turnover to net additional GVA9 by applying average sector economic coefficients based on Scottish Government Sustainable Tourism sector data10, applying the additionality factors of leakage and displacement and applying economic multipliers11 associated with supply chain and income effects. The following economic additionality factors have been applied: • turnover to GVA ratio: 51%. • leakage: 5% to account for the outward flow of profits from national or internationally headquartered businesses operating in the regional sector. • displacement: 10% to account for the potential redistribution of visitors from one area in Argyll and Bute to another depending on the location of investment and the potential for new roles in the sector to be filled by those who are already employed elsewhere in the economy and are switching roles. 9 GVA is a measure of economic output that considers the value of goods and services produced before allowing for depreciation or capital consumption. GVA measures the income generated by businesses after the subtraction of input costs, but before costs such as wages and capital investment. This is Scottish and UK government standard approach to measurement. 10 Scottish Annual Business Statistics 2022 11 Type-2 multipliers sourced from Scotland Input/Output Tables. Page 557
Page 558
179 • Type-2 GVA multiplier: 1.4. Assumed to be 67% of the Scotland level multiplier to account for the smaller economy and geographic reach of Argyll and Bute. In economic impact analysis, Type II multipliers include both: o indirect effects (business-to-business supply chain spending). o induced effects (spending by employees from wages). Table 6.11 summarises the estimated net additional GVA generated in the Argyll and Bute overnight visitor economy as a result of a visitor levy across the range of specification for PED and investment impact. The estimated Net Additional GVA impact in Argyll and Bute as a result of a visitor levy is dependent on the PED and investment impacts values. In the “best case scenario” where PED is low at -0.2 and investment impact high at 4% annually, a visitor levy could support up to £66.9m net additional GVA per annum by 2034/35 and have a cumulative impact of £223.3m (£173.1m at present value) over the 10-year appraisal period. In the “worst-case scenario” where PED is high at -1.50 and investment impact is low at 0% annually, a visitor levy may reduce net additional GVA by up to -£8.9m per annum by 2034/35 and have a cumulative impact of -£69.9m (-£57.9m in present value) over the 10-year appraisal period. A “midpoint scenario” where PED is -0.85 and the investment impact is 2% annually, a visitor levy could support £24.1m in net additional GVA by 2034/35 and have a cumulative impact of £63.0m (£47.0m at present value) over the 10-year appraisal period. Page 558
Page 559
180 Table 6.11: Net additional GVA - overnight visitor sector (£millions) PED Investment impact 2025/26 2026/27 2027/28 2028/29 2029/30 2030/31 2031/32 2032/33 2033/34 2034/35 Total Present Value -0.2 0% £0.0 £0.0 -£1.1 -£1.2 -£1.2 -£1.2 -£1.2 -£1.2 -£1.2 -£1.2 -£9.3 -£7.7 1% £0.0 £0.0 -£1.1 -£1.2 £1.6 £3.3 £5.0 £6.8 £8.6 £10.4 £33.4 £25.7 2% £0.0 £0.0 -£1.1 -£1.2 £4.4 £8.9 £13.6 £18.4 £23.3 £28.3 £94.6 £73.2 4% £0.0 £0.0 -£1.1 -£1.2 £9.9 £20.4 £31.3 £42.6 £54.5 £66.9 £223.3 £173.1 -0.85 0% £0.0 £0.0 -£4.8 -£4.9 -£4.9 -£5.0 -£5.0 -£5.0 -£5.0 -£5.0 -£39.6 -£32.8 1% £0.0 £0.0 -£4.8 -£4.9 -£2.2 -£0.5 £1.2 £2.9 £4.6 £6.4 £2.6 £0.1 2% £0.0 £0.0 -£4.8 -£4.9 £0.5 £5.0 £9.6 £14.3 £19.1 £24.1 £63.0 £47.0 4% £0.0 £0.0 -£4.8 -£4.9 £6.0 £16.3 £27.0 £38.2 £49.9 £62.1 £189.9 £145.6 -1.5 0% £0.0 £0.0 -£8.4 -£8.7 -£8.7 -£8.7 -£8.8 -£8.8 -£8.8 -£8.9 -£69.9 -£57.9 1% £0.0 £0.0 -£8.4 -£8.7 -£6.0 -£4.4 -£2.7 -£1.1 £0.6 £2.4 -£28.3 -£25.5 2% £0.0 £0.0 -£8.4 -£8.7 -£3.3 £1.1 £5.6 £10.2 £15.0 £19.8 £31.3 £20.8 4% £0.0 £0.0 -£8.4 -£8.7 £2.1 £12.2 £22.8 £33.8 £45.3 £57.4 £156.5 £118.0 Note: Figures rounded to nearest £0.1m. Present Values discounted at 3.5% annually. Page 559
Page 560
181 6.5 Cost – Benefit Analysis EKOS has assessed the cost and benefits associated with a visitor levy through three distinct cost benefit analyses (CBA). These CBAs consider the following: 1. A financial cost benefit analysis from the perspective of A&BC measuring the tax revenue generated against the public sector cost of implementing and operating a visitor levy. 2. A financial cost benefit analysis from the perspective of Argyll and Bute accommodation sector businesses who would be subject to paying a visitor levy. This considers the benefit (additional business turnover/income to the sector associated with direct visitor economy investment by A&BC using funds collected from a visitor levy) assessed against the direct cost to accommodation businesses (implementation and ongoing administrative costs) and indirect costs, including business turnover/income change due to consumer behavioural changes in response to price increases. 3. A socioeconomic cost benefit analysis from a regional economic development perspective assessing the net additional economic impacts (GVA) generated through visitor levy funded visitor economy investment against the public sector costs of implementing and operating a visitor levy. Note that the indirect cost of lost turnover is included within the calculation of Net Additional GVA as this itself is based on the net effect a visitor levy has on accommodation sector and overnight visitor sector turnover. The analysis presents two results metrics: • Net Present Value (NPV) – is a measure of the absolute magnitude of impact attributed to a visitor levy. NPV measures the present value benefits minus the present value costs. • Benefit to Cost Ratio (BCR) – is a measure of the relative magnitude of impact attributed to a visitor levy. The BCR measures the present value benefits divided by the present value costs. The results presented below are based on the “mid” cost scenario for all implementation and administrative costs, and then present results based on a range of PED values and sector uplift values. A&BC financial cost benefit analysis This analysis measures the net present value of gross tax receipts received as a result of a visitor levy against the net present value of the council’s set-up/implementation costs and ongoing administration costs over the 10-year appraisal period. Results are presented in Table 6.12. Page 560
Page 561
182 Table 6.12: A&BC financial cost benefit analysis results (£millions) PED value Investment impact Tax revenue generated Cost of set up and admin NPV BCR -0.2 0% £62.8 £10.0 £52.7 6.3 1% £63.9 £10.0 £53.9 6.4 2% £65.5 £10.0 £55.5 6.5 4% £68.9 £10.0 £58.9 6.9 -0.85 0% £61.9 £10.0 £51.9 6.2 1% £63.0 £10.0 £53.0 6.3 2% £64.6 £10.0 £54.6 6.4 4% £68.0 £10.0 £57.9 6.8 -1.5 0% £61.1 £10.0 £51.0 6.1 1% £62.2 £10.0 £52.1 6.2 2% £63.7 £10.0 £53.7 6.3 4% £67.0 £10.0 £57.0 6.7 Note: Financial values rounded to nearest £0.1m and discounted at 3.5% annually. This analysis assesses the gross tax revenue against the cost of set-up and admin, as net tax revenue already considers these costs. At midpoint set-up and administration costs, it is estimated that A&BC could generate tax revenue from a visitor levy significantly in excess of its expenditure in implementing and administrating a visitor levy. This holds true for all PED values and investment impact values. It is estimated that over a 10-year period, the council could generate between £6.10 and £6.90 in tax revenue for every £1 of costs. The analysis suggests that from a purely financial perspective, a visitor levy is likely to have a positive impact and there will be tax revenue receipts in excess of costs to fund investment in the visitor economy each year in which a visitor levy is in effect. Argyll and Bute accommodation sector businesses CBA This analysis measures the net present value of the turnover benefit to businesses as a result of public investment in the visitor economy using visitor levy generated funds against the present value direct costs to accommodation business and indirect costs (the value of lost turnover due to prices increases brought on by a visitor levy) over the 10-year appraisal period. Results are presented in Table 6.13. Page 561
Page 562
183 Table 6.13: Accommodation sector businesses financial cost benefit analysis results (£millions) PED value Investment impact Turnover uplift Set-up and admin costs Turnover lost Total cost NPV BCR -0.2 0% £0.0 £8.5 £5.2 £13.7 -£13.7 0.0 1% £22.7 £8.5 £5.2 £13.7 £9.0 1.7 2% £55.0 £8.5 £5.2 £13.7 £41.3 4.0 4% £122.9 £8.5 £5.2 £13.7 £109.2 8.9 -0.85 0% £0.0 £8.5 £22.3 £30.8 -£30.8 0.0 1% £22.4 £8.5 £22.3 £30.8 -£8.4 0.7 2% £54.3 £8.5 £22.3 £30.8 £23.5 1.8 4% £121.2 £8.5 £22.3 £30.8 £90.4 3.9 -1.5 0% £0.0 £8.5 £39.4 £47.9 -£47.9 0.0 1% £22.1 £8.5 £39.4 £47.9 -£25.8 0.5 2% £53.5 £8.5 £39.4 £47.9 £5.7 1.1 4% £119.6 £8.5 £39.4 £47.9 £71.7 2.5 Note: Financial values rounded to nearest £0.1m and discounted at 3.5% annually. Note that the turnover uplift column in Table 6.13 above refers to the present value gross turnover uplift induced by investment of visitor levy funds. This differs from the turnover impact presented in Table 6.9 which measures the net turnover impact, which is equivalent to Turnover Uplift less Turnover Lost in Table 6.13. At midpoint set-up and administration costs, the analysis suggests that the forecast impact on accommodation businesses is sensitive to PED values and investment impacts. Across all PED values, if visitor levy funded investments in the visitor economy fail to generate any uplift in turnover, the overall impact of a visitor levy on accommodation businesses will be negative and the worst case scenario results in a NPV of -£47.9m over the 10-year appraisal period. We note that this analysis is also sensitive to the application of set-up and admin costs. When including the low and high set-up and admin costs scenarios, there is a total of 36 modelled scenarios. Within 15 of these scenarios a visitor levy generates a negative NPV and a BCR less than 1. This scenario modelling identifies that if investment can support at least a 2% annual uplift in visitor economy activity, it is estimated that under any scenario that has been modelled, a visitor levy may generate a positive impact on accommodation sector turnover/income. Page 562
Page 563
184 Socioeconomic cost benefit analysis This analysis measures the present value of the net additional GVA retained in Argyll and Bute as a result of investment of visitor levy generated funds against the present value of the direct costs to the council plus the direct costs to accommodation business over the 10-year appraisal period12. Results are presented in Table 6.14. Table 6.14: Socioeconomic cost benefit analysis results (£millions) PED Value Investment impact Net additional GVA Council Cost of set-up and admin Business cost of set-up and admin Total cost NPV BCR -0.2 0% -£7.7 £10.0 £8.5 £18.5 -£26.3 -0.4 1% £25.7 £10.0 £8.5 £18.5 £7.1 1.4 2% £73.2 £10.0 £8.5 £18.5 £54.7 4.0 4% £173.1 £10.0 £8.5 £18.5 £154.6 9.3 -0.85 0% -£32.8 £10.0 £8.5 £18.5 -£51.4 -1.8 1% £0.1 £10.0 £8.5 £18.5 -£18.4 0.0 2% £47.0 £10.0 £8.5 £18.5 £28.5 2.5 4% £145.6 £10.0 £8.5 £18.5 £127.0 7.9 -1.5 0% -£57.9 £10.0 £8.5 £18.5 -£76.5 -3.1 1% -£25.5 £10.0 £8.5 £18.5 -£44.0 -1.4 2% £20.8 £10.0 £8.5 £18.5 £2.3 1.1 4% £118.0 £10.0 £8.5 £18.5 £99.5 6.4 Note: Financial values rounded to nearest £0.1m and discounted at 3.5% annually. The analyses show that at a 0% investment impact, under all PED values a visitor levy is forecast to generate a negative NPV and a negative BCR. There is also a negative NPV and BCR at the 1% annual investment impact scenario when the PED is -0.85 or -1.50. We note that this analysis is also sensitive to the application of set-up and admin costs. When including the low and high set-up and admin costs scenarios, there is a total of 36 modelled scenarios. Within 17 of these scenarios a visitor levy generates a negative NPV and a BCR less than 1. 12 Note that here we do not include indirect costs (the cost of decline in turnover for businesses) as this is already accounted for in the net additional GVA benefit which is derived from net additional turnover. Net additional turnover considers the turnover generated from investment in the visitor economy using visitor levy funds minus lost turnover from price increases as described earlier. Page 563
Page 564
185 This scenario modelling identifies that if investment can support at least a 2% annual uplift in economy activity (GVA), it is estimated that under any scenario that has been modelled, a visitor levy may generate a positive impact on economic activity within the sector. Page 564
Page 565
186 7 What other local authorities are doing 7.1 Introduction Local authorities in Scotland are at different stages of considering or implementing a visitor levy, and this chapter provides a brief overview of the current position – albeit it should be noted that this is a fluid and evolving situation. All seven local authorities that are members of the Highlands and Islands Regional Economic Partnership, including A&BC, have undertaken pre-consultation and formal consultation work to help inform decisions on whether or not to introduce a visitor levy scheme in their local areas. Some, as noted below, have since issued an update on their deliberations. 7.2 The first visitor levy schemes approved in Scotland At the time of drafting this consultation analysis report for A&BC, three local authorities in Scotland have approved a visitor levy scheme – the City of Edinburgh, Glasgow City, and Aberdeen City. The City of Edinburgh Council is the first local authority in Scotland to approve the introduction of a visitor levy scheme – it was approved at a full council meeting on 24th January 2025. The scheme covers the entirety of the City of Edinburgh Council boundary and will apply to overnight stays from 24th July 2026, booked and paid for (in part or full) on or after 1st October 2025. It will apply indefinitely, or until the council decides to end or amend it. A visitor levy rate will be 5%, payable for a maximum of five consecutive nights, and will apply at the same level, year-round. Certain accommodation providers may apply to the council for a discretionary site exemption if they meet both of the following criteria: the property is occupied by a charity or trustee of a charity; and overnight stays must be wholly or mainly for charitable purposes. This discretionary exemption is aligned with the cases where charities may receive mandatory relief from paying Non-Domestic Rates and may be cross-checked with that register. Accommodation providers who do not charge for overnight accommodation, or who cater fully for individuals who are exempted from paying a visitor levy are not liable for a visitor levy. Page 565
Page 566
187 The council paper notes that a visitor levy is expected to raise £45-50 million for the City of Edinburgh a year by 2028-2029. The money generated by the scheme will be reinvested into initiatives that benefit residents and enhance visitor experiences. After administration and contingency costs, a fixed amount will be assigned to: • housing and tourism mitigation (£5 million annually). • participatory budgeting (£2 million over three years). • reimbursement of 2% of collected funds to accommodation providers, to off-set the administrative cost incurred from collecting a visitor levy. Remaining funds will then be split across three investment streams: • city operations and infrastructure (55%). • culture, heritage, and events (35%). • destination management (10%). Glasgow City Council13 approved at visitor levy scheme for the city at the City Administration Committee on 19th June 2025. The scheme’s implementation date will be 25th January 2027. The levy will apply to online bookings made 12 months in advance of the scheme implementation date, and monies paid to the council after the customer stays at the accommodation. Similar to the Edinburgh scheme, a visitor levy scheme in Glasgow covers the entirety of the Glasgow City boundary, has a visitor levy rate of 5%, and is an indefinite scheme subject to regular review. The Glasgow City visitor levy scheme differs from the City of Edinburgh scheme in that: • there will be no cap – the levy will be applied for the length of stay. • there will be no local exemptions - to minimise additional administrative burden and costs. • accommodation providers will be able to retain 1.5% of the levy monies they collect due to the costs incur in administering the scheme – this is slightly lower than the 2% reimbursement approved in Edinburgh. The net income generated has been reviewed and is estimated in the council paper at between £15.9 million and £16.1 million a year. After administration costs, the remaining funds (revenue generated) will be split across several investment areas including: • city operations and infrastructure – investment in the look and feel of the city, including in the built and natural environment and infrastructure. 13 See also Glasgow gives go-ahead for 'tourist tax' on visitors - BBC News Page 566
Page 567
188 • culture and events – investing in the city’s long-term attractiveness and sustainability, as well as supporting the advocacy and promotion of Glasgow as a leading culture and events destination. • destination marketing and management – additional funding will support destination marketing initiatives that align with the Glasgow Tourism 2030 action plan and seek to grow the city’s market share of leisure visitors coming to Scotland and the UK. The committee report does not provide an indicative monetary or proportional split across the investment themes. Aberdeen City Council approved its visitor levy scheme in August 2025. Details about the scheme include that: • the 7% levy rate is higher than the other two local authority schemes. • it will apply year round without variation. • it includes a local exemption for individuals travelling to Aberdeen for medical appointments, along with their companion14. • after administration costs, the estimated gross funding of £6.8 per annum will be spent across the investment areas of: o Economic Growth and Competitive Advantage (63%) including funds to attract events across business, entertainment, culture and sport sectors; and to support Aberdeen’s venues and emerging local creative and sporting talent. o Destination Marketing and Development (18%) to support marketing and advertising of the city, ensure that local businesses are assisted to make the most of visitor opportunities, and maintain a well-trained, highly skilled workforce. o Destination Readiness and Improvement (14%) to ensure city accessibility and visitor safety, enhance public areas, and invest in assets which are popular with visitors. o Reserve Fund (5%) to offset any risks of long-term project commitments and help the visitor economy in times of crisis. • accommodation providers will be able to retain 2.5% of the levy monies they collect due to the costs incurred in administering the scheme. 14 A companion for medical travel refers to an individual who is accompanying a patient due to medical necessity, such as assisting with mobility, communication, or personal care. Page 567
Page 568
189 7.3 Other local authorities that have/are undertaking formal public consultations In addition to A&BC, Highland Council and Stirling Council have undertaken or are undertaking a formal consultation on draft proposals to introduce a visitor levy scheme. The formal consultation period for Highland Council has closed. The Highland Council estimates that such a scheme could generate £10 million net revenue income15 and it sought views on proposals to support activities aligned to the scheme objectives to: • sustain public services and infrastructure used by businesses, communities and visitors to ensure the impacts of visitors are strategically and sustainably managed. • support the delivery of a thriving visitor economy offering a wide range of visitor experiences by working together, in partnership, with businesses, visitors and communities. • develop innovative approaches to balance strategic demands and opportunities ensuring that Highland achieves its full potential as a highly positioned destination for visitors. Highland Council is currently (August 2025) commissioning an independent contractor to undertake the formal consultation analysis and impact assessment work. Stirling Council launched its formal consultation process on 14th July 2025, it will close on 12th October 2025, and findings are expected to be presented to councillors in December 2025. It is estimated that the introduction of a 1% visitor levy could generate between £1.3 million and £2.5 million annually. A 5% visitor levy could generate between £6.6 million and £12.7 million. After administration costs, all money raised would be reinvested locally on facilities and services such as: • Infrastructure, including capital and revenue expenditure (45%). • Destination Marketing and Product Development (15%). • Events and Culture (15%). • Supporting Community Led Initiatives & Events - ‘Community Tourism Fund’ (12.5%). • Business Support (12.5%). 15 This forecast income is based on VisitScotland’s occupancy and price data, and data relating to accommodation providers subject to Non-Domestic Rates. Page 568
Page 569
190 Points to note from across these three proposed visitor levy schemes are that: • all propose to be local authority area wide, apply year round without variation, and have a visitor levy rate of 5% (like Edinburgh and Glasgow). • A&BC and Highland Council do not currently propose to exercise their discretion to apply local exemptions – Stirling Council has proposed local exemptions including: o for residents who are registered for council tax (or within a council-tax registered property) in the Stirling Council area. o certain accommodation providers may apply to the council for a discretionary site exemption if they meet both of the following criteria (similar to Edinburgh): The property is occupied by a charity or trustee of a charity; and overnight stays must be wholly or mainly for charitable or educational purposes. o reimbursement would be available for visitor levy paid beyond 7 nights in a single booking or invoice, via the exemption mechanism (as it proposes no cap) • Stirling Council proposes that accommodation providers will retain 3% of the total monies collected at their establishment(s), remitting the remaining 97% to the local authority. 7.4 Other local authorities considering the introduction of a visitor levy Several other local authorities are engaging in early discussions to inform their plans but have not yet started a formal consultation. The VisitScotland website indicates that this includes the following councils: Aberdeenshire; East Ayrshire; East Lothian; Moray; Perth and Kinross; Stirling; West Dunbartonshire. Over and above those listed on the VisitScotland webpage, other local authorities appear to be engaging in early discussions or exploratory processes regarding the potential of a visitor levy scheme in their area include: Fife Council, Angus Council, Dundee City Council; and East Dunbartonshire Council. Page 569
Page 570
191 7.5 Local authorities who have indicated that they are not considering a visitor levy at this time A couple of local authorities, following early engagement and discussions have recently (June 2025) put consideration of a visitor levy on hold at this time. This includes: • Comhairle nan Eilean Siar – a report presented to a council meeting notes that cost benefit analysis suggest a visitor levy would have ‘marginal benefits’ and could potentially harm the islands' tourism economy. And that a pause would also allow time for a potential introduction of a ‘point-of-entry’ levy, which could be charged at ports and airports. See also Outer Hebrides Visitor Levy Report Investigating the feasibility of a levy on overnight accommodation (Urban Foresight report, 2025). • Orkney and Shetland Island Councils have both adopted a similar policy as Comhairle nan Eilean Siar to pause the introduction of a visitor levy scheme at this time. • South Ayrshire Council has made a recommendation to its elected members that plans for a visitor levy should not proceed at this time, following initial feedback from local businesses and residents and ongoing concerns about the potential impact on tourism competitiveness. Finally, several local authorities have indicated that they do not have current plans to undertake further consultation into the introduction of a visitor levy or have not reached a decision whether to proceed with the consultation on the implementation of a visitor levy. Page 570
Page 571
i Appendix A: Pre-consultation survey A high level summary of the key findings from the closed questions in the pre-consultation survey undertaken in Argyll and Bute undertaken during October and November 2024 have been presented below. The survey received 1,254 responses, and analysis undertaken by the council noted that: • the vast majority (83%) of survey responses were from residents, followed by those who ran a business (25%) in the region, and then visitors (8%). • visitors were predominantly visiting Argyll and Bute from the rest of the UK. • visitors to Argyll and Bute were predominantly stay in mid-market accommodation in Argyll and Bute (44%). • awareness of what a visitor levy was high – 61% were quite aware and a further 30% said that there were very aware of visitor levies. • over half (53%) of survey respondents did not think a visitor levy for Argyll and Bute should apply at the same level, all year round – while 35% thought it should, and the remainder (12%) were unsure. Page 571
Page 572
ii Appendix B: Wider issues raised Introduction Appendix B presents wider issues raised by respondents to the consultation – this largely relates to periphery information raised in the surveys that did not pertain directly to the question set. Consultation process There were responses which considered aspects of the consultation process ‘less than adequate’ or ‘insufficient’ given the nature and importance of the subject matter as well as the role of consultation findings in informing decision-making processes. Points raised included: • the timeline for the consultation (12 weeks) was perceived to be too short for a consultation of this significance. • there was a perceived lack of engagement with accommodation providers in particular and with other tourism and hospitality businesses and other organisations more generally, and with those who live in island communities - and listening to the lived experiences of those who live and work in the area. • whether people felt they had enough information/detail to provide an informed response, including on the potential negative impacts or risks associated with the introduction of a visitor levy. • the appropriateness of the data used to help inform the visitor levy bill – as an example, there was reference to the Scottish Government BRIA which used 2019 data (before Covid, the war in Ukraine, the cost-of-living crisis). Others highlighted the importance of adhering to The Gunning Principles in undertaking public consultation. A small number of respondents noted in their response that a visitor levy in Argyll and Bute appeared to be ‘a done deal’ – these respondents suggested that the council had already decided to introduce a visitor levy scheme in Argyll and Bute. There was wider feedback which suggested scepticism around whether the independent consultation analysis and findings would have any or much influence on council decision-making processes. Page 572
Page 573
iii Wider feedback provided was on the promotion and communication by the council of the surveys – a small number of respondents considered this ‘inadequate’ – points raised included that: the number of responses was not high enough to provide a ‘true indication of the views of those who would be affected by a visitor levy’, especially as the area includes islands; and that more could have been done to ensure an inclusive approach. Others mentioned writing letters to local councillors and not receiving formal responses. A wider point raised was that some organisations (for example, community councils) did not feel the consultation had an appropriate format to input their views. Survey question set There was feedback that the questions asked in the surveys lacked the level of detail needed for the council to make an informed decision about whether or not to proceed with a visitor levy scheme – or that the questions ‘do not appear to be fit for purpose and do not appear to meet the standards for a public consultation’, were ‘poorly designed’, ‘potentially leading’ or ‘biased’ in some way. First, respondents mentioned that as an example running a guesthouse/B&B was not listed as one of the options in the business survey question which asked ‘What sector does your business mainly operate in?’. It was suggested that this was an oversight and could skew results. Second, there was feedback that the council could have asked a simple question such as ‘Do you support the introduction of a visitor levy in Argyll and Bute’ with a Yes, No and Don’t know response (or a similar rating scale type question) at the very start of the survey. Rather than opening with a question on the extent to which respondents agreed or disagreed with the proposed levy scheme objectives. These respondents also felt that some respondents might have missed reference to the option to select ‘I don’t not support the introduction to a visitor levy’ at the question ‘To what extent do you agree with the Argyll and Bute Council proposal to set a visitor levy rate at 5%?’. Further, there was feedback that the question ‘To what extent do you agree or disagree with the A&BC visitor levy scheme objectives’ could have been asked in a different way to allow respondents to indicate which of the examples for expenditure under each objective they agreed or disagreed with rather than all of the examples being grouped together. While others thought it was unclear what the council intended to use the money for above and beyond what other organisations (and the private sector) were already doing, and that the achievement of the objectives was not completely dependent on the existence of a visitor levy. Page 573
Page 574
iv Local authorities have the discretion to introduce local exemptions that meet their area’s circumstances and needs. There was also feedback that the council could have asked a more explicit question that sought views on what local exemptions could look like in an Argyll and Bute context or could have listed potential local exemptions for consideration. The rationale for why a visitor levy rate of 5% was proposed was not clear to all. Respondents who selected ‘I don’t support a visitor levy being introduced across Argyll and Bute’ were asked ‘How would you suggest that investment in our tourism infrastructure and services is paid for?’. There was feedback that this question presumed there was no other way to pay for infrastructure and services, or that improvement on infrastructure and services would be solely dependent upon a visitor levy. There was also feedback that a more thoughtful line of questioning could have elicited a more considered response or that the question could have been asked in a different way. For example, ‘What barriers are there to tourism in your area?’ and ‘What are the solutions to those barriers?’ were suggested. There was also reference to the estimated £9 million in revenue that could be generated through a visitor levy scheme, and that this estimate ‘feels way off’ or was ‘too optimistic’ especially in the very challenging business environment.’ As well as wider questions related to the information and data that has underpinned this estimate and a call for more detail on/an accurate picture of how much it would cost to operate a visitor levy scheme Depending on how respondents answered certain questions survey routing was applied. This led to some respondents asking questions on why they did not get a chance to see or answer all of the questions in the survey, regardless of their overall views on a visitor levy scheme. Webinars There was some negative feedback in relation to webinars held – mainly that respondents were not able to speak at the sessions, and that the sessions felt scripted rather than allowing issues to develop and be discussed in the course of the meetings. As noted in Chapter 2 attendees were invited to submit questions in advance of the webinars as well as during the sessions to help ensure the sessions ran to time (one hour). The council answered some questions during the sessions and shared responses to questions after the sessions through its FAQ pages. See also Appendix C (Webinars). Page 574
Page 575
v Appendix C: Webinars Introduction Appendix C presents analysis of the comments and questions recorded by the council at the four webinars it held as part of the consultation. As noted in Chapter 2, four webinars were held between 24th February and 3rd April 2025 – there were a total of 148 attendees and 213 questions and comments were raised. The main themes raised have been summarised below. Issues and questions related to the councils’ proposals There were many comments and questions which related directly to the council’s proposals to introduce a visitor levy scheme in Argyll and Bute. These largely focused on the underpinning evidence base for the scheme, specific aspects of the council’s proposals, as well as on what the council has learned from other local authorities which have either approved a visitor levy scheme, or are considering it, or from those who have paused deliberations. Local exemptions were mentioned a lot. Some webinar attendees suggested that the council could reconsider its current position on local exemptions, as in its current form, the proposals would increase costs for residents and for those working in the region on a temporary basis. By far the most common feedback was that there could be exemptions for Argyll and Bute residents – there was wide reference to residents who live in remote or island communities who have to use overnight accommodation when accessing essential and non-leisure related services (such as healthcare) or when ferries were cancelled (for example, due to bad weather). Another example mentioned, albeit not to a great extent, was local exemptions for school residential visits to Argyll and Bute. Wider feedback from attendees reiterated that not all visits to the area were for recreation. For example, attendees mentioned that ‘Contractors often stay in accommodation and form a large proportion of off season bookings. Will those visiting for commercial purposes also be charged and how will they benefit from improved visitor infrastructure?’ Further, some scepticism was expressed by webinar attendees on how the revenue raised by the council through a visitor levy would be used (that is, they said it should not be used to fill a budget gap). Page 575
Page 576
vi Related points raised included: whether the revenue would be ring-fenced; whether the revenue raised would be retained/reinvested in the area(s) it was raised; how revenue would be used to support additional activity that was not already covered by existing council/partners budgets; how communities would be involved in decisions on expenditure; and how much it would cost the council to administer the scheme (and whether the costs would outweigh the benefits). More information on governance and management arrangements was also requested. Questions were also raised on the proposed visitor levy scheme objectives – for example, a common question raised by webinar attendees was on ‘how charging visitors more money will extend the 'season?’. A wider point made was ‘the council states that a visitor levy could be spent on roads, public loos, car parks, waste etc...these are all council functions I thought? They're not bringing anything extra to the tourism experience.’ There was also reference to the proposed 5% levy rate – for example, where mentioned this was considered high, but there were also questions around scenario planning – ‘What reduction in demand have you predicted through the introduction of a 5% tax? How does this scale upwards/downwards at different thresholds of percentage?’ As well as a request for economic modelling to be shared with the public. Questions were also raised in relation to the evidence base for the introduction of a visitor levy scheme in Argyll and Bute, including: • on the visitor/overnight visitor numbers used to inform impact assessments. • comments that suggested Argyll and Bute did not suffer from overtourism. • on when impact assessments were completed, in particular an islands impact assessment. • on what consideration has been given to the potential impact on other businesses (for example, cafes, restaurants, bars, leisure clubs, etc.). • on whether (and when) all of the evidence would be made available to the public. Finally, there were comments which suggested that a review of the impact of levy scheme at the three-year point might not be appropriate – it was suggested that a review should happen sooner. Albeit it should be noted that this suggestion is contrary to legislative requirements. Impact of the proposed scheme on businesses, the visitor economy, and on people Some webinar attendees raised various concerns about the impact of a visitor levy scheme on accommodation providers and on the visitor economy more generally, as well as identified the impact of the scheme on visitors/residents. Page 576
Page 577
vii Common points raised at webinars related to: • the current challenging trading environment for accommodation providers – for example, declining visitor numbers, rising costs, implications of the short-term let licence scheme, BID levies, etc. – with feedback that a visitor levy scheme could make the situation worse. • points which suggest that travel to the islands was already very expensive (for example, flight prices, rising ferry charges were mentioned) – with feedback that islands could also be disproportionately affected by a visitor levy scheme. There was wider feedback pertaining to the impact of an unreliable ferry service on visitors (and residents). • the potential of a visitor levy scheme to deter rather than attract visitors to the area – including comments which suggested that some visitors might decide to go to other places which did not have a visitor levy (for example, Dumfries and Galloway was mentioned). • the negative impact of another tax on people who were already considered to pay high levels of Council Tax, VAT, etc. Wider impacts mentioned included that a visitor levy scheme could: • result in costs incurred by accommodation providers who were required to collect a visitor levy and pay it to the council. • prevent investment by accommodation providers in their business. • push some accommodation providers over the VAT threshold (who were structured this way for a reason) - with wider implications around how businesses then responded to this potential impact (for example, close altogether). • put some accommodation providers out of business and resulting job losses. • act as a disincentive for people to start a new accommodation business in the area. • reduce visitor spend in other local businesses (for example, cafes, retail outlets, etc.). A wider point raised related to the impact of a visitor levy scheme on the mental health and wellbeing of those running accommodation businesses (for example, increased stress, anxiety). The consultation process and decision-making process Some webinar attendees raised a range of comments and questions about the wider consultation process and on decision-making processes (see also Appendix B). There were questions raised around why the consultation process was designed and facilitated in- house rather than using external consultants (for example, for questionnaire design). There were some questions about how extensively the consultation had been marketed and promoted, including in inclusive ways, to ensure as many people, businesses, and local groups were aware of the consultation and the opportunity to input their views. Page 577
Page 578
viii Suggestions included emailing all accommodation providers via information held by the council through the short-term let licence scheme. There were also questions on how the council would look to secure feedback from particular groups who might not have responded to the consultation (for example, those who did not have access to a computer, those who could not attend an event, etc.). There were various requests for further information and more detail – impact assessments and data from the University of Edinburgh work, revenue generation forecasts, costs (money and time) associated with undertaking the consultation process, and details of the contractor undertaking the independent analysis, were all mentioned. There was a perception among a small number of webinar attendees that a visitor levy was a ‘done deal’, and that the outcome of the consultation process was unlikely to influence the council’s decision – this linked to a wider perception that the council might use a visitor levy as a mechanism to raise revenue to address a funding deficit as well as feedback on the question wording in surveys. Ensuring transparency of the process, consultation analysis and findings were all mentioned. Questions were also raised about how ‘neutral’ the council would be when considering the consultation analysis findings. Finally, there were comments and questions about the timeline and next steps – for example, when consultation analysis findings would be considered by councillors, and whether there would be further engagement with residents, businesses, and other stakeholders. Concerns relating to the complexity of scheme implementation, the additional administrative and financial burden placed on accommodation providers, and support requirements Some webinar attendees raised a variety of points relating to the complexity of scheme implementation, the additional administrative and financial burden placed on accommodation providers. They also identified support needs. Points raised related to: • how the council would cope with administering the scheme – these comments were often framed in terms of issues businesses have personally experienced with the short-term let licence scheme. • complexities and challenges for accommodation providers in calculating a visitor levy – for example, ‘too much happens between booking and arrival. Highland Council has specifically stated that the tax is taken on arrival not booking. It would be impossible to extract the accommodation only aspect at the booking stage.’ As well as queries regarding how it would work when visitors stayed in various accommodation during their visit, and that there would also be a need to engage with online booking agencies. Page 578
Page 579
ix Concerns were raised that the burden would fall disproportionately on accommodation providers – who would essentially be ‘unpaid tax collectors’ for the council. Concerns were also raised on the online system the Improvement Service was currently developing – for example, ‘it’s not easy to fill in, doesn't cater for anomalies and asks for a lot of unnecessary data - at least in its current form’, and that any new online system/platform would likely have initial teething problems that could cause additional or unnecessary work and stress for accommodation providers. Wider concerns raised related to the potential ‘intrusiveness’ and ‘complexity’ of any forms/ paperwork that would require to be completed, and on the timing of when returns might be required. There were requests for accommodation providers to be meaningfully involved in the design and/or testing stage of the online system and reporting processes and procedures. Support needs identified for accommodation providers included: • financial reimbursement for the costs incurred in collecting a visitor levy and paying it to the council (for example, set-up costs, credit card fees, bank charges, accounting costs, etc.) – and questions were asked about what this would look like and how it would work in practice. • a sufficient lead-in time before a visitor levy, if approved, goes live. Feedback on the webinar sessions Some attendees provided feedback or asked questions relating to the webinar sessions themselves. The main points raised included: • why attendees were not allowed to speak at the webinars - that is, they had to post questions in the chat function instead. • why some of the questions or comments posed had not been read out or answered by the council – and a perception that officers were ‘reading from a script’. • questions relating to why more councillors were not in attendance at the webinars. • questions relating to whether the sessions would be recorded, whether slide decks would be made available afterwards, and whether the questions and answers would be shared (the council has indicated that they were shared afterwards). Page 579
Page 580
x The national visitor levy scheme legislation A small number of comments raised at the webinars included those raised by attendees who did not consider the national visitor levy legislation fit for purpose for a geography like Argyll and Bute, as well as comments which called on the council to do more to push back on this issue to the Scottish Government. “The legislation is flawed and needs to be sent back to Government to be changed.” “Is the council thinking of requesting the Scot Gov to look at the legislation again as the legislation has been poorly thought out and will be a burden on small businesses? Points raised by attendees centred on: • the types of accommodation not included in the legislation – for example, motorhomes and campervans (off-site) were mentioned specifically. • why a visitor levy charge needed to be added to accommodation providers turnover – the VAT threshold argument and the impact of this position on micro and small businesses. • the rationale for why some types of paid accommodation were exempt at a national level - for example, gypsy and traveller sites were mentioned specifically. • the types of overnight accommodation included in the legislation – for example, caravan sites were mentioned in a small number of cases, with comments suggesting that these could be exempt as they ‘do not provide accommodation’ as well as unintended consequences (for example, an increase in wild camping). Other general comments A small number of webinar attendees raised more general comments or questions not captured above. For example, this included: • questions relating to the underpinning rationale and evidence base for the creation of the national visitor levy legislation and for the council’s proposals. • comments that the scheme was an ‘accommodation tax’ and not a visitor levy/tax. • questions relating to how aspects of the scheme would work in practice – for example, processes for calculating a visitor levy on accommodation costs, exemptions, payment and reporting to the council, etc. • questions about a Visitor Levy Forum that would require to be established – for example, who would sit on the forum, governance and reporting arrangements, etc. • questions around whether other industry sectors have a similar levy – or questions about why it was only aimed at accommodation providers and not other parts of the sector that also benefit from tourists (for example, cafes, restaurants). Page 580
Page 581
xi Appendix D: Drop-in events Introduction Appendix D presents analysis of the comments and questions recorded by the council at the drop-in events held as part of the consultation process. As noted in Chapter 2, the 10 events were held between 10th February and 1st April 2025 – there were a total of 270 attendees and over 140 comments and questions were raised, with attendees often raising multiple points. The main themes which were raised during the drop-in events have been summarised below. The council’s proposals and evidence base Most attendees at the drop-in events provided comment or asked questions relating to the council’s proposals to introduce a visitor levy scheme in Argyll and Bute. There was some feedback that suggested attendees understood why the council was considering a visitor levy scheme, and that, ‘if implemented properly’ that it could be a good thing for the area. However, most of the feedback provided at the drop-in events suggested that: • the proposals in their current form (as well as wider issues identified with the national legislation, see below) were considered ‘unworkable’ and could discourage visitors and harm the fragile visitor economy in Argyll and Bute, especially the islands. • the proposals lacked sufficient detail and/or attendees asked for more detail on the evidence base that has been used to inform the proposed scheme. • Attendees said that they did not have confidence and trust that the council would deliver the scheme efficiently or effectively or use the revenue generated for its intended purpose. Some went further and suggested that the council should either reject the proposals altogether or delay a decision to consider the efficacy or otherwise of such a visitor levy in other areas. Here, attendees highlighted the very challenging trading environment they were operating in – for example, there was reference to ongoing post Brexit and Covid-19 challenges, rising operating costs (staffing, utilities, insurance, etc.), as well as to the cost-of-living crisis. These attendees identified a range of potential impacts of a visitor levy scheme such as: • accommodation providers were already ‘suffering with lower visitor numbers’. • any business which has so far remained under the VAT threshold might have to ‘curtail their season’ with consequential loss to them and their community. Page 581
Page 582
xii • a year-round levy would be unhelpful – for example, larger hotels that cater year-round for visitors and employ people year-round were ‘currently finding it difficult to attract off- season business.’ • deterring visitors which could reduce the number of bookings, leave visitors with less money to spend in accommodation providers’ restaurants, and further reduce profit margins. • the wider impact on other businesses that relied on visitors – for example, many small businesses would not survive on local trade alone, and visitor attractions and tours could not depend solely on day visitors. And that many hospitality businesses (cafes, restaurants, and pubs) would become unviable if visitor numbers fall off, and that this would be to the detriment of local people as well as visitors. • The negative implications of all of the above on jobs and de-population challenges. The islands were also said to be in a particularly fragile and vulnerable situation due to ongoing challenges with ferry services. “Accommodation providers have enough to deal with re rising running costs, ferry problems that is, visitors’ bookings for ferry being cancelled at short notice, the perception that Mull is the place that has the ferry problems so stay clear, and short-term license admin.” “Costs of administering collection would be great and such a hassle. Staff time and costs are not viable. Businesses on Mull already hit by increases in National Insurance, heating and appalling ferry service (guests already cancelling as no availability).” “Collecting a visitor levy on every booking would take us over the VAT threshold. We would therefore block our calendars to ensure that we sell fewer nights. This will have a negative financial impact on the local laundry we use, less money for our cleaners, fewer visitors using local restaurants and cafes, and visiting tourist attractions.” Attendees also emphasised that a visitor levy would not only affect visitors, but everyone – and that the council should consider local exemptions. For example: • for Argyll and Bute residents (or island residents) – who already paid Council Tax and who often need to travel and use overnight paid accommodation when attending hospital appointments and other essential services (or when ferries were cancelled). • contractors working in the region often made use of overnight paid accommodation, particularly in the islands, and that a visitor levy would add to the costs of this - this could potentially push up prices for local people and/or deter businesses from operating in these areas. • for carers. Page 582
Page 583
xiii “Visitors are not always tourists: No exemptions for intra-Argyll (and beyond to Glasgow and Clyde) travel for non-leisure travel such as dental, medical appointments which inevitably means an overnight stay. This means that the NHS will be paying a visitor levy via patient travel expenses. No exemptions for intra-Argyll travel for family events and that are not leisure related such as school visits (island to Oban for example) or funerals. No exemptions for business/trades etc who are coming to do jobs on the islands raising prices further (and it's already difficult to get trades onto the Islands). No exemptions for pregnant women which is a potential breach of Equalities Act.” Attendees considered the proposed levy rate of 5%, where mentioned, too high. The main points raised included that: • Argyll and Bute was an expensive place to visit, in particular the islands. • it would make it more difficult for accommodation providers in Argyll and Bute to be price competitiveness and a visitor levy could deter price sensitive visitors. • visitors might go to places with no visitor levy instead - Dumfries and Galloway was mentioned. • visitors might have less money to spend in local shops, etc. • attendees were concerned that the proposed 5% rate would be increased over time. If a visitor levy scheme was approved, then some support was expressed by event attendees for a fixed flat rate rather than a percentage rate, as is the case in some other places/countries – this could ensure the scheme did not deter visitors and would be easier to implement. Another viewpoint, albeit not raised to any extent, was that ‘exemptions will be hard to account for and if a visitor levy were a low percentage this would have little effect on the visitor.’ Some concern was raised that the council has consulted on a proposed visitor levy scheme to help fill a gap in its financial budget. There was also feedback which suggested attendees considered the data which has underpinned the £9 million estimated gross revenue generated through a visitor levy scheme ‘flawed’ or ‘misleading’, and that the calculations were also considered outdated and to do reflect the current reality. Wider points raised related to how much it would cost the council to manage and administer the scheme (as well as to reimburse accommodation providers for costs incurred) – the concern raised was that this could leave limited revenue for reinvestment in the visitor economy – ‘So very little reward but the effect on individual businesses will be huge.’ Aligned to this were requests for the council to provide greater detail on how this revenue could be spent, and whether the revenue would be reinvested in the area(s) it was collected. Page 583
Page 584
xiv “The hospitality sector on Mull is on its knees - this will close a lot of businesses. There would be no real benefit - £9 million spread over whole of county would be of little benefit. Costs to council to run it and police it would be expensive.” Various comments were made about the need for an islands impact assessment and due consideration of the requirements of The Islands (Scotland) Act 2018. This point was further reflected in comments which expressed a ‘lack of confidence in the reliability of the very limited examination of impact on the islands' businesses and residents.’ The national legislation Some attendees at the drop-in events also considered the national legislation not fit for purpose or flawed in various ways. Here, there was wider reference to: • inadequate consideration of VAT implications and the effect of this on the overall economy – it could push some small accommodation providers over the VAT threshold, others might close, or open for fewer months, etc. • the requirement for a visitor levy to be a percentage rate and the complexities this has for scheme administration, etc – if a scheme was approved, support was expressed for a flat rate or a tiered system of payment in proportion to size of accommodation provided – it was suggested that this could be easier to understand and implement. • the type of accommodation included in the legislation – for example, questions were raised about why motorhome and campervans (off-site) and cruise ships were not covered by the legislation. For example, an unintended consequence mentioned was that a visitor levy would ‘not incentive visitors in motorhomes or campervans to stay on recognised sites and dispose of waste responsibly’. • concerns that the legislation in its current form would not only impact visitors – this related to a point made above that ‘visitors are not all tourists.’ The national Business and Regulatory Impact Assessment (BRIA) was also said to have been based on outdated information and data which did not reflect the current situation. There were also calls for the council to do more to push back on the national legislation and to ask the Scottish Government to consider changing it to ensure the legislation was fit for purpose and did not further disadvantage rural and island geographies/economies such as Argyll and Bute. Further, albeit only raised in a handful of cases, there was feedback which suggested that attendees did not believe that the council does not have more discretion over scheme design (for example, adopting a flat rate was explicitly mentioned). Page 584
Page 585
xv Concerns relating to the complexity of scheme implementation, the additional administrative and financial burden placed on accommodation providers, and support requirements Drop-in event attendees raised concerns about the potential complexities of scheme administration, and on the burden it would place on accommodation providers in particular – as well as how the scheme would work in practice. Points raised related to: • the burden falling on accommodation providers to calculate a visitor levy, to collect a visitor levy when visitors booked or paid for their booking, and to report and remit a visitor levy to the council – there was wide reference to accommodation providers being ‘unpaid tax collectors’. • complexities around, for example, GDPR considerations, accommodation providers that charge different rates on different nights, itemising costs, or how Online Travel Agencies (OTA) rates would be accounted for, etc. • questions on how a visitor levy would be collected and how exemptions would work in practice. • micro and smaller accommodation providers potentially being disproportionately impacted by administrative and reporting requirements. • the need for ongoing engagement with third party booking agents, etc. “We will be unpaid tax collectors for the council and in reality the admin required to run the scheme won't leave much left for infrastructure and other investments in Argyll and Bute and extra admin burden on providers and the council who are already short staffed.” As a booking agent, if we collect a visitor levy on behalf of owners we will incur thousands of pounds worth of costs. Will we be reimbursed for the collection costs (credit +debit card payments)?” “Unpaid work which costs us time, transaction fees, restructuring costs, lost business through more price increases, income tax on levy and potential of having to open for less time to avoid VAT threshold.” “Most of our bookings come via booking.com and Airbnb, both of which charges circa 15% commission plus a payment handling charge. If a visitor levy is paid at the time of booking, the online travel agents will take their commission on a visitor levy too. This means that we would need to make up in the region of £850 per year to balance a visitor levy demanded by the council. This penalty is in addition to the extra admin required to process a visitor levy. It is a flawed and unfair proposal. “ Page 585
Page 586
xvi There were calls for the scheme, if approved, to be simple to administer, implement, and to understand. Reporting requirements, including paperwork, should also be easy to complete, etc. Some of these respondents also noted that: • a clear and comprehensive timeline for implementation should be provided. • guidance, advice, and a range of support would need to be provided by the council – accommodation providers, for example, raised concerns about visitors making complaints or refusing to the pay a visitor levy, and they asked questions about it would be enforced. • accommodation providers should be reimbursed for time/costs incurred. The consultation process, including the drop-in events A small number of comments were made relating to the events as well as to the wider consultation and decision-making process. For example: • disappointment was expressed by attendees on the lack or low number of councillors who attended the drop-in sessions. • there was feedback that the drop-in sessions only covered the potential benefits of a visitor levy scheme and did not sufficiently cover the potential negative impacts of introducing a scheme in Argyll and Bute. • there was feedback which perceived the council has already decided whether to introduce a visitor levy scheme and that the consultation process and findings would be unlikely to influence that decision. Page 586
Page 587
xvii Appendix E: Business case studies Summary overview of all case studies The case study interviews, which were undertaken by EKOS with a diverse range of accommodation providers, tourism-related businesses, and a construction company in Argyll and Bute (the latter aligns to intra-regional travel for tradespeople), reflect widespread opposition to the proposed 5% visitor levy rate. A consistent set of concerns were raised across rural, island, and small business contexts, including financial strain, administrative burden, and a lack of confidence in the scheme’s design, delivery, and impact. As noted in Chapter 2, some case study interviewees asked for their case study to be anonymised while others gave permission for the business to be named, and this is reflected in the 13 case studies which are presented on the pages below. Financial impact • Thin margins – businesses that operate just below the VAT threshold fear a visitor levy could push them over the threshold and trigger additional costs and compliance requirements. • In order to stay under the VAT threshold while accommodating a visitor levy, accommodation providers would need to reduce the number of nights they sell — meaning their own income would decrease. • Absorption versus pass-on: some providers may look to absorb a visitor levy (if they can) or pass it on – concerns were raised about reduced income or bookings regardless of option. • Price sensitivity - a visitor levy is expected to deter cost-conscious visitors, especially in shoulder seasons and to visit rural and remote areas such as Argyll and Bute. Visitors may choose to visit similar areas that do not have a visitor levy. Administrative burden • Complexity - the percentage-based model is seen as confusing and difficult to implement, especially for small operators, and the proposed 5% is considered too high. • Resource constraints – micro and smaller accommodation providers may lack the capacity and resource to manage new collection, remittance, and reporting requirements. • Call for simplicity - many advocate for a flat-rate fee and a centralised collection system to reduce burden on accommodation providers if a scheme is approved. Page 587
Page 588
xviii Local economy and employment • Knock-on effects - reduced visitor numbers could impact local shops, cafés, tradespeople, and seasonal staff. • Business viability - some operators may reduce availability, shorten seasons, or cease trading altogether. Island-specific challenges • Ferry disruption - unreliable ferry services are already deterring visitors and complicating travel for residents and visitors alike. • Essential travel - island residents often require planned and unplanned overnight stays for medical or personal reasons, which would be unfairly taxed via a visitor levy (links to point on local exemptions). • Infrastructure gaps - poor transport, a lack of housing, and public services undermine the visitor experience and business sustainability. Trust and governance • Scepticism - there is low confidence in the council’s ability to ring-fence and reinvest levy revenue effectively. • Lack of transparency: questions are asked about how the £9 million estimated gross revenue was arrived at, how much would be left after administration costs, etc. and a fear that funds will be absorbed into general council budgets. • Consultation concerns - many feel the process has been rushed and inadequately responsive to local realities, especially accommodation providers and island residents. Suggested alternatives • A flat-rate levy would be preferred by most for simplicity and fairness. • Local exemptions were suggested for residents, temporary workers, and tradespeople (for non-leisure trips), and micro businesses. • A point-of-entry levy scheme is proposed for islands, in part to capture other tourists (day visitors, motorhomes which stay off-site, etc. and to reduce the burden on accommodation providers. • Ring-fenced spending - there is strong demand for revenue to be reinvested locally in infrastructure and services that directly supports tourism in the area in which it is raised. Page 588
Page 589
xix Case Study 1: Willow Lodge, Dunoon About the business Willow Lodge is a small, seasonal self-catering lodge located near Dunoon, operating between April and October each year. The business is owner-operated, with no employees, but relies on a number of local suppliers and tradespeople. With an annual turnover of approximately £12,000, it operates on very tight margins and serves visitors to the Cowal peninsula – a region not typically associated with high visitor volumes or over-tourism. The owner has over 30 years’ of experience in the local hospitality industry and is deeply embedded in the tourism fabric of the community. Engagement with the consultation The business owner participated in the A&BC visitor levy consultation, submitting a formal response and attending consultation events. Their feedback reflects deep concern about the appropriateness and potential impact of a visitor levy in the context of Dunoon and Cowal’s visitor economy. Views on the proposed visitor levy scheme The owner strongly opposes the introduction of a visitor levy scheme in Argyll and Bute, particularly at the proposed 5% levy rate. They argue that the measure is not justified in low- volume destinations such as Dunoon and Cowal, which do not experience over-tourism and are, in fact, still recovering from economic shocks including Covid-19, Brexit, and the ongoing cost-of- living crisis. “Dunoon and Cowal is not New York, Paris, or even Oban. We’re struggling for tourism – we should be doing everything possible to encourage visitors, not putting up barriers.” The primary concerns raised include: • a lack of visible benefits to visitors in the area. • insufficient understanding of the hospitality sector by the council. • a broader breakdown in trust with local authorities and fears that funds may not be ring- fenced or used effectively. • additional administrative burdens for small operators. • risk of unintended consequences such as informal, unregulated accommodation providers avoiding compliance. • potential business closures and subsequent job losses, due to a reduction in overnight visitors to the area, deterred by the introduction of a visitor levy. Page 589
Page 590
xx Potential impact on the business The average room rate at Willow Lodge is around £100–£105 per night. A 5% levy rate would add around £5 per night, which the owner fears would deter price-sensitive customers, especially in the shoulder seasons. They have a minimum night stay of three nights. Impact on business operations: • customer numbers: expected to decrease, with potential visitors choosing destinations without a visitor levy. • repeat visits: likely to decrease, with guests feeling unfairly charged for minimal added benefit. • turnover: estimated reduction of up to 20%, though the owner may absorb a visitor levy as a cost rather than pass it on to guests. • employment: no change, as there are no employees – but reduced income could impact the viability of continued operations. “At this level of income, it's already hard to justify the work and risk. This could tip the balance.” Wider impacts The owner noted knock-on effects for other local businesses, including shops, cafés, and restaurants, especially those reliant on part-time or seasonal staff. There is concern about potential declines in footfall affecting the broader local economy. Administrative burden and costs The owner highlighted concerns about additional administration and time spent managing a visitor levy, including: • administrative time: dependent on frequency of reporting – quarterly or annual returns would be more manageable than monthly. • financial burden: no specific figures provided, but transaction and reporting costs would further erode already slim margins. “It’s just another burden added to a business that is already close to not being worth it.” Views on proposed uses of revenue generated by a visitor levy scheme The owner was sceptical about the impact investing revenue against the four proposed objectives (for example, extending the season) could have in Dunoon and Cowal specifically, although acknowledged potential benefit to the wider region if implemented effectively. Page 590
Page 591
xxi Concerns remained about the likelihood of revenue being thinly spread, and the lack of a clear local return on the charge. “£9 million won’t go far once it’s administered. Net zero doesn’t make sense here – so many rural areas rely on cars for transport and fossil fuels for heating. It doesn’t reflect our reality.” Final reflections The business owner concluded with a strong appeal for the council to listen more closely to small business voices in areas like Dunoon and Cowal. “This is not the right solution for our area. We need support, not added costs and complexity. If this goes ahead, there will be business closures, and some will operate underground and unregulated to avoid a visitor levy – and that helps no one.” Page 591
Page 592
xxii Case study 2: Greystones Bed and Breakfast, Oban About the accommodation provider Greystones is a boutique bed and breakfast in a grand baronial house with elegant contemporary rooms and stunning views of Oban bay. Greystones operates at the top end of the market – it comprises five rooms and room rates range from £240 to £350 per room for bed and breakfast. There is an estimated 150 x two-night bookings in a typical year. Nowadays, visitors are mainly from America who come to tour the islands and are not typically repeat visitors. The owner and his wife are retired and have run the business since 2020 when they moved back to Argyll and Bute from overseas – they do everything themselves and there are no other paid employees. Greystones typically opens three months each year in peak season. The nature of the workload, however, is not routine or regular, and this can make employing someone else a challenge. The business operates close to the VAT threshold and does this purposefully. “We don't breach it but aim to be very close to the VAT threshold.” Current trading environment The owner talked about the current challenging trading environment for accommodation providers in Argyll and Bute – these challenges were framed in terms of the increasing costs and regulation experienced by small businesses, as well as other external factors. “Family circumstances led to us doing this, almost by mistake. We like doing it, but if costs keep going up, there's no point. The council has recently introduced the short-term let licencing scheme and that's supposed to have been an easy thing. But it’s added to our already increasing costs (for example, buildings insurance costs). We have already experienced four years of inflationary pressure, resulting in rates trending upwards significantly. A further 5% is likely to prove intolerable and will have to be absorbed by accommodation providers.” His personal experience of the short-term let licence scheme and other dealings with the council has led to reduced faith in its ability to design a well-thought through visitor levy scheme and in its capacity to manage another scheme efficiently and effectively. Page 592
Page 593
xxiii The time might not be right for a visitor levy scheme in Argyll and Bute The owner spoke about the long-standing challenges and issues with ferry services for residents, business, and visitors alike and other issues which adversely affect residents and visitors. He made the point that existing tourism infrastructure is not working well, and that government (at all levels) ‘have not got this right’ – reducing faith and confidence that the national legislation would be well- thought through or that it sufficiently considered the potential impact of introducing a visitor levy in remote and rural geographies such as Argyll and Bute. “I agree with the motivation behind a visitor levy and if it was executed the way people broadly talk about it – that is, if the money was used for necessary projects in a local environment. Then yes, maybe it's worth doing. But I've got absolutely no faith that any money raised will be usefully used.” “We're not even doing a good job of providing visitors with the basic infrastructure they need to do the things they want to do. We can't even provide ferries to get people to the islands… the replacement ferries are six or seven years late. We regularly welcome guests from America who travel to Oban specifically to visit Iona or Staffa, only to discover they can’t get a seat on the ferry. Some have reported that they tried booking two months in advance, to no avail.” “The council needs to walk before it runs. We can't even keep the streets clean. There are bins all over the streets with rubbish pouring out onto the pavements and that's the council's responsibility. Of course it's the business owners’ responsibility too, but it's the council that manages the system. Because they have such infrequent rubbish collections, they aren't even taking care of what they're supposed to take care of.” His view is that if the legislation is not fair for rural and island geographies, then the council should strongly advocate for changes that people and businesses in Argyll and Bute can fully get behind – that is, it shouldn’t be ‘imposed on us for the benefit of others’. This could mean pausing implementation of a visitor levy scheme as this time. Impact of a visitor levy scheme on the business The owner of Greystones Bed and Breakfast said that if a visitor levy scheme is approved (at a 5% levy rate) then the business would likely have to try to absorb the additional cost, not least as accommodation rates were considered to have increased a lot in recent years. Other external factors such as a worsening position with ferry services, increasing energy prices, etc. also have a big impact on his business and so it will be virtually impossible to quantify the effect of a visitor levy scheme. Page 593
Page 594
xxiv “If we continue to operate, we'll stay open just as long as it takes to get up to the VAT threshold.” “I'm not sure that rates across the market will be 5% higher just because there's a visitor levy – accommodation in Argyll and Bute is already very expensive. Do you think everyone's just going to increase their rates 5% and hope that they get the same number of bookings? It’s a competitive landscape, so accommodation providers who directly add the 5% will place themselves at a disadvantage and will likely get less bookings. But you're never going to know what the effect of a visitor levy has been because there will be other external factors going on in the market. We are typical of small guest houses, operating beneath the VAT threshold. So our turnover (assuming you mean gross revenue) wouldn’t change. We would continue to accept reservations until we encroach on the VAT threshold. If we had been successful in loading up our rates to compensate the 5% levy, that would logically mean a reduction in the number of beds available from us to visitors during our operating period. So, our turnover would remain the same, but our income would be reduced. On top of that, our cost base could possibly increase. We don’t know the details of the administrative requirements for managing a visitor levy and passing the same to the council. It is likely that we would need to engage a bookkeeper to take care of this and so that would be an additional cost and a further reduction in our income.” But then went on to say that: “We're already retired. We're not financially dependent on the business. But if the margins start to reduce further because our costs are increasing and because our turnover or revenue isn't going up, then we would think twice about operating.” How revenue from a visitor levy scheme could be spent The owner raised concerns about: • whether the revenue raised by a visitor levy scheme, if approved, would be spent wisely and for its intended purpose. • whether Oban would see its fair share of investment. • the proposed visitor levy scheme objectives. “Extending the season in Oban seems a bit silly because the season is already very long. It used to be a three-month season, but now there are places open in February or March and stay open till October and beyond. Page 594
Page 595
xxv Unlike our neighbour Fort William, Oban is not a winter sports destination. People go to Fort William for mountain sports and climbing etc. in the winter, and that's appropriate. But Oban doesn't have a lot to offer in the winter.” From an ideological perspective, he was more supportive of levy revenue generated in Oban then being reinvested in Oban. Investment that would make a difference to the visitor experience in Oban includes the following – albeit this was framed in the context of the role of the council (including enforcement), etc. “Oban is about the harbour and the ferries and the hills around it. The Esplanade has sets of steps going down to the beach that are falling apart and could be dangerous. In the harbour, the pontoons were damaged in the storm in February and remain unrepaired and so can’t be used year-round. But these things shouldn't take a visitor levy to remedy, but the council doesn't even take care of that now, but it's something that is very visible to visitors.” We're situated very close to the town centre. It's a nice short walk, but visitors have to walk past overflowing rubbish bins. The same is true in the main street, especially around John Square. The business owners there should be taking care of the rubbish and keeping it in better order, but the council doesn’t enforce it. More regular waste collections and better enforcement are needed.” Support requirements The owner found it difficult to quantify the additional time/cost that a visitor levy scheme could have on his business – not least as he said final decisions have yet to be made on the scheme design (for example, whether there would be a cap on the number of nights a visitor levy is applied, etc.) and on how the scheme would work in practice administratively for accommodation providers (for example, would an online system be used?). His experience is that new schemes and associated processes and systems take time to develop – and also need to be thoroughly tested in advance to ensure they work properly and are easy to use/navigate, etc. before formal roll-out. And that accommodation providers would need: • reimbursement for costs incurred. • training and support to use any new online platform. Page 595
Page 596
xxvi Case study 3: Gowanlea Heights Bed and Breakfast, Campbeltown About the accommodation provider Gowanlea Heights is a small bed and breakfast in Campbeltown in Kintyre designed to cater for one person up to groups of four people. The accommodation provider is open year-round and has around 240 overnight bookings per annum. Most bookings are for between May and July and then tails off. It is a micro business with two employees and operates significantly under the VAT threshold. The proposed scheme is not workable in its current form The owner understands and appreciates the opportunity that a visitor levy scheme could have for Argyll and Bute but caveated this by saying: “But only if it is managed properly and targeted correctly – this is not currently the case. A one-size-fits-all approach is not appropriate for Argyll and Bute.” He considers the national legislation and the council’s proposed scheme not fit-for-purpose and not workable in its current form. He suggested: • the council should consider applying local exemptions – most notably, he mentioned micro businesses, as these very small accommodation providers have much less of a cushion in turnover and profit margins (as the worked example below shows) than larger accommodation providers who can generate additional income through their restaurants and bars. And that there should also be local exemptions for residents for non-leisure trips, including pregnant women/health reasons visitors, and for tradespeople. • that a 5% levy rate is too high – a flat rate would be a much better option and would also be easier to understand and implement. • the council could consider not applying a visitor levy to the whole area and consider not applying it year-round to take into account seasonality factors. The owner framed his concerns about a visitor levy legislation and proposed scheme within the context of the ‘very changed operating environment’ for his business and the wider visitor economy in Argyll and Bute since the pandemic – and that visitor numbers have been on the decline. Concern was raised about the evidence base which underpinned the Scottish Government’s BRIA for the visitor levy legislation – in that it was said to have been based on 2019 data, and not updated. Page 596
Page 597
xxvii As well as with the council’s draft impact assessment work which he does not feel sufficiently or accurately considers the real impact of the introduction of a visitor levy on fragile areas in Argyll and Bute (such as Kintyre, the islands, etc.). Some scepticism was also expressed on the estimated £9 million in gross revenue that could be generated by a visitor levy scheme - not least that the workings have not and cannot be shared with the public on ‘how this figure has been arrived at’. Impact of a visitor levy scheme on the business The owner of Gowanlea Heights explained the potential impact of a visitor levy scheme on his business, and used economic principles such as price elasticity of demand (PED) to provide evidence the difference such a scheme could have on the bed and breakfast. Price elasticity is basically how sensitive consumers are to a change in the price of a good or service. So in this example, for every 1% increase in price the owner said he would lose 1.5% of rooms sold (that is, the -1.50 PED), and that a visitor levy rate of 5% would mean 7.5% fewer rooms sold. The model shows that the owner would lose 18 room nights at £1,800 (18*£100 per night) and pay a visitor levy of £1,100 on room nights sold – therefore losing £2,910 per year as a result of the legislative change. “Even if I absorbed a visitor levy and paid it myself, PED would still affect guest decisions and I would still be out of pocket, as the cost of paying a visitor levy myself to buffer the impact on guests would be £1,200, that's using today's turnover". He said that he would not necessarily close the bed and breakfast as a direct result of a visitor levy scheme, but he would certainly be ‘less keen to run it, and probably reduce availability’. Page 597
Page 598
xxviii The owner said that travelling to Campbeltown is already difficult – CalMac announced its Campbeltown-Ardrossan summer ferry service would be cancelled in 2024, remains cancelled in 2025 and hasn’t properly run since before COVID-19, which was a blow to the area, and that public transport in the evening is also extremely limited. He believes a that visitor levy rate of 5% would further deter visitors to the area. “They may simply just miss out visiting Campbeltown altogether.” The knock-on implications of a reduction in turnover are articulated by the owner as ‘less investment in the business as margins are already thin’ – for example, payment to digital marketing associations and less regular replacement of fixtures, fittings, and furnishings. Such impacts are said to be of real concern, not least as VisitScotland retired its Quality Assurance scheme on 31st March 2025 – the official grading system that had been used for tourism businesses in Scotland which helped businesses to meet and exceed the high standards their customers expected, as well as raising quality standards and driving investment in the tourism product across the country. It was retired due to a shift towards online reviews and digital channels for information. Gowanlea Heights had been the only four-star gold bed and breakfast in Kintyre during the final ever VisitScotland assessments 2024-2025 – the owner considers there to have been huge value in this accreditation and expressed his disappointment that it has recently stopped. “There is now no differentiator between accommodation providers, we expect price, and rates will increase in the short-term as result of a visitor levy. But without the star rating, quality has no differentiator so a race to the bottom will be likely happen, with rates being cut and visitor levy revenue reducing as a result. Unfortunately, reducing our investment in the business could have an impact on bookings in the future. If it's no longer cost effective to re-invest and we see standards fall below our comfort level, we’ll likely take the decision to cease trading once the new trading patterns become clear.” The short-term let licence scheme introduced by the Scottish Government and implemented at a local level by local authorities is generally viewed as a good thing albeit not without issue. "This scheme has added £1,000 per year to our running costs for each STL period of three years, but that is ok – good to have it for customers to see. The issue I have is that there is a black market for unlicensed operators and the council don’t police it.” The owner also talked about the potential wider implications of a visitor levy on other hospitality businesses in Campbeltown – if there are less visitors to the area and they may also have less money to spend - ‘everyone would be affected by a visitor levy not just visitors.’ Page 598
Page 599
xxix Tradespeople who come to Argyll and Bute to do work for accommodation providers (for example, PAT testing) and who often have to stay overnight could also increase their costs to the business. How revenue generated by a visitor levy could be spent The owner emphasises the importance of the revenue generated by a visitor levy scheme being ring-fenced for specific purposes and for spending to be completely transparent and easily understood. While he said there is ‘nothing to really disagree with’ in relation to the proposed high-level scheme objectives, he did question: • the relevance of the objective to ‘extend the season’. • whether a visitor levy is the ‘right vehicle’ to address these objectives. • how the use of visitor levy revenue would be additional to destination management services already provided by existing DMOs, such as Kintyre 66, Explore Kintyre and Wild About Argyll. • how ‘success would be measured’. He mentioned that Campbeltown does not have a lot of tourism infrastructure, and that most destination attractions, such as golfing and distilleries, are provided by the private sector, not the council. That being said, he thinks that the following investment could make the most difference in Campbeltown: • road improvements. • better bus timetabling (evenings). Operational and financial burden The owner raised significant concerns about the operational and financial burden a visitor levy would impose on accommodation providers, in particular that the majority of the burden and costs would fall on accommodation providers – and disproportionality on micro businesses like his. Reimbursement of costs would be vitally important. Page 599
Page 600
xxx Case Study 4: Guest House, Dunoon About the accommodation provider This case study focuses on a small, independently owned guest house operating year-round in Dunoon. The business has been running since 2014 and is managed solely by the owner, who has built a strong reputation with consistent 5-star ratings and a #1 ranking on TripAdvisor over the past 12 years. With five guest rooms, the business generates a turnover of approximately £60,000– £70,000 annually and is heavily reliant on repeat customers, including regular bookings from locum health professionals. The owner hoped to run the business into his retirement and runs the business without staff support. The business also hosts residential retreats during quieter months, contributing to an extended operating season. Engagement in the consultation process The owner attended local drop-in events to better understand the council’s proposals. He voiced strong concerns about the appropriateness of applying a visitor levy scheme in Dunoon and wider Cowal, where tourism is modest and infrastructure challenges (such as ferry reliability and the A83 Rest and Be Thankful) are already limiting visitor numbers. Views on the proposed visitor levy scheme The owner expressed total opposition to the introduction of the proposed visitor levy scheme in Argyll and Bute. The key objections included: • lack of local benefit: unlike cities or tourism hotspots, Dunoon would see minimal visible return from a visitor levy scheme. Existing improvements cited by the council (for example, ferry pricing, road repairs, promenade works) were unrelated to any visitor levy scheme and did not instil confidence in how future revenue would be reinvested. • reputational risk and pricing pressure: guests are not expecting additional charges in areas like Dunoon. Increasing prices to absorb a visitor levy would risk deterring visitors, particularly repeat customers. • mistrust in delivery: there is a strong feeling that the proposed visitor levy scheme would be poorly administered, that revenue generated would not be ring-fenced for visitor economy improvements and could be absorbed into the council’s general budgets. The owner described this as a breach of trust with no clear evidence base for the projected estimated £9 million in revenue highlighted by the council. “This isn’t Edinburgh or Paris. People will see the cost and ask—what is this for?” Page 600
Page 601
xxxi Estimated business impact Customer impact: • The owner anticipates a reduction in customer numbers for his business, particularly among repeat guests, due to the higher overall cost of stays. • Locum workers – a key part of his client base – may reconsider bookings due to increased expenses. Revenue impact: • The business could see a significant reduction in turnover, especially if a visitor levy was absorbed by the owner to avoid deterring guests. • A primary concern is that any increase in income could push the business over the VAT threshold, which, when combined with the 5% levy, would lead to a 25% charge on accommodation, significantly affecting competitiveness. • If this occurred, the owner indicated they would likely cease trading rather than absorb additional administrative burdens and taxation. Employment impact: • The business has no employees and would not hire in future if viability is further eroded. Administrative burden and practicality issues • The owner flagged serious concerns about the complexity of applying a visitor levy across variable room rates and formats (for example, with or without breakfast). • As a sole operator, the additional admin time required for collection and reporting would be difficult to manage. • There is scepticism over compliance and enforcement, with the owner noting that some providers may not report levy income at all due to complexity or resistance. “I don’t know how I’d squeeze this into my day. Short-term lets are already a mess. It’s just more bureaucracy.” Views on use of revenue generated by a visitor levy scheme The council’s four proposed investment areas—extending the season, reaching new audiences, improving the offer, and supporting net zero—were met with scepticism: • the owner already attracts guests in off-peak months through sewing retreats and does not need support to extend the season. • they do not believe these objectives would deliver tangible improvements for their business or for Dunoon more broadly. Page 601
Page 602
xxxii • while willing to do their part on environmental improvements, the owner noted that net zero ambitions were often unrealistic for a rural area where cars are essential and infrastructure funding is limited. • improvements that could help (for example, better-maintained public spaces, free public toilets) may fall outside what is eligible under the legislation. “The council could cut the grass or tidy the flowerbeds – but they already should be. What will this levy really pay for?” Final reflections The owner supports the concept of a simple, locally retained flat rate £1-per-room-per-night charge, but not a percentage-based model that risks pushing small businesses into VAT liability. They are concerned about the lack of an evidence base for projected revenue generated by the scheme and the absence of a clear, locally beneficial spending plan. “The VAT and levy combined would mean 25% on a room. That’s not sustainable. And we don’t even know what we’d get back in Dunoon.” They stressed the importance of differentiating between tourism hotspots and peripheral areas when applying national policy—and of truly listening to the lived experience of micro and sole- trader businesses. Page 602
Page 603
xxxiii Case Study 5: Cill-Mhoire Lodges, Isle of Mull About the accommodation provider Cill-Mhoire Lodges is a small, family-run self-catering business based in Dervaig on the Isle of Mull. The business is run by Jo and her husband, and they manage all aspects of the business themselves, including cleaning and maintenance. The business operates just below the VAT threshold, with an annual turnover of approximately £90,000, and focuses on short breaks. Like many small accommodation providers, they have been significantly affected by broader economic challenges including rising mortgage interest rates, inflation in utility costs, and increased regulatory demands. Existing operational and financial challenges The business highlighted a number of key pressures currently facing their business. This includes: • licensing constraints: although fully licensed, planning restrictions limit the lodges to short- term lets, reducing flexibility. • rising costs: mortgage payments have increased following the UK Government’s 2022 mini-budget, with additional inflationary pressure on electricity and consumables. • pricing pressures: despite rising costs, the business is unable to raise prices due to customer sensitivity in the current economic climate. • ferry disruptions: ferry issues have further impacted occupancy rates, prompting the business to offer more flexible changeover days to fill gaps. • trade down: trade is currently down for their business and others in the area. Views on the proposed visitor levy scheme The business expressed strong opposition to the proposed 5% visitor levy rate, citing multiple concerns: • financial impact: a visitor levy would reduce their annual income by an estimated £4,500— forcing the couple to cut their own wages and reduce reinvestment in the business. As a small, home-based self-catering operation, they aim to remain under the VAT threshold to avoid the significant administrative burden and additional costs associated with VAT registration. Exceeding the threshold would require them to increase prices to cover VAT, which they fear would deter cost-sensitive customers and further reduce bookings— ultimately undermining the viability of the business. • VAT threshold pressures: to remain below the VAT threshold while accounting for the proposed 5% visitor levy, the business would be forced to reduce the number of nights sold—resulting in decreased turnover and reduced economic contribution to the local area. Page 603
Page 604
xxxiv • customer resistance: some returning guests, particularly from Scotland, have already indicated they would reconsider visiting if a visitor levy were introduced, particularly if other areas have paused the introduction of a visitor levy. • wider economic impact: the business believes a visitor levy would result in lower visitor spending in local restaurants, shops, and services—reducing discretionary income available for such activities. This could harm the island’s already fragile economy, which is heavily reliant on visitor economy spend to sustain small businesses and community services. Administrative burden and practicality issues The business raised significant concerns about the practicalities of levy collection: • system integration: platforms like Airbnb do not support percentage-based charges, creating difficulties in adding a visitor levy to bookings. • risk of penalties: current uncertainty around reporting requirements and the risk of fines for non-compliance adds further stress for the business owners. • time burden: the additional administration would fall entirely on the owners, with no extra capacity or resources to manage it. Community impact • local services: the business contributes to community services such as the local lunch club, not only financially but also through voluntary time and active involvement. If a visitor levy negatively impacts their income, they may be forced to reduce both their financial support and the time they can dedicate to volunteering—putting at risk valuable community services that rely on local participation. • visitor spend: with visitors potentially spending less due to a visitor levy, the business foresees a knock-on effect for other local businesses. • cost of trades: the business anticipates that a visitor levy scheme would reduce overall visitor spend in the local area, which could lead to fewer bookings and income for local tradespeople who rely heavily on tourism for work (for example, cleaners, maintenance, gardeners, tradesmen for upgrades and refurbs at the end of the season). As demand for their services drops or becomes more seasonal, these trades may raise their prices to stay afloat. This, in turn, would increase the operational costs for small accommodation providers, adding further financial pressure to already tight margins. Views on use of revenue raised by a visitor levy scheme The business expressed scepticism about the council’s proposed uses of levy revenue, particularly investment in infrastructure aligned with VisitScotland’s step-ashore strategy. Page 604
Page 605
xxxv They noted that such projects typically benefit cruise ship destinations, where visitors disembark but do not stay overnight. As a result, these developments offer little or no benefit to island communities like theirs, where local accommodation providers—who would be responsible for collecting a visitor levy—could see none of the return. They strongly advocated for any revenue generated by a visitor levy scheme to be: • ring-fenced for local benefit, ensuring funds are reinvested in the communities where a visitor levy is collected. • used to directly support struggling businesses and rural infrastructure, such as transport links, waste services, and digital connectivity—areas that would tangibly support both tourism and community resilience. Support and communication needs if the proposed visitor levy scheme goes ahead The business emphasised the importance of: • clear, practical guidance from the council if a visitor levy scheme is approved. • ongoing consultation with businesses to co-design workable systems and processes. • transparency and trust in how a visitor levy scheme will be implemented and monitored. Final reflections The business reiterated their firm opposition to the proposed introduction of a visitor levy scheme, citing serious financial, operational, and community-level impacts. They also voiced frustration with the consultation process, feeling that small business voices were not being fully heard or considered. However, that said, they are committed to continued engagement with the process and are willing to be involved in the following: • submitting further written feedback. • providing input on transition period support needs. • suggesting alternative funding models. • recommending fair and locally beneficial uses for any levy revenue. Page 605
Page 606
xxxvi Case Study 6: Guesthouse, Isle of Mull About the accommodation provider The guesthouse is located in southwest Mull. The current owners (a husband and wife team) have run the guesthouse since 2017 and there are no other paid staff. The guesthouse has four bedrooms and a two-night minimum stay policy and offers a range of food options. The guesthouse’s turnover sits comfortably below the VAT threshold - the number of stays has declined from 247 to 148 (charging on average £150 per night for two sharing). The make-up of guests has also changed considerably since the owners bought the guesthouse, and nowadays the guesthouse relies much more on domestic visitors from the UK. The guesthouse is currently on the market for sale. A challenging trading position for micro and small accommodation providers The co-owner highlighted the extremely challenging trading environment for small and micro accommodation providers like their guesthouse, and how hard recent years have been for the guesthouse. “We bought the guesthouse in 2017 and have so far survived, or endured if you prefer, Brexit, a global pandemic, an economic downturn, the war in Ukraine, etc. All of these have impacted us. There is less disposable income and holidays have all changed since 2020 and that’s before we get to the ongoing issue with the ferries and a lack of confidence in travelling around the islands. “I know of plenty who are very worried about this coming season and can’t imagine beyond that.” “We love it on Mull…but we put the guesthouse on the market last October in response to a range of factors.” “Our savings have diminished to help off-set our increased costs. We would register a loss, if it weren’t for the fact that my husband and I have both taken on second jobs. This should provide us with some additional resilience heading into next winter and help off-set the predicted 30% downturn in bookings that are being forecast.” She talked about the decline in the number of visitors booking to stay at the guesthouse over recent years too, and that not everything has returned to pre-pandemic levels. Page 606
Page 607
xxxvii “Since the pandemic, the season has actually been reducing and not extending. We are currently at 148 bookings for the coming season against a target of 180. March and October trading has diminished entirely since 2017 with April and September bookings struggling to get to pre-pandemic levels – these numbers are a long way from the objective of extending the season…there is genuine concern that this season will see a 30% decline in numbers staying on Mull.” Other external factors A range of other external factors have affected the guesthouse and profit margins have also been squeezed. The co-owner mentioned increasing costs (for example, mortgage payments, insurance, energy, etc.), and loan repayments for investment in the business (for example, a new central heating system) and ongoing bounce-back loan repayments like many other businesses. The co-owner said that the cost of living is still affecting many people who think of a trip in the UK as a luxury. Mull is increasingly a luxury proposition as it is expensive to come here – accommodation, food and tours are all expensive when compared to a package holiday abroad. Last season was also affected by bad weather, pushing people abroad even more. Further, she said that the lack of accommodation for workers on Mull affects the opening and closing of small businesses across the season. “We have to time our opening hours in accordance, such as offer an evening meal on a Monday when our local pub kitchen is closed to give their one chef a day off. We provide evening meals on a further two nights over the week and packed lunches. Even when you recommend somewhere you have no idea if it will be open as businesses have no choice but to adapt on a daily basis as staff come and go and we hear the impact of that in discussions with guests.“ The co-owner mentioned that VisitScotland is also closing their tourist information offices which will impact the local knowledge base for visitors to the area. “We regularly ask people to get in touch with the local office to find accommodation that meets their specific needs (children/pets/one night stays). All the offices will be closed by the end of summer and that will create additional problems downstream. What will happen in bad weather and people are stuck due to the ferry being cancelled?” Page 607
Page 608
xxxviii The impact of an unreliable ferry service and a dilapidated fleet The co-owner mentioned the wider year-on-year challenges for those living and working on the Islands from a dilapidated ferry fleet and that Islanders and tourists have lost confidence in travelling. Bookings have been lost and there is a sense that the Islands in Argyll and Bute are already losing out on customers to other more accessible places in the UK which could be exacerbated by the introduction of a visitor levy scheme. “We have had a number of bookings lost in the last two years as guests booked here and then couldn’t get a ferry. For the last three years, our winter timetable has been the Loch Frisa only, reducing capacity from 64 vehicles to 34 per sailing and passenger numbers from 990 to 198 impacting March and to a lesser extent October trading. This summer, during our busiest months which are traditionally May and June, and not July and August as is normally suggested, we will only have MV Coriusk and the Loch Frisa. It is going to be hard to get a ferry ticket for late bookings so we will keep empty slots. The option of Lochaline to Fishnish does exist but it is not an attractive option for tourists for Iona who don’t want to drive single track roads and jump on a wee ferry and add 120 miles onto their journey. It’s not just CalMac but the wider transport infrastructure that affects our trading position.” The impact of this on locals too was also emphasised. “The more tourists who book a ticket, the less space there is for locals who have to attend medical and dental appointments, to see accountants and solicitors, to visit school children in Oban, other family and friends, take part in special occasions or even get to funerals. I know this first hand from last year when I had to battle to get tickets using protocols that CalMac says exist but that staff aren’t trained in following. It took six days after I left hospital to get back to the Island as I couldn’t get a vehicle space. Fortunately, I had family in Ayrshire who could help out.” The legislation is not workable for Argyll and Bute and the council should consider pausing its deliberations on a visitor levy scheme at this time The co-owner feels that the national legislation has been ‘badly designed’ and her view is that it has not been sufficiently challenged by the council who will also have added burden placed on it to implement and monitor the scheme, on top of the short-term let licence scheme that was introduced by the Scottish Government, and which has faced challenges in implementation at a local level. A wider concern raised is that the concerns of the business community ‘have not been heard’ and that there needs to be more effort to ‘work together on this’. Page 608
Page 609
xxxix “If this consultation does nothing other than convince the council to pause while COSLA works out a way with Scottish Government officials to review and re-draft the legislation then we’d all cheer. Maybe, businesses could get behind a flat rate, small fee system with minimal collection burden as a starting point. We know we need things funded and sorted and built and maintained. It’s how it’s done that’s the issue – taxing people for wanting to stay in small premises doesn’t feel like the solution to the funding problem. Surely there is some way that willing businesses and the council can work together and get it sent back to the Scottish Government on that basis.” The owner is also concerned about collection and administration levels for a visitor levy. “As it stands at the moment, we can only charge levy on accommodation and will have to split out the cost of our breakfasts as they don’t incur the 5% proposed charge. There is very little detail on how we will be compensated for all the additional work we have to do in this and earlier examples from other councils have been very complicated and created genuine anger about the possible burdens. We are lucky to be under the VAT threshold, but many local businesses will simply reduce their operating period to avoid VAT registration. There is a real danger that the figure of £9 million (which we don’t believe anyway) will diminish quickly in admin costs to businesses and admin costs to the council leaving a visitor levy with much less than the headline figure of £9 million. For islands too, a visitor levy on the ferry ticket would be much more appropriate as that would cover campervan visitors who are not part of this legislation.“ The co-owner feels that the council should consider local exemptions for residents attending medical appointments, including pregnant women, etc. As this often requires planned and unplanned overnight stays in paid accommodation (for example, ferry cancellations, can’t get tickets, etc.). Other concerns raised relate to the BRIA undertaken by the Scottish Government which was based on 2019 data and not updated – the point made by the co-owner is that the ‘world is very different after the pandemic for most business providers, than it was before 2020’, and that an updated BRIA should have been done to reflect this. And that the council should undertake a detailed Island Equalities Impact Assessment to help inform its decision-making processes, as a one-size-fits all approach is not considered appropriate. Page 609
Page 610
xl How the revenue generated should be used As noted, the co-owner said she is sceptical of the £9 million estimation of revenue that could be generated by a visitor levy scheme in Argyll and Bute but agrees that revenue should be ring- fenced to be used to sustain facilities and services which are substantially for or used by people visiting Argyll and Bute. “Our numbers show a very different picture to the current monetary estimates that a visitor levy is based on. Truly, there are many who will close their businesses, reduce their trading, or simply do what we are trying to do, and that is sell-up and move on – with every chance that the next owners will simply live here and not trade, diminishing the local economy.“ “Most local business people who are impacted by a visitor levy, also live here. This calls for a locality based approach built on partnership, data and understanding rather than a top- down approach.” The four proposed objectives of a visitor levy scheme (aligned with the Argyll and the Isles Strategic Tourism Partnership Visitor Economy Recovery and Growth Strategy 2002-2025) are coming to an end of its current cycle and the co-owner thinks this provides a timely opportunity to refresh the vision and priorities for the visitor economy in Argyll and Bute but added: “We need an Islands Economic Assessment and Economic Plan before we can even get to a visitor strategy and new objectives.” She also feels that the council’s proposals lack sufficient detail of how the funding would actually be spent. The co-owner made the point that the visitor economy on Mull is not separate to the full economy and is concerned that future councillors and a Visitor Levy Forum could argue that roads, bins, public toilets etc., should have visitor levy funds applied in support of the council’s growing budget deficit. “But is that really the approach intended for a visitor levy?” She agreed with the national legislation that visitor levy revenue has to be ring-fenced and reported separately for Argyll and Bute (so that a visitor levy is not seen as a substitute for Council Tax and Non-Domestic Rates). Page 610
Page 611
xli She added that there would need to be more detail on, for example: • how it would be determined what the revenue generated could and could not be spent on. For example, roads and public toilets are necessary for both residents and visitors - would they come under visitor levy, or would a visitor levy be allowed to be a percentage of the cost and match-fund against the council's budgets? What would be the potential split between spend on revenue and capital projects? • how would it be determined who sits on a Visitor Levy Forum – she emphasised that this should include island voices to ensure that local issues are properly understood and accounted for when ‘larger organisations are planning for the future’. • there needs to be a better understanding of what the ‘optimum number of tourists is each year with a focus on quality rather than quantity and plan against that’. Most businesses on the island are limited by number of bedrooms, length of season or access to staff and are comfortable running their business in that way. This helps not just with high level targets such as net zero etc, but allows planners to plan for business premises, housing needs and infrastructure when it is all ferry dependent or based on short seasons. Understanding the optimum number of visitors also allows more thought to go into developing alternative all- year employment routes with the associated skills and training required and can provide ways to avoid young people leaving the island as they are employed all year round. As mentioned, wider factors such as an unreliable ferry service and a dilapidated fleet as well as a lack of accommodation for workers on Mull continue to greatly impact on the Islands ability to attract and retain people of working age – contributing to the wider issue of de-population. Wider points raised Infrastructure development and management: The co-owner notes that infrastructure and how that impacts visitor behaviours should be a critical issue. There is a focus on transport, housing and premises which need to be built, improved, or renewed. While it is understood that decisions over infrastructure developments and improvements are often taken away from the islands, that needs to be changed. The use of the Island Equalities Act and Island Equalities Impact Assessments must be much better understood and connected to economic planning. For example, using this legislation to connect our bus, train and ferry services more seamlessly together, improves life for both residents and visitors is a better way as opposed to the ‘lazy, tick box exercises currently undertaken, and makes a decent economic contribution’. Page 611
Page 612
xlii Visitor management She also thinks visitors can be very under-prepared for their trip to an Island and not understand local ways and etiquette. This is most clearly seen in driving on single track roads or in understanding that services (from food to broadband) are limited by location and that indeed local people do live and work here all year round. Customer service and a positive visitor experience go hand in hand. As local businesses we spend time informing our visitors before their trip about how to do things (driving) and what to expect (plan ahead). Even so, our visitors often say, "Oh I didn't read your information" and we spend lots of time unpicking their travel plans or booking meals for them. And when something goes wrong - like a weather event or a ferry cancellation, it is the team at the VisitScotland office as well as CalMac staff who assist in managing the people at the terminal. Many would agree that Island visitors should contribute on a fair basis. But she said that a visitor levy does not achieve that. RET is applied to all cars and motorhomes but not to local carriers who provide an essential service to the islands. She posed the question – ‘Could the levies and taxes on second homes also be ring-fenced so that a bigger tourism fund is developed? – as a way to help ring-fence funding for specific island projects and delivering an economic plan. Page 612
Page 613
xliii Case Study 7: Visit Mull and Iona Destination Management Organisation About the organisation Visit Mull and Iona is a volunteer-led DMO. Established in 2018 the DMO aims to promote Mull, Iona, and the surrounding islands through targeted marketing campaigns, highlighting the key strengths of the islands in order to benefit the whole visitor economy. Visit Mull and Iona has 153 members representing 290 Mull and Iona businesses across all hospitality sectors. Membership is open to anyone with a tourism related business on the islands to allow them access to a range of promotional benefits. Input to the consultation process Visit Mull and Iona DMO discussed the proposed visitor levy scheme at its annual general meeting, and also encouraged its members to submit their views to the DMO to help inform the organisation’s formal response to the council’s consultation. The DMO used the feedback received from its members to identify common issues and concerns and submitted two letters to the council (dated December 2024 and April 2025). The DMO also encouraged its members to respond to the consultation directly, for example, through the surveys and attendance at drop-in events. This case study draws on an interview with the Acting Chair of Visit Mull and Iona DMO and the two letters submitted by the organisation to the council, including some of the quotes below. The visitor levy legislation in its present form is an unacceptable model for island communities Visit Mull and Iona DMO and its members understand the opportunity that a visitor levy scheme could have for Argyll and Bute but the Acting Chair caveated this by saying: “If we could find something that was fair and workable and where we were properly consulted to make it work, especially for the islands. They would go for it. Because we want that income, we want that infrastructure, we need that infrastructure. But this is just the wrong model on every front. You could easily charge visitors as they come into the island and charge them a fair rate so that they're not put off from visiting.” Visit Mull and Iona DMO emphasised that its members do not support the proposed visitor levy scheme in its current form – both the national legislation and the council’s proposals are not considered an appropriate model for island communities such as Mull and Iona. There is overwhelming concern amongst its membership that the proposed visitor levy scheme would be damaging for the visitor economy and for island life more generally. Page 613
Page 614
xliv “This levy unfairly disadvantages islanders, both as residents and business owners, operating in such a remote location. Having to stay overnight somewhere is a common occurrence, whether attending medical appointments, school events for our children, mitigation for cancelled ferries or even accessing everyday services such as food shopping. These are not 'visitor' or 'tourism' activities, yet it would seem that they will be classed and 'taxed' as such and make island living even more tenuous financially.” Members concerns include that the one-size-fits-all model outlined in the legislation is not suitable for all of Scotland. They recognise that it may be suitable for cities such as Edinburgh and Glasgow, but that it may not make good economic sense in rural areas, especially where tourism is declining, such as across Argyll and Bute. “The council should have rejected the conditions of a visitor levy as flawed, and not progressed to consultation. In particular the legislation is not suitable for islands, which account for 17.5% of the population of Argyll and Bute.” “At a national and local level, there was no feasibility or impact study about islands. It's just as if we don't exist and yet tourism is an absolute major part of our economy.” Members are especially concerned about specific aspects of the legislation as described further below. The terminology – ‘visitor levy’: the DMO considers this misleading as a visitor levy includes residents’ overnight visits which are not recreational or business. These types of stays are much more likely for island communities and therefore a visitor levy is a tax on island life. A visitor levy is an accommodation tax on everyone who has a paid overnight visit for whatever reason. Services for the islands such as trades and healthcare which require to stay overnight will also be charged a visitor levy, increasing costs to communities and businesses for services. Exclusions exacerbate existing problems: day visitors, motor homes and cruise ships are not included in a visitor levy which the DMO feels would exacerbate serious existing problem caused by these sectors in the environment and transport infrastructure of Mull and Iona. Mull is popular with day visitors travelling by car which puts a strain on the travel infrastructure. A visitor levy will encourage more day visitors which will further erode the island infrastructure with no monetary benefit. Motor homes will be encouraged to overnight outside campsites to avoid paying a visitor levy. Cruise ships will swamp island communities with no means of control. Accommodation providers must gather a visitor levy: members consider it unfair that accommodation businesses would have the extra work of administering a visitor levy on top of all the other challenges they face. Page 614
Page 615
xlv This would put an unacceptable, unfair, bureaucratic burden on accommodation providers, while other types of hospitality businesses are unaffected. Mull and Iona can only be entered by sea (or for a tiny amount of visitors, by air). A visitor levy applied at the point of entry would be the sensible option for Mull and Iona. It would remove the burden from accommodation providers and would allow the inclusion of income from substantial visitor segments such as day visitors, motor homes and cruise ships. A visitor levy is considered almost the last straw - the DMO is certain that some of its members will decide to close their business, adding to the economic downturn of the visitor economy – at a time when support is needed to encourage more people to consider starting small bed and breakfast businesses and to ensure diversity of accommodation provision on the islands. “With the current struggles with the lack of reliable ferry provision, the state of the economy, the recent cost of registering for the Short-term Let Licence and the overall extra cost to visitors in getting to the island, introducing a visitor levy of any sort is without doubt going to put the islands at an increased disadvantage when it comes to tourism. We feel that this levy, certainly in its proposed state is unfair and unnecessarily burdensome to accommodation providers.” A visitor levy must be a percentage rate: this is considered much more complicated to account for than a fixed rate, making extra work for accommodation providers. A visitor levy is subject to VAT: living and running a business on an island has more challenges and is more expensive compared to the mainland. The majority of accommodation businesses on the islands are small and often operate just below the VAT threshold. Despite a visitor levy not being income, it is to be added to turnover figures for reporting to HMRC. The DMO believes that this may force some businesses to become VAT registered, with the associated added increase in price and administrative burden. This may put some businesses over the VAT limit who may then decide to reduce their offer to stay under the VAT threshold, or even close. Some accommodation providers may be forced to reduce their prices to be able to fund a visitor levy, whilst staying below the VAT threshold and remaining competitive with the rest of Scotland. This would have unacceptable repercussions on island businesses and the fragile economy of Mull and Iona. Visit Mull and Iona DMO and its members are disappointed that the council has not asked the Scottish Government for a review of the legislation to ensure it is fit-for purpose for an area like Argyll and Bute with so many islands, and also with the council’s current position on no local exemptions. Members hold a view that businesses that fall below the VAT threshold should be excluded and that island residents (including pregnant women) should also be excluded. Page 615
Page 616
xlvi “We believe the council is not taking enough time to properly consider all the many, unworkable negative implications of the legislation.” “Due to the time requirements of travelling off an island, Mull and Iona residents will suffer increased cost of living by having to pay a visitor levy when they book an essential overnight stay in Mull, Oban or other areas, for health visits, to visit their children at Oban High School, go to funerals and many other reasons for travel that can normally be achieved in one day for those who don’t live on an island. The increase in cancelled ferries due to the failing ferry infrastructure has increased the need for unplanned overnight stays in Oban and on Mull for residents which would become even more expensive. A visitor levy should not apply to island residents.” The visitor economies of Mull and Iona are in decline and a visitor levy is not considered appropriate Visit Mull and Iona DMO and its members do not think the economies of Mull and Iona are appropriate for a visitor levy scheme in its current form. “Many of our members feel that Mull and Iona should be excluded, because of the state of the economy, and the fact that levy income is not guaranteed to be spent where it was earned.” Mull and Iona depend very highly on visitors for their economy, which has suffered a series of setbacks in recent years. Since COVID-19, some businesses which closed have not re-opened and income lost in the visitor economy is still being felt. The Islands are still recovering from a lack of the return of overseas visitors; meanwhile the domestic market is weak due to the cost-of-living crisis. Key concerns raised by the DMO include that there are no formal tourism statistics for Mull and Iona. Rather, visitor statistics are included within figures for Argyll and Bute which are not representative of Mull and Iona, which are much more dependent on visitors for their economy. They say that it is therefore not possible to judge the impact of a visitor levy scheme on Mull and Iona without an economic impact study. The current impact study which the council say they undertook is not applicable to Mull and Iona. “Comhairle nan Eilean Siar commissioned Urban Foresight to investigate the feasibility of an overnight accommodation visitor levy, including cost-benefit scenarios. A&BC cannot decide that a visitor levy is appropriate for the islands without a similar feasibility study.” Page 616
Page 617
xlvii Further, there is a reported downturn in accommodation bookings. Many accommodation provider members have reported a downturn on income for the past two seasons, as much as 15%, partly due to the ferry disruption. In addition, eight bed and breakfast members closed due to the introduction of the short-term let licence scheme. Any further downsizing or closure of accommodation businesses due to a visitor levy scheme would have a multiplier negative effect through all hospitality sectors as well as all the business sectors that rely on them. Councils that have opted out from a visitor levy will have a bigger appeal to visitors than those that opt in, promoting their area as visitor-welcoming and affordable, and positioning Argyll and Bute businesses at a competitive disadvantage. In addition, the DMO and its members feel that a visitor levy is not appropriate for Mull and Iona given the standard of the ferry infrastructure (that is, it does not provide a reliable service to visitors). The DMO pointed to the ‘disastrous failure of our ferry fleet since 2019 is continuing throughout 2025 and has caused immense problems for the visitor economy as well as residents’ lives’. The high level of ferry breakdowns coupled with a reduced service for the 2025 season has already caused many accommodation cancellations. The negative ferry media coverage and unreliability continues to put off even the most loyal visitors to the islands. A lack of confidence in the ferry service continues to affect visitor numbers and the Mull and Iona economy. “Sometimes we don't know from day-to-day what the ferry timetable is going to be.“ They suggest that a visitor levy would make a visit to the islands more unattractive. “The council say the ferries will be running by 2027 when a visitor levy is introduced. But how can they predict that visitor confidence will return, that new ferries which are delayed will arrive and the current fleet, which is disintegrating at a frightening pace, will last.” How revenue generated by a visitor levy should be spent As noted, Mull and Iona have a high level of visitors, with the associated negative impacts on infrastructure that this brings. The DMO and its members support levy income from Mull and Iona being fully invested back into the local area, not spread throughout Argyll as proposed. A visitor levy income which is not ring-fenced to offset the impacts of tourism would make the islands less attractive to visitors. The proposed visitor levy scheme objectives sound good in theory and would help to support the visitor economy but are considered very broad – “we need much more detail about how and where the revenue would be reinvested locally.” Page 617
Page 618
xlviii Things that could make a big difference on Mull and Iona are said to be: • road infrastructure improvements. • pier infrastructure improvements (for example, Craignure Pier on the Isle of Mull). • general island infrastructure that makes it hard for visitors to come and get everything they need (for example, more visitor attractions). • accommodation for tourism and hospitality sector staff which is considered particularly lacking. Fundamentally, the islands need a reliable ferry service and good pier infrastructure. Final thoughts from Visit Mull and Iona DMO The proposed Argyll and Bute visitor levy scheme in its current form would damage the vital Mull and Iona accommodation sector, the daily lives of all islanders and the visitor economy of the islands. The Scottish Government visitor levy legislation is considered highly flawed, and the council is considered to have rushed into the potential to deliver a visitor levy without enough consideration. If the council wishes to introduce a visitor levy scheme, the DMO said that the whole consultation process must start again, with lessons learned on the many negative consequences of the current visitor levy model and the defective consultation process. A visitor levy applied at the point of entry would be the more sensible option for Mull and Iona. Page 618
Page 619
xlix Case Study 8: Self-catering units, Helensburgh About the accommodation provider The accommodation provider is a small, family-run holiday letting business that manages three self-catering apartments in Helensburgh. The business is co-owned by two family members who manage operations alongside other professional commitments and are not formally employed by the business. While there are no employees, the business contracts two local freelance cleaners to maintain the apartments and uses the services of a local laundry for all bedlinen and towels. The apartments are popular with high occupancy rates throughout the year, including regular repeat visitors who work at the nearby Ministry of Defence base at Faslane. Guests are considered significant contributors to the local economy through spending in local shops, cafes and restaurants contributing to the local economy. The business generates an annual turnover just under the VAT threshold (approximately £85,000), a position the owners actively manage to avoid the additional financial and administrative burden of VAT registration. “We make a conscious effort to stay below the VAT threshold. Once you're over, the financial impact is significant.” Experience of the consultation process The business owner attended one of the consultation events in Helensburgh (held on 20th March 2025) and described the session as “well-organised” and “constructive”. They were particularly encouraged by the attendance and engagement of senior council representatives., which suggested a genuine interest in engaging with the local business community. “It wasn’t just a box-ticking exercise or token gesture. Everyone there, especially the senior council staff, seemed genuinely interested in and listened to what we had to say.” However, they also noted that there was low turnout at the event and questioned whether this was due to a lack of awareness or engagement from the business community. General views on the proposed visitor levy The owner expressed strong opposition to the proposed visitor levy, which they described as a “desperate money-grabbing exercise” with potentially damaging consequences for accommodation providers and local residents. They felt the proposal had been promoted to the public in a one-sided manner as a mechanism to get more money from visitors, while not fully disclosing the potential negative impact on accommodation providers and local residents. Page 619
Page 620
l For example, the owner believes a visitor levy could deter domestic visitors and reduce the area’s competitiveness relative to neighbouring authorities such as the Western Isles, Dumfries and Galloway, where similar proposed visitor levy schemes have been abandoned. They also warned that reduced visitor numbers would have knock-on effects for local businesses that depend on tourism, such as cafés, restaurants, and retailers. “If the Western Isles and Dumfries have scrapped it, there’s clearly a reason. It’ll make Scotland more expensive for staycations and short trips.” The business also disagreed with the council’s position on local exemptions. They suggested that it would be fairer if exemptions were available for residents travelling for compassionate reasons, such as hospital appointments or visiting unwell relatives. “If someone’s here because a loved one is unwell, that’s different. It feels wrong to charge them.” The business owner also questioned the percentage-based model proposed by the council (as mandated by national legislation) and stated a preference for a fixed fee per person per night. They described the percentage model as a “disaster” and unnecessarily complicated, especially for small operators dealing with various types of pricing and charges. While they acknowledged that the percentage model is defined in national legislation, they urge the Council to challenge it and push for a flat, fixed fee per person per night which was considered to be more practical and transparent for both accommodation providers and visitors. “Trying to calculate a percentage on different cost elements – some taxable some not - is just asking for confusion, particularly for bed and breakfasts. A flat rate would be so much simpler.” Impact on the business One of the business’s main concerns with the proposed visitor levy is the risk that levy-related revenue could push the business over the VAT threshold, triggering additional tax liabilities and compliance requirements. To avoid going over the VAT threshold, the owner mentioned that they might block their calendars for certain periods (for example, the whole month of November) and reduce the number of bookable nights if a visitor levy is introduced. They noted that the reduced availability would have a knock-on impact for their cleaners and laundry service, reducing their business and impact to local economy. Page 620
Page 621
li “If we block the calendar to stay under the VAT limit, that’s fewer nights booked, fewer hours for our cleaners, and less spent in local shops and cafés.” The owner reported that the proposed visitor levy is expected to have a direct negative impact on their business. They estimated that platform fees and commissions charged by online travel agencies, such as AirBnb and Booking.com, could result in a net annual cost between £800 and £1,000 if a visitor levy is introduced. This would represent a significant financial burden. “Online platforms take their cut. If a visitor levy is added to the guest price, we pay commission on it. If it’s absorbed, we take the hit. Either way, we lose.” Set-up or operational costs and support requirements The owner reported that it is difficult to estimate and quantify any potential impact of set-up and operational costs due to a lack of clarity in the proposals regarding these processes for businesses. The owner said that small accommodation providers would need clear and simple guidance on how to comply with a visitor levy scheme. Ideally, this should include a centralised collection platform administered by the Council rather than placing the burden on accommodation providers. “If they really want this to work, they’ll need to create a central system. It can’t just be left to individual businesses to figure it out.” It is suggested that accommodation providers would also need: • reimbursement for costs incurred. • basic training and support to use any new online platform. What a visitor levy revenue could be spent on If a visitor levy were to be introduced, the owner felt strongly that revenue should be used to support a visitor levy objective around sustaining and improving the visitor offer. This related to tangible improvements to the visitor experience, such as public toilets, maintained paths, and local tourist and visitor centres (referencing the closure of Balloch office) rather than marketing and promotional campaigns to attract visitors. “We don’t need more marketing. We need toilets that work and streets that are clean. That’s what visitors care about.” Page 621
Page 622
lii However, the owner lacked trust in the Council’s ability to manage the scheme effectively and spend visitor levy revenue for its intended purpose rather than covering existing council budget gaps, citing the poorly handled short-term let licensing process as an example of weak communication and execution. “Look at how badly the licensing process was handled. Why should we believe a visitor levy will be any better?” The business also questioned the extent to which the estimated £9m generated from a proposed visitor levy could have a significant and meaningful impact on visitor infrastructure and services throughout Argyll and Bute. Page 622
Page 623
liii Case Study 9: Holiday and Residential Caravan Park, Rosneath About the business This case study focuses on Rosneath Castle Caravan Park Ltd; a long-established holiday and residential park located at Rosneath near Helensburgh. The business operates a mixed-use site comprising both seasonal holiday lets and year-round residential accommodation. • Operational period: the holiday park operates from 7th March to the end of January, while the residential element is open year-round. • Employment: the business employs between 25 to 50 staff, including full-time, part-time, and seasonal workers, making it a significant local employer. • Annual turnover: estimated at approximately £3.7 million, although final figures are pending confirmation. Views on the proposed visitor levy The business owner expressed strong opposition to the proposed 5% visitor levy and outlined a number of concerns relating to its fairness, implementation, and potential impact on local competitiveness. Key concerns include: • unfair competition: if neighbouring local authorities choose not to introduce a visitor levy, Argyll and Bute businesses would face an uneven playing field. This could result in visitors choosing alternative destinations to avoid the extra cost. • visitor costs: the estimated £20–£27 increase for a 3–4-night stay or around £47 for a 7- night stay could deter bookings, particularly among price-sensitive customers, who make up a large proportion of the holiday park’s customer base. • administrative burden: managing levy collection and reporting requirements would introduce additional complexity, possibly requiring extra staffing or diverting resources from core operations. • lack of proportionality: the owner argued that a flat, tiered levy (for example, a modest nightly rate per unit) would be more manageable, predictable, and equitable than a percentage-based model. “We understand the financial pressure councils are under, but the current levy proposal risks pricing people out of Argyll and Bute. It’s not competitive.” Page 623
Page 624
liv Potential impact on business: Customer impact • The business anticipates a decline in customer numbers, especially for short breaks where small price increases have a noticeable effect on decision-making. • Repeat visits may also drop as visitors opt for areas without the additional cost, especially when comparing similar holiday park experiences in other council areas. Turnover impact • The owner noted that to remain competitive, they might have to absorb a visitor levy into existing prices, reducing margins, and negatively impacting annual turnover. • The scale of operations means that even a small drop in bookings or required discounts could have a substantial financial impact. Employment impact • While the business currently employs a substantial local workforce, the added admin workload and reduced income could lead to streamlining or job cuts, particularly among seasonal staff. “We’d be looking at discounting to keep customers coming, which reduces income. That has consequences for staffing and investment.” Administrative burden and support needs The business owner emphasised that the current proposal would introduce new administrative duties at a time when small- and medium-sized tourism operators are already managing regulatory and operational challenges. Suggestions include: • clear reporting expectations: there is a need for detailed guidance on how to collect and report levy income accurately. • training and tools: staff would require training on any systems or platforms involved in levy management, including software or apps. • compensation for costs: the business suggested that financial compensation or grants should be made available to support businesses taking on these new administrative responsibilities. • QR code payment option: a direct-to-council payment model, such as a QR code for visitors, was proposed to reduce the burden on businesses. “If this is going to happen, there needs to be support – training, admin help, and some compensation for doing the Council’s job.” Page 624
Page 625
lv Use of visitor levy revenue The business owner voiced concerns that revenue from a visitor levy might not be used effectively or in a way that benefits businesses on the ground. Priority areas for investment include: • promotion and advertising: the owner would like to see levy income used to actively promote tourism businesses, increasing visitor numbers, and boosting the regional economy. • local infrastructure: more investment in roads, signage, and public facilities was called for, noting that basic tourism infrastructure is underfunded. • equity in allocation: the owner questioned whether levy revenue would reach all communities fairly, especially those not already on the main tourism circuit. “Any levies should not be used to pay for statutory services the council is obliged to pay far – it’s not to cover shortfalls but used explicitly for tourism. We already pay taxes and don’t feel supported. Will this levy be any different?” Final reflections While open to further discussion, the owner remains sceptical about the current proposal and concerned about the wider economic and reputational impact on Argyll and Bute. Points to note include that: • the owner would support a modest, flat-rate levy if it is clearly ring-fenced, locally reinvested, and administered in a low-burden way. • as currently proposed, the 5% charge is seen as damaging, difficult to implement, and potentially unfair to tourism businesses in the region. “If a visitor levy puts us at a disadvantage and we lose visitors, we all lose. The Council needs to listen and work with us, not against us.” Page 625
Page 626
lvi Case study 10: Loch Fyne Gallery, Tarbert About the business The Loch Fyne Gallery is a tourism focused gift shop located in the village of Tarbert on the northern edge of the Kintyre Peninsula. The gallery runs a year-round business and employs two full-time workers (including the owner) and three part-time employees. The business’s annual turnover is approximately £250,000. While the gallery itself is not an accommodation provider, its main customer base is visitors to the village and the surrounding area, and it is one of several visitor economy businesses in the area that are dependent on the accommodation sector. Engagement with the consultation The business owner participated in the A&BC visitor levy consultation, submitting a formal response to the business, resident and visitor surveys. Their feedback suggests that the surveys leaned towards presenting a visitor levy as a positive influence on the visitor economy and did not allow for disagreement. Further, the business survey was designed for accommodation businesses also and was challenging for other visitor economy businesses to complete properly. Views on the proposed visitor levy scheme The business owner feels that a visitor levy is not an appropriate policy for Argyll and Bute. They feel Argyll and Bute is not an area suffering from over-tourism, but rather an area that needs support to encourage more visitors. The business owner also stressed the inappropriate timing of such a policy, noting that many businesses lost significant amounts of money during the COVID-19 years, and while having experience a few bumper years immediately after while people were unable to travel overseas, businesses are now struggling with higher operating costs (energy, minimum wage, National Insurance, etc.), still paying off COVID-19 loans, with visitor numbers now dropping to below pre-COVID levels. “I can’t see any benefit to such a scheme. It will only increase costs for business and visitors. We should be trying to do things that increase visitors, not make things more expensive.” The primary concerns raised include: • lack of belief in the council’s ability to invest the funds effectively. • lack of tangible benefits for visitors or businesses. • increased costs and administrative burden for accommodation businesses. • an acceleration of the downturn in footfall and business activity in Tarbert. Page 626
Page 627
lvii Potential impact on the business As a tourism focused retail business, a visitor levy will not have a direct impact. However, based on what the business owner has seen in Tarbert and learned from their network of business owners in the sector, some accommodation businesses are surely to reduce the number of rooms available or chose to operate seasonally. The costs of operating an accommodation business are already high and this will simply add to the burden. “Places have already shut due to the current downturn. Visitors in Tarbert struggle to find anywhere that is open to get a drink or something to eat. During the winter months there is basically nothing happening.” The owner also feels that a visitor levy is likely to have an overall negative impact on the business’s customer base, by decreasing the number of visitors to Tarbert and surrounding area. • Customer numbers: expected to decrease - the number of transactions are already down 9% year on year. • Turnover: expected to decrease - turnover is already down 16% each of the past two years. Wider impacts The owner noted knock-on effects in the business property market. They suggest that as the sector continues to decline and more businesses close, properties will fall in value as they are no longer viable business opportunities. Many businesses owners are heavily invested in these properties as anticipated pension investment income and a loss in value could be a substantial financial loss. Views on proposed uses of revenue generated by a visitor levy scheme The owner was sceptical about the ability of the council to invest in the sector effectively, citing a lack of a previous track record. They also noted that the examples given of roads, waste management, signage etc., are all areas which should already be receiving investment. “These are areas that the council should already be investing in. They shouldn’t have to take more money from us to make it happen.” Final reflections The business owner concluded by noting that council leaders seem to have a different perception of how well the visitor economy is performing. This is not an industry that can afford to be taxed, and many businesses are struggling. The council also needs to be aware of regional differences with Argyll and Bute. Small villages such as Tarbert will be more impacted than larger communities with larger business bases and more consistent visitor volumes. Page 627
Page 628
lviii Case study 11: Construction company About the business The construction company operates across multiple sites in Argyll and Bute, specialising in full house delivery, maintenance, and retrofitting. The company delivers long-term, fixed-price contracts for a range of clients, including the NHS and Argyll and Bute Council. The business employs a core team of 100 FTE staff, supported by an average of 50 subcontractors depending on the project — with up to 150 subcontractors involved in larger projects. While the company prioritises local recruitment, it often needs to source external labour due to shortages in sourcing local tradespeople in rural areas, particularly for specialist skills such as zinc and flat roofing, and lightning conductor engineering. The workforce is highly mobile - around 35% of the core team and up to 60–70% of subcontractors require overnight accommodation. The average stay is four nights (typically a minimum of two nights). To meet this demand, the company has built modular accommodation in some locations, supplemented by the use of local small accommodation providers. Experience of the consultation process Representatives were well informed about the Council’s visitor levy consultation. They responded to the business, resident, and visitor surveys, and attended two drop-in events. However, they felt the events lacked value and transparency. “It was made very clear that the Council was there to listen but not to provide answers or change anything. There is a strong feeling locally that the Council have already made up their mind.” A Council representative reportedly suggested the business should develop a comprehensive network of modular accommodation across rural Argyll and Bute. The company has already done this, at great cost, in areas where there is enough work to justify this. However, the company found this proposal unrealistic and unaffordable given the peaks and troughs of project work and the many locations in Argyll and Bute. Page 628
Page 629
lix General views on the proposed visitor levy The business strongly opposes a visitor levy, describing it as “the wrong proposal at the wrong time.” They believe it will place further pressure on a sector already grappling with significant cost increases. “Whilst a visitor levy is just one cost, there are a range of current financial pressures in the building industry around new aggregate levies, the Building Safety Act, the rising cost of the Real Living Wage. While each cost on their own might seem insignificant, it all adds up and makes it tough for business.” There was strong disagreement with the Council’s proposed lack of exemptions. Representatives described it as “fundamentally wrong” to apply a visitor levy to residents and workers, particularly to those travelling for hospital appointments or delivering essential services, while cruise passengers, campervans and motorhomes would be exempt. “If you live on a tiny island and you have a hospital appointment in Oban. Inevitably, you will have to stay either the night before or the night after. The way the ferry timetable is, you have to stay in Oban, and you would have to pay a visitor levy, even if you're already paying Council Tax to the Council.” The proposed 5% rate was seen as excessive, “utterly ridiculous and completely disproportionate” compared to other destinations (they cited examples of Switzerland and other European destinations). If a visitor levy is to be introduced, the business stated a preference for a small fixed flat-rate fee of £1–£2 per night, citing it as a more manageable and transparent approach (note: percentage-based model is mandated by national legislation). Impact on the business Overnight accommodation is essential for delivering many projects. The company uses a combination of modular accommodation, B&Bs, hotels and self-catering units — typically choosing local, small-scale providers over national chains. There is still uncertainty about whether company- owned modular units would be exempt from a visitor levy. If a visitor levy is implemented, the business may seek cheaper accommodation outside of Argyll and Bute for certain projects, even if it means longer travel times. “If we are working in Oban, we might choose to put people up in the Fort William region because it might be more economically viable to put people up there and travel.” Page 629
Page 630
lx The business estimates that a 5% levy could cost them at least £10,000 annually for a single site and up to £20,000 across all operations. As these costs are not factored into fixed-price contracts, including maintenance contracts for the Council and NHS, they are likely to be absorbed by the company, directly impacting their bottom line. This, in turn, could reduce investment and recruitment, particularly affecting apprenticeships and local employment opportunities for younger people. “We've always taken on and trained local labour, but it's becoming more and more financially unviable to do that. [A visitor levy] would just be another thing to impact that.” They warned that construction in remote areas like Jura is already marginally viable, and a visitor levy could make projects unworkable and further disadvantage rural communities. “On Jura, it’s currently so hard to go out and do any work. It would start to become unviable for certain customers if a 5% visitor levy charge is placed on top of current costs.” Spending of levy revenue The business stated that any levy revenue should be invested in local infrastructure, particularly roads and ferry infrastructure and services, to benefit both visitors and residents. However, they expressed serious doubts that the estimated £9m would be enough to have a tangible impact across such a geographically large and diverse region. “I'm getting a lot of feedback from the smaller communities that we work in, for example Islay, that are saying that they will never see the return from that levy because they are too small. If it does achieve £9m (which I frankly don’t believe), that money does not go very far across the whole area of Argyll and Bute. If these smaller areas are bringing in a lot (prime example of tourist industry booming in Islay), then they should see a significant impact from visitor levy revenue – otherwise, why should they be doing it?” Ultimately, the business expressed a lack of trust in the Council’s ability to administer a visitor levy equitably across Argyll and Bute or to deliver on its stated objectives. Page 630
Page 631
lxi Case study 12: Village Hotel and Self-catering apartments About the accommodation provider This provider operates two separate businesses in Oban, Lorn and the Isles: a 10-bedroom village hotel and a self-catering holiday-let business comprising three units located several miles away. The hotel has been operating year-round for eight years, while the self-catering units have been running for six years and are managed independently without direct employees. Both businesses are rooted in the local community and support local suppliers, including cleaning and changeover services. During the peak season, the hotel employs around 15 staff, reducing to nine in the winter. While the self-catering units do not employ staff directly, they support local employment indirectly. The hotel generates a significant annual turnover, while the self-catering business operates at a smaller scale, though above the VAT threshold. Experience of the consultation process The business owner attended a drop-in event in Inveraray on 24 March 2025 and welcomed the opportunity to engage with senior representatives of Argyll and Bute Council. However, they noted that many questions went unanswered, leaving ongoing uncertainty about the proposals and their implications. “Most businesses have quite major concerns and a lot of questions, and answers weren’t necessarily able to be given or worked out [at the consultation drop-in event].” General views on the proposed visitor levy The owner expressed strong opposition to the proposed visitor levy, describing it as “unworkable.” Their concerns relate to both the content and timing of the proposals. They argued that a visitor levy introduces additional strain on a sector already contending with rising costs (e.g. National Insurance and business rates), tight profit margins, and broader economic uncertainty. “People are already spending less money, so they're always looking for bargains. I think it could really damage tourism in Argyll and Bute and any areas that introduce it. I can understand why there might be a need for it in places like Edinburgh and the big cities but I think it’s a big mistake in a rural area dependent on tourism to try and introduce an extra charge at this time when businesses are struggling. You just need to look at the number of hotel businesses in Argyll and Bute that are up for sale at the moment, including established businesses.” Page 631
Page 632
lxii One of the main concerns reported by the business owner is the lack of clarity around how a visitor levy would be administered and what implementation would involve. “This is just another thing that's getting thrown at businesses that we're going to have to manage and there's no clarity at this point as to how that's going to happen, and how are we going to manage this as a business…The uncertainty and dragging it out is almost as bad as bringing it in.” The owner felt that the 5% rate is too high both for businesses and visitors – however, they also acknowledged that a rate lower than 5% might not generate enough revenue to meaningfully invest in visitor infrastructure and services in Argyll and Bute. Further, it is noted that VAT placed on a visitor levy would require businesses to charge 5% plus VAT which would effectively result in a 6% charge for customers. “Businesses would need to charge 5% +vat which would be 6%!” The owner also questioned why a visitor levy is being introduced as a percentage-based charge rather than a flat-rate fee per person per night (as mandated by national legislation). They believe a small fixed flat-rate would be far simpler to understand, easier to manage, and more transparent for guests. “Why is it a percentage and not a flat rate? Why are we not considering a flat rate? That would be much easier for everybody to manage, and it would also be better for the tourists.” Impact on the business The owner stated that they are uncertain of the impact until visitor levy proposals are finalised. However, the owner indicated that under the current proposals, they would not have any other option than to pass on the 5% levy rate to the customer. They believe this may deter price- conscious visitors, particularly families, and risk making other destinations more attractive and affordable in local authorities areas where there is no visitor levy charge. “For the self-catering units, a 5% charge on a £1,900 weekly stay would equate to an extra £100 - a significant addition for families or visitors who are budget conscious.” They also suggested a visitor levy could lead to a decline in turnover, particularly in the hotel business, which is more vulnerable due to the need to maintain kitchen and bar operations. For example, a drop in occupancy would also reduce food and drink sales. They mentioned that the hotel is already planning to close on certain days during the winter to preserve profits, which is a response to the current economic challenges – this may be accelerated or worsened with the introduction of a visitor levy. Reduced demand may also impact seasonal employment. Page 632
Page 633
lxiii Set-up or operational costs and support requirements The owner expressed strong concerns about the lack of detail on how a visitor levy would be implemented and what systems would be required. “Is it a quarterly thing? Is it another VAT return (which would increase our accountancy costs). How do we actually generate EPOS system which communicates with property management system? Is there extra programming? These are not costs that we have budgeted or anticipated. What is the technical way that we are going to record and pass on the funds? This will undoubtedly involve accountant fees. For the self-catering business, this would be extra time for me and extra expense.” The lack of clarity meant it was “impossible” for the business owner to quantify any potential impact. However, if a visitor levy is introduced, they stressed that support, such as financial assistance or a centralised payment system, would be essential. They argued that the burden of administration should not fall on accommodation providers calling it “ludicrous”. A suggestion to reduce the administration burden on accommodation providers included customers scanning a QR code once they arrive at the accommodation which would take them to directly to the Council’s website for visitor levy payment – while this was noted as a tech-heavy solution, it was stated that this could greatly benefit businesses by removing them from the administration process. Further, the owner also highlighted the potential risk of fraud and called for greater clarity on how the Council plans to monitor the levels of payment (for example, whether there is an intention to audit businesses). What could visitor levy revenue be spent on While the owner felt that the objectives of the Argyll and the Isles Strategic Tourism Partnership are “laudable”, they expressed doubts that the level of visitor levy revenue could be meaningfully invested in tourism infrastructure equitably across Argyll and Bute, particularly in rural areas. “The council is hoping to raise £9m. If they raised 75% of the estimated figure because of the way it’s gathered and there will be less businesses as a lot of hotels are up for sale. By the time, they do all that, they might end up with maybe £6m which would not have any impact on the tourism infrastructure. It will achieve lots of administration but not a lot of benefit. Rural areas are also bound to miss out as investment will go into the main towns.” Page 633
Page 634
lxiv They offered the following views on the objectives: • Extending the season and spreading visitors across the destination – this was seen as the most relevant and beneficial goal for rural businesses. • Reaching new audiences – they suggested this would be more effective if channelled through national campaigns (e.g. VisitScotland’s Autumn Gold) or organisations like Wild About Argyll who already have great expertise in “promoting different aspects of visiting” in the region. • Journey towards net zero – both of their businesses are committed to environmental sustainability, with the use of EV chargers, air source heat pumps, and solar panels. However, they expressed uncertainty about how a visitor levy would support net zero initiatives for rural hospitality businesses. “We’re already investing in sustainability — but there’s no clear link between this levy and helping businesses like ours make that transition.” They also suggested that some of the revenue could be used to offer rates relief to small accommodation businesses most impacted by a visitor levy, helping sustain tourism in rural communities. Page 634
Page 635
lxv Case study 13: Hotel in a coastal town About the business The hotel is located in heart of a popular visitor destination, with the town itself offering a unique range of dining, shopping, recreation, cultural and visitor opportunities. Engagement with the consultation Hotel staff participated in the A&BC visitor levy consultation - they submitted a formal response and attended consultation events. Their feedback reflects an agreement in principle with a visitor levy, but a deep concern about the costs associated with managing and collecting funds and how funds would be spent. Views on a proposed visitor levy scheme As a means to manage the negative externalities generated by the tourism sector, for example, carbon emissions from transport, use of local infrastructure, water and energy networks, the hotel agreed with the implementation of a visitor levy. However, they raised several concerns with the council’s current proposals. The primary concerns raised included: • disagreement with the proposed 5% levy rate in favour of a flat fee per night with a cap on the number of nights. • funds being invested in ways that do not offset the negative impact visitors create on local resources. • the inability for the council to effectively collect a visitor levy from all eligible accommodation providers. • the potential for some accommodation providers to manipulate rates to avoid levy charges - for example, charging more for breakfast and lowering room rates. • risk of larger accommodation providers bearing the brunt of the impact through paying higher levies (in total value) and being subject to more audits and checks. Potential impact on the business The hotel would have to pass along the cost of a visitor levy to its customer. Depending on the type of room and length of stay this could add a significant cost to the price of accommodation. For example, the average room rate is about £350 per night. A 5% levy would add £17.50 per night, which would equate to £87.50 for a five-night stay. Page 635
Page 636
lxvi They also highlighted the complications brought on by a visitor levy concerning guests and travel agents/groups providers who often book rooms over one year in advance. A visitor levy would make it difficult to communicate room rates to these customers and potentially may require the hotel to add on additional fees after guests have already paid. Impact on business operations: • customer numbers: expected to decrease in terms of both the number of customers and their length of stay, with potential visitors choosing destinations without a visitor levy. • repeat visits: while the hotel does get many repeat visits, this is likely to decrease, with guests feeling unfairly charged for minimal added benefit. • turnover: estimated reduction of 5% in line with the charge imposed by a visitor levy. • employment: if the number of customers reduces as anticipated, employment could likely decrease as well, again possibly in line with a 5% levy rate. “At this level of income, it's already hard to justify the worth and risk. This could tip the balance.” Wider impacts They noted knock-on effects for other local businesses, including shops, cafés and restaurants, whisky distilleries, and other businesses and about the overall perception of the region. Many local businesses in Oban are reliant on hotels and accommodation providers hosting visitors and if visitors and length of stay decrease this will inevitably impact the rest of the economy. “There is a significant risk that the imposition of a visitor levy could lead to the perception that Argyll and Bute is not visitor friendly.” Administrative burden and costs They also highlighted concerns about additional administration and time spent managing a visitor levy, including: • administrative time: this could be significant with an estimated 100 hours of staff time per quarter devoted to levy collection, reporting and compliance. As well as added complexities for those accommodation providers with, for example, multiple sites in different local authority areas. The hotel does not get many repeat visitors, so there will be added time of explaining the additional charges to almost every customer. • financial burden: there will be additional financial costs with credit card transaction costs increasing by up to 4% depending on the type of card and room rates. Page 636
Page 637
lxvii Views on proposed uses of revenue generated by a visitor levy scheme The hotel offered specific areas where levy generated revenue should be spent. This, however, differs from the areas specified by legislation. Instead of funds being reinvested in the visitor economy directly, they suggested that funds should be allocated to investments that benefit local residents who disproportionately are impacted by the externalities associated with the tourism sector. Visitors place increase strain on local resources, infrastructure, air quality, water, energy, waste removal, etc. and funds should be used to counteract these impacts. For example, reforestation, roads improvements, investment in future clean water sources or energy sources. “Any levy funds should support investments that benefit everyone, not just the visitor economy. Visitors put strain on local resources, a visitor levy should invest in these resources for the benefit of all.” Final reflections The hotel thinks the council’s expectations from accommodation providers are unrealistic. The burden placed on accommodation providers to augment and change systems and processes, carry out back-end reporting and pay for all of these things while managing the customer response is tremendous. They suggest council members walk through in detail with a business the full process of how they would have to manage a visitor levy and understand the impact it would have from the moment it is signed into effect. Page 637
Page 638
This page is intentionally left blank
Page 639
Appendix 2: Argyll and Bute Council: Integrated Impact Assessment Title of Proposal. Visitor Levy Intended outcome of the proposal Argyll and Bute Council elected members will need to decide if they wish to introduce a visitor levy scheme or not. It could be that members may wish to delay the introduction of a visitor levy at this time. A decision will be taken at the Argyll and Bute Council meeting on 24th September 2025. How does your proposal align with strategy? The Scottish Parliament passed the Visitor Levy (Scotland) Act in May 2024, which gives local authorities the ability to charge a set percentage on overnight accommodation paid by visitors and tourists to Argyll and Bute using visitor accommodation included within the scope of the legislation. Description of proposal Argyll and Bute Council is in receipt of an independent consultation report on draft proposals to introduce a visitor levy scheme across the region. Consideration on whether to progress with this fiscal policy, or reject it, or not to proceed at this time, will be discussed at the Argyll and Bute Council meeting on 24th September 2025. To date, nothing has been agreed by members. Lead and Appropriate Officers Lead officer: Fergus Murray Lead officer job title: Head of Development and Economic Growth Lead officer service: Development and Economic Growth Appropriate officer: Kirsty Flanagan Appropriate officer Job title: Executive Director Who will deliver proposal If a visitor levy scheme is introduced it will be implemented by cross-departmental teams with specific input from officers from Economic Growth, Revenue and Benefits and Communications together with input from other officers of the council as considered appropriate. Signed off by: Date: 10th September 2025 Page 639
Page 640
Evidence Data – What data have you used to inform the IIA. The IIA will be informed by the independent visitor levy consultation report, dated 2 September 2025. Other information – This may include reference to reports by other people / organisations relevant to the impacts you identified. The draft visitor levy scheme proposals were outlined in a report to a Special Argyll and Bute Council meeting on 20 December 2024. The scheme was drafted using feedback from a pre-consultation exercise with the tourism industry, input from members who sit on the Visitor Levy Short Life Working Group, and input from industry representatives on the Argyll and Bute Shadow Visitor Levy Forum. Consultation – What consultation / engagement have you carried out to inform the IIA? The consultation report presents the analysis from a formal 12-week public consultation exercise that ran from 16th January to 10th April 2025. The consultation exercise was designed to gather widespread views on a visitor levy by providing different options for getting informed and involved; and to provide an understanding of the reasons behind those views. The exercise achieved the aim of gathering views from residents, businesses and visitors; and considerable insight into the views provided with 3,352 responses received (including hard copy and letter responses) supplemented by four webinar question and answer sessions and ten drop-in events held across the region. Answers to common questions received were also posted on the council website. Gaps in evidence The financial and economic appraisals have been carried out at the local authority level. Ideally the assessment would have included separate appraisals to better understand the potential implications for different parts of the region, including island communities. However, there are no data sources sufficiently detailed and robust to support and inform such an analysis. That said, there are key issues that will be captured for islands communities as part of this integrated impact assessment exercise. Knock on affect: Yes Knock on affect details The economic impact work has developed several possible scenarios ranging from the most positive (low costs, minimal impact on visitor numbers and high level of benefit from levy reinvestment) to the most negative (high costs, significantly negative impact on visitor numbers and no benefit arising from reinvestment of funds). Monitoring – How will you monitor the impacts of your proposal. Monitoring of the impacts will only be possible if a visitor levy scheme is introduced. If a visitor levy scheme is agreed at the full Argyll and Bute Council meeting on 24th Page 640
Page 641
September, taking into account the 18-month implementation period, the earliest a scheme will come into effect is 1st April 2027. As detailed in the Visitor Levy Guidance document (supports the Act), if a visitor levy scheme comes into force, for each12-month period following this decision, Argyll and Bute Council must prepare an annual report setting out: the amount of money collected; how the net proceeds have been used; and the performance of a scheme in relation to its objectives. Page 641
Page 642
Fairer Scotland Impact on service users Service users Impact Mainland rural population Positive Island population Positive Low income Don’t Know Low wealth Don’t Know Material deprivation Don’t Know Area deprivation Positive Socio-economic Positive Communities of place Positive Communities of interest Positive Impacts details Fairer Scotland Duty - the Fairer Scotland Duty, Part 1 of the Equality Act 2010, came into force in April 2018. The duty places a legal responsibility on public bodies in Scotland, such as Argyll and Bute Council, to pay due regard to (actively consider) how they can reduce inequalities of outcome, caused by socio-economic disadvantage, when making strategic decisions and how this has been implemented. The visitor levy will apply to visitors and tourists (subject to statutory exemptions) paying for overnight accommodation across various categories in the region and is designed to generate revenue for sustainable development of the visitor economy while addressing community needs. A key focus of a visitor levy that could be introduced across Argyll and Bute is on developing a scheme that would benefit visitors, residents and the visitor economy through ongoing investment. Such investment could support strategic events and festivals, provision of public toilets, maintenance of public parks and gardens, floral displays and green infrastructure, Live Argyll run swimming pools. sports centres and libraries, community tourism led projects, etc. that would all contribute to mitigate socio- economic disadvantage to create communities with sustainable employment opportunities based on a vibrant visitor economy. Page 642
Page 643
Impact on service deliverers Service deliverers Impact Mainland rural population Negative Island population Negative Low income Don’t know Low wealth Don’t Know Material deprivation Don’t know Area deprivation Don’t Know Socio-economic Don’t know Communities of place Positive Communities of interest Negative Impacts details The visitors and tourists accessing overnight accommodation (subject to statutory exemptions), various categories, across Argyll and Bute will need to pay a visitor levy if a scheme is introduced. As noted in the consultation report, the potential financial benefits for accommodation businesses range significantly from an overall loss of £47.9 million to a net gain of £109.2 million over 10 years. However, the mid-point scenario suggests a net gain of £23.5 million over the 10 years. If investment can support at least a 2% annual uplift in tourism sector activity, it is estimated that under any price elasticity of demand scenario and cost scenario that has been modelled, the levy may generate a positive impact on accommodation sector turnover/income. This will be dependent on the investment and time taken to realise an annual uplift in tourism activity. From the analysis undertaken, it is important to note that the cost benefit analysis provides insight into the impacts that a visitor levy may or may not have; it does not determine which scenario is more likely to occur. Don’t knows As noted, it is not clear at this stage if the introduction of a visitor levy will have impacts that will have a material impact on individuals' income and wealth and assist in alleviating material deprivation. Due regard As noted, if investment can support at least a 2% annual uplift in tourism sector activity, it is estimated that under any price elasticity of demand scenario and cost scenario that has been modelled, the levy may generate a positive impact on the local accommodation sector turnover/income. Page 643
Page 644
Consumer Duty Does your proposal affect individuals, businesses or both? Both On the basis of your assessment, what are the likely impacts of your proposal? Consumer Impact Choice Negative Fairness No Impact Redress Positive Safety No Impact Information Positive Access No Impact Representation No Impact Positive impacts you have identified The potential financial benefits for accommodation businesses range significantly from an overall loss of £47.9 million to a net gain of £109.2 million over 10 years. However, the mid-point scenario suggests a net gain of £23.5 million over the 10 years. If investment can support at least a 2% annual uplift in tourism sector activity, it is estimated that under any price elasticity of demand scenario and cost scenario that has been modelled, the levy may generate a positive impact on accommodation sector turnover/income. This will be dependent on the investment and time taken to realise an annual uplift in tourism activity. Negative impacts you have identified The analysis in the visitor levy consultation report presents accommodation and overnight visitor economy businesses in aggregate and the potential turnover losses and gains are assessed on a sectoral basis. It is possible that turnover losses due to the levy may be unevenly distributed across the region. This could have significant impacts on specific businesses and may result in closure of businesses who are particularly impacted. Similarly. business may be differentially impacted by investment in the sector and the potential benefits may not be evenly felt across the region. What alternatives have you considered which can improve outcome for customers and/or reduce harm? Argyll and Bute Council could consider applying local exemptions to a visitor levy scheme if introduced. It was clear from the consultation findings that a ‘one-size-fits-all’ approach to the consideration of local exemptions was not appropriate. Local exemptions from paying a levy, put forward by respondents, are as follows: • all residents of Argyll and Bute registered for Council tax. • people staying in Argyll and Bute on a temporary basis for business/work or non- leisure trips (e.g. works and tradespeople and NHS staff). • micro and small businesses that have consciously structured their business to remain below the £90,000 VAT threshold to avoid the complexity and costs associated with VAT compliance. Page 644
Page 645
• carers who accompany/support disabled people on holiday or essential trips and appointments. • charities and overnight stays for charitable purposes. How have you reduced harm to consumers through the development of your proposal? The only harm that will come to consumers from the introduction of a visitor levy is a currently 5% increase in the cost of overnight accommodation. However, from the consultation report, a visitor levy could have potential economic benefits (net additional Gross Value Added, GVA) for Argyll and Bute ranging significantly from an overall loss of £76.5 million to a net gain of £154.6 million over ten years. The mid-point is a positive Net Present Value of £28.5 million for investment back into the Argyll and Bute visitor economy. If you have not been able to reduce harm to your consumers, why not? Not applicable to answer. Page 645
Page 646
Children Rights and Wellbeing No Impact Justification It is not anticipated that the implementation of a visitor levy scheme across Argyll and Bute will affect the rights and wellbeing of children and young people up to and including the age of 18. Any relevant issues will be addressed through the detailed monitoring and annual reporting required if a visitor levy scheme for Argyll and Bute is introduced. Page 646
Page 647
Island Communities How many islands does your proposal affect? All islands across Argyll and Bute. Which islands are affected by your proposal? All 23 inhabited islands across Argyll and Bute would be subject to a visitor levy scheme if introduced by Argyll and Bute Council. Does your proposal impact on island communities? Island Community Impact Demography No impact Economy Positive Society Positive Describe any positive impacts you have identified The socioeconomic cost benefit analysis measures the present value of the net additional Gross Value Added (GVA) retained in Argyll and Bute because of investment of visitor levy generated funds against the present value of the direct costs to the Council plus the direct costs to accommodation business over the 10-year appraisal period. The potential economic benefits (net additional GVA) for Argyll and Bute as a whole range significantly from an overall loss of £76.5 million to a net gain of £154.6 million over ten years. The mid- point is a positive Net Present Value of £28.5 million to invest back into the visitor economy, and a proportion of that would be directed to islands businesses and communities. Describe any negative impacts you have identified Island communities within Argyll and Bute may experience unique economic challenges and benefits from the levy. While the additional revenue has the potential to enhance local infrastructure, support services, and sustainable tourism initiatives, there is also a risk that the levy may impact visitor numbers to these areas, particularly for cost-sensitive travellers. If visitor demand decreases, smaller island businesses could face a disproportionate economic impact compared to mainland operators. Strategic reinvestment of levy funds to support island-specific tourism will be essential to ensuring that these communities’ benefit from increased visitation rather than reduced demand. Describe how your proposal affects the islands communities you have identified differently from other communities including other islands communities and mainland areas Due to their limited resources and higher operational costs, island businesses may face greater challenges in meeting levy collection requirements. Page 647
Page 648
How will you ensure your proposal deliver equivalent levels of service to the islands communities you have identified compared to other areas, including mainland areas? Transporting supplies and addressing waste management are often costlier for island communities, so a visitor levy could support these unique needs, addressing infrastructure and services that directly impact both residents and visitors. This could include for example enhanced ferry services, improvements to ports and ferry terminals, waste management solutions, and upgrades to basic visitor facilities, which are critical to sustaining both the visitor economy and local quality of life. Consideration can be given to an exemption(s) for island communities and businesses that may mitigate any impact. A portion of the GVA retained would be directed to islands businesses and communities. If you have not been able to mitigate impacts, why not? See answer above. Will have more evidence to respond to this question if a visitor levy is introduced. Page 648
Page 649
Equality Impact Equality impact on service users Service users Impact Disability No Impact Race No Impact Marriage and civil partnership No Impact Religion or belief No Impact Sex No Impact Pregnancy and maternity No Impact Age No Impact Sexual orientation No Impact Gender reassignment No Impact Impact on service users A visitor levy scheme for Argyll and Bute has the potential to generate significant benefits for the local economy, community aspirations, culture and heritage, and tourism infrastructure while promoting sustainable tourism practices. However, a visitor levy scheme could introduce new administrative burdens for both businesses and the council, with challenges for island communities that face unique economic and infrastructure constraints. Support for tourism related SME businesses, effective communication, transparent, user- friendly systems, and a clear demonstration of how the levy benefits both visitors and residents will be crucial in ensuring a scheme’s success. Ensuring the fair allocation of funds to address the distinct needs of island communities, alongside proactive monitoring and adjustments to a visitor levy scheme, will be essential to mitigate any negative impacts on tourism businesses, communities, and visitor experiences throughout the region. Don't knows identified The analysis presents accommodation and overnight visitor economy businesses in aggregate, and the potential turnover losses and gains are assessed on a sectoral basis. It is possible that turnover losses due to the levy may be unevenly distributed across the region. This could have significant impacts on specific businesses and may result in closure of businesses who are particularly impacted. Similarly. businesses may be differentially impacted by investment in the sector, and the potential benefits may not be evenly felt across the region. It is important to note that the cost benefit analysis in the consultation report provides insight into the impacts that a visitor levy may have; it does not determine which scenario is more likely to occur. If a visitor levy is introduced, these "don't knows" will be addressed on an ongoing basis during the implementation period. Page 649
Page 650
Equality impact on service deliverers Service deliverers Impact Disability No Impact Race No Impact Marriage and civil partnership No Impact Religion or belief No Impact Sex No Impact Pregnancy and maternity No Impact Age No Impact Sexual orientation No Impact Gender reassignment No Impact Impact on service deliverers There is no impact on service deliverers regarding the nine ‘protected characteristics’ covered by the Equality Act (2010). Argyll and Bute Council could consider local exemptions regarding paying a visitor levy when accessing overnight accommodation. It was clear from the consultation findings that a ‘one-size-fits-all’ approach to the consideration of local exemptions was not appropriate. Local exemptions from paying a levy, put forward by respondents, are as follows: • all residents of Argyll and Bute registered for Council tax. • people staying in Argyll and Bute on a temporary basis for business/work or non- leisure trips (e.g. works and tradespeople and NHS staff). • micro and small businesses that have consciously structured their business to remain below the £90,000 VAT threshold to avoid the complexity and costs associated with VAT compliance. • carers who accompany/support disabled people on holiday or essential trips and appointments. • charities and overnight stays for charitable purposes. Don't knows identified The analysis presents accommodation and overnight visitor economy businesses in aggregate, and the potential turnover losses and gains are assessed on a sectoral basis. It is possible that turnover losses due to the levy may be unevenly distributed across the region. This could have significant impacts on specific businesses and may result in closure of businesses who are particularly impacted. Similarly. businesses may be differentially impacted by investment in the sector and the potential benefits may not be evenly felt across the region It is important to note that the cost benefit analysis in the consultation report provides insight into the impacts that a visitor levy may have; it does not determine which scenario is more likely to occur. Page 650
Page 651
If a visitor levy is introduced, these "don't knows" will be addressed on an ongoing basis during the implementation period. Due regard Equalities (protected characteristics) - all activities aligned to a visitor levy scheme will comply with all Equal Opportunities policies and obligations. Page 651
Page 652
This page is intentionally left blank
Page 653
Appendix 3 MINUTES of MEETING of SHORT LIFE WORKING GROUP ON ARGYLL AND BUTE COUNCIL VISITOR LEVY held BY MICROSOFT TEAMS on MONDAY, 15 SEPTEMBER 2025 Present: Councillor Ross Moreland (Chair) Councillor Anne Horn Councillor Jim Lynch Councillor Julie McKenzie Councillor Gary Mulvaney Councillor Peter Wallace Councillor Ross Moreland Kirsty Flanagan, Executive Director Douglas Hendry, Executive Director Pippa Milne, Chief Executive Attending: Shona Barton, Governance Manager Cathy Craig, Argyll and Bute Shadow Visitor Levy Forum Morag Goodfellow, Argyll and Bute Shadow Visitor Levy Forum Ross Pollock, Argyll and Bute Shadow Visitor Levy Forum David Adams McGilp, Argyll and Bute Shadow Visitor Levy Forum Prior to the commencement of Business, the Vice Chair, Councillor Ross Moreland advised that the Chair, Councillor Jim Lynch would be joining the meeting late and therefore it had been agreed that the Vice Chair would Chair the meeting of the Short Life Working Group. 1. APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE There were no apologies for absence. 2. DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST There were no declarations of interest intimated. 3. MINUTES The Minutes of the meeting of the Short Life Working Group on Argyll and Bute Visitor Levy held on 30 October 2024 were approved as a correct record. Councillor Jim Lynch joined the meeting during the consideration of the following item of Business. 4. MEMBERS OF SHADOW VISITOR LEVY FORUM TO SHARE THEIR REFLECTIONS ON THE CONSULTATION REPORT The Chair welcomed Members of the Shadow Visitor Levy Forum to the meeting; Morag Goodfellow of Highlands and Islands Enterprise, Cathy Craig of Wild About Argyll, and Ross Pollock of Loch Lomond and the Trossachs National Park. Members of the Shadow Visitor Levy Forum were invited to share their reflections on the Consultation Report. Page 653
Page 654
Ross Pollock thanked the Short Life Working Group for the invitation to attend and advised that he was pleased to be part of the Forum. He advised that the National Park Authority were defined as a statutory consultee in the legislation and he had been delighted to see the outcome of the consultation. He advised that he had made a submission to the consultation on behalf of the National Park Authority and had worked closely with the National Park Destination Group who had redrafted the Argyll Tourist Strategy taking into account the potential impact of a Visitor Levy. Mr Pollock noted that the consultation had shown strong opposition in terms of all responses with the residents’ percentage higher than in other areas which he said may have been due to the make-up of the area and the necessity of travel; he advised that he respected the findings of the consultation. He advised that a flat rate was something they were aware of other authorities calling for and there was a question for Scottish Government to revise legislation across the National Park area and Argyll and Bute. He highlighted that short term let licensees were particularly close to the VAT rate threshold and that there were smaller communities with a high level of day visitors and no overnight stays that wouldn’t be paying into any levy pot, and the levy would therefore have a disproportionate impact on some areas. Morag Goodfellow advised that she was pleased to be invited to share her reflections. She advised that the overall report summarised responses in a thorough manner, with a breakdown across three categories. There had been strong opposition on all three categories with various reasoning outlined in the report which had been in line with HIEs idea of the current situation. She advised that the report had been very comprehensive and that the modelling had also been very comprehensive which may be quite difficult for the lay person to get their head around. She said that Argyll has a strong visitor sector, that there was no under-represented part of Argyll and Bute and there was a need to be reflective on the importance of the sector. She advised that the visitor economy flip side was that the economy remained strong but it required investment; and with public sector funds no longer as available, the need to ensure the tourism product is strong was a consideration. She highlighted that exemptions and vat threshold were important considerations as well as the island perspective advising that the island only authorities were currently pausing the process. She advised that the approved schemes in cities had introduced the scheme with the premises retaining a small portion of the levy which was another consideration. Cathy Craig advised that she echoed the comments of the other two Shadow Visitor Levy Forum members. She advised that the business community had answered the consultation robustly and had expressed their fears; she advised that there was a requirement to invest and there was a need to find that from somewhere. She highlighted the fragility of the tourist sector post covid with 45% of businesses operating with around 3 month cash reserves. She advised that there were some businesses doing well, but some were not with a shrinkage of domestic visitors due to the cost of living, for example some staying 3 nights instead of 4 or some who may be visiting places but not spending as much on eating out. She said that there remained strong proposition for America but that Kintyre and Mid Argyll did not benefit so much from American visitors. She referred to other regional challenges such as the A83 and the ferry situation affecting communities and asked that the potential unintended consequences were given consideration. She highlighted that the consultation had given opportunity to lean into ongoing dialogue with businesses regarding funding, and to work jointly with businesses to approach challenges. She requested that the opportunity to lean in, listen and create effective dialogue was not missed. Page 654
Page 655
David Adams McGilp from Visit Scotland had joined the meeting during discussion of this item and advised that colleagues had made similar observations to him and he had nothing further to add. He said that whether or not the Levy was introduced now or in the future it would impact regional property and residents across Argyll and Bute and it was important to consider this over the long term. Councillor McKenzie advised that it had been helpful to hear from the members of the Shadow Forum. She advised that to her, the results of the consultation were a red light and it was clear that the Levy was opposed in its current form and that it would cause damage to island and rural economies. She said that the risks of pressing ahead outweighed the assurances and she could not see how the Council could move forward with confidence. She suggested that an approach would be to pause, collaborate and work with communities. She confirmed that she was not opposed to a levy but it had to be right for Argyll and Bute. Councillor Horn advised that everything that had been said matched the concerns she had and which had been raised to her. She said that a responsible decision would be to pause until the Council got answers to questions raised. She advised that she was not opposed to a levy but it needed to be more robust than what was proposed at the moment and questions required to be answered. Councillor Mulvaney advised that he had noted what had been said before and the shadow levy forum reflections. He advised that in terms of the overall council position, they were facing significant budget deficits in coming years and there was a need to think about all businesses, not just tourism businesses. He referred to the point made about ferries being very valid and advised that there was a need to go back to the Scottish Government to have further discussion about how Councils are funded. He said that he was not against broadening the tax base and that he was more supportive of a flat rate levy as it needed to be simpler for businesses and for visitors. He reiterated the need to go back to Scottish Government to lobby for the power to choose between a percentage rate and a flat rate. He agreed that the timing was not right and asked if there was any further information available on the flat rate and if Scottish Government should be approached again. The Chair, Councillor Moreland, said that it was not an easy decision to make and advised that he agreed with the concept of a flat rate. He said that if the Council decided not to go forward there was a need for investment in the tourist sector which would be hard to do without the levy. He suggested that the Council pause to allow more work to be carried out. In respect of the flat rate he advised that there had been some suggestion from Holyrood regarding an amendment / motion to the upcoming Housing Bill which may give more options for Councils. He advised that a flat rate would give councils flexibility which would be helpful. Councillor Wallace advised that he agreed with what colleagues had said and that this could be an opportunity to work with other Councils who had paused, and a chance to go back to the Scottish Government for discussion. Councillor Lynch referred to the amount of information gathered from the consultation and advised that it should be used as an opportunity as there had been good reasoning behind the answers given in the consultation. He advised that there was a need to look at how the Council work with people in Argyll and Bute. Page 655
Page 656
The Chair thanked members of the Shadow Visitor Levy Forum for their attendance at the meeting. 5. ARGYLL AND BUTE COUNCIL VISITOR LEVY CONSULTATION REPORT The Short Life Working Group gave consideration to a report providing a copy of the Argyll and Bute Visitor Levy Consultation Report as per the agreed Terms of Reference of the Short Life Working Group on Argyll and Bute Visitor Levy. Members discussed the options in terms of any recommendation which could be made to the Council meeting on 24th September 2025. During the discussion it was agreed that the detailed minutes of the SLWG meeting should be included with the report being submitted to Council to enable the comments made by Members of the SLWG and the Shadow Visitor Levy Forum to be taken into consideration. Decision The Short Life Working Group agreed to – 1. note receipt of the full Visitor Levy Consultation Report appended to the submitted report; 2. refer consideration of the Visitor Levy Consultation Report to the Argyll and Bute Council meeting on 24 September 2025; and 3. recommend that Council note the detailed Minutes of the Short Life Working Group on the Visitor Levy held on 15 September 2025. (Reference: Report by Executive Director with responsibility for Development and Economic Growth dated 8 September 2025, submitted) Page 656
Page 657
ARGYLL AND BUTE COUNCIL ARGYLL AND BUTE COUNCIL DEVELOPMENT AND ECONOMIC GROWTH 24 SEPTEMBER 2025 FUTURE OF THE RURAL ECONOMY - A MANIFESTO FOR RURAL CHANGE 1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1.1 This report examines the future of the rural economy in a rapidly changing national and global context. A thriving economy is essential to ensure future prosperity and generate the resources needed to address local priorities. However, achieving this potential in areas such as Argyll and Bute is hindered by centralised policy interventions and a lack of understanding of rural economic dynamics. This is reflected in our ageing demographic that makes adding population very challenging. 1.2 The Council are asked to: i). consider and approve the key interventions and lobbying points contained within this report. ii). Instruct officers to approach other rural councils to seek collaboration in relation to a manifesto for rural change. iii). Note that a further report will be brought back to a future meeting of the Council. Page 657 Agenda Item 15
Page 658
ARGYLL AND BUTE COUNCIL ARGYLL AND BUTE COUNCIL DEVELOPMENT AND ECONOMIC GROWTH 24 SEPTEMBER 2025 FUTURE OF THE RURAL ECONOMY - A MANIFESTO FOR RURAL CHANGE 2.0 INTRODUCTION 2.1 Argyll and Bute has significant economic strengths aligned with national priorities, including expanding food and drink exports, clean energy production, tourism, defence, and emerging industries such as space, and marine sciences. However, systemic challenges exacerbated by underinvestment in critical economic infrastructure combined with increasingly urban-centric policies threaten the longer term viability of our rural communities and several of the industries that traditionally formed the foundation of our economy. 2.2 With population decline, an ageing demographic, and economic barriers intensifying, urgent action is required to secure the future of our rural economy. The council must work collaboratively with other rural local authorities to influence national policy and secure meaningful change. 3.0 RECOMMENDATIONS 3.1 The Council are asked to: i). consider and approve the key interventions and lobbying points contained within this report. ii). Instruct officers to approach other rural councils to seek collaboration in relation to a manifesto for rural change. iii). Note that a further report will be brought back to a future meeting of the Council. Page 658
Page 659
4.0 DETAIL CONTEXT AND CHALLENGES 4.1 Argyll and Bute’s economy is predominantly rural, drawing upon our natural resources and contributing significantly to national prosperity. However, rural Scotland is approaching a tipping point due to a combination of policy decisions, demographic trends, climate change impacts and infrastructure challenges. 4.2 The 2023 census data and subsequent midyear estimates confirmed that rural councils in many parts of Scotland are experiencing population decline and ageing at an accelerated rate. Economic policy at a national level appears increasingly focused on urban priorities, influenced by city-based policymakers, academics, and public agencies that are HQ in cities. This has led to legislation and regulations that often fail to reflect the realities of rural industries such as agriculture, fishing, and energy production. 4.3 The transition to net zero presents both significant economic opportunities and risks. While Argyll and Bute is well placed to contribute to the national economy through renewable energy and sustainable industries, policies must support local economies rather than potentially undermine them. Recent policy reversals, such as the deferral of the Deposit Return Scheme and the withdrawal of Highly Protected Marine Areas (HPMAs), highlight the importance of ensuring future decisions are fully informed by rural perspectives. 4.4 Chronic underinvestment over many decades continues to impact essential economic and social infrastructure, including transport (ferries, roads, and rail), digital connectivity, healthcare, and housing. The withdrawal of private sector services such as local bank closures, fuel stations, and shops exacerbates economic pressures. 4.5 In response, rural communities and local authorities are increasingly mobilising to challenge and influence UK and Scottish Government policy. Campaigns such as Invest in the West, the Rest and Be Thankful infrastructure push, and recent ferry service protests demonstrate the appetite for change. Argyll and Bute Council must build upon this momentum and work in partnership with other rural authorities to demand meaningful action from both Governments and national agencies. 5.0 KEY INTERVENTIONS AND LOBBYING POINTS The following ten key interventions aim to address critical challenges and unlock the full potential of Argyll and Bute’s economy: I. Digital Connectivity – Universal 5G and Fibre Broadband • Commitment from both Governments to ensure full 5G mobile signal to every premises in rural Scotland. • Social broadband tariffs to ensure affordability. Page 659
Page 660
• Accelerated delivery of the R100 and Gigabyte programme, with high-speed fibre broadband and/or alternative technologies used to fill connectivity gaps and reach every premises. II. Fair Freight and Delivery Charges • Legislation to prevent excessive delivery charges for rural and island areas, ensuring equitable pricing across the UK. • Lobby for Government support for innovative freight solutions, including drone technology and alternative transport methods that can support the rural economy. III. Community Benefits from Renewable Energy • Mandatory community benefit payments, or ownership options, from renewable energy developments, ensuring direct investment in local housing, infrastructure, and skills development. • Grid enhancements that prioritise local energy use, rather than solely exporting power to urban areas, or having to pay renewable generators to switch off. IV. Retaining Spirits Industry Revenue for Rural Investment • A percentage of existing whisky and spirits excise duty to be reinvested in critical rural infrastructure, including for affordable housing, ports and roads. • Islay proposed as a pilot area for revenue reinvestment through the declaration of an innovation zone. V. Energy Pricing and Grid Investment • Introduction of a progressive social energy tariff to support those off the gas grid. • Investment in local SMART grids to allow rural communities to store and utilise renewable energy retaining wealth and creating jobs in the local economy. VI. Rural Hospitality VAT Reduction • UK Government to explore a rural-specific VAT reduction and/or threshold increases, for hospitality businesses, given their economic importance and concerns expressed over high operational costs. VII. Sustainable Funding for Lifeline Ferry and Air Services • Sufficient capital and revenue funding to ensure the sustainability of council- operated ferry and air services. • Transfer of responsibility for Public Service Obligation (PSO) air routes to the Scottish Government to ensure service continuity and fairness across Scotland. VIII. Equal Access to Education, Skills Development and Innovation Page 660
Page 661
• Guarantee that rural learners have the same access to further and higher education as urban counterparts, including digital learning solutions. • Investment in local colleges (including Argyll College- UHI) to secure its future and align it with regional economic and social needs. • Additional support for rural secondary schools to ensure a full curriculum and subject choice availability inclusive of digital learning options. • Establish Innovation zones linked to industry strengths across rural Scotland. IX. Transport Connectivity – Lifeline Infrastructure Investment • A long-term commitment from both Governments to invest in rural transport infrastructure, ensuring lifeline connectivity for residents and businesses. • Increased funding for local road maintenance and strategic trunk road improvements in the interests of public safety and mitigating against climate change impacts. • Expansion of public and shared transport options, using new technology to facilitate innovative mobility solutions. • A national strategy for rural electric vehicle charging and green hydrogen refuelling infrastructure. • Full devolution of active travel funding to councils, allowing for locally tailored solutions. X. Housing – Investment Bank Support for Rural Development • Direct investment from the Scottish National Investment Bank to expand social and worker housing. For example, at the Dunbeg Corridor. • Targeted funding for areas where private sector delivery is not viable. • Enhanced support for tackling fuel poverty, including examining a social energy tariff for off-grid households. 6.0 CONCLUSION 6.1 The rural economy contributes significantly to Scotland’s national prosperity, yet structural barriers continue to restrict its full potential. With the right policy/fiscal interventions, Argyll and Bute can help drive forward economic growth in a sustainable manner, contribute more to national economic goals, help deliver the net zero agenda, tackle our demographic challenges, and secure a sustainable future for our communities. 6.2 Rural Scotland is at a crossroads, with the pace of societal and economic change rapidly accelerating. Whilst urban areas continue to attract investment and Government policy focus, rural communities risk being left behind or not able to take meaningful advantage of economic opportunities now and into the future. This rural manifesto for change outlines practical, achievable actions that can deliver meaningful outcomes for our communities. 6.3 Argyll and Bute Council must work collaboratively with other rural local authorities, COHI, the Highlands and Islands Regional Economic Partnership, and national Page 661
Page 662
stakeholders to influence policy and secure the necessary investment. Members are asked to consider and approve these lobbying points and decide on how they could be shared with the likes of other Local Authorities, COSLA and COHI. 7.0 IMPLICATIONS 7.1 Policy: Supports delivery of the Argyll and Bute Outcomes Improvement Plan, The Local Housing Strategy, Economic Development Strategy and associated Action Plan. 7.2 Financial: No immediate financial implications. 7.3 Legal: None directly arising from this report. 7.4 HR: None. 7.5 Customer Service: Improved infrastructure and services will enhance residents’ quality of life. 7.6 Risk: Failing to act will exacerbate economic decline. 7.7 Climate Change: Supports sustainable transport and energy solutions. 7.8 Fairer Scotland Duty: Aims to address socio-economic inequalities and support island communities. 7.9 Equalities – protected characteristics: This is a paper that is designed to recognise the particular issues faced by rural communities in an attempt to create an equal playing field for our communities. 7.10 Consumer Duty: The rural economy is fragile and increasingly impacted by national and international policy decisions. This paper puts forward a number of possible interventions that could strengthen our local economy and add value to the national economy. 7.11 Island Communities: Our island economies are particularly fragile given issues with transport connectivity, cost of living issues and dependency on the visitor economy. The interventions detailed in this paper could assist our island economy and help attract additional people to live and work there. 7.12 Children’s Rights and Wellbeing: None directly arising from this report. Kirsty Flanagan, Executive Director with overall responsibility for Development and Economic Growth Page 662
Page 663
Councillor Jim Lynch, Policy Lead for Economic Development, Islands, Rural Communities and Housing Fergus Murray, Head of Development and Economic Growth For further information contact: Fergus Murray, Head of Development and Economic Growth Fergus.Murray@argyll-bute.gov.uk August 2025 Page 663
Page 664
This page is intentionally left blank
Page 665
ARGYLL AND BUTE COUNCIL COUNCIL DEVELOPMENT AND ECONOMIC GROWTH 24 SEPTEMBER 2025 HOUSING EMERGENCY – FEASIBILITY OF TIREE SELF BUILD PLOTS; CONTRIBUTION TO INCREASED CONSTRUCTION COSTS AT OCCUPIED PHASE 3 DUNBEG; FEASIBILITY OF GLENCRUITTEN ROAD FOOTPATH IMPROVEMENTS 1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1.1 The main purpose of this report is to request the use of Strategic Housing Funding (SHF) to support three different housing projects; which in their own but different ways will make valuable contributions to the tackling the Housing Emergency. 1.2 Dunbeg Phase 3, built by LINK RSL, was completed in August 2023, and delivered 300 affordable houses, a significant contribution to housing supply within Oban and Lorn. Like most construction projects over recent years, partly due to the Pandemic, time delays and fuel and construction cost inflation, the final development cost is above budget. Both LINK and Scottish Government have agreed to pay additional costs towards the development. Following negotiation to reduce the potential sum, it is considered appropriate that an additional SHF contribution of £175k be made to cover the additional costs. 1.3 Tiree is identified as an area of high housing need and demand and is one of the Area’s fragile populations. The Local Housing Strategy set out an aim to explore the delivery of self-build plots, and the Housing Emergency Action Plan contains an action to identify public sector land that can be used for housing solutions. Two Council owned sites on Tiree are surplus to other requirements, and following initial investigation are considered potentially suitable for the delivery of serviced self-build plots. Further feasibility studies are required to establish the details of if and how this can be done, and the costs involved, and the report requests Members approve use of the SHF to carry out this work. 1.4 LDP2 identifies a potential development area at Glencruitten Rise, Oban. The site could deliver up to 100 affordable houses, if offsite footpath improvements can be delivered along Glencruitten Road. In order to establish in detail how this might be delivered, it is necessary to carry out design and feasibility studies that will establish costs and landownership required, and the report requests members utilise the SHF to carry out this work. Page 665 Agenda Item 16
Page 666
1.5 It is recommended that Council: - i. Approve a grant of £175k from SHF to LINK RSL to cover additional unfunded development costs incurred in Phase 3 Dunbeg; and ii. Agree use of up to £100k from SHF to cover feasibility studies exploring delivery of serviced self-build plots on Council owned land in Balemartine and Crossapol, Tiree. iii. Agree use of up to £50k from SHF to cover feasibility studies for delivering footpath improvements on Glencruitten Road, to facilitate affordable housing at Glencruitten Rise subject to the requirements on the developer to first demonstrate a contractual agreement with an RSL to develop the site; or provide written acknowledgment that any offsite road improvement would be financed by the development of the site as more particularly set out in para 4.23. Page 666
Page 667
ARGYLL AND BUTE COUNCIL COUNCIL DEVELOPMENT AND ECONOMIC GROWTH 24th SEPT 2025 HOUSING EMERGENCY – FEASIBILITY OF TIREE SELF BUILD PLOTS & CONTRIBUTION TO INCREASED CONSTRUCTION COSTS AT OCCUPIED PHASE 3 DUNBEG; FEASIBILITY OF GLENCRUITTEN ROAD FOOTPATH IMPROVEMENTS 2.0 INTRODUCTION 2.1 As the strategic housing authority for Argyll and Bute, the Council has a statutory duty to assess the need and demand for housing in the area and to ensure that any unmet need for housing is addressed through the Local Housing Strategy (LHS) and the Strategic Housing Investment Plan (SHIP), and these have identified the potential for self- build plots to contribute. 2.2 Following the declaration of the Housing Emergency, a key priority has been to identify public sector land which can be utilised to contribute to housing supply. In addition, there has been a recognition that the significant increase in construction costs over recent years are a challenge to delivery. 3.0 RECOMMENDATIONS 3.1 It is recommended that Council:- i. Approve a grant of £175k from Strategic Housing Fund to LINK RSL to cover additional unfunded development costs incurred in Phase 3 Dunbeg; and ii. Agree use of up to £100k from Strategic Housing Fund to cover feasibility studies exploring delivery of serviced self-build plots on Council owned land in Balemartine and Crossapol, Tiree. iii. Agree use of up to £50k from SHF to cover feasibility studies for delivering footpath improvements on Glencruitten Road, to facilitate affordable housing at Glencruitten Rise subject to the requirements on the developer to first demonstrate a contractual agreement with an RSL to develop the site; or provide written acknowledgment that any offsite road improvement would be financed by the development of the site as more particularly set out in para 4.23. Page 667
Page 668
4.0 DETAIL Dunbeg Phase 3 Increased Construction Costs 4.1 Dunbeg Phase 3, built by LINK RSL, was completed in August 2023, and delivered 300 affordable houses, making a significant contribution to housing supply within Oban and Lorn. Like most construction projects over recent years, partly due to the Pandemic, extension of the construction period, and fuel and construction cost inflation, the final development cost is above budget. The proposed final cost of construction was £62.6m, which was circa £4m above expected. 4.2 In April, LINK approached the Council to request assistance in covering the funding gap, proposing that the SHF might contribute £600k. 4.3 Members may be aware that the Council has already contributed the normal SHF award of £12k per unit or £3,600,000 in total. Notwithstanding this previous contribution, officers consider that, given the additional costs are generally in line with the wider experience of the development industry over recent years and combined with the strategic importance of the wider Dunbeg development to housing supply in the area, there is merit in considering the request. 4.4 Officers engaged with Scottish Government More Homes division and established they had offered to contribute an additional £1.478m to cover the costs. Utilising the same calculation methodology, officers proposed in principle an additional SHF award of £118k. LINK suggested that this would still leave them struggling to bridge the cost gap. Considering the ongoing strategic importance of the remaining Dunbeg development, which will be delivered by a partnership of LINK, the Council and Scottish Government, it is proposed a compromise award of £175k be made from the SHF. LINK has confirmed that sum will allow them to proceed in covering the outstanding costs. Accordingly, this report seeks approval to award LINK £175k (£580 per unit) from the SHF to cover additional Dunbeg Phase 3 costs. Background to The Housing Situation on Tiree 4.5 As of June 2025, there were around 568 homes in Tiree, of which 47% are not in use as principle homes meeting local need. 155 properties are classed as second/holiday homes, 58 homes are empty or long term unoccupied, and there are 55 self-catering units on the Rates Register. 4.6 There is a total of 43 social rent properties in Tiree, 25 are owned by ACHA and 18 are owned by WHHA (as per RSL returns 2024/25). This amounts to 8% of the total dwelling stock. 4.7 Affordability on the open market remains a significant issue for local residents. The average archived house price, based on 2023 and 2024 sales, is £174,929, which would require a household income of £49,979 to be Page 668
Page 669
considered affordable. 62% of residents in Tiree could not afford to purchase on the open market and therefore, require alternative affordable options such as social rent and shared equity. 4.8 Expressed demand for RSL housing is registered via the HOMEArgyll waiting list, and as of June 2025, there was 17 active applicants with Tiree as first preference, and 11 of these were in housing need. There are a further 3 applicants with Tiree as second or third preference, all of which are in housing need. There was a turnover of 9 social rented properties in 2024/25 in the area, resulting in a pressure ratio of 2:1 (applicants: lets). 4.9 A 2023 survey of Tiree community housing need, commissioned by Tiree Community Development Trust, received a response of 23% of Island residents. It identified a strong demand for self-build plots (22% of those wishing to move) as a first preference for people seeking housing solutions. It also identified the lack of available plots, the price of those plots that are available, and the cost of construction as limiting factors. 4.10 The delivery of housing on plots has been a traditionally important part of the new build housing delivery within Argyll and Bute. Self-build plots are considered affordable housing. 4.11 The Council’s last HNDA research and LHS stakeholder engagement identified an ongoing interest in this form of provision in a number of local HMAs, particularly on the islands, and this is supported in a recent National Islands Plan Survey (July 2021) which suggests that 45% of island residents believe that self-build is a viable option for homeownership. 4.12 The LHS states that through the SHIP process, and the Rural Growth Deal, the Council will also explore the potential for providing serviced plots for self- build projects on select sites within local authority or RSL landbanks, and this is one of the Key Actions and Targets of LHS Outcome One. The Housing Emergency Action Plan also prioritises the identification of public sector land Page 669
Page 670
that can provide housing solutions. 4.13 Although further up to date market research will be required, the provision of affordable serviced self-build plots would be an important additional tool in tackling the housing emergency, and will help contribute to sustaining remote rural fragile populations. Given the restricted availability of development land on Tiree, partly due to its crofting nature, this may be an appropriate use of the surplus land holding the Council has on the Island. Tiree Self-Build Plot Feasibility Studies 4.14 The Council owns two small surplus sites that have the potential to deliver self-build serviced plots. One is in Balemartine, and one in Crossapal both shown below Shore St, Balemartine Page 670
Page 671
Crossapol 4.15 The Council has already carried out initial Ground Investigation work that confirms the sites are potentially suitable for development. At this stage the Council needs to undertake more substantive feasibility studies, particularly the design and consenting of suitable utilities, service connections and drainage, a detailed road design which would allow for works tendering and achieving planning consent. A combined cost estimate to achieve this for the two sites is £80k, but to allow for unexpected contingencies it is proposed an allowance of £100k be approved from the SHF. 4.16 In parallel with this work officers will continue to liaise with the local community to develop better market understanding, and to explore other support mechanisms such as: availability and flexibility of mortgages, potential partners to offer modular custom build options, which would simplify arranging island construction. The Council launched a self-build register in 2024 which gives households an opportunity to register their interest in self- build. This will help us to understand more about the demand for self-build plots across the area. 4.17 When all the feasibility work is complete, officers will revert to Council for Members to consider if they wish to pursue full delivery of the self-build plots which is likely to be between 5 and 8 plots. Page 671
Page 672
Footpath Improvements To Glencruitten Road To Facilitate Potential Affordable Housing Site 4.18 LDP2 identifies a Potential Development Area (P4109) at the upper end of Glencruitten Road and to the West of Glencruitten Rise. A Masterplan was approved by the Council in 2020 which showed how the site might potentially be developed for 100 houses, subject to the identification and delivery of suitable access arrangements. It should be noted that a Masterplan consent is not a planning consent, although it would be considered a material consideration in the determination of any planning application. The suitable access arrangements would include improvements to Glencruitten Road to ensure the safety of pedestrians who currently need to use the carriageway at certain points. 4.19 The site has been identified within the Council’s Strategic Housing Investment Plan, and is a site that, in principle is likely to receive Scottish Government More Homes funding for affordable housing, if it can be delivered within their financial benchmarks. 4.20 Some or all of the access improvements that are required lie in areas outside the control of the site developer / owner. Moreover, the improvements that are required would be likely to require the Council to use its powers as the Roads Authority to implement. As such the Developer is reliant on the Council to establish if it is feasible to undertake a programme of road improvements that would deliver the required road safety improvements. 4.21 In light of the housing emergency, and particularly the projected short term lack of housing supply, the Council has given an undertaking to explore the feasibility of delivering the required Glencruitten Road improvements which could if delivered facilitate the potential affordable housing site. This work involves the design of a suitable safe footpath provision, the identification of the physical cost of those works, the identification of the land ownership required and the cost of its acquisition. It is likely that the land acquisition required will include parts of more than one residential garden, and may include residential buildings. It is anticipated that Compulsory Purchase Orders would be required to achieve this. The estimated cost of carrying out this initial feasibility work is £50,000. 4.22 This would be a phased process. Once the feasibility studies had identified a costed solution, it would be necessary to identify a funding solution. It had previously been considered this would be achieved through a Scottish Government Housing Infrastructure Fund application but this funding route has been stopped by Scottish Government. As a result, this would now most likely to be through Scottish Government More Homes Division award of grant to an RSL who proposed to deliver an affordable housing scheme on the site. As such the funding would not be able to move forward until an RSL was in control of the site. 4.23 It is officers opinion that in light of the Housing Emergency it makes sense to pursue the first stage feasibility studies which will identify the acceptable solution and costing. This will then create the opportunity for an interested RSL to explore the necessary funding. Accordingly, it is requested that Council approve use of up to £50,000 from the Strategic Housing Fund to carry out the feasibility work, although this is subject to the developer first either: • Demonstrating a contractual agreement with an RSL to develop the P4109 site West of Glencruitten Rise for affordable housing; or Page 672
Page 673
• Providing written acknowledgment that any offsite road improvement as explained in the report, in connection with the development of site P4109, would be financed by the development of the site. 4.24 Additionally, and at a later stage the Council would need to make a formal decision that it was willing to undertake a CPO and implement the road improvement works, if funding is identified. 5.0 CONCLUSION 5.1 The council is asked to approve the recommendation to award a grant of £175k from the SHF, to cover additional development costs incurred at the completed Dunbeg Phase 3 development. In addition, Council is asked to agree the potential use of up to £100k of SHF to fund feasibility studies for serviced self-build plots of two Council owned sites on Tiree. Lastly the Council is asked to agree feasibility funding of up to £50,000 to identify and design suitable road improvements to Glencruitten Road to facilitate the potential affordable housing site on Glencruitten Rise, subject to agreements outlined in the report with the developer. 6.0 IMPLICATIONS 6.1 Policy - The proposal is consistent with current Council policy including the Local Housing Strategy vision and outcomes which are directly aligned with the overarching objectives of the Outcome Improvement Plan, in particular Outcome 2 – we have infrastructure that supports sustainable growth. The proposal does exceed the delegated Officer approval for the use of the Strategic Housing Fund to enable the delivery of affordable housing which is £12,000 per unit. 6.2 Financial - There are sufficient funds in the Strategic Housing Fund to support the proposal. 6.3 Legal – None. 6.4 HR – None. 6.5 Customer Service – None. 6.6 Risk – There is a risk of depopulation, damage to the economy, a risk to delivering essential services in the local authority area if partners cannot effectively tackle the Housing Emergency. 6.7 Climate Change - making best use of existing stock by bringing empty properties back into use and installing energy efficiency measures helps towards achieving climate change targets. 6.8 Fairer Scotland Duty – the delivery of housing opportunities across Argyll and Bute facilitates social-economic opportunities for all. The activity in the report links to the Child Poverty Strategy. Page 673
Page 674
6.9 Equalities - protected characteristics - the activity outlined in the report is consistent with the aims and objectives set out in the Local Housing Strategy which is subject to an EQIA. 6.10 Consumer Duty – none. 6.11 Island Communities – one of the housing projects detailed in the report is being delivered on the islands which will provided many benefits such as employment and the continued delivery of essential services to island communities. 6.12 Children’s Rights and Wellbeing - the delivery of more housing options will enable more children to have a safe secure environment. Kirsty Flanagan, Executive Director with Responsibility for Development and Economic Growth August 2025 For further information contact: Fergus Murray, Head of Development and Economic Growth fergus.murray@argyll-bute.gov.uk Matt Mulderrig, Development Policy and Housing Service Manager Matt.Mulderrig@argyll-bute.gov.uk Douglas Whyte, Team Lead – Housing Strategy douglas.whyte@argyll-bute.gov.uk Page 674
Page 675
ARGYLL AND BUTE COUNCIL COUNCIL DEVELOPMENT AND ECONOMIC GROWTH 24 SEPTEMBER 2025 HOUSING ANNUAL ASSURANCE STATEMENT 2025 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1 Council Homeless Services are subject to scrutiny and inspection by the Scottish Housing Regulator (SHR). The Council must demonstrate that it is meeting the statutory requirements contained in the Scottish Social Housing Charter. Argyll and Bute Council is no longer a social landlord but retains statutory duties to provide services to households who are homeless or threatened with homelessness. The Council submits an Annual Return on the Charter (ARC). In 2019 the SHR introduced a requirement for all local authorities to submit an Annual Assurance Statement which will be published on the SHR website. This report details the proposed Statement for 2025. 2.0 RECOMMENDATIONS 2.1 It is recommended that the Council approve the Annual Assurance Statement contained in Appendix 1 of this report. 3.0 DETAIL 3.1 The SHR produced a document entitled Regulation of Social Housing in Scotland in February 2019. The regulatory requirements are set out in Section 3 of the document and even though Argyll and Bute Council is no longer a social landlord, there are requirements for the Council to ensuring that statutory duties are met in relation to preventing and alleviating homelessness. 3.2 There are 4 areas in which the SHR can engage with the Council in relation to homelessness services:- • How people access the service; • The assessment of homeless applications; • Access to and quality of temporary accommodation; and • Outcomes for people who are homeless. Page 675 Agenda Item 17
Page 676
In 2025 the SHR advised the Council that there will be engagement about the Council’s services for people in relation to temporary accommodation specifically the number of times the Council did not offer temporary or emergency accommodation when it should or if the Council has breached the Unsuitable Accommodation Order in relation to temporary accommodation. 3.3 Members are kept informed of the Council’s performance in relation to statutory and regulatory requirements in relation to housing in various ways:- • Through the Corporate Reporting Process; • Through quarterly Housing Performance Reports submitted to Committee; • Through the quarterly reporting produced for the Strategic Housing Forum; • Through the Annual Updates on the Local Housing Strategy; and • Through an Annual Housing Activity report submitted to the 4 Area Committees 3.4 The Council has produced an Equalities and Human Rights statement in relation to homelessness. This includes a commitment to analyse data relevant to assessing the impact on services across all groups. 4.0 CONCLUSION 4.1 The Development and Economic Growth Service’s Housing Team will continue to improve services to households who are homeless or threatened with homelessness. The Housing Team will continue to engage with the SHR to report on progress on the housing and homeless services provided in Argyll and Bute. 5.0 IMPLICATIONS 5.1 Policy – None. 5.2 Financial – Sufficient budget is required to deliver statutory services. 5.3 Legal – None. 5.4 HR – None. 5.5 Customer Service - None 5.6 Risk - the Council will be subject to censure from the SHR and Scottish Government if statutory duties are not fulfilled. 5.7 Climate Change - None 5.8 Fairer Scotland Duty – Socio-economic Duty – the delivery of services to households who are homeless including the provision of suitable temporary Page 676
Page 677
and then permanent accommodation facilitates socio-economic opportunities for those families. 5.9 Equalities – protected characteristics - the activity outlined in the report is consistent with the aims and objectives set out in the Local Housing Strategy which is subject to an EQIA. There are targets within the housing plans to deliver housing which meet the needs of specialist groups 5.10 Consumer Duty - none 5.11 Island Communities – the delivery of homeless services covers all areas of Argyll and Bute including the islands 5.12 Children’s Rights and Wellbeing – the statement provides assurance that homeless households with children will be accommodated appropriately. Kirsty Flanagan, Executive Director with responsibility for Development and Economic Growth Councillor Jim Lynch, Council Leader and Policy Lead Economic Development, Island and Rural Communities and Housing For further information contact: Fergus Murray, Head of Development and Economic Growth Fergus.Murray@argyll-bute.gov.uk Douglas Whyte, Team Lead – Housing Strategy Douglas.Whyte@argyll-bute.gov.uk APPENDICES Appendix 1 Housing Annual Assurance Statement 2025 Page 677
Page 678
This page is intentionally left blank
Page 679
Appendix 1 Classification: OFFICIAL Argyll and Bute Council Housing Annual Assurance Statement 2025 Legislative Compliance We can confirm that Argyll and Bute Council achieves all the standards and outcomes for people who are homeless and others who use our services:- • All relevant regulatory requirements set out in Chapter 3 of the Regulatory Framework • All relevant standards and outcomes in the Scottish Housing Social Charter • All relevant legislative duties Argyll and Bute Council can confirm that there were no health and safety breaches in 2024/25 in relation to homelessness resulting in intervention by the Health and Safety Executive. In 2025 the Council fulfilled its commitment from the previous Assurance Statement to produce an Equalities and Human Rights Statement with specific reference to Homelessness. This states that the Council will “Ensure that all households approaching the Council for housing advice including making homeless applications are treated fairly with dignity and respect. Housing Services staff will work to understand the individual needs of service users and deliver services that recognise and meet these needs. Housing Services will assure the Scottish Housing Regulator that Housing Services comply with statutory obligations. The current Argyll & Bute Local Housing Strategy 2022-2027 incorporates a comprehensive equalities statement and is underpinned by a suite of impact assessments which encompass Homelessness amongst other related housing services and functions. As well as a full Equalities and Socio-Economic Impact Assessment, the Council has carried out impact assessments for the LHS in respect of Human Rights, Children’s Rights and Wellbeing, Island and Rural Communities, as well as a Health Impact Assessment. All materials are available on the council website at: Local Housing Strategy and Housing Need and Demand Assessment (argyll-bute.gov.uk). Page 679
Page 680
Appendix 1 The LHS also includes a key action point to implement a detailed equalities data monitoring and reporting framework which will be reported annually to Housing Management Team, Area Committees and full Council, the Strategic Housing forum partnership and to the Scottish Government. In 2025 The Scottish Housing Regulator notified Argyll and Bute Council that they would be engaging with the Council about it services for people who are homeless. The focus of previous engagement has been on :- • The provision of temporary accommodation to people who are homeless The tables below provide an update on the areas of engagement previously notified by the Regulator. Argyll and Bute’s Assessment of Homeless Applications No. Area of Engagement Progress Made 1. The percentage of households assessed as not homeless nor threatened with homelessness is above the Scottish average Argyll and Bute figures – 5% of cases at the end of 2024/25 4% of cases at the end of 2023/24 compared to 3% of cases at the end of 2022/23. Scottish Average for 2024/25 – 4% 2. The percentage of households assessed as intentionally homeless is the same as the Scottish average Argyll and Bute figures – 2% of cases in 2024/25 1% of cases in 2023/24 compared to 4% of cases at the end of 2022/23. Scottish Average for 2024/25 – 2% 3. The percentage of households withdrawing their homeless application before decision is the same as the Scottish average Argyll and Bute figures – 4% of cases in 2024/25 4% of cases in 2023/24 compared to 4% of cases at the end of 2022/23 Scottish Average for 2024/25 – 4% Page 680
Page 681
Appendix 1 Outcomes for People who are Homeless No. Area of Engagement Progress Made 1. The percentage of people in Argyll and Bute assessed as unintentionally homeless which it provided with a Scottish Secure Tenancy is above the Scottish average Argyll and Bute Figure for 2024/25 – 71% 2023/24 – 67% 2022/23 – 75% 2021/22 – 81% Scottish Figure for 2024/25 – 77% 88% of all unintentionally homeless cases secured settled accommodation in 2024/25 in Argyll and Bute compared to 85% across Scotland 2. There are a relatively high number of people waiting for more than one year for an outcome Argyll and Bute Council continues to work with partners to implement a Rapid Rehousing Transition Plan (RRTP) which will help to address this situation. The Regulator met with the Council in July 2025 to state that there will be engagement about the Council’s services for people in relation to temporary accommodation specifically the number of times the Council did not offer temporary or emergency accommodation when it should or if the Council has breached the Unsuitable Accommodation Order in relation to temporary accommodation. 100% of households requiring temporary or emergency accommodation were made an offer of temporary or emergency accommodation in 2024/25. Argyll and Bute Council can confirm that under Scottish Government reporting requirements there were 22 breaches of the Unsuitable Accommodation Order in 2024/25. I can confirm that the Council has sufficient assurance and scrutiny processes in place to support this statement. This Statement was considered and approved at Full Council on Wednesday 24th September 2025. Page 681
Page 682
Appendix 1 Signed Kirsty Flanagan Executive Director Signed Councillor Jim Lynch Council Leader Policy Lead for Economy and Rural Growth Page 682