Agenda reports pack
Argyll and Bute Council · 16 May 2025
Back to Single Authority Model Short Life Working Group — 16 May 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 602127 Fax: 01546 604435 DX 599700 LOCHGILPHEAD 9 May 2025 NOTICE OF MEETING A meeting of the SINGLE AUTHORITY MODEL SHORT LIFE WORKING GROUP will be held BY MICROSOFT TEAMS on FRIDAY, 16 MAY 2025 at 3:00 PM, which you are requested to attend. Douglas Hendry Executive Director BUSINESS 1. APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE 2. DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST (IF ANY) 3. SINGLE AUTHORITY MODEL SLWG - TERMS OF REFERENCE (Pages 3 - 6) Report by Chief Executive 4. A SINGLE AUTHORITY MODEL FOR ARGYLL AND BUTE - OVERVIEW OF KEY PRINCIPLES AND MODELS (Pages 7 - 20) 5. SINGLE AUTHORITY MODEL - UPDATE TO 24 APRIL COUNCIL (Pages 21 - 34) Report by Chief Executive 6. ASSESSMENT OF OPTIONS - KEY PRINCIPLES / CRITERIA (Pages 35 - 38) Report by Chief Executive Single Authority Model Short Life Working Group Councillor Reeni Kennedy-Boyle Councillor Jim Lynch (Chair) Councillor Dougie McFadzean Councillor Yvonne McNeilly Councillor Gary Mulvaney Councillor Ross Moreland (Vice-Chair) Contact: Hazel MacInnes, Senior Committee Officer Tel: 01546 604269 Public Document Pack
Page 2
This page is intentionally left blank
Page 3
ARGYLL AND BUTE COUNCIL SINGLE AUTHORITY MODEL SLWG CHIEF EXECUTIVE 16TH MAY 2025 SAM SLWG - TERMS OF REFERENCE 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1 At the Council meeting held on 24th April 2025, Members agreed that a SAM SLWG be established. Given the increasing frequency of meetings being held at a national level and the ongoing pace of development, it was recognised that there is a need to put in place arrangements to allow the Council Leader and Officers to effectively engage and contribute to these meetings on an agile and flexible basis. To this end a SLWG was established, in line with section 2.6, Part C, of the Council Constitution. 2.0 RECOMMENDATIONS 2.1 It is recommended that the SLWG note the detail of the terms of reference, set out at section 3.1. 3.0 DETAIL 3.1 Members agreed the following terms of reference for the SLWG at the Council meeting held on 24th April 2025:- 3.1.1 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). Elected Member membership now confirmed as:- • Councillor Jim Lynch – Chair • Councillor Ross Moreland – Vice Chair • Councillor Reeni Kennedy-Boyle • Councillor Dougie McFadzean • Councillor Gary Mulvaney Page 3 Agenda Item 3
Page 4
• Councillor Yvonne McNeilly 3.1.2 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 3.1.3 Meetings and Reporting An agreed series of SAM SLWG meetings and reporting requirements as 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 • In line with draft national workplan/timeframe – a report to full Council on 26th June with regard to identifying a preferred model for further exploration at that point in time. 3.1.4 Terms The Terms of Reference are effective from the Council meeting held on 24th April and will be ongoing until the SAM SLWG has concluded its work, or by the Policy and Resources Committee. 3.2 As mentioned in the terms of reference above, a draft national workplan and timeline have been developed (detailed below). In terms of key milestones within this, it is envisaged that a preferred model is identified by June 2025, that will form the basis on which to have further discussions, including consultation and engagement with relevant staff groups, and partners, across the Council, HSCP, and NHSH. This activity is penciled in to take place from August 2025. It is recognised that these timelines are challenging and will require partners to work collaboratively and efficiently to meet them. Officers can also feed back to partners and the Scottish Government where it is felt that some local flexibility could be required in relation to certain milestones. Page 4
Page 5
4.0 CONCLUSION 4.1 Members of the SLWG are asked to note the terms of reference as agreed at the Council meeting held on 24th April 2025. Pippa Milne - Chief Executive Councillor Jim Lynch – Leader of the Council 1st May 2025 Page 5
Page 6
This page is intentionally left blank
Page 7
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 7 Agenda Item 4
Page 8
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 8
Page 9
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 9
Page 10
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 10
Page 11
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 11
Page 12
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 12
Page 13
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 13
Page 14
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 14
Page 15
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 15
Page 16
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 16
Page 17
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 17
Page 18
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 18
Page 19
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 19
Page 20
This page is intentionally left blank
Page 21
ARGYLL AND BUTE COUNCIL COUNCIL CHIEF EXECUTIVE 24TH APRIL 2025 SINGLE AUTHORITY MODEL - UPDATE 1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1.1 Following on from the previous seminars, briefings and reports in respect of the development of alternative governance arrangements such as a Single Authority Model (SAM) for Argyll and Bute, this report provides Members with an overview of the activity that has taken place to date, including the introduction of a series of Ministerial led meetings to progress this work. 1.2 Given the increasing frequency of meetings being held at a national level and the ongoing pace of development, there is a need to put in place arrangements to allow Council officers to effectively engage and contribute to these meetings on an agile and flexible basis. To this end it is proposed that a Short Life Working Group is established, in line with section 2.6, Part C, of the Council Constitution. 1.3 It is recommended that Members • Note the work that has been undertaken to date regarding the development of SAMs, at both a local and national level; • Agree that a SAM SLWG is established, with the terms of reference as set out at paragraph 4.3; • Agree the political membership of the SAM SLWG, who will be supported by officers as appropriate; and • Appoint a Chair and Vice Chair who will be elected members. Page 21 Agenda Item 5
Page 22
ARGYLL AND BUTE COUNCIL COUNCIL CHIEF EXECUTIVE 24TH APRIL 2025 SINGLE AUTHORITY MODEL - UPDATE 2.0 INTRODUCTION 2.1 Following on from the previous seminars, briefings and reports in respect of the development of alternative governance arrangements such as a Single Authority Model (SAM) for Argyll and Bute, this report provides Members with an overview of the activity that has taken place to date, including the introduction of a series of Ministerial led meetings to progress this work. 2.2 Given the increasing frequency of meetings being held at a national level and the ongoing pace of development, there is a need to put in place arrangements to allow Council officers to effectively engage and contribute to these meetings on an agile and flexible basis. To this end it is proposed that a Short Life Working Group is established, in line with section 2.6, Part C, of the Council Constitution. 3.0 RECOMMENDATIONS 3.1 It is recommended that Members • Note the work that has been undertaken to date regarding the development of SAMs, at both a local and national level; • Agree that a SAM SLWG is established, with the terms of reference as set out at paragraph 4.3; • Agree the political membership of the SAM SLWG, who will be supported by officers as appropriate; and • Appoint a Chair and Vice Chair who will be elected members. 4.0 DETAIL 4.1 Background /Context 4.1.1 The Local Governance Review was launched jointly by COSLA and the Scottish Government (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. Page 22
Page 23
4.1.2 The 2024-25 Programme for Government 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. 4.1.3 SAMs are a key part of a wider package of local governance reform which will transform democratic decision making at community level. SAMs will be designed in a way that supports these ambitions and will be of particular benefit to remote and rural areas such as Argyll and Bute where our communities are dispersed and creative/bespoke approaches to service delivery are required. 4.1.4 From the work undertaken so far, including engagement with HSCP and NHS Highland colleagues, it is envisaged that there are a wide range of benefits to be realised from a SAM, helping to address the key challenges faced by the area and ultimately provide better outcomes for residents. For example:- • Building on recent successes, expand the volume of co-produced services and collaborative working, resulting in innovative approaches to service delivery • Local specific solutions – development of bespoke, place based models (not one size fits all), tailored to the unique needs and circumstances of each area. Move away from implementation of national policies that don’t necessarily fit/work for an area like Argyll and Bute. • Development of clinical care pathways • Influential decision making - a SAM would provide the opportunity to expand the democracy and accountability which is inherent in local government to include all services providing within a SAM, or by agencies with accountability to the SAM • Local planning and delivery of services under a SAM would provide a vehicle of opportunity for significantly expanded democratic participation in the key decisions affecting communities. • Aligned vision, values and priorities for Argyll and Bute as a whole, across all bodies within the scope of a SAM, resulting in strong strategic planning in partnership and better outcomes for the people of Argyll and Bute. • Better and more efficient use of declining revenue and capital budgets – opportunity to pool resources from across all partners within scope of a SAM, including utilisation of assets, creating a more coordinated approach / integrated budget management across all services. • Streamline duplication across organisational structures and functions, creating consistency of approach. SAM is not about losing vital jobs within the public sector, which are essential to population retention and growth, but there are likely to be crossovers in those functions that could produce efficiencies and provide better value for money at a time of continuing financial challenge. Page 23
Page 24
4.2 Overview of activity to date 4.2.1 Officers have been working in partnership with colleagues from the SG, COSLA, Argyll and Bute HSCP, NHS Highland, 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 SAM. Detailed below is a summary of the key activity undertaken to date, by way of a reminder of the journey so far. 11 May 2023 Report to Policy and Resources (P&R) Committee, where it was agreed that:- ➢ There is further exploration of the option for a Single Authority Model for Argyll and Bute. ➢ Exploratory discussions with the Scottish Government (SG) are commenced and that the Chief Executive seek inclusion in the SIA meetings already in train Aug 2023 Discussion paper sent to SG outlining current position in Argyll and Bute Sept 2023 Letter from Director of Public Service Reform confirming that Ministers welcome our involvement in discussions on SAMs Nov 2023 Elected Member Seminar 1 on SAM (inc. 5 options being explored) / Democracy Matters 7 Dec 2023 Update report to P&R 12 Dec 2023 Chief Executive led workshop with HSCP/NHS Highland senior colleagues to explore principles, potential key benefits and improved outcomes of a SAM for Argyll and Bute Jan – May 2024 Informal discussions with Communities and Local Government Direcorate 12 June 2024 Official start up meeting with SG/COSLA to discuss local drivers for reform and current options being considered for Argyll and Bute 12 July 2024 Presentation to Policy Leads / Executive Leadership Team 29th July 2024 Minister for Public Finance visit to Lochgilphead – discussion on SAM proposals and showcase of current integration/ partnership working 30th July 2024 Briefing for Political Leadership 24th Sept 2024 Elected Member Seminar 2 10th Oct 2024 Update report to P&R 5th Dec 2024 Initial Ministerial meeting – see para 4.2.2 for more detail 15th April 2025 Members Seminar 3 scheduled 2023 - present Regular updates and discussion has taken place at a range of other forums including IJB, HSCP Leadership Meetings, and NHS Highland Board Development Session. 2024 - present Ongoing engagement with Western Isles Council 2024 - present A number of engagement meetings have been held with UHI / UHI Argyll and ACHA to advise of the SAM work and to explore potential scope / inclusion of wider partners Page 24
Page 25
4.2.2 In addition to the above activity, the Scottish Government are facilitating Joint Ministerial Meetings to drive forward this strand of reform. The first of these meetings took place in December 2024, chaired by Ivan McKee and Neil Gray, and bring together Scottish Government officials, local partners (Health Board Chairs, Council Leaders and Council Officers from Argyll and Bute and the Western Isles), and other relevant interests to explore the possibility of a SAM, in conjunction with the Scottish Government’s Local Governance Review work. 4.2.3 The most recent Ministerial meeting took place on 20th March 2025 and further sessions have been scheduled for June, September and December this year, with Officer led meetings taking place in between. 4.2.4 A draft national workplan and timeline have also been developed. In terms of key milestones within this, it is envisaged that a preferred model is identified by June 2025, with formal engagement with the relevant staff groups, and partners, across the Council, HSCP, and NHSH penciled in to take place from August 2025. It is recognised that these timelines are challenging and will require partners to work collaboratively and efficiently to meet them. 4.3 Short Life Working Group 4.3.1 Given the increasing frequency of meetings being held at a national level and the ongoing pace of development, there is a need to put in place arrangements to allow Council 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. To this end it is proposed that a SAM Short Life Working Group (SLWG) is established, which is permissible in terms of the Council’s Political Management Arrangements (Constitution, Part C, section 2.6) 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 Page 25
Page 26
Meetings and Reporting An agreed series of SAM SLWG meetings and reporting requirements as 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 • In line with draft national workplan/timeframe – a report to full Council on 26th June with regard to identifying a preferred model at that point in time. Terms The Terms of Reference are effective from the Council meeting held on 24th April and will be ongoing until the SAM SLWG has concluded its work, or by the Policy and Resources Committee. 4.4 Options/Models under consideration 4.4.1 From the outset of this process, Officers have reported on 5 potential options in respect of the development of a SAM for Argyll and Bute. An analysis of each model (including a brief description, and high-level statements of anticipated advantages and disadvantages) is set out below. 4.4.2 At this stage, it is important to note that the outline of potential models below is a very high level articulation of what a deeper partnership between the Council and NHS Highland might look like. To progress any further there is a need for additional organisational and technical analysis to fully explore the pros and cons of each option, prior to arriving at a preferred option and embarking on meaningful engagement and consultation with stakeholders. This is an area of work that will be supported by the national workplan and Ministerial meetings in situ, as well as close partnership working at a locality level between the Council, HSCP and NHS Highland colleagues. 4.4.3 It is proposed that the SAM SLWG, supported by an Officer Working Group, will act as a sounding board and enabler to this work. Option 1 – Status Quo 4.4.4 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. Advantages Disadvantages Page 26
Page 27
There would be continuity as nothing would need to be changed (no transfer of staff and no change to governance/ organisational structures). Limited options for shared services and efficiency savings. Only health and social care are covered by the current arrangements under the Public Bodies (Joint Working) (Scotland) Act 2014. Doesn’t offer any change from the present situation and the difficulties being encountered by partners. Continuing issues around burden of governance and delivery of services. Option 2 – Community Planning Plus 4.4.5 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. Advantages Disadvantages Options for pooling of budgets and sharing of resources. Organisations would remain separate and would have their own governance structures. Can build on the provisions of the Community Empowerment (Scotland) Act 2015. Integration would likely be very specific and limited – lacks key decision-making and resource allocation capacity. Given the number of organisations involved, there would be a high probability of procedural dispute. Any developments could be delayed if one or more partners were not on board. Option 3 - A New Integrated Authority 4.4.6 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 which would provide the governance and decision- making structures required to ensure that resources and services are managed effectively. 4.4.7 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 Page 27
Page 28
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. Advantages Disadvantages Fully integrated service budgets with opportunity for resource efficiencies and more shared services. The Council would no longer exist and staff would be moved to the new Integrated Authority Clear democratic accountability in relation to the strategic oversight of functions via locally elected status of the Authority members. Would require significant change to structures across all affected public bodies Opportunity for governance structures to be tailored to best fit the needs of the Authority – can build on the need for local accountability, and/or take a place-based approach. Uncertainty for staff transferring to the Integrated Authority in terms of employment status, terms and conditions, etc. Scope to simplify the delivery of functions, streamline structures, and reduce bureaucracy. A new scheme of public sector primary legislation would be required in order to implement this model. Notwithstanding that a new primary legislation will be required to put this model in place, Scottish Government colleagues (via ongoing SAM discussions) have been encouraging of local partners to be ambitious in terms of any proposed models, acknowledging that primary legislation will be required for most, if not all models. As staff would be transferring over to the new public body as their employer, there may be concerns around the loss of identity – particularly amongst NHS staff. A wide scope of public sector functions could fall within the remit of the new Integrated Authority, including: existing Council functions, health and social care, housing and higher/further education. Potential for more effective and collaborative delivery of public sector functions if those services are all being delivered under the same organisation, with greater potential for the strategic alignment of priorities. Page 28
Page 29
Option 4 - Further Empowered Local Boards 4.4.8 The starting point for this model would be through strengthening the Integration Joint Board (IJB) and the functions delegated to it by the partners (i.e. the Council and NHS Highland), 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. 4.4.9 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. 4.4.10 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. Advantages Disadvantages Possibility of building upon the existing legislative framework (Public Bodies (Joint Working) (Scotland) Act 2014 to implement the model. Given that the statutory basis has already been laid, this could shorten the timeframe for implementation of such a model. Under the current Integration arrangements, the Council and NHS Highland are the partner bodies. However, many of the patient pathways for Argyll and Bute residents is to the Greater Glasgow and Clyde Health Board. Can build upon examples of successful partnership working locally as a starting point. Given some of the political sensitivities which could come into play, in order to advance discussion of this model, certain guarantees would be required to be provided in advance – particularly around the presence and viability of NHS services in the area, so as not to erode the public’s confidence. User focused approach if the partnership organisations are more aligned in their strategic priorities. If the scope and functions of the Partnership is to be increased beyond health and social care, amendments to the 2014 Act, or Page 29
Page 30
new primary legislation will be required. This model 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. A governance model of this nature and comprising change to this degree is unlikely to achieve political support locally or nationally without active consultation with a range of stakeholders – up to and including senior Scottish Government Ministers. 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. Implementation of this model (going further than health and social care) has potential to 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. No apparent requirement for transfer of staff from their current employers. Mitigates concerns that staff may have regarding loss of identity (particularly in the NHS context). This option provides the opportunity to build on the successes achieved from the current delegation of fully integrated services in Argyll and Bute. Option 5 – A Single Authority Partnership 4.4.11 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. Page 30
Page 31
4.4.12 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). 4.4.13 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. 4.4.14 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. 4.4.15 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. 4.4.16 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. 4.4.17 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 deployment of resources delegated through the Integration Scheme. Page 31
Page 32
Advantages Disadvantages It appears possible to implement this model by way of existing legislation. This could initially take effect by reviewing the current Scheme of Integration, preparation of a new Integration Scheme, and subsequently through the use of Directions. Under the current Integration arrangements, the Council and NHS Highland are the partner bodies. However, many of the patient pathways for Argyll and Bute residents are to the Greater Glasgow and Clyde Health Board. Potential to improve collaborative working and more effective resource allocation between the partners. Given some of the political sensitivities which could come into play, in order to advance discussion of this model, certain guarantees would be required to be provided in advance – particularly around the presence and viability of NHS services in the area, so as not to erode the public’s confidence. 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. 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. 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. A governance model of this nature and comprising change to this degree is unlikely to achieve political support locally or nationally without active consultation with a range of stakeholders – up to and including senior Scottish Government Ministers. No requirement for transfer of staff from their current employers. Both the Council and NHS Highland would retain their identities. Whilst this model would involve a lesser degree of structural and legislative change in comparison to other models outlined herein, the scope of this model is limited to health and social care only. Primary legislation would be Page 32
Page 33
required if the scope of the model is to be subsequently widened. 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). It is noted that a number of successes have been achieved via the fully integrated services in an Argyll and Bute context. However, the Argyll and Bute HSCP have reached the current limits of the 2014 Act in that regard. Implementation of this model would therefore result in a change of structures, as opposed to the scope of public sector functions/services that may fall under the model. This option builds upon the Lead Agency model as set out in the 2014 Act. Notwithstanding the fact that the structural reform as envisaged within the National Care Service (Scotland) Bill, will not progress any further, there remains uncertainty as to the future of the Lead Agency model given that Highland (the only authority in Scotland who adopted that model) are also in the process of moving away from it. As this option builds upon the Lead Agency model as its starting point, clarity is needed as to the future of that integration model to further explore the feasibility of this option. 5.0 CONCLUSION 5.1 This report provides Members with an update on the continuing work to explore alternative governance arrangements for Argyll and Bute, as part of the wider public service reform agenda. 5.2 Having regard to the increased workload and pace of change on this work it is recommended that a SAM SLWG is established to act as a sounding board to Council representative engaged at a national level and to progress towards identifying a preferred model for the area. 6.0 IMPLICATIONS Page 33
Page 34
6.1 Policy; currently none but with the potential for significant implications due to emerging national policies. 6.2 Financial; none at present - exploration of a SAM will consider any financial implications arising. 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; none at present – as the proposals develop there may be a requirement for additional resource to support this work. 6.5 Fairer Scotland Duty: none 6.5.1 Equalities - protected characteristics; none arising from this report 6.5.2 Socio-economic Duty; none arising from this report 6.5.3 Islands; none arising from this report 6.6. Climate Change; none. 6.7 Risk; failure to explore options for the best model for our communities and influence the national development of reforms. 6.8 Customer Service; none arising from this report 6.9 The Rights of the Child (UNCRC); none arising from this report Pippa Milne - Chief Executive Councillor Jim Lynch – Leader of the Council 25th March 2025 For further information contact: Laura Blackwood Directorate Support Officer 01546 604325 Page 34
Page 35
ARGYLL AND BUTE COUNCIL SINGLE AUTHORITY MODEL SLWG CHIEF EXECUTIVE 16TH MAY 2025 ASSESSMENT OF OPTIONS - KEY PRINCIPLES / CRITERIA 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1 One of the key activities for the SLWG, as set out in the terms of reference, is to assess the SAM options identified to date and seek to recommend to the Council on 26th June 2025 a preferred option for Argyll and Bute, which will form the basis of further discussion and initial engagement with relevant staff groups and partners. 1.2 In order to assist with that exercise, Officers have identified a set of proposed assessment criteria, detailed in section 3.2 below, which encapsulate the anticipated benefits of a SAM, helping to address the key challenges faced by the area and ultimately provide better outcomes for the residents of Argyll and Bute. 2.0 RECOMMENDATIONS 2.1 It is recommended that the SLWG • Consider and agree the proposed assessment criteria detailed at section 3.2 as the basis on which to evaluate the options identified to date; and • Agree that Officers prepare a report for the next meeting of the SLWG, detailing the outcome of the appraisal exercise, including a proposed recommendation for Council to consider at their meeting on 26th June 2025. 3.0 DETAIL 3.1 Having regard to the work undertaken to date in exploring alternative governance models for Argyll and Bute Officers have identified a set of guiding principles/criteria, based around the anticipated outcomes and benefits of a SAM, which can be used to assess the five main options identified so far. Page 35 Agenda Item 6
Page 36
Further detail on the benefits can be found within the briefing document included in today’s agenda. 3.2 Proposed Assessment Criteria a) Does the model provide scope for a place based approach to service delivery? • Development of local specific solutions that are tailored to the unique needs/priorities of the area. • Flexibility to adapt national policies and practices to fit the local context, rather than applying a one-size-fits-all approach • Integration of services allows for coordination of efforts across various agencies to increase co-produced services and innovative approaches to service delivery. • Aligned vision, values and priorities for Argyll and Bute as a whole, across all bodies within the scope of a SAM, resulting in strong strategic planning in partnership. b) Does the model provide scope for i. the expansion of local democracy and influence of democratically elected local members ii. greater democratic participation and local engagement in public sector functions? • Influential decision making - a SAM could provide the opportunity to expand the democracy and accountability which is inherent in local government to include all services providing within a SAM, or by agencies with accountability to the SAM • Local planning and delivery of services under a SAM could provide a vehicle of opportunity for significantly expanded democratic participation in the key decisions affecting communities. • The Democratic Renewable Principles which guide the Local Governance Review process as a whole, and the associated SAMs development state that decisions should be democratically accountable and taken at the lowest possible level or at the level closest to the people they affect, and that people should be able to influence decisions that affect them and trust in the decisions the people they elect make on their behalf. c) Does the model provide scope to utilise revenue and capital budgets in a better and more efficient manner? • Depending on the model, there are opportunities to make more efficient use of declining revenue and capital budgets – opportunity to pool resources from across all partners within the scope of a SAM, including utilisation of assets, creating a more Page 36
Page 37
coordinated approach / integrated budget management across all services. d) Does the model provide the opportunity to streamline/merge back office functions and organisational structures? • A SAM could provide the opportunity to streamline duplication across organisational structures and functions, creating consistency of approach. SAM is not about losing vital jobs within the public sector, which are essential to population retention and growth, but there are likely to be crossovers in those functions that could produce efficiencies and provide better value for money at a time of continuing financial challenge. e) Does the model allow for i. The protection of NHS identity/brand and protection for professional status and governance ii. Staff to remain on current terms and conditions, or would TUPE be required? • It is envisaged that any changes to existing governance arrangements will preserve vital elements, such as the value people place on the NHS, the important relationship they have with the Council and the ways in which professional identities instil pride in different workplaces. • Important and sensitive issues such as brand identity and professional status will need to be considered carefully as part of any SAM proposals. • Any SAM model which includes moving to a single employer/corporate structure would require fundamental changes to the relevant legislation, as well as the management of national terms and conditions, where these exist. TUPE many also need to be considered, depending on the model. f) Does the model provide flexibility to expand the scope? • As a starting point the main focus of SAM exploration so far has been on those areas where developed synergies already exist (such as Health and Social Care) building on the current level of integration. • It is recognised that the scope of a SAM could be extended to include other public sector bodies. 4.0 CONCLUSION 4.1 A key activity for the SLWG is to assess the SAM options identified to date and seek to recommend to the Council on 26th June 2025 a preferred option for Page 37
Page 38
Argyll and Bute, which will form the basis of further discussion and initial engagement with relevant staff groups and partners. 4.2 To assist in the fulfilment of this exercise, Members are asked to consider and agree the proposed assessment criteria/principles outlined in section 3.2, and that a report be prepared for the next meeting of the SLWG detailing the outcome of the appraisal exercise, including a proposed recommendation for Council to consider at their meeting on 26th June 2025. Pippa Milne - Chief Executive Councillor Jim Lynch – Leader of the Council 1st May 2025 Page 38