Democracy Matters

Towards a ‘federal’ model in Local Government. Our Community needs for enhanced decision-making powers arise both from geographical distances within Argyll and Bute Council, and also the overly-centralized powers of its current decision-making and management culture.
One size no longer fits all. Local community needs and ambitions will be best met through greater locally-centered executive powers. This involves a re-distribution of the powers and responsibilities with the Local Authority that would enable local areas/community groupings better to develop and deal with local challenges.
Local development and challenges are infrequently ‘political’ Although, in practice, they often appear to be thus driven. The current Council practice of officers originating initiatives which are increasingly then ‘noted by members prior to voting (Administration v Opposition) appears to overwhelm the voices of elected members and community opinion, resulting in public apathy and growing mistrust of the Council’s work. Initiatives should be- at the very least- joint ‘co-design’ developments that bring communities, officers and Members together.
There is a multi layered mix, in the public sphere, of bodies with duties lying within the remit of councils, and a multiplicity of other public bodies, services, partnerships etc providing services.
This is supplemented with individuals, community groups, trusts, CICs, SCIOs various other 3rd sector and governmental initiated functionaries controlling, managing or trying to fill gaps, mainly from a top down perspective.
Within A&B Council there is no public accessible document outlining delegations and general lack of access to the group forming the administration.
Powers needed or desired by local communities to function and flourish in this sphere depend on how and where the local fits, what local is defined as and how voices are heard or not and where capacity and human capital lies to ensure social justice and equality.
• General power to act, would give credence and voice to democratically made decisions, legitimacy as a body is also key to grant and charitable funding
• Specific powers and budgetary control would simplify negotiation to act, where currently communities are filling gaps.
• This should include emergency powers for rapid response in the first 72 hours of an emergency. These should include ability to temporarily close roads, open premises to provide shelter and coordinate as is practical.
• There should be budgetary allocation for emergency equipment such as satellite phone and generators
• Transfer of power to manage tasks, such as looking after built environments, public buildings, green and blue spaces, cleaning, greening and husbanding would reduce frustrations where much of this already falls on volunteers. This would hopefully also bring a more unified understand of what is happening or being delivered or missed by statutory bodies, housing associations and the conglomeration of 3rd sector bodies and groups, where there are good responses to need but cross working and shared learning is dependent on individuals and their interactions.
• Although greater autonomy to act and find funding seems to exist where community type trusts, CIC, SCIOs and government pilots are in position, this is often short term, last minute and time limited.
• Budget needs to be available for long term planning and routine maintenance.
Despite people stepping up and stepping in, this incapacity in planning is leading to dilapidation, poor quality of space, disrepair, flooding etc. It feeds the view that “the council doesn’t care and why should we?”.
Whether this negativity would transfer to a new more local body will depend on what can be delivered, and how, at a local level, budgets can be more widely understood. Trust needs to be earned.
For Community Councils there is a heavy burden on and requirement of capacity from volunteers. Increasing powers and responsibility bringing local communities into this space needs administrative support access to expertise and requires budget.
Collaboration
Currently, we envisage a federal approach for the whole of the Helensburgh and Lomond Area of Argyll * nesting within the current geographic and historic borders as transferred to Argyll and Bute with the establishment of single tier authorities in 1996. Comprised of eight* Community Councils, served by a single secondary school, still retaining some service provision from contracts pre 1996 and by close proximity too and currently politically within the central belt and West of Scotland Region.
* https://scottishborders.moderngov.co.uk/documents/s49602/04%20-%20Argull%20Bute%20CC%20_boundary_maps_0.pdf
We would expect to give voice across the area but there is still scope for some more local autonomy. There are other functions where collaboration with others outwith these boundaries will make practical sense

In general, our approach is to support further subsidiarity.
Where current LA powers and responsibilities can be appropriately delegated, they should be.
We are proposing to devolve an appropriate set of powers to the Helensburgh and Lomond area.
A preliminary list:
• Local maintenance (maintenance and repair, cleaning, roads, pavements, drains, flooding).
• Green spaces, growing, parks and gardens
• Support for cycling, wheeling and walking.
• Waste management and recycling .
• Local biodiversity support
• Climate change amelioration.
• Leisure Centres, Libraries, local youth services.
• Local planning.
• Local public transport and connectivity
• Car parks and parking.
• Right to negotiate community benefit in respect of local energy generation and monies from utilities
• Power to take immediate short term measures in emergency situations
[such as temporarily closing parts of streets to vehicles when heavy flooding is raising iron work, standing water is dangerously high or premises and houses are being flooded from bow waves from vehicles]
• Right to locally initiate, co-design or be engaged from the beginning in any new initiative. As per NsfCE. consultations are commonly missed due to lack of officer time, or consultants are engaged to ratify pre-determined outcomes, leaving communities ill served, angry and mistrustful. Better outcomes would be achieved at less burden on officials.
Moreover, in some areas where we have not proposed devolution (education, social work, and housing, for example) there is need for greatly increased engagement of the H&L area from the inception of new plans.
This devolution will have exceptions where there are compelling reasons to consider issues more widely (major transport and planning, for example). There are detailed considerations regarding all of these matters, which may lead to sharing of responsibilities.
Nonetheless, as an overall objective, we would like to see most council staff working on devolved matters within the H&L region under the direct control of the Helensburgh and Lomond area.
To be concrete, H&L is about 30% of A&B by population, and so we would expect perhaps 2/3 of that proportion of A&B staff in the devolved areas to be directly managed by the area executive.
Moreover, we believe that a corresponding proportion of the A&B budget should be devolved to the area.
Members of the new executive will need some kind of indemnity or insurance protection.

‘Not about us, without us’ To sustain this load and ensure detailed local democratic involvement, we believe that the area should be administered by a greatly expanded and democratized version of the current Area Committee, here called the “Helensburgh and Lomond Executive”. We think that the body should meet publicly every month and should involve both elected councilors and nominated representatives of local organizations, supported appropriately by officials. There would be a right for the public to ask questions and speak to issues (at the chair’s discretion).
To adopt the model suggested by the Democracy Matters consultation, let us suppose that, in addition to the ten councilors, it also contains nominated persons (perhaps 10-15). The nominated persons might be allocated as:
• Representatives of local Community Councils, adjusted for population served.
• Persons nominated by the Community Planning Group, with a particular responsibility for diversity and inclusion.
• Representatives of significant local interests (the Navy, local business, the National Park)
[See answer to Q4 for more detail]
[In a more radical reform of local government, there might also be scope for new elected representatives for the H&L area. (As is well known, Scotland currently has amongst the lowest per capita numbers of elected representatives in Europe
There might also be scope for new elected representatives for the H&L area. As is well known, Scotland currently has amongst the lowest per capita numbers of elected representatives in Europe].

In addition, we would like to see a Helensburgh and Lomond Assembly, meeting twice or three times a year, and bringing together all the area’s diverse interests. This meeting would be open to the presence and contribution of the public. It would receive reports from the administrative authority and local executives and discuss future budgeting and resourcing, as well as general issues where evolution and change is required.

There will be need to find other ways of strengthening public involvement. We have excellent local media, and should make sure they are supported and made to feel part of the process.

Presentations/Events: Opportunities to engage with the wider community, collect further feedback on ongoing developments, listen for fresh input.
Research Engagement: Conducted with the community or group involved: ‘finding out’ sessions, assistance in developing proposals or solutions.
Reporting on Activity and Progress: can be central to Helensburgh and Lomond Community, (cf. Visions for Helensburgh, March 2022) or be deployed as a travelling show to each of the constituent Community Council areas.

Representative groups using their own selection or appointment methods. We would ask that there is also a depute or substitute available. We would expect representatives to be replaced if they are unable to attend regularly.

• Representatives of community councils adjusted for population.
[It could be useful for Community Councils to establish some form of supra group or regular meeting arrangement, even if these democracy proposals don’t come to fruition]
• Representative from Loch Lomond and Trossachs National Park.
30% of the land mass of LLTNP lies within Helensburgh and Lomond and Bute and Cowal areas of Argyll although only around 1500 people are resident in each of these areas. LLTNP is the authority for planning, local place plans, CAPs etc and has budget and is active in developing facilities and policy for tourism, climate change etc. Four CC areas are outwith the park, the other four either mainly or partially within.
• Representative for 3rd Sector organisations, this could be through the Living Well Network, area TSI, CPP or other.
• Representatives from groups using services from HSWP, TSI, charities etc , To hear bottom up voice
• Representatives of community groups and societies within the area. Individuals proposed from organisations or to represent like organisations and ballot and rotation system to ensure fair representation.
• Youth representatives. This could be by ballot among organisations involved with youths such as sports clubs, scout and guide movement etc or directly with youths themselves through local high school pupils.16 plus youths have busy lives and need to have outcomes realisable in short timescales not usually achieved in the sort of body being considered. However, they are an important voice to hear and some arrangement through school councils is desirable
• Local businesses representative.
Local owned or managed businesses are essential to communities in this area, they both need and give support.
[This was very evident during covid lockdowns and is likely to be key to community resilience and recovery from events such as storm, flood, landslide large scale loss of power, water, or other utilities. as well as those threatening health and well-being]
• Senior representative from the MOD Faslane
in liaison with other MOD facility operatives.
The MOD have a huge footprint in the area and concomitant resource , however there is limited interaction.
• Representative of civilian contractors working on MOD contracts. Similarly, HMNB Faslane is the second largest single site civilian employer in Scotland but there is only ad hoc interaction locally.
• representatives of local trusts if not included elsewhere.
Not voting members
• Ex Officio members of UK and Scottish Parliament within their constituency
• Officers from council departments such as Community Planning
• and managers of services where appropriate
• Associate members who may be required from time to time to represent specific issues, hold expertise or other as required.
• Invited consultants or others as appropriate
We recognise that this is too long a list, in that a Helensburgh and Lomond Executive cannot be much more than 20 persons in total and must include the ten local councillors. However, negotiating this is a detailed process requiring many more inputs than we have available, and would need full consultation.
There may be a requirement or desire for some of these representatives to pool resources forming sub groups or agglomerations and have voice, at the suggested bi-annual gathering, in order to achieve full representation through group proxies, thus decreasing the burden on volunteers and keeping the executive manageable.
Moreover, we believe in the continuation and enhancement of the Community Planning Partnership. It needs a right to be heard and to contribute agenda items to the executive. It can share in the load of ensuring that the community is fully represented. It may be that it should be the primary vehicle for selecting community delegates to the area Executive.

Role of elected representatives
In this new body, Elected Councillors have as part of their remit executive decision-making powers and attend full council and area meetings. They may also be involved in scrutiny and regulatory functions and policy development and implementation in conjunction with representing their ward and meeting and advocating for residents.
As such they are placed, to directly liaise across council functions and at meetings to represent and advocate for these new bodies and to garner information coming from other areas and bring this back to their local body. Hopefully they would also be instrumental in introducing groups to each other across the county and promoting a sharing of knowledge and practice.
If elected community councillors are included, they would have a similar liaison role, Bringing views of their individual CCs and taking back an understanding of the wider area group and how powers are being exercised.
Other representatives: -the suggestion from Q3 & Q4 is for a mix of representatives from grass roots community groups
Incentives
People want
• Results
• To be meaningfully heard and thoughtfully treated
• Single issues to be dealt with
• A meaningful experience
• A feeling of worth
There is also a need to make engagement possible.
• Travel expenses. In this area with limited public transport to allow a wider range of people engaging
• Suitable timing for meetings. Things have improved where people have digital access but people are still hampered by availability.
This includes people with disabilities, people with young families, with non standard working hours, manual or tme specific jobs

https://www.gov.scot/policies/local-government/councillors-roles-conduct-pay/#:~:text=executive%20decision%2Dmaking%3A%20councillors%20attend,existing%20policies%20and%20service%20delivery

Local beats Distant. The existing Council administrative culture promotes distrust and encourages apathy and alienation. Local amenities are lost, wishes are disregarded, decisions are taken to progress unwanted options. Once elected, the majority of our elected members appear to have been ‘captured’ by the system: unresponsive to their communities, at best uncommitted or powerless, at worst, complicit. We propose that elected and other members of the AEG could be subject to recall.
‘Distant’ must also Adapt: We recognize that this may be a radical model. This model places the inhabitants of the Local Authority as those whose lives are to be supported and enhanced by all the duties and powers that the Authority possesses. An inverted pyramid, rather that the traditional ‘Power Pyramid’. The part-solutions listed in the other question answers relate only to the ;Community Area’, but that precept of ‘support’ will need to be evidenced right through the Council’s support structure. This in turn. is a ‘big ask’.
From ‘critical passivity to ‘active engagement’: Transition from passive consumer to active participant is neither simple nor instant. Any changes must be widely presented and discussed within their communities and, for those elected or appointed to the local structures, there must be thorough induction training sessions.

Regular engagement of the community in discussion about future aspirations and development is vital, Helensburgh Community Council has organized several such events post-pandemic.
• “Vision for Helensburgh” exhibition, attended by 1200 residents, soliciting several kinds of feedback on issues such as planning & design (pier, waterfront, proposed housing developments), local environment (street trees, beach cleans, green spaces)
• Community Groups event, held in local secondary school, at which both HCC and A&B council gathered information to support local community planning issues and priorities.
• Local Market stalls to engage with the community.
• A ‘Big Conversation’ is planned around the environment and climate’
• There are a number of CCs developing CAPs etc.
It is vital to build and maintain trust in these exercises. There is a local perception that many consultations are “tick box” exercises designed to produce the answer wanted, rather than open-ended conversations. This can particularly be an issue when outside consultants with little local experience are commissioned by decision makers. Moreover, it is important that the community sees some outcome from these events, and do not feel that their voice is simply ignored.
Additionally, there needs to be a framework that takes credence of the findings and information gathered by community-led consultations. When such consultation is routinely ignored this trust is broken.

A clear, permanent and radical reset of Council culture necessitating and propelling actively involved community ownership.
Public visibility of information gathered.
Access to information for those lacking digital access.
Open well-publicized public meetings at which local people can contribute and feel involved.
Access to local elected representatives and officials through surgeries, promptly answered correspondence, and official meetings open and welcoming to the public.
“Getting things Done”/getting the right things done: Devolved budgets and staffing: shorten the report-to-action cycle: with locally tasked management support and ’manpower’ plus (where possible) the required equipment to carry it out.
It is easy to forfeit public trust when no results are visible, For example, the Helensburgh to Dumbarton cycle path was proposed as a millennium project. 25 years (and considerable consultancy spend) later, almost no progress has been made. There is a danger to the whole agenda of active travel if this continues.
Consultation needs to be appropriate, valued, and not abused. There is a limit to how much public goodwill can be tapped, and it is easily overloaded.

Our initial proposal (see response to Q16) is to devolve powers to the area of Helensburgh and those surrounding communities making use of its facilities. We propose that this area should be the existing Helensburgh and Lomond administrative area. Therefore, we are proposing the strengthening and democratizing of the Helensburgh and Lomond Area Committee, which would lead a devolved council workforce and executive in the area. This would involve many more staff being available and ordinarily resident in the area. This would re-invigorate the existing council assets in Helensburgh (e.g. Civic Centre, Victoria Halls) which are currently sparsely used, and would bring council staff much closer to the community. We would also welcome expansion of public spaces (actual and virtual) encouraging public interaction and cohesion.
There is also a need to expand the role of the CPP. It needs guaranteed access to the H&L executive. As evidenced by our response to Q4, there are many groups active in the community whose input we need, and a workable executive must be size-limited. We are looking to the CPP to ensure these voices are heard.

Our proposals build on existing institutions. They will need clear and relevant terms of reference, which can be regularly reviewed. There may well be a role for periodic questioning of whether these institutions are still appropriate and relevant.
Loss of purpose, energy, frustration and changes in participants, contentious issues or lack of successful delivery can all lead to withering or moribund bodies
A light touch regularly employed system of recall or re-election of representatives may be a useful tool.

First of all, appropriate Argyll and Bute budget should accompany the devolution of powers to the H&L area. We would expect that perhaps 2/3 of the portion of A&B staff working on devolved functions in the H&L region (presumably about 30% of the totals, by proportion with population size), would come under the direct day-to-day control of the H&L area, and that a corresponding portion of the budget would be devolved.
It would seem sensible to continue with centralised HR functionality, training and workforce development for Argyll and Bute, as well as mostly centralised financial stewardship. Moreover, there are no doubt functions in each of these areas which will need some sensible central coordination.
There are several other potential sources of funding. For example,
• Many communities are now receiving a share of revenues from local renewable energy sources. Helensburgh has particular problems because of the MoD’s objection to many proposals for the siting of renewables.
• Major local businesses can contribute financially, as well as in kind and labour. For Helensburgh, this is in major part an issue with the navy. Faslane is clearly one of Scotland’s largest industrial sites, and the Navy needs to engage more with the community.
• There are resources supporting community buy-out and ownership of assets (e.g. Community Land)
• There are several sources of grant money. These tend to be time-bound and ring-fenced, which can make them difficult to use.
Better and quicker communication from above of potential grant opportunities would make for better use of resources. It is currently common to receive money with requirements to spend within months, or by the year end, which can lead to poor use of the resource. Moreover, there is need for some certainty about future money. Many community organisations are unable to employ people other than temporarily because of this uncertainty.
Current reality is that there is a complex and changing environment for the allocation of money beyond inadequate base funding, and making use of this funding requires high levels of professional expertise. There is need for community decision-making bodies to be supported by such expertise.

The Standard suggested for these new decision-making bodies are very positive, and the preceding questions cover the general regulatory framework.
However, as outcomes will depend on influencing or gaining decision making power, there needs to be a framework that permits proper dialogue, understanding, respect and expectation to act on the part of those currently in authority.
There also needs to be support on learning on what is expected from communities and understanding of frameworks.
[This doesn’t need to be difficult, frameworks are generally, or should be common sense and respect put down in words.]
There needs to be deeper understanding on inclusivity, active listening etc.
Given communities are expected to consult widely and with equality, there also needs to be some understanding of biased sampling and partisanship in collection and interpretation of results.

Distributing powers widely across communities brings some new challenges. Communities may compete for similar resources and may cause harm by exacerbating inequality.
Is there a place for a more structured framework to address these dangers? This disharmony is predictable and there need to be ways of sidestepping the problems from the beginning. This may become a busy and fractious undertaking for community development officers and would benefit from clear guidelines and indeed rules.
Everybody cannot have and should not be led to expect that they can have everything.

A charter should support and ensure that the new decision-making bodies are and are regarded as partners by and at all levels.
That they can provide evidence of need, want and desire from the ground, rather than be forced to accept or rally against top-down decision making and despair at waste of monies spent or neglected to be spent in and for communities and for the specific or greater good.

A framework needs to include the duties for those currently and continuing in power to heed and respect these new bodies and understand and what changes they must make to accommodate this new democracy. All this needs to be transparent, openly available and avoid loopholes and obstructions.
Standards should be and be accepted as best practice guidelines, not vehicles to hide behind or excuses for obfuscation.
People are better at recognising what doesn’t work, what adversely affects them and where they feel left out, ignored, or neglected than knowing what works to fix things for them and wider society in a more equitable way. There is a tendency to feel ranked as winner and loser and sometimes it’s the wrong cake of the wrong size for us all.
This “new democracy” is dependent on busy participants giving up free time, family time, and work time. It is of utmost importance that there is an effective pathway delivering outcomes or steerage to indicate what is realistically achievable and within what timeline. What is not deemed realistically achievable, undoubtedly, could still be desirable or even necessary and therefore not let go by a community. Communities can and are currently finding ways to achieve things and harness different funding streams as alluded to in the document. (E.g. Helensburgh to Dumbarton Millennium cycle path currently projected 2032 due to lack of officer time).
Participation will depend on structure, issues, and personalities, how much participants can give, and the human and community capital in their area coupled with enabling assistance from local and national government and the public sector.
When stepping into this space or indeed many new spaces, it is an unwritten requirement to understand a new lexicon and mindsets, gov-speak, council-speak, health authority-speak etc, sitting within their own frameworks. Proponents can understand everybody’s plain English and language for purpose is not unacceptable in itself. It needs to be recognised by all parties as an initial barrier, cause of misunderstanding, frustration, and lack of progress, when often all parties are striving for the same outcomes.

When Community groups seek outcomes from higher authorities: Councils, Government, Statutory Bodies, the standards need to include a more robust regulatory or legal framework for this to happen. There needs to be a genuine want from authorities as well as communities to make it work and foster relationships.
Decision makers and others who work for public bodies are under a lot of strain and are often frustrated that by doing their best, the best can’t be achieved. The corollary from the public is “the authority doesn’t care”.
Good dialogue is more likely when advocates from communities understand and are working to similar standards to the bodies they are appealing to.
As Public Bodies are rules bound but people driven, having standards that set communities working in similar ways can help bridge the gap with bottom-up thinking.
If there is an expectation of respectful and purposeful deliberation, then there needs to be sufficient resource to nurse new community decision making bodies through these processes, and ways to bridge language and parlance.

This welcome initiative to widen and deepen the democratic process will need to overcome legacy hurts, (ways of working that led to frustrations about what was often regarded as fault on both sides). Shifts in power can be hard to bear where egos are involved, or there is a perception that long wrought good of prized work is being undone.

The right of Community Councils to have their opinion on planning matters “considered” is too woolly, especially when planning committee members live outwith the area, have never visited, and planning decisions suit their need by, for example, bringing in extra income to be dispersed across a LA area against strong local opinion, grounded research and consultation.
For other matters of community interest there are no rights.
Changing to a system of more local democracy and transfer of powers will cause further consternation and contention in decision making, but worthwhile to deliver better outcomes through proper partnership and co-production.
Having elected councillors as 50% of the local decision-making body should give greater clarity on what is possible within an LA but there needs to be an ability to freely discuss. Transparency is often cloaked in a miasma of protections, data, commercial etc and closely guarded politically driven policy not shared by parties in administration with other councillors. There is not currently an experience of either honest brokerage or faithful reporting to the higher levels of democracy. Actual or perceived breakage of trust, especially at early phases of this new system, need to be carefully considered managed and ameliorated.
This new structure can be a harmonious hegemonic shift or a struggle; either way we strongly support the initiative.

Much of this has been embedded in Q12 and Q13.

The aim is to provide a framework for diverse communities, virtual by interest or geographic. Thus, there needs to be:
• Support to engender understanding of the concept and help to clarify what a specific community and its boundaries are.
• Guidance as to whether there should be wider linkage with other geographically near or like-minded groups, and how to negotiate this.
• Support to understand what powers there are, how they can be utilised and what or where the boundaries are or are best, especially if there is a desire for widening scope across e.g. multiple community councils or geographically separate but interest driven groups.
Similarly, where communities are working as agglomerates or conglomerates, it is sometimes better to “go it alone” (exercising power, raising funds etc).
There needs to be an understanding of how the system works, what equitable and equality means and what potential barriers might be met.
Most of this will be new stuff to new players in democracy.
It needs human capital which will in many cases need to be built or empowered.
However much of this is meat and bone across public bodies and there are numerous established and transferable learning platforms in use.
There is a role for self-learning within groups, possibly requiring a degree of facilitation.
Post Covid there is a greater understanding and acceptance of virtual presentation to start or refine the process, but undoubtedly face to face tutored sessions where questions can be answered in real time will be extremely valuable, especially where human capital in this sphere is nascent or weak. Conversely, converting the ability to see and to grumble into the ability to act purposively, be part of decision making and produce results as an active citizen, is an empowering experience and as we understand it the aim of this democratisation.
Appositely, the role or acceptance from public bodies and those within is of tantamount importance, but not easy to establish within current structures. They will change or have to change in response.
Current top-down structures and democratic decision making is held by councillors and here in Argyll, despite an almost 50/50 splits in numbers, almost solely by the administration group. Above this democratic level (seemingly not subject to effective control) is a multi-level hierarchy of officers acting either across the whole of our vast geographic area, or in one of the four administrative areas and in partnership arrangements with the plethora of other public sector bodies.
This is a very difficult space for community level groups to negotiate or be effective in but vital if a bottom-up approach becomes the norm.
Currently across all this there are various ways of hearing or giving voice but also a feeling of over consultation to no effect.
This new system offers a more robust and streamlined potential. Rather than all these institutions gathering stuff, collating, considering, and capitalising as individual bodies often on preconceived concepts, increased cross-working at early planning stages could deliver better results directly from communities.
This will involve a lot of effort in initial stages and likely necessitate being kept under review as a live working model to be refined over time.
In many cases the process and gathering, distribution and sharing will be similar to present practice, but the stages and emphasis shift to coming from rather than sought from ground level voices.
It is important that this democratisation is seen and utilised as an improved way of hearing from citizens and nurturing that as the way to feed into service provision.
Looking at the current statutory structure of Community Councils where there is no power, Community Planning Partnerships and their Area Committees, where there is space to exchange and be informed but no real structure for proper partnership planning, particularly involving community groups, we can do better.
Councillors are elected every four years. They are people giving time to communities. They have foibles, characteristics, strengths, failings and personal circumstances like anyone else. Some are great, some not so. It is our opinion that as the elected members they should not have or feel they have the autocratic right to say to communities, no matter how exercised, that they are the elected persons and they will decide for a whole community, no matter what.
The ability to publicly put a case on a community issue, or for interaction thereby at Full Council meetings and Area meetings of Councillors, and various committees, is limited to asking a predetermined question and receiving a reply, usually in writing some weeks hence but allowed no further interaction.
Democratisation of power will sit well with some and be resented or habitually ignored by others and change in attitude may be difficult for some.
Public engagement is a long-standing mantra of various Statutory Bodies, many serving multiple constituency zones and with their own national overarching hierarchy etc.
Actual interaction and knowledge are hard to glean as a lay outsider, other than what can be gleaned from attending CPP meetings.
Encouraging active participation as the new norm should enhance and tilt the public engagement. There may be need for training in effective listening.
For this to work there needs to be much enhanced networking among council structures. Currently good people are initiating and doing good stuff but siloed from other departments within the council, due to compartmentalised structure and exacerbated by our geography leading to limited face to face casual interaction. That said remote working and teams does allow populations to be sustained in areas where travel to centre, wherever that is, is untenable in terms of time, transport, road, and ferry constraints.
The proposed democratisation requires that all voice should be heard and requires a wider reach than the constraints of community councils, although they too have merits and would be more effective if more powers were extended to them, especially in areas where they already have an interest.
The positions currently held by the community development officers, or something similar will be key. They already have contact across communities and are aware of other cross working organisations in virtual and actual space and places where communities of interest meet.

Referencing equality, hard to reach voices etc, probably places councils and other agencies at an advantage over the general public in recognising and working in this area and it will be important that these voices are or continue to be promoted and heard.
All of this require a great deal of effort a wiliness to change, meaningful public participation and structures to do this.
The system may become more streamlined and long-term saving may be generated. Some communities may be placed to find money from other sources from within their communities, from government, or other initiatives due to particular circumstances, some may not.
There may be a shift in winners and losers rather than everyone levelling up.
In the short term, there will be costs in organisational change and developing community capital.
This is clearly challenging in the current financial climate. Our belief is that this is best addressed by openness and involving communities in solving the problems.

For us there are “unknown unknowns” and a lack of deep knowledge of current procedures, powers, and duties.
However we recognise that, as this is a significant step change, and power and powers are sifted there will be a requirement for concurrent change in structures, resources and changed, additional or reconceptualised powers. In part, this might be powers allowing recognition, transparency and direct communication between the executive and the new democratic bodies, notwithstanding the democratic position of the elected councillors.
This could be by attendance of executive officers at wider citizens assemblies and the like.
Similarly with Public Bodies, which, depending on their structures and functions, are seen as remote to the public but of high importance. The Public Bodies (Joint working) (Scotland) 2014 Act sets the framework for integrating adult health and social care support. There is also the instrument for joint working between Police Scotland and Fire Services. These are between the bodies.
However public bodies and their workforce in general, are more front facing than much of the structures within councils and require public trust to function. Building on current powers and practise, reflection on what works and what needs updating may provide a starting point.
If powers, duties, and standards are the instruments to allow more equitable integration of the voice of community into decision making and partnership, then that needs to happen.
How it is delivered there needs to be an open democratic right for fair process contracted between parties.
For Public Bodies with Boards where the public already have rights to attend, they may need to be ready for more public interest and interaction if the exercise of democracy is stirred.

In respect of resources as indicated at Q 14, there will undoubtedly need to be a shift of focus in the longer term. In the short term (the preliminary and transition stages) additional resource will be needed to set up the system within councils. If support from communities is coming through council that will also need to be resourced. Trained personnel will be required and may be in short supply if initial uptake of this new system is popular.
Currently community councils are required to make their own arrangement for indemnity insurance, we submit that this and arrangements for the new bodies should been provided via a statutory authority.
Standards, regulation, and powers may also be necessary to protect communities and councils from bad actors.
It would appear from the paper that any, all or none within an area or interest group can set up as a new democratic body if they fall within the proposed Act.
It may be that different communities take different views. Some communities, where there is trust in the existing arrangements, may choose not to change. and not exercise these new rights or take these powers. They may or may not desire to be integrated into the new system, but still require public service and need to be accounted for.
There may need to be an instrument to reinvigorate or reform or move to amalgamate bodies that have become moribund. If this does happen it may be an indication that increased burden, lack of apparent real change or other factors are in play. Perhaps democracy will be better served if there is a living process of revision and reflection as the process settles down.

Improving local governance for the Helensburgh region
Who we are
This response to the Democracy Matters consultation comes from a group of Helensburgh Community Council members (in a personal capacity) and community activists. The background is our own experience of working in the Helensburgh community. Developing this response has given us the stimulus to reflect on how we could improve the current situation.
Situation
There is no doubt that Argyll and Bute Local Authority confronts a difficult set of circumstances. In addition to the overall gutting of LA budgets, A&B is a huge area with travel difficulties and many different local situations. Helensburgh is also in an anomalous position within this governance, since it is both the largest urban population in a predominantly rural region and is very distant from the seat of local government in Lochgilphead. Helensburgh was previously part of Dunbartonshire, and still looks largely to Glasgow, to which it has train service, whereas the rest of A&B is much more distant. (We are, moreover, poorly connected to the rest of A&B by bus). Helensburgh is variously influenced by:
• The navy presence at Faslane
• A large population working in and around Glasgow (and increasingly from home).
• Substantial retired (but very active) community.
• Tourism, the Clyde, and the proximity of the national park, to which Helensburgh is viewed as a gateway.
It is widely felt by the people of Helensburgh that we are poorly and distantly governed. Amongst the key issues are:
1. Widespread and apparently deliberate opacity in decision-making. Local people feel ignored, and that their local organisations are ignored and denigrated by council decision-makers. Even elected local councillors have very little insight into what is happening unless they are members of the ruling group. Consultations are perceived to be tick box exercises designed to justify what the council wants.
It is also widely perceived that the council's officers are not properly accountable, supervised, or led, leading to wasted spending on ill-thought-out schemes which inevitably fail ("Empowering Educators").
2. Critical planning decisions for major local projects are taken against the wishes of local people by this distant group and officials. (See HCC’s petition to the Scottish government https://petitions.parliament.scot/petitions/PE2075)
3. Extremely poor performance in local community bread and butter issues (maintenance and repair, cleaning, drains, flooding). [to some degree a lack of resource: but there is no local view of a schedule, or discussion with local people about priorities]
4. Increasing devolvement of important local services to unaccountable and invisible organisations (LiveArgyll), which were not designed for this purpose.
5. Increasing centralisation of governance in Lochgilphead, making local interaction more difficult, and meaning that council assets in Helensburgh (Civic Centre, Victoria Halls) are of unclear purpose and sparsely used. Council executives are rarely seen.
Subsidiarity
In responding to the Democracy Matters consultation, we have tried to consider how this situation can be ameliorated. In general, our approach is to support further subsidiarity.
Where current LA powers and responsibilities can be appropriately delegated, they should be.

This requires, in particular, the identification of a physical boundary to the area to which powers are to be devolved. There are various possibilities for the Helensburgh region. Helensburgh, as narrowly defined by the Community Council area, is ~15500 people. Choosing this boundary, however, would exclude many of the people who rely upon Helensburgh for services. The Helensburgh and Lomond administrative area (2021 estimates) is 25,840 (30% of A&B's 86220).
The H&L area comprises the three electoral wards Helensburgh South, Helensburgh Central, and Lomond North, and elects 10 councillors in total. Some people in this area (in particular, North of Arrochar and Tarbet) are rather distant from Helensburgh, but:
• All the Helensburgh and Lomond area is within the catchment area of Hermitage Academy for secondary education.
• Travel times from the most distant parts (e.g. Ardlui and Kilcreggan) to Helensburgh are much shorter than to Lochgilphead, and partly served by rail and bus.
• Helensburgh and Lomond is separated from the rest of Argyll and Bute by the all-too-often blocked “Rest and be thankful” pass. It adjoins and is partly within the Loch Lomond national park.
• Helensburgh and Lomond is already identified as one of four “Administrative Areas” within A&B.

Therefore, we conclude that the best and least disruptive option for a physical boundary for the devolution of powers is the current Helensburgh and Lomond administrative area. We go on to consider how significant further powers can be devolved to it. We do not wish to prescribe any particular form of governance for the other administrative areas within A&B, which have significantly different issues to H&L (island populations, much more rural averages). Nonetheless, we believe that they would also benefit from some measure of subsidiarity.

This choice requires us to consider the role of the current A&B organisations associated with the administrative area:
Helensburgh and Lomond Area Committee. This consists currently of the ten elected councillors of the three H&L wards. It meets four times a year. It allows extremely limited interaction with the public, who are allowed to ask questions at the beginning of the meeting, but not subsequently to speak. Follow through on these questions is often poor. Reports from officers are often “nodded through” with little discussion. The committee does take some local decisions but has no power or organisational capacity to direct the day-to-day work of the council's employees in the H&L region, and no devolved budget.
Helensburgh and Lomond Community Planning Group. Nominated people from a variety of community and third sector organisations, community councils and “statutory partners” (fire, police, transport etc) throughout H&L region. Also meets 4 times a year. Advises a central management committee of issues regarding community planning. Excellent opportunity for information exchange but has no powers or budget and very limited access to A&B officials. Poorly attended by councillors. Has been a vehicle for “tokenistic” consultation.
Devolution of powers
Our objective is to identify powers that can be devolved (or in some cases shared). These include:
• Local maintenance (maintenance and repair, cleaning, roads, pavements, drains, flooding).
• Green spaces, growing, parks and gardens.
• Support for cycling, wheeling and walking.
• Waste management and recycling.
• Local biodiversity support
• Climate change amelioration.
• Leisure Centres, Libraries, local youth services.
• Local planning.
• Local public transport and connectivity
• Car parks and parking.
• Right to negotiate community benefit in respect of local energy generation and monies from utilities
• Power to take immediate short-term measures in emergency situations.
Such devolution will have exceptions where there are compelling reasons to consider issues more widely (major transport and planning, for example). There are detailed considerations regarding all of these matters.
Nonetheless, as an overall objective, we would like to see most council staff working on the matters above within the H&L region directly controlled by the Helensburgh and Lomond area.
Moreover, we believe that a corresponding proportion of the A&B budget should be devolved to the area.
It would seem sensible to continue with centralised HR functionality, training and workforce development for Argyll and Bute, as well as mostly centralised financial stewardship. Moreover, there are no doubt functions in each of these areas which will need some sensible central coordination. However, we would expect that perhaps 2/3 of A&B staff working on devolved functions in the H&L region (presumably about 30% of the totals for these functions, by proportion with population size), would come under the direct day-to-day control of the H&L area.
This ensures a much greater local involvement in the day-to-day work of the council, and much greater attention to local priorities. It goes along with a major culture change, supported by training and leadership, toward active engagement with the community. Where communities are controlling their own assets, there is a pressing need for support with specialisms, and assistance with long term sustainability issues (succession etc.)
The area would thus need significant executive resources under its direct control. These executives should be ordinarily available and working in the Helensburgh area. It will also, of course, need to take its share of specialised Argyll and Bute resources and expertise.
Organisation
To sustain this load and ensure detailed local democratic involvement, we believe that the area should be administered by a greatly expanded and democratized version of the current Area Committee, here called the “Helensburgh and Lomond Executive”.
We think that the body should meet publicly every month and should involve both elected councillors and nominated representatives of local organisations. To adopt the model suggested by the Democracy Matters consultation, let us suppose that, in addition to the ten councillors, it contains also nominated persons (perhaps 10-15). The nominated persons might be allocated as:
• Representatives of local Community Councils, adjusted for population served.
• Persons representing local grass roots organisations, with a particular emphasis on diversity and inclusion.
• Representatives of significant local interests (the Navy, local business)
[In a more radical reform of local government, there might also be scope for new elected representatives for the H&L area. As is well known, Scotland currently has amongst the lowest per capita numbers of elected representatives in Europe].
In addition, we would like to see a Helensburgh and Lomond Assembly, meeting once or twice a year, and bringing together all the area’s diverse interests. This meeting would be open to the presence and contribution of the public. It would receive reports from the administrative authority and local executives and discuss future budgeting and resourcing, as well as general issues where evolution and change is required.
We envisage the continuation and strengthening of the CPP. It needs guaranteed access to the Executive and may play a role in nominating community representatives to it.
There will be need to find other ways of strengthening public involvement, e.g. “surgeries” throughout the region. We have excellent local media and should make sure they are supported and made to feel part of the process.