Blog: Argyll & Bute values voices of lived experience 

In Argyll and Bute, we believe it is fair that residents who have experience of living on a low income are involved in local decision making processes. In our Taking Action on Rural Poverty project, thirteen people from all over the county have come together to form a citizens’ panel. At the February session we looked at Argyll and Bute Council’s budget consultation.  

Panel members valued the open way the consultation questions were framed. This was a contrast to recent experiences of Taking Action on Rural Poverty’s sister panel in rural Aberdeenshire, where responding to Aberdeenshire Council’s budget survey was a frustrating experience: the phrasing of questions and limited options felt like impossible choices, with little room for compromise, thinking creatively or giving real input. 

Good communication

We felt the Argyll and Bute survey did a good job of communicating the really tough and urgent decisions facing local authorities. Nonetheless the panel still found the questions very difficult to answer meaningfully.   

Argyll and Bute’s survey asked us to rank services. The panel’s main reaction was that “the whole list of services is vital” and “we all use it all”. We didn’t feel able to rank the options because “it’s like comparing apples with oranges” – how can the importance of Gaelic culture be weighed against provision of childcare? Panellists noted that lots of funding is ringfenced. You can’t pick it up from one budget and spend it on something totally different. Does it even help if we were to say we valued one topic over another?  

What about the question of paying more to protect services? It was noted that some of us support the idea, but in reality cannot afford any increase in bills or charges. In our panel we talk a lot about the “rural poverty premium”: it’s more expensive to live rurally and if you’re on a low income you already spend a higher proportion of your income on essentials. The way council tax is calculated contributes to this latter point so raising it further penalises those with least to spare. And it’s not right that new or higher charges could lock people out of services they need.  

Some people felt that ranking services was a way for the council to pass on responsibility: “they want to take things off their list and say “you told us we could””. One person acknowledged that “with my professional head on I know that’s not true, and consultation is important, but I still feel like a scapegoat”.  

Not fatigued - frustrated

It is often repeated that people have “consultation fatigue”. In our work, we generally find people are passionate about improving things for their communities. Individuals and organisations consistently say that their real “fatigue” is with not knowing what came of their participation. The council has now met to agree its budget for 2025-26, and it is positive that the council published the main results. It is also clear that the survey results were key to the decisions made.  There were 871 responses, equivalent to about 1% of the population. Reporting on a council tax rise of 9.9%, Argyll and Bute Council's Leader was quoted as saying “seventy percent of respondents said they agreed or would consider paying more for services that matter to them”.  

Did these figures really provide a strong mandate?  The summary of comments chimed with our response: people felt they needed more information to understand which services are council responsibilities, and the likely impact of stopping a service. They were concerned about making choices that affect others, about impacts on low-income households and that any charges needed to be affordable and fair. The need for consultation with communities before stopping specific services was raised, and that many services (such as public toilets) are essential even if they are not a duty.  

So what would be better? Rather than broad public surveys requiring big media campaigns, local authorities could focus on more meaningful dialogue involving people likely to be most impacted by decisions. The panel recently worked with Argyll and Bute council’s Revenues and Benefits team, to feed into engagement on proposed changes to Discretionary Housing Payment policy. The group contributed enthusiastically and council partners were lyrical about the quality of the feedback provided. It’s a complex process, so there isn’t a nice neat outcome yet. But this is what progress looks like. The panel is learning what sits behind these sorts of processes and appreciated getting a progress update at our meeting this month. This included examples of where suggestions would be taken up. So when the new policy is put in place, they will be able to point to changes or clarifications and say “we suggested that”.