The Dirty Camping debate in the Scottish Parliament
On Wednesday, almost an hour after it was scheduled and after a very long day, MSPs started to debate Murdo Fraser’s motion on Dirty Camping (see here) at 6pm. Although the chamber appeared mostly empty, a number of MSPs contributed online and the debate went on until 7.15pm, long after parliamentarians normally head home. That illustrates the amount of interest in the issues and the debate was generally excellent. If you have the time, it is well worth a view (see here).
While Mr Fraser had floated the idea of permit zones across Scotland, in opening the debate he pointed out that the Loch Lomond and Trossachs National Park Authority byelaws had displaced problems with anti-social camping to other areas like Perthshire (something the LLTNPA continues to deny), acknowledged that creating byelaws was a very lengthy process and that the money spent in creating and enforcing them could be better spent in other ways. In other words, permit zones are not the answer. By the end of the debate not a single other MSP had supported the idea.
While the contributions of a number of MSPs started by blaming people for their irresponsible behaviour – with notable examples from Liz Smith (Tory), Gordon MacDonald (SNP) and Bruce Crawford (SNP) – in almost every case they ended up proposing solutions within the spirit of the Land Reform Legislation involving provision of infrastructure and education. Liz Smith (at 18.40) described a recent visit to St Fillans to meet the Community Council where she had been astonished by what she saw – broken branches, litter and human waste – but did not seem to realise that all this was within one of the LLTNPA’s camping management zones. Proof of their failure and the failure of permit systems. She ended up, however, calling for an end to the cuts in outdoor eduction centres. Gordon MacDonald (at c18.45), whose constituency covers the Pentlands Regional Park, after calling for more double yellow lines to stop people parking and a new legal ban on fires (the only suggestion in the whole debate that would require the Land Reform legislation to be amended), also ended up calling for improvements from Edinburgh City Council in public transport and for his government to invest far more in infrastructure. He knows that the once proud Pentlands Regional Park (see here) is now close to collapse. Only Bruce Crawford, whose constituency covers part of the LLTNPA, appeared to have no solutions apart from enforcement, but even he was not calling for new laws.
I will cover the other contributions in the order they were taken (while I did not record all the timeseach contributor was given four minutes):
Finlay Carson (Tory) (at 18.17) pointed to the need for a national strategy to tackle visitor issues in rural areas before focusing on the role of Countryside Rangers. In 2003 there were 350 Rangers in Scotland but by 2017 141 of these jobs had been lost. He explained how Scottish Natural Heritage had passed responsibility for funding Counicil Rangers Services to local authorities, how the Scottish Government had then removed ring-fencing for these services and they had then collapsed. He highlighted how SNH had then also stopped funding Rangers provided by landowners, whether voluntary sector or private. While noting that one or two Ranger posts had been created through renewable energy company community funds, he called for funding of Ranger Services and the creation of an apprenticeship scheme.
Emma Harford (SNP) described how local volunteers around Loch Ken in Galloway had met with verbal aggression and threats of violence when trying to engage with some visitors and suggested that one solution to this might be a hotline for such volunteers to call the police but also that volunteers should be trained in “de-escalation” techniques. Better still would be to take a conciliatory approach to start with that avoids the need for de-escalation. But rural communities having the ability to call the police easily where people refuse to engage is clearly needed.
Clare Baker (Labour) gave the best exposition of the law and referred to briefings provided by Mountaineering Scotland (see here) and the Ramblers (see here). While many MSPs made a point of differentiating wild camping from Dirty Camping, only Ms Baker clearly stated that roadside camping is included in access rights and what is more stressed its health and economic benefits. She clearly explained the reasons for the surge in camping, including the cancellation of outdoor events like festivals, and explained how MSPs now accept that bans simply displace problems. She called for funding of new infrastructure in the countryside.
Andy Wightman (Greens) in a powerful speech (at 18.30.55) accepted there were problems but urged we should keep these in perspective and look at them from the perspective of people’s relationship with the land. We should not punish people for going out but see the increase of people visiting the countryside as a great opportunity, educate people through the Scottish Outdoor Access Code and provide new visitor infrastructure. This he described as “woefully inadequate” compared to all other European countries and gave an example from the crowded Netherlands. He also supported the calls for a reversal of cuts to rangers and outdoor education centres, the acceleration of the hutting movement and called for the countryside round Scotland’s cities to be managed primarily for outdoor recreation.
Stewart Stevenson (SNP) (a t18.35), an MSP who made a significant contribution to getting our access legislation through the Scottish Parliament in 2003, described how he had camped all over Scotland in his youth. He noted that many people now seem unaware of how to camp responsibly and wondered if the difference between his youth and now has been the weakening of organisations like the Scouts and Boys Bridge (and as he clarified later similar organisations for girls). He asked if the Government should start funding such organisations.
Jackie Baillie (Labour) (at 18.50) after stating that the camping byelaws which cover part of her constituency has “worked reasonably well” pointed out that the LLTNPA had recently had to close a camping permit area because………….it was not working! While saying it was not the whole answer, she emphasised the lack of toilets and litter bins in the National Park. She described how she had recently been to a meeting at Duck Bay, a very popular visitor stopping off place on west Loch Lomond, where Argyll and Bute Council had closed the public toilets several years ago and how there have been very sad consequences ever since.
Gail Ross (SNP) a member of whose staff has had put a petition to the Scottish Parliament last year calling for no wild camp zones (see here), gave an excellent summary of the political pressures on rural MSPs, how people in rural communities are on the one hand concerned but on the other want and need visitors for the economy. She accepted people in cities needed to get out after lockdown and should be welcome in the countryside but also stated how the influx of visitors had taken some in local communities by surprise. She explained how Highland Council had been closing toilets, when more were in fact needed, and how motorhomes were turning up to campsites and finding no places available. She reported the NC 500 steering group, which covers her constitutency, is to reconvene next week.
Mairi Gougeon, Minister for Rural Affairs and the Natural Environment, responded for the Scottish Government. She opened by welcoming the brilliant and interesting debate. She went on to say that if we are to tackle dirty camping, litter and fly tipping “we need to understand what is going on in the mentality of people”. That is something unfortunately the LLTNPA never asks, why do people do these things? Despite having recently approved the LLTNPA’s Three Year Review of the Camping Bye-Laws, Mairi Gougeon said the Scottish Government does not want to go down the enforcement route, it wants to prevent issues. (That leaves it open for the LLTNPA to change course). She then crucially recognised that capacity is insufficient to meet demand and that while there are particular issues of “party campers” after lockdown, the Scottish Government wants people to be outdoors.
What the Minister didn’t say was how much money the Scottish Government is prepared to invest. First on her list of initiatives on what government is working in are things that don’t cost much: working with the motorhomes assocation to promote responsible behaviour; Zero Waste Scotland’s campaign for people to take litter home. Neither will work without facilities. But she then went on to acknowlege that, despite the Rural Tourism Infrastructure Fund being increased to £9 million, the lack of “vital facilities” is a major issue. She stated that this would be considered at a “summit meeting” on rural tourism that is due to take place next week which had been announced in the Scottish Parliament that afternoon. The door therefore is open to a new strategy based on provision of much improved infrastructure rather than stupid attempts to ban camping, close roads, car parks and toilets and save money on litter collections.
The problem for Mairi Gougeon is money over which, as a junior minister, she has no control. She avoided answering a number of challenges from MSPs about whether the Scottish Government would commit to funding various proposals for infrastructure, including ranger services, that had been made during the debate.
How to fund investment in visitor infrastructure in the countryside?
There is an easy short-term answer to the money issues, which follows on from the points made by several MSPs that we have been promoting tourism in Scotland while failing to invest in the necessary visitor infrastructure to support this. In 2019 Visit Scotland spent the vast majority of its budget, £44,309,000, on marketing. That no longer makes any sense. Due to Covid-19 there are severe constraints on tourism from abroad and there is now absolutely no need to encourage people to visit the countryside due to the number of staycations. While a small proportion of Visitor Scotland’s marketing budget could usefully be diverted into re-invigorating awareness of the Scottish Outdoor Access Code (£5 million could achieve a huge amount), the rest could be spent on infrastructure in the countryside. The Scottish Government could quadruple the amount in the Rural Tourism Infrastructure Fund from £9m to £40m overnight for the next year.
That would then buy six months to introduce other measures. First up should be a small visitor “bednight” tax – £3 maximum – which would be applied to all accommodation and any outdoor stopping places where where facilities were provided (eg £3 for a campervan to stop off overnight in a car park). If this money went to councils and local communities, it would enable them to manage longer term facilities like aires and toilets funded by capital investment. The argument that it would deter tourists has never been justified – such taxes are in place all over Europe.
Secondly, however, the Scottish Government should review its commitment not to change how agricultural subsidies are paid in the immediate future as a result of the UK leaving Europe. While the need for some stability is accepted, with farmers complaining about traffic problems and blocked gates, it would be in their interests if some of this money was available to invest in rural tourist infrastructure. Opening up fields for car parking or temporary campsites are obvious examples.
Third, into the medium term, a small proportion of Visitor Scotland’s marketing budget should be permanently re-allocated to promote the Scottish Outdoor Access Code.
The Scottish Government therefore has available to it the powers and budgets to enable much greater investment in rural tourism infrastructure to take place. Enough to enable most issues, apart from the notable exception of the cuts to outdoor education, to be addressed. The question is really whether they have the political will to do so?
A similar question faces our National Parks. I have asked to speak to the LLTNPA Board meeting on Monday (see here) on the need for far greater investment in visitor infrastructure as a result of Covid-19, including over the winter period. It is quite predictable that high demand will continue until such time as an effective vaccine for Covid-19 is found. If the Board agree to hear me – you should be able to view the proceedings online through the link above – I will be on shortly after 9.30am.
Mr Wightman must be having an ironic moment, get in perspective the visits to the land as the same as those that enjoy visits to Edinburgh Airbnb establishments?
Tourism tax to cover the required facilities and improvements in other areas ie public transport is the answer.
Happily do it in various parts of the continent so let’s just crack on and get it done.
Our villages need protecting. If the facilities exist within a village visitors should be obliged to use them. Our community has a wonderful campsite, yet 250m away visitors choose to roadside Park and camp. This should be dealt with by having protection zones round villages. Also, we need zero.tolerance of parking at cemeteries and historic monuments. The level of disrespect we have witnessed this year is abhorrent. Please stop trying to placate visitors and listen to those of us who live in the Highlands. This problem is not going away without legislation and investment combined with enforcement.
How much does this wonderful camp site charge per night for a basic grass pitch without electric? How far in advance do you need to book?
Another tax which will be quietly subsumed into the general pot and the facilities never provided on any significant scale.
More “Rangers” which seems to be a current fad (e.g. Covid Marshalls) which will just result in the Loch Lomond situation where the law abiding are targeted for “advice” they don’t need so that the boxes can be ticked while the hard cases causing the problems tell them where to go and there is nothing the rangers can do about it. We have a solution for people who are breaking the law, it is called Police.
Again they talk about “take your litter home” which conveniently avoids the need to actually provide facilities, demonstrably doesn’t work for day trippers and is completely impractical for campers – do they really expect us to cart bags of rubbish including contaminated food containers around for a week or more in a hot summer?
Take the money like for example that which LLTPA splurges on Rangers, new vehicles and expensive overpowered boats and spend it on basic facilities, some of it can go to councils to fund expansion of their existing services like maintenance and refuse disposal to include servicing such facilities. The cost of putting an industrial bin and an IBC for toilet waste in some laybys and servicing them with existing equipment is trivial by comparison.
I completely agree about the advertising spend – I keep getting irritating Youtube adverts from the Scottish Government encouraging me to visit the countryside which is currently saturated with visitors which is straining the sunstandard infrastructure – what are they playing at?
Thank you for providing this precis of what occurred at Holyrood yesterday.
The notion that a much vaunted tax on tourism will “fund” this process is a red herring. The proposal that some £3.00 every night per bed tax on accommodation might bring in enough revenue for infrastructure spending on facilities contains at least two huge oversights. Such a system will cost more to Police (and administer fairly) than it might raise towards the real matter of providing better infrastructure. Meanwhile £3.00 a night bed tax would risk the closure of many small seasonal accommodation providers,( like us ) and drive up the nightly costs in % terms, hitting lower income families. The very ones who really do deserve low budget accommodation beyond the urban areas to promote well being will feel it most. (NB the proposal as currently ‘plucked from the air’ could impose a £84.00 tax burden for a week in B&B accommodation on every family of four. )
The proposal also fails on a second level. There is no way of adequately collecting any tax from UK residents across the Hills and glens of Scotland without a vast proportion being spent on enforcement. . The people who might “freewheel” in vans and in tents will hide.
The only solution that makes any sense at all is for Scottish Ministers and Park authorities to grasp the most fundamental point and reallocate the annual “windfall tax revenue” well managed tourism brings already. Visitors bring astronomical spending power. UK tax already takes a fifth of all spending on non-food items. The treasury grasps far more in fuel duties. Tourist spending provides income and accrues VAT for tourism related attractions and many Historic buildings. Every visitor already pays huge sums into the system – sums they are quite free to remove from Scotland’s economy and take to wherever else in the world they prefer to go. So this debate about resources should seek the most friendly and attractive method by which to bring more Joy to – and spending from – everyone who visits Scotland. This is the preferred concept. Reallocate the Visit Scotland marketing budget..use it not to promote classic freebies for officials to tour the “junkets” and seasonal travel festivals around the globe..but to provide world-leading facilities in Scotland to entice those who would come here . When they go home happy, holiday makers will spread the word far better than any glossily over-directed marketing advert ever can. Time to think beyond the cause and effect “hit them in their pocket” mindset that regards fresh tax opportunities as a solution to everything.
Hi Tom, how do you explain a bednight tax works on the continent? As for the deterrent effect on B and Bs etc, I would be sympathetic to that if it wasn’t that many take bookings through Booking.Com which takes 15% as I understand of the charge. I think we need to get rid of Air B n B/ Booking.Com have a Scottish booking system that cost less to providers but also levied a small tax. There would be wins all round. I was not suggesting the tax apply to people camping at places without any facilities. I believe, however, if some facilities were provided most people would pay. The problems comes in the LLTNPA where people are being charged to stay in permit areas without any facilities. Nick
Can you suggest a Scottish public body which could operate such a scheme without absorbing all of the revenue in gold plated overheads and actually be effective?
And are you really suggesting that anyone wanting to operate a business of this type would be legally required to use and pay this state monopoly in order to operate?
Everyone who operates a business knows about “just another small tax”. There is already far too much of this sort of thing.
Nick, Whether the any majority of tax raised by visitor taxes in other countries is always ‘ring fenced’ to provide grants for improvements to tourist facilities and infrastructure is clearly a truly debatable point. Where the money goes must vary hugely from region to region. However, I feel this misses the more hospitable point I attempted to make to this debate in Scotland (above). Already every bit of expenditure on non-food items, and most hotel accommodation purchased during a holiday is already taxed at 20 % while fuel taxes are very considerably more. The extra revenue derived from overseas visitors to Scotland through existing HMRC taxes each year is always a ‘guestimate’ windfall for the exchequer. More visitors will certainly be attracted to any country that makes the effort with improved facilities and better infrastructure . This ” investment” – if made – does in itself generate footfall…and returns the investment through revenue.
When Scots attempt to reinvent the wheel on this by copying tourist tax raising schemes operated by other nations , they must at the outset research exactly what so many various regimes actually do with it. The British are notoriously bad at learning this way. Those Scots with world travel experience to compare with a modern experience of how so many things limp along here in Scotland, can safely predict that little “tourist tax”revenue would ever filter down as far as provision of new Scottish infrastructure, lay byes and Toilet blocks, waste disposal and grey water points. Funds collected each year by any “tourist tax” may too easily vanish from sight into the miasma of “Administration”. The exact location of this vanishing point, and who may be responsible , will generate endless research papers, while a new SG publicity department will attempt to dispel rumours. The tourist tax revenue department staff safely in committees( to spread responsibilities right out so that no individual can be held fully accountable) will then pontificate for ever about disbursement. (Hopefully without parochial political influences overwhelming them. ) Inevitably some choices made will lead to expensive legal teams and costly – hopefully friendly- consultants . This is how we know too many things in Scotland are run…..just now…. look at HIE , you get the idea. A Plethora of indoor jobs, consultants shuffling papers and “executives” all leap-frogging to new responsibilities. This form of public money administration somehow far easier to run?.
Instead there could be a very straightforward policy change. The exchequer being required to allocate a some % of the sale tax VAT directly to local communities for tourism. If properly based -even UK wide – on regional visitor footfall,specially “ring-fenced” for new roadside infrastructure projects for those on the move, this now would seem to me to be the most effective route for it. (My Full Apologies for this rather Jaundiced view of recent Scottish administration ?successes? and fainter trust in “new dawn” infrastructure progress across the Highlands under the yoke of some fresh taxation bonanza for Holyrood to a̶b̶s̶o̶r̶b̶ administer.)
Hi Tom, any bednight tax should go to the local community council to provide revenue for local communities. You are right about VAT BUT that exists in Europe too – France invented VAT and also has bednight taxes paid to its communes – and is not under the control of the Scottish Parliament. There is not a hope in hell of getting a proportion of the tourist revenue that goes in VAT allocated locally at present and we need rural investment. A Tourist Tax is the one thing we can do. Nick
When my area became a national park al park I thought at least the bins will be emptied, I was wrong It seems that is the responsibility of district councils, which have no intention of providing adequate bins and whose priority is to avoid paying overtime to the refuse collectors. Overflowing bins surrounded by bags of collected refuse are a common sight, which the seagulls soon spread. This is no incentive for people to clean their litter and encourages the view If they don’t care why the hell should I. Why cant the parks take responsibility for this or arrange a financial agreement with the councils refuse dept.
How often was the village campsite full? And did it open its showers and toilets? Most campsites have been busy this year, but some have been shut and significant numbers didn’t open toilets and showers, so were closed to tents and small vans.
I am in favour of a ban on fires, I love camping and am in general against new legislation and access restrictions. A ban on fires would however make informal camping cleaner and safer without compromising access.
In Norway and Sweden, countries well used to providing facilities in the countryside for outdoor enjoyment, there are large enclosed skips in main parking areas. These provide litter disposal points not only for day visitors but also for the users of cabins and camping areas in the surrounding countryside. Scotland needs similar arrangements. We can start by re- designing the A9 dualligng programme. The current tiny lay byes under construction are hopeless. We need parking and associated facilities close to but not immediately adjacent to the carriageway. The Scottish Government should send its road engineers to any nearby country in mainland Europe to see how this is done. All this can be easily paid for in the next 5 years by reallocating all of Visit Scotland’s marketing budget. Its current spending priorities are a complete waste of public money.
Most of these issues are being caused by tent based roadside campers and yet responsible tourists that stay in accommodation or park in campsites will have to pay to sort out the problems they cause. I don’t have an issue with tourist tax, as long as the money is ring fenced for the area it is collected in. We all know that Highland Council doesn’t seem to realise there is anything North of Inverness , and I worry that the small communities around the NC500 route won’t see any benefits from a tax if it just gets swallowed up into the general coffers of the council. It needs a whole joined up response; more facilities like public toilets ( even just simple drop toilets to reduce coasts), more bins that are emptied more regularly, more aire type stops, encourage businesses to let their car parks for camping when not used in the evening, more promotion of the access code rules ,no camping areas in residential zones, tourism groups working together and involving local communities in their promotions
Any tourist tax should go straight to local community councils, not to the Council or central government – we need to empower local communities and give them a revenue stream to do things locally.
Your article, Nick, raises many interesting ideas. Comments on just a few:
1. I totally agree that much of Visit Scotland’s budget could be used to fund tourism infrastructure projects, especially in the current tourism market we find ourselves in.
2. Concerning the ridiculously high fees charged by OTA like booking.com, as an operator of a B&B, I recall when Visit Scotland operated its own online booking system which could be used by the accommodation provider’s own website as a booking engine. Charges were very low, but Visit Scotland had to withdraw the facility due to concerns over breaching of EU State Aid rules.
3. Concerning the bednight tax, I have concerns over what has been proposed to date by local authorities and SG. Yes, there are concerns over how to collect the tax from motorhomes etc. and also the costs of administering and enforcing the tax. My main concern, however, is that taxes collected will just disappear into either SG or local authority budgets, and only a fraction will ever be spent on tourism infrastructure. A better model is the one operated in Arran where currently there is a voluntary levy or donation which goes to the Arran Trust for conservation or local community projects. This provides a simple way of ensuring the money collected doesn’t just disappear and gets used within the local area.
1) This seems to be the most obvious thing which emerges from this debate. Why is Visit Scotland spending money encouraging more people to visit when there are already too many for the infrastructure and finance is needed to upgrade it? Toilets not adverts is what we need.
2) If booking agencies are too expensive anyone can start another one, but I suspect they would need to charge what the existing ones do. Adding a state subsidised competitor to that market is not the answer.
3) Even at the local level there is difficulty in ensuring that the actual need is met. In this case what is needed is the very limited supporting infrastructure for no facilities self contained camping. What we are likely to get is expensive all facilities campsites which campers will then be pressured to use, pushing the whole thing up market and pricing out those with smaller budgets. This is already happening on the marine side – all over Scotland the best traditional anchoring spots at villages have been blocked by visitor moorings and landing spots by pontoons. These facilities are charged for, this is presented as a financial benefit to the local community but in fact the main beneficiary is the (usually non local) maintenance contractor and the visitor has that much less money in their holiday budget to spend locally.
This is what local communities have to bear in mind; everyone has a budget and the more expensive you make it for them just to be there the less money they have to spend locally, then you get the complaints that they don’t contribute enough to the local economy e.g. by bringing their own food from the urban supermarket instead of eating out or using the necessarily expensive local shops.
Nick, I agree the solutions, mostly, lie with empowerment at the grass roots supported by public bodies. But there are hidden complexities. For example community councils cannot own assets or employ people. For that a SCIO or company limited by guarantee is required – often confusingly called a Trust. In small rural communities there is limited supply of people with the necessary skills willing to volunteer as directors/trustees to fund raise and project manage often over several years and then commit to long term maintenance, a sinking fund for replacement and not handing a lame duck legacy to their successors. Operating a public toilet costs between £5-10 k per annum. Refurbishing one is tens of thousands and building a new one – hundreds of thousands. Compost loos only work for small numbers and require careful use. Finding a location for facilities can also be tricky, even suitable public land may have to be purchased at market rate. Altruism does occur, but purchasing land, privately owned or in crofting tenure for community facilities can often be fraught with challenges and tensions in small communities. That is before getting planning consent, agreement on waste water discharge into an SAC river, getting power on site, removing high levels of aluminium from the bore hole water supply, installing welfare facilities for the cleaning staff etc, etc. The ‘dirty camping’ issue highlights deeper seated weakness in small rural communities like aging populations and housing for young people. Do ‘local’ people sell their property on the NC 500 for a lower than market rate to a young local family – probably not! Finding people willing to care for elderly and vulnerable residents never mind clean toilets for a minimal hourly rate? Good luck! Facilities must work in tandem with social and private entrepreneurship – the community shop and café. Back to the volunteer directors with a community mandate, the necessary skills, knowledge of the public body system, some determination and 5 -10 year plan. Just off to pick up some litter, coffee in community café and email council officer (again) about meeting with Director of Planning about construction of final village path network/traffic calming section – almost there after 10 years!
Thanks Duncan, yes, we somehow need to make community empowerment far simpler than it is at present. I think that could start by giving community councils real powers and funds, informed by examples from abroad like the mairie in France. I wonder whether one of our National Parks could not scope out with a local community how this might work, bringing in funds from say a hydro scheme and a tourist tax alongside assuming responsibility for some council spend locally? Nick
Any move to give community councils actual powers would have to be preceded by a major change in the way they are constituted to ensure genuine democracy and accountability. Too many of them are self appointed, not representative of their community and do nothing but object on spurious grounds to any and all planning applications in their area which is fortunately ignored by the parent council (unless it suits their ends) as otherwise nothing would ever be done. These are a force for stagnation, not change.
A requirement that their members be elected by a set minimum percentage of the local residents would be a first step.
Hi Niall, I think we have chicken and egg, or rather no chicken, no egg with community councils. Unless community councils have a budget and are empowered to do things, there is very little incentive for people to vote in elections. I think they need to be given additional responsibilities and democratised at the same time. Nick
Nick, there is a major problem in that the more local you get the less consideration is given to wider strategic issues. Everything has a NIMBY factor to some degree and in a CC there appears to be no counterbalance to this. At least the actual Council has a wider perspective. I read the minutes of my local CCs and their main function seems to be to “represent” me to the council with views I do not hold, where mechanisms already exist for me to communicate directly with the council on e.g. planning or local maintenance matters which I do use and which appear at least if not more effective than going via the CC .
I strongly oppose them being given more power and resources unless they are clearly and effectively democratised FIRST, but I believe there are already far too many different but overlapping bodies through whom local spending apparently must pass, all with their own agendas. The splitting and recombining of public funds which is now a feature of most local projects is a farce.
Hi Niall, I agree that there is a need to keep a wider perspective, but at the same time councils are often not very good at addressing local issues/delivering solutions appropriate to local area. I am not advocating community councils for example should assume all council powers but that they should have some more power, if democratised. I agree totally with the point about splitting and recombining of public funds – its daft. We end up with small pieces of visitor infrastructure funded from several sources. “Matched funding” is one the banes of Scotland, was intended to get organisations to work together but just results in bureaucracy……….
Nick I would agree CCs need greater empowerment. Niall mentions some of the issues which are partly from a decline in civic leadership, but also a lack of resources and responsibilities. Many rural residents opt for the default ‘distant’ hand of local government over half a dozen ‘do gooders’ meeting in the village hall once a month. Of course that is unfair to many committed people who labour long and hard for their community often with residents who seem disinterested in improving the place they live – until it affects them directly. There are resources out there if people are wiling to think laterally and accept some calculated risks. Changing CCs will require new legislation, the government would need to put it into their timetable. Is that likely? Problematic as it is , the existing system allows for CC to oversee a community plan and through a negotiated agreement for a local Trust to act as the delivery mechanism. What is needed are simpler systems as you suggest and incentives for communities to mobilise better – as many did with COVID -19 monies. They need to be treated more like a business applying for grant or loan. In return for a robust CC and local Trust with demonstrable skills at councillor or trustee level, a community action plan, openness, accountability and a reporting system on outcomes, communities are awarded/allowed to bid for public finance packages to cover some core costs and non market outcomes and pump prime projects but for longevity social enterprise will be encouraged. Yes there will be failures and huffing and puffing on wasted resources and lame ducks will need help to ensure no one is left behind. Public money will be more scarce in the coming years – most communities will have to help themselves and the tourist levy will play a part.
Yes fundamental reform will take some time but some fast track funds, as part of Covid-`19 recovery, which were available to community councils would be a really good idea.
Nick, You appear totally convinced, and are apparently all set to advocate and impose a tourist tax- which the rest of the UK does not have – on Scotland. Routine proposals are aired to challenge rates of UK airport passenger duty to boost footfall through Scottish airports ( the only place such a tax could be collected in Scotland ). We know tourism taxes are accepted in other countries, because they are seen as hardly impacting on local voters. Yet where that tax goes to be spent is too often unknowable. Where tourism ratios against land area and resident population vary widely such funding for tourist masses become essential. Think huge visitor numbers to the previously sparsely populated Malta, The Costas ,Mediterranean islands, Canaries, Azores ,Bahamas and so on. Your blog debate has certainly generated a number alternative points of view for Scottish people to also consider. Many ideas could also generate real ongoing financial stability, with possibilities for communities to be properly funded to update and re-quip home regions with a higher standard of local infrastructure , directed specifically for tourists.
We should question why it is accepted by Regional councilors that any “all singing and dancing toilet block” must cost many £hundreds of thousands. If such a structure is the only one serving a vast region, like the ridiculous “palace” built some years ago in Fort William town centre, the budget might need to be . But Hotel and Fuel stations all have viable facilities for which many would be delighted to receive funded to upgrade and maintain. These have to be cleaned anyway ? . Such places exist but without subsidy incentive local shop keepers, restaurants and pubs will decline to have them properly open to non client public. So they never will be. Highland council already sponsors such a scheme at Ardgour Hotel for example, among many others across the Highlands. What Scotland needs is imaginative debate and fit -for-purpose proposals. What Scotland does not need is another excuse to add to the burgeoning hub of non sharp-end quasi governmental administrative roles within tourism related offices in cities. If it were true that no one wants a job to clean up in any public toilet, Perhaps this idea will reassure students considering entering this sector , and help to downgrade tens of thousands of regional jobs across rural Scotland. They work hard to clean pubs hotels and food outlets and do changeovers each week sometimes after guests have trashed the place before leaving for ever ? It appears to me that the finance needed to modernise Scotland’s network of infrastructure is already there – routinely misapplied -within the accounts of Scotland’s finance ministry. For too long it has been sickening to watch Public Money disappearing into grandiose flagship schemes, or patch up repairs ( A83 again) because “we have always done it this way etc ” A boost of imagination, maybe a willingness to overstep protocols has to address these deeply ingrained problems. The vast funding allocation squandered annually by HIE and misapplied by VS is the real clue. So this debate about public money and better allocation goes full circle. Thank you for it. !
Tom, not sure how many public toilets you have built but anywhere not adjacent to mains services attracting over 50,000 visitors a year – that would include many of our most popular mountains, many sites in Skye, Glen Affric, Harry Potter sites and several more – a songless and danceless toilet build will cost well into six figures. While useful, the Highland Comfort scheme delivers about £1200 a year. Having overseen a a public toilet in a village hall with the scheme and having occasionally voluntarily wielded a mop I can assure you it doesn’t cover the costs!
Duncan, Arguably the handful of over promoted sites hurt by VS advertising campaigns are not the best example when considering where infrastructure is lacking more widely across Scotland. The Fairy pools and Glenfinnan viaduct visitor traps highlight only the catastrophic penalty for courting global publicity through employing public funds. When an incentive is provided to a local community, a small annual cash injection of central funding into the provision of robust small scale local facilities, a £1200pa per unit grant easily covers a team of volunteers keen to keep a community public toilet open and help keep any small locality a better place. The real issues remain who is the “funder”, who controls the “purse” and whether the public money grant is continued, substantial enough to have any long term benefit. While funding was made over direct to dynamic Community leadership and village and town council teams (1990’s ) for the most part this used to work well . Within some politically-promoted Land Fund sponsored community trusts this still does. (As you infer, it was only after extremely concerted pressure by locals for funds for many years that the new facility on Skye became funded after years of effort. ) More often we see a grudging trickle-down of slight and reducing Local Authority funding, to appease barely functional local community councils and a few embodied Community trusts. The local incentive to get involved is gone. CC’s are powerless. In my region having seen annual grants clawed back by the greater authority, over a decade, Local Community leadership was then twice completely undermined. Instead Vast injections of public money came plummeting in, incidentally wholly sidelined a long established full sized Community Village hall. The First splurge of Local authority largess occurred about 20 years ago now. A new build ” Community Centre” was delivered to the community, so as to offer a more modern choice of rooms for Elderly day care and playgroup meetings..at a stroke.
Then a short 8 years later after 25 years of pressure the much lauded new community Primary school was eventually commissioned. (Regional Councillors at that time approved a scheme to source vast timber components at astronomical incremental expense from Austria). Right In the middle of build, this overdue new facility was suddenly further enhanced. The “footprint” was considerably enlarged to contain a “venue”. This not only competes directly now – in a village catchment of less then 400 people – with both the recently built community hall , but also further impinges on viability of the original Village hall. Funding bids are necessary for any of these three venues to remain truly viable. This is one clear example of how miss-application of central funding by distant officials discounts local opinion. Meanwhile a further funding bid resulted in a wood “school” building built in ancient conserved woodland not far away. To this was added its own composting toilet facility nearby.. another bid success for further funding. The local enthusiasts who so altruistically invested energy to set this up, over 15 years ago, have largely moved on now. Due to Shortage of revenue this local asset is crumbling, already essentially forgotten.
I write all this to point up why the present system of occasional largess splurges from grant committee and distant regional authorities frequently misfires. Invariably the routine needs of local people are discounted. Public money is squandered and ultimately the funds serve only to destroy local voluntary incentives to do much for themselves. These Treasure chests of Tax revenue money exist ..they should not be misdirected . .
This is a specific manifestation of an issue I have mentioned before. There is little interest or enthusiasm at any level for small widespread improvements which don’t produce a prestige project which can be ceremonially opened with speeches and press releases to claim the credit. The ongoing running and maintenance is rarely considered as there is no kudos there. Where I diverge from Tom is the notion that this is entirely imposed from above; in any community you will find strong support for such gilded temples on the basis that a large sum of money was lavished on that community (and almost more important, not somewhere else), the actual benefit and utility of it is very much a secondary consideration.
Prefabricated toilets to an excellent standard, with or without mains drainage connections, are readily available for a modest cost by the standards we are talking about, indeed Luss was served by one for many years which won a “Loo of the year” award at one point. It was removed and replaced by a permanent building while still perfectly functional. Try to install one of these anywhere and I guarantee there will be local opposition, ostensibly on the grounds of appearance but actually because not enough money is being spent. As has been said, the maintenance budget should come from not paying expensive advertising agencies to encourage people to visit a place where they are apparently expected to s*it in the street.