The Scottish Government

« Previous | Contents | Next »

Listen

Annex 4. Constitution

Q3: What should the role of external members be? (a) To what extent do you think that external members should be: (i) representative of other stakeholder organisations; (ii) experts in particular spheres related to transport; (iii) representative of interests outside the transport world? (b) Do you agree that external members on the board of the partnership once approved should be there on the basis of the personal contribution, skills and experience they bring rather than representing a particular organisation or interest group?

Q4: Do you agree that decisions on who are appointed as external members are taken by RTPs themselves in conformity with guidance issued by Scottish Ministers?

Q5: How should the RTP involve people and stakeholders within its region? For example: (a) Is there merit in co-opting key stakeholders to work at management team level? (b) Would a stakeholder forum be a practical way of including broader interests? (c) Are there any other means of ensuring wider engagement? (d) How can RTPs make best use of Community Planning to deliver better transport solutions? What should the Executive do to support them in this?

Q6: Are there some particular organisations that you believe ought to be represented on some or all of the new partnerships? Are there any organisations that should not be represented?

Q7: Do you agree those on occasions when a vote is needed to reach a decision, that this ordinarily be decided by a simple majority?

Q8: On what issues ( e.g. on issues involving the sharing or transferring of local authority transport functions) should decisions require a larger majority?

Q3. What should the role of external members be? (a) to what extent do you think that external members should be: (i) representative of other stakeholder organisations; (ii) experts in particular spheres related to transport; (iii) representative of interests outside the transport world? (b) Do you agree that external members on the board of the partnership once approved should be there on the basis of the personal contribution, skills and experience they bring rather than representing a particular organisation or interest group?

Question 3 received the third-highest number of responses which was about the role of external members. 70% of respondents commented the role of external members. It should be noted that the precise quantification of responses is not possible as respondents may have commented more than once or made a general statement covering all the categories. The recurrent themes for this question were:

Overall, there were a number of common suggestions and disparate specific comments. As the tables demonstrate (see figures 4.1a, 4.1b and 4.1c ⁵) experts from all sectors were often proposed as external members.

Figure 4.1a

(i) Representatives of other stakeholder organisations: most commonly, these featured key stakeholder organisations and occasionally transport providers and advisers on matters not covered by the local authorities.

Figure 4.1b

(ii) Experts in particular spheres related to transport: Organisation representatives featured well as experts in particular spheres related to transport, but the list varied.

Figure 4.1c

(iii) From outside the transport world: Social inclusion groups were seen as important for encouraging equal opportunities in transport and the RTP. Other respondents' comments varied and ranged from enterprise interests through to the general public.

Figure 4.1d

Cross-category Responses: These gave general advice as to the breadth and role of external members and these views can be seen in the table, (see figure 4.1d). Respondents frequently made suggestions in this way. A common response was to call for a balanced representation of external members (13). 25 respondents highlighted their concern about external members either being on the RTP or having voting rights. The specific comments often referred to the voting role of external members, especially in relation to financial matters (9). Other comments focused upon the importance of making decisions quickly and efficiently and recommended that the best way to achieve progress was through minimal representation of external members. It was suggested that external members' input could be provided through forums or co-opted for specific projects.

(b) Do you agree that external members on the board of the partnership once approved should be there on the basis of the personal contribution, skills and experience they bring rather than representing a particular organisation or interest group?

A large majority of those who responded agreed with this statement, (see pie chart figure 4.2). A widespread number of respondents agreed because they were concerned that organisational representation could lead to a conflict of interest, especially if commercial groups were external members. 26% (18) disagreed with the statement which generally reflected opinions such as:

• The external member could contribute independently but use transport knowledge and policies as experts of a particular organisation.
• Organisations may bring benefits but ensure there is clarity on their role.
• Any national organisation should take a regional rather than a national focus.

Similar observations were made about the type of external members. For example, respondents that disagreed frequently qualified their response with: 'Role, responsibilities and legal liabilities need to be detailed.' This was a comment made by the majority of respondents regardless of their 'agree' or 'disagree' responses.

Figure 4.2

Q4. Do you agree that decisions on who are appointed as external members are taken by RTPs themselves in conformity with guidance issued by Scottish Ministers?

Question 4 was the fourth-most answered question, (61%). 97% (72) of those that responded agreed that external members should be appointed by the RTPs in conformity with guidance issued by Scottish Ministers, (see pie chart, figure 4.3). Even though an organisation may have stated in a previous response that they did not wish to have external members on the RTP they frequently answered this question. Local authorities were largely in agreement that external members should be appointed by the RTPs in conformity with guidance issued by Scottish Ministers. A proportion of those that did not respond 'agree/ disagree' frequently suggested this was a matter for the RTPs to decide and therefore did not state a preference.

Figure 4.3

A number of respondents qualified their responses which comments such as:

• External members should be appointed after agreement in a wider stakeholder forum.
• Appointments of external members should not coincide with councillor appointments.
• Transparency and justification of appointments is necessary.

Q5. How should the RTP involve people and stakeholders within its region? For example: (a) is there merit in co-opting key stakeholders to work at management team level? (b) would a stakeholder forum be a practical way of including broader interests? (c) are there any other means of ensuring wider engagement? (d) how can RTPs make best use of community planning to deliver better transport solutions? What should the executive do to support them in this?

Question 5 was the second-most answered question in the consultation (76%). The majority of the responses were detailed and comparatively difficult to categorise into common responses, as the questions were fairly open-ended. The pie charts (see figures 4.4 & 4.5) reflect the two closed questions which had 'yes/ no' responses. However, the analysis is discussed qualitatively due to the nature of the responses.

Figure 4.4

(a) Is there merit in co-opting key stakeholders to work at management team level?

The question has been analysed by 'yes/ no' responses referring to the pie chart, (see figure 4.4):

'Yes' response
A high percentage of those who responded agreed that there is merit in co-opting key stakeholders to work at management team level, (85%, 50). There was generally a view that key stakeholders should be co-opted for their expertise to work on specific projects. Respondents frequently suggested that this should be for the RTPs to decide, including a number of those who did not give a 'yes/ no' response. The majority of local authorities and voluntary RTPs agreed with question 5a.

'No' response
15% (9) of those who responded thought there was no merit in co-opting key stakeholders to work at management team level. There were two main reasons given:

• Stakeholders at management level may slow the pace of delivery.
• Expertise should be co-opted and used for specific projects.

Some respondents qualified their response with 'co-opting expertise for specific projects' regardless of whether they answered 'yes' or 'no.' There was no common pattern by organisation type of the respondents that disagreed.

(b) Would a stakeholder forum be a practical way of including broader interests?

Similar comments were made for question 5a and 5b. However, there was a greater response about stakeholder forums than there was for co-opting key stakeholders at management team level. The question has been analysed from the 'yes/ no' responses referring to the pie chart, (see figure 4.5):

'Yes' response
A large majority of respondents agreed that a stakeholder forum would be a practical way of including broader interests (94%, 66). Enthusiasm was expressed by the 'yes' respondents and they suggested a forum could:

• Bring in wider interests, for example, inclusion groups.
• Play a key role in gauging opinion and discussing topics.
• Gather broader views whilst restricting the size of the RTP.
• Engage in local interests and keep the public enthused.

'No' response
A small number of those who responded thought a stakeholder forum would not be a practical way of including broader interests (6%, 4). The reasons given were:

• Forums are not an effective body.
• It would be impractical for peripheral travel.
• Existing forums could be used.

Figure 4.5

(c) Are there any other means of ensuring wider engagement?

Respondents gave a comprehensive response which suggested a broad range of ways to achieve wider engagement. Recurring responses included:

• Public consultation through forums.
• Consultations with inclusion groups.
• Ensure that early consultation is carried out, especially when formulating the regional transport strategy ( RTS).

A non-exhaustive list of the less common responses to ensure wider engagement included:

• Organise events, workshops and citizen panels.
• Use websites.
• Provide opportunities for feedback to be given.
• Publish annual reports.

Occasionally, respondents commented that wider engagement is ideal but not always practical and warned that consultation fatigue may set in at regional and national level.

(d) How can RTPs make best use of community planning to deliver better transport solutions? What should the executive do to support them in this?

Respondents provided a diverse range of ways to use community planning effectively to deliver better transport solutions. There were detailed responses to this question and the most common views were:

• Build on existing community planning initiatives.
• Use community planning forums to gather views at a local level.
• Develop and integrate community planning at a regional level.
• Consult with community planning partners which should be crucial to the development of the RTPs.

More specific recommendations were less common. These included:

• Using community planning forums to find out about local transport needs.
• Ensure that RTPs are represented on community planning forums.
• Ensure that stakeholder forums can provide a link to community planning.
• Using a flexible approach for responding to emerging demands of community planning, especially at local levels.
• Ensure there is a consistency of standard maintained within the voluntary sector.

A small number of respondents highlighted a need to clarify the role of community planning in the RTPs and commented they were disappointed that its role had not been outlined in the proposals.

Scottish Executive support: Only a small number of respondents commented on how the Scottish Executive could provide support for making better use of community planning. The respondents that did comment suggested the Scottish Executive should:

• Issue guidance on how community planning could operate and integrate at a regional level.
• Ensure consultation takes place with community planning and then review its progress.
• Set up a community planning forum that the Scottish Executive would lead.

Q6. Are there some particular organisations that you believe ought to be represented on some or all of the new partnerships? Are there any organisations that should not be represented?

Question 6 was answered by 59% of respondents. Respondents commented in varying detail on who should be included, (see table, figure 4.6). For example, some respondents gave a long list of suggestions whereas others selected particular groups they wished to highlight. Therefore, quantification of the responses is only indicated if specific groups were frequently mentioned. Low figures do not necessarily indicate a lack of importance.

Figure 4.6

Should be included

The most common responses placed an emphasis on enterprise bodies, transport operators, business development groups and health boards being included.

Figure 4.7

Should not be included

There was a fewer suggestions about the types organisations that should not be included, but greater agreement from those who did respond. The organisations respondents did not want represented included single issue pressure groups and commercial interests.

A selection of general comments which were made by individual respondents to this question were:

• It is important to be consistent across Scotland.
• It is important that members take on a broad strategic view due to the large size of some RTPs.
• Joint boards are best suited to determine which organisations should be involved as joint boards are connected to local circumstances.

Q7. Do you agree that on occasions when a vote is needed to reach a decision, that this ordinarily be decided by a simple majority?

Question 7 was answered by 50% of respondents. Although there was a decrease in the total number of responses, there were a high number of detailed recommendations from local authorities, SPT and RTPs regarding voting decisions for RTPs.

Figure 4.8

The analysis has been broken down into 'yes/no' responses, (also see figure 4.8):

'Yes' response
A majority of those who responded agreed that on an occasion when a vote is needed to reach a decision this should ordinarily be decided by a simple majority, (77%, 51). However, a consistent number of respondents qualified their response, by stating that a simple majority could be used but only if external members were not included. Sometimes respondents also qualified their comments with a preference for building a consensus where possible.

'No' response
23% of those who responded disagreed that when a vote is needed to reach a decision that this should be decided by a simple majority. Alternative majorities were suggested by the 15 respondents that disagreed. The alternatives included:

• Building a consensus.
• Having a two-thirds majority.
• Establishing joint boards.
• Allowing the RTPs to decide.
• The chair to retain the casting vote.
• Local authorities to have an overriding approval.
• A large majority to decide.

Q8. On what issues ( e.g. on issues involving the sharing or transferring of local authority transport functions) should decisions require a larger majority?

Figure 4.9

Question 8 was answered by 39% of respondents. Although there was a fairly low response rate, local authorities, transport providers, voluntary RTPs and representative organisations all responded in high numbers. Therefore, this question may have been important to particular groups, (see chart, figure 4.9). There were recurring responses to question 8.

Figure 4.10

To analyse the responses in this question a table has been used to break down which issues were suggested for a larger majority. The table breaks down the responses into the alternative majorities that the respondents suggested for each issue.

Function transfer was considered the most important issue as forty-two respondents suggested it required a larger majority. Funding and constitution were frequently mentioned by respondents. Generally, the alternative majority was not specified and they simply stated 'large majority.' 'Two-thirds majority' was consistently mentioned especially when voting for constitutional change.

Constitution - Supplementary Issues

Although it was not directly asked, an exceptionally high number of respondents commented on the voting role of external members and weighted voting. The two tables encapsulate the issues raised. Numbers do not necessarily equal the total number of respondents that commented on external members and weighting as some respondents may have commented more than once in each table, (see figures 4.11 & 4.12).

The Voting Role of External Members

Figure 4.11

Membership Weighting

Figure 4.12

« Previous | Contents | Next »