Scottish Government

5 THE SIZE OF NATIONAL PARK AUTHORITY BOARDS

5.1 The National Parks Review recognised "that there were clear benefits in the National Park Authorities having large Boards with 25 members at the outset" but that the Park Authorities are now well established, with their strategic direction set out in the National Park Plans. The Review, therefore recommended that "National Park Authority Boards should be reduced in size while retaining a mix of directly elected members, Council nominees and direct Ministerial appointees"

5.2 The consultation document asked "Do you agree that the size of National Park Authority Boards should be reduced?" As shown in Table 5.1, 25 respondents were in favour of this recommendation and 15 against. In total, 50 out of the 58 respondents commented on this question.

Table 5.1 Level of support in favour of the Boards being reduced

5.3 There was no particular bias from any specific respondent type; agreement or disagreement came from across the spectrum of organisation types, although the same proportion of Voluntary/Charitable organisations agreed and disagreed with this recommendation and more Local Authorities disagreed than agreed.

Agreement with the recommendation that the size of National Park Authority Boards should be reduced

A need for a reduction in board size

5.4 A Community Council noted that the current board size of 25 members was too large to be practical and suggested that the Board should meet more frequently. An Individual, while agreeing that National Park Authority Boards should be reduced, noted that there should only be a slight reduction in numbers, although another Individual noted that the current board size is large, inefficient and costly to the tax payer.

5.5 An organisation in the Land Owner/Farming Interest sector said that while the 25-strong board had been needed since the set up of the National Park Authorities, that it could now be argued that the size of the Board could be reduced. A Land Owner/Farming Interest organisation also noted that a reduction in the size of the Board was desirable and consistent with the approach being taken towards other NDPBs.

A need to maintain a breadth of expertise and experience

5.6 Among those agreeing that the size of the National Park Authority Boards should be reduced, there was still a concern that whatever the size of the Board, the members must represent a diverse range of interests. There was a view expressed by some that the size of the Board was less important than the skills and expertise represented on it. For example, a Community Council noted there was still the need to represent relevant local authorities, local communities and the government. An NDPB noted that a reduction in the size of the Board would,

"lead to administrative savings and improve decision making. However, in reducing the size of the boards, care will be needed to ensure that the carefully constructed consensus on the principles which underpin their current composition is not lost."

5.7 Another NDPB noted the proviso that boards should be made up of members who have particular experience and expertise relevant to National Park Authorities, while a Community Council noted that there is a need to have a diversity of interests represented on a board, and that this may lead to a relatively large board size. An organisation in the Voluntary/Charitable sector also noted that the current 25-member boards have been unwieldy, but there is still a need for boards to maintain sufficient breadth of expertise and experience to facilitate discussion, and debate, and provide strategic direction for the Parks.

Disagreement with the recommendation that the size of National Park Authority Boards should be reduced

5.8 Some respondents who disagreed with this recommendation provided further information on their response. By and large, these 15 responses focused on the need for board members to provide expertise and experience across a wide diversity of interests. One Local Authority noted,

"In terms of delivery of Park Plans, a board of 25 appears large; however, it is very important that the number of directly elected members on Park Authority Boards should remain as is. Similarly Local Authority representation requires to be maintained to ensure local democracy in managing the delivery of the Park Plan. If there is a need to reduce the size of a board, a review of the number of Ministerial appointees could be undertaken to ensure overlap or duplication of skills / expertise does not occur. As the Park Authorities act to coordinate the delivery of the Park Plan, a reduction in the number of locally elected members, either directly or nominated from Councils, has the potential to reduce the level of support locally for the Park Authority and the delivery of the Park Plan."

5.9 Another organisation noted that National Parks are publicly accountable and not commercial businesses and that their boards need to reflect a wide range of interests.

5.10 Other suggestions included:

• Reducing costs by holding full meetings less often or by delegating decisions to sub-committees (Community Council);
• Placing a greater obligation on board members to attend board meetings (Community Council);
• More training and guidance for board members to undertake their responsibilities (Other, Voluntary/Charitable);
• Increase in the size of the Board to ensure necessary coverage of interest and expertise (Individual);
• Representation of landowners on the Board (Individual, Other);
• Change in primary legislation needed to bring about what could only be a small reduction in board member numbers would be out of proportion (Voluntary/Charitable, Other);
• Too soon to review the Board size and structure (Local Authority).

Other comments

5.11 Other comments made by respondents who neither agreed nor disagreed with the recommendation again focused largely on the need for board members to represent a wide and diverse range of interests. One organisation in the Voluntary/Charitable sector suggested it would be useful to have representation from an individual with expertise, knowledge and experience of national parks in England and Wales. A Local Authority noted the need to ensure representation for Perth and Kinross if Cairngorms National Park area is extended.

Size of National Park Authority Boards

5.12 Respondents who had agreed that the size of the National Park Authority Boards should be reduced were then asked, "If yes, what size do you think the Board should be?" As can be seen in Table 5.2, respondents suggested a wide range of board sizes and there was no consensus on the optimum board size.

Table 5.2 Suggested size of board (respondent type)

Additional comments

5.13 Even among those respondents who made suggestions as to the most appropriate board size for the National Park Authorities, there were some provisos. Again, reference was made by 9 respondents as to the need to ensure adequate representation across a wide range of interests (one Community Council, one NPA, one Other, 4 Individuals and 2 NDPBs).

5.14 One NDPB noted that while a board size of 12 or fewer "is attractive from a decision making perspective", the smallest size of board that should be considered for a National Park Authority, given the size, population and number of Local Authorities in both Park areas is 16 members.

5.15 Another NDPB commented that :

"(We) believe that boards should be made up of members who have particular experience and expertise relevant to National Parks Authorities. Greater numbers regrettably do not always equate to greater performance, often, smaller boards are more efficient, effective and less resource intensive than larger ones. Effective companies in the private sector often have boards of around 6 or maybe 8 at the most. They also usually have direct responsibility for the functions of the organisation resulting in a focused and even debate, with real authority delegated to the appropriate board member. This is at odds with the current set-up of National Park Boards. A smaller board would encourage real input to debate from all of the board members, resulting in a quicker decision-making process and a more action-oriented approach."

• A reduction in board size to around 20 Members but with a quorum representative of the 3 categories of membership (3 in each category), to maintain a balanced approach (Community Council).
• A need for the Board size to take into account all the regions involved and the Boards need to retain representatives of local authorities, local residents and the Government (2 Individuals).
• One individual also suggested that the size for the Loch Lomond and Trossachs National Park Authority specifically should be 12, with 4 of each type of member and a convener.
• Board size could vary depending on whether it is a board for an existing NPA or a new NPA and that a new NPA would benefit from a larger board to represent a diverse range of interests. However, a larger board would be less able to make decisions (Local Authority).

Other comments

• The number of paid days should be increased to a maximum of 4 (an individual who had suggested a board size of 12-14).
• Strong local engagement is vital but the national perspective is also important and there should not be a greater proportion of local interests (Voluntary/Charitable organisation).
• Diversity of tasks and breadth of representation means that boards need to be of fairly large membership and that they would support the Spencer Report concerning a need for a greater national voice and for national routes of influence to be strengthened (Voluntary/Charitable organisation).
• While not recommending a specific board size, 50% of board members should be national appointees to represent the national interest and 50% should represent the interests of local communities (this should also include expertise in conservation) (Voluntary/Charitable).
• If there has to be a reduction in board size, the number of ministerial appointees should be reduced but that the Board should be no less than 20 (Local Authority).

In summary,

• The majority agreed that the size of National Park Authority Boards should be reduced.
• There was a view expressed by some that the size of the Board was less important than the skills and expertise represented on it.
• By and large, those who disagreed that the Board size should be reduced focused on the need for board members to provide expertise and experience across a wide diversity of interests.
• Respondents suggested a wide range of board sizes and there was no consensus on the optimum board size.