2. Edinburgh, Lothians, Borders and Fife Forum (Elbff) - Proposal to Participate in a Shadow Joint Committee for Roads Collaboration
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
2. EDINBURGH, LOTHIANS, BORDERS AND FIFE FORUM (ELBFF) - PROPOSAL TO PARTICIPATE IN A SHADOW JOINT COMMITTEE FOR ROADS COLLABORATION The panel considered a report (copies of which had been circulated) by the Head of Operational Services providing information on participation in a Shadow Joint Committee between the Edinburgh, Lothians, Borders and Fife Forum roads authorities for collaborative road services and the intention to extend discussions to include neighbouring authorities. The report advised that in 2009, the Chief Executives of Edinburgh, Lothian and Scottish Borders Councils requested that Chief Officers set up a group to consider the benefits in sharing a road maintenance service. A report by consultants Harcrow, in December 2009 found that current arrangements were demonstrating Best Value; however the group of councils should consider further sharing of resources. Since then the group was extended to include Fife Council. In June 2012, the National Roads Maintenance Review (NRMR) developed 30 wide ranging options for further investigation and advancement. The NRMR aimed to identify how those responsible for, and working in, Scotland’s roads maintenance sector could deliver efficiently managed roads for all within the budgets available and identify opportunities for innovation, collaborative working and sharing services. The review also considered how the Scottish Government could work better with local authorities. The NRMR so-called “Option 30 Report” explored the optimum delivery of roads maintenance services, concluding that sharing of services should be explored by all roads authorities, with the onus on authorities to demonstrate that change could be delivered effectively and driven forward at local level. The report went on to advise that councils had worked with informal collaboration for many years but there was an increasing pressure and drive from the Scottish Government for roads authorities to develop these arrangements to demonstrate that they were managing their roads as efficiently and effectively as possible. In 2014 SCOTS and Transport Scotland agreed to work with the Improvement Service on a Roads Collaboration Programme. Since then development work had been undertaken within ELBFF under the umbrella title of Governance First. The report advised that the broader long-term objective of any collaborative activity was to improve the performance and condition of the road network for customers, by increasing capacity, resilience and efficiency through formal collaboration. Although this could lead to direct financial savings through reduced overhead costs and greater buying power, the primary benefits were associated with greater effectiveness, resilience and sustainability. Managing collaborative activity/shared service under a formal governance arrangement increased the likelihood of achieving these benefits by ensuring local authorities were working to an agreed common vision for the future. The Head of Operational Services explained that ELBFF officers carried out an options appraisal of the available models with support from the Roads Collaboration Programme and advice from Burness Paull LLP. The options assessed included Joint Committee, Joint Board, Company Limited by Guarantee, Company Limited by Shares and Limited Liability Partnership. The options appraisal concluded that a Joint Committee was the preferred governance model to allow effective collaboration, with a formal body established under the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973 to enable the partner authorities to carry out their functions jointly. A summary of the options appraisal was outlined in Appendix 1. In the absence of a definitive range of services to be included in the collaboration, a remit for the committee could not be outlined at this time; therefore it was recommended that in the first instance a shadow Joint Committee be established. It was also explained that whilst Roads Collaboration discussions had focused on the already established ELBFF area, opportunities existed for West Lothian to work more closely with other neighbouring authorities such as Falkirk Council. Any work undertaken by a Shadow Joint Committee with ELBFF was likely to inform any other groupings that may ultimately be established and would therefore be of value whether or not the council collaborated solely with ELBFF or another collaborative group in the future. In conclusion the report advised that the ELBFF for roads services had operated for many years as an officers group delivering low key collaborative projects. The benefits of collaborative working were well recognised by the group. The move from an officers’ only group to a Shadow Joint Committee would strengthen the operation of the existing arrangement and would evidence that ELBFF councils were supporting collaboration within Scotland. The use of a Shadow Joint Committee would allow councils to participate in the projects and initiatives that best suited their needs and at a pace acceptable to them. It was advised that the grouping ELBF may not ultimately be the best fit for the council insofar as opportunities existed for similar partnership working with other neighbouring authorities and therefore discussions would continue with those authorities as the council moved forward with roads collaboration. The report recommended that the Panel recommends that the Council Executive:- 1. Approve participation in a Shadow Joint Committee between the Edinburgh, Lothians, Borders and Fife roads authorities and nominate Councillor Conn, as the council’s representative; 2. Instruct officers to widen discussions on Roads Collaboration to other neighbouring authorities; and 3. Agree that officer’s report back on any significant progress or business of the Shadow Joint Committee and in any event before any further decisions were take on formalising a Joint Committee. Decision To note the contents of the report and agreed that the report be forwarded to the next appropriate meeting of the Council Executive with the recommendation that it be approved. .