Policy and Implementation Group
and Efficient Government Steering Group
Minutes of the twenty-fifth PIG meeting and first joint PIG/EGSG meeting
held at 2.15pm on 31st January 2006 in the St. Magnus Centre, Kirkwall
Present: Councillor Stephen Hagan Convener, Orkney Islands Council
Mrs Jenny Dewar Chair, NHS Orkney
Mr Edgar Balfour Vice-Chairman, Orkney Enterprise Ltd
Mr Alistair Buchan Chief Executive, Orkney Islands Council
Mr Steve Conway Chief Executive, NHS Orkney
Mr Ken Grant Chief Executive, Orkney Enterprise
Councillor Keith Johnson Chairman, Communities Advisory Group
Mr Jeremy Baster Chairman, Environment Partnership
Councillor James Stockan Chairman, Local Economic Forum
Chief Inspector Mike Cowdry Kirkwall Area Commander, Northern Constabulary
Ms Anna Whelan Head of Policy, OIC (Secretary)
Present for item 1 (Efficient Government):
Mr Iain Crozier Director of Finance, NHS Orkney
Mr Albert Tait Director of Finance, Orkney Islands Council
Ms Carla Tannous Finance Section, NHS Orkney
Ms Eileen Linklater Policy Officer, OIC (Secretary, EGSG)
Apologies: Mr Bryan Kynoch Chairman, Orkney Enterprise
1. Efficient Government
1.1 Minutes of the Efficient Government Steering Group/Coordinating Committee meeting held
17th January 2006
The minutes were agreed, and no matters arose that were not already on the agenda.
1.2 Draft report to OIC Policy and Resources Committee and draft Stage 2 bid
1.2.1 The Head of Policy, OIC, tabled and introduced the draft report which was to be submitted to
the Council’s Policy and Resources Committee updating the Committee on where the project
was at the current time. This was originally intended to be the draft stage 2 bid, but this was
not possible as several reviews had been delivered late. Instead attached at appendix to the
report was a template of how the final bid would look using the first project completed on
non-emergency patient transport as an example. This included a draft economic appraisal
compiled by Brian Burns, the consultant commissioned to help at this stage of the process.
The covering report asked the committee to decide whether it should delegate authority to the
Chief Executive to finish the bid, or arrange a special meeting in March to review the final
draft. Comments made on the proposals in the draft report were noted as follows:-
AKJ pointed out the lack of infrastructure locally to enable remote and mobile working. AB
agreed that acknowledgement of these needs should be made as it could strengthen the case
for improved services if commitment to using the technology was made.
3.3 Property management and maintenance
As this was the last review to be completed members of the group had not had the opportunity
to study the findings. AB pointed out that there was certainly scope for rationalisation, and
IC noted that much duplication of maintenance trips to the isles could be eradicated.
Following discussions with Brian Burns it was suggested that the work done on catering
procurement submitted as supporting evidence for the wider procurement bid. The meeting
agreed this was sensible and that a separate wider review of catering provision should take
place as a second strand to this project.
3.5 HR and Staff Training
SC noted that NHSO was happy with the review as far as it went.
3.6 Vehicle management and maintenance
It was noted that further work was being conducted in this area by NHSO and OIC, following
which a decision would be taken on whether the project would be eligible for inclusion in the
3.7 Patient/Service User Transport
This section was the most fully worked up and had been subjected to full economic appraisal.
AB noted that he was happy with the model, which was included as an appendix to the report.
Issues arose in relation to the effects of framework contracts on local business, but AB
pointed out that the imminent findings of the McClelland report would perhaps force a worse
situation locally so it was felt that it would be wise to stay ahead of the game. The Chair
noted the ever-present need to fight to protect small communities.
3.9 It was agreed that Efficient Government should be a standing item on the PIG agenda from
now on as the meeting of the Efficient Government Steering Group of 1st December 2005 had
decided that the PIG would be the appropriate body to monitor the project in future.
The meeting then moved onto PIG business and those present only for Efficient Government
business were invited to leave.
2. Minutes of 24th meeting held 5th September 2005 (attached)
The minutes were agreed.
3. Matters arising
3.1 Regeneration Outcome Agreement
It was reported that the OIC Policy Unit had been in liaison with Communities Scotland and
their consultant, Ian Clark of Tribal HCH, to finalise the outcomes, targets and baselines in
the ROA, and these were now virtually complete. One major task remaining was to produce a
monitoring and reporting framework, and Tribal HCH had been asked to quote for this piece
of work in light of their existing expertise and familiarity with Orkney’s ROA. Provision of
£2,000 had been made for this purpose in the proposal for a Community Planning Support
Grant (see item 4).
4. Community Planning Support Grant
4.1 It was reported that Orkney CPP had been invited by Communities Scotland to apply for a
Community Planning Support Grant of £10k per year for three years commencing 2005-06.
A bid had been submitted which proposed using the funds to pay for the following:-
Cost Item £
1. Development of Regeneration Outcome Agreement for Orkney 5,000
2. Development of monitoring frameworks for the CPP to measure progress
in respect of regeneration outcomes 2,000
3. Consulting on and drafting a new edition of Orkney’s community plan 3,000
4. Designing/printing the new edition of Orkney’s community plan 4,000
5. Development of data sharing protocol and community profiling database 6,000
6. Third year of rolling programme of community engagement 10,000
Item 1 was a retrospective proposal (permitted under the grant criteria) which would
reimburse the OIC Policy Unit for some of the very considerable time spent preparing the
4.2 It was confirmed that the proposal had been accepted and an offer letter had been received
Communities Scotland; this had been signed and returned by way of confirmation.
4.3 PIG members were asked to agree to the proposed implementation of item 2, noted at 3.
above, It was reported that Tribal HCH had quoted £2,400 + VAT for the work, but that
some other OCPP resources designated for capacity building could be used to make up the
difference. There was no capacity within the Policy Unit to do the work at present. It was
agreed to accept Tribal HCH’s quotation.
5. Community Engagement
5.1 The first 6-month progress report by VAO on the community engagement programme was
discussed, together with VAO’s proposals for the second year of the programme, which had
been designed to be deliverable within the budgeted £10,000.
5.2 Concern was expressed at the apparent lack of co-ordination of different consultation
exercises, the potential for consultation fatigue, and the ability of statutory agencies to meet
expectations raised in consultation. It was noted that while agencies still had to do their own
statutory consultations, they were not as comprehensive or consistent as the community
engagement programme, which met the national standards for community engagement,
generated information which was already proving valuable in the preparation of funding bids,
and would be an asset in the Council’s forthcoming audit of Best Value and community
5.3 It was suggested that the schedule could incorporate Harray, Birsay, Sandwick and Dounby
into a single meeting, and agreed to raise this withVAO. Action: AFW
5.3 It was agreed to accept VAO’s proposals and quotation for the second year of the programme.
It was further agreed to look at the issue of co-ordination of consultation exercises, and
address the concerns expressed in the meeting, in advance of any further extension of VAO's
contract, and to report on this matter to the PIG at a later date. Action: AFW
6. Rural Service Priority Areas — Proposals to SEERAD
6.1 JB reported that resurfacing of the isles airstrips was in the OIC capital programme but a long
way off, and the surface was deteriorating. The work needed to be done sooner if the service
was not to be put at risk, since the Civil Aviation Authority was empowered to close airfields
on safety grounds. Fortuitously, the four which most needed resurfacing included the three
which fell within the Rural Service Priority Area, plus Papa Westray, and the cost would
equate approximately to the sum available once the Adult Education programme (Providing
learning opportunities in island communities) had been funded. Tenders would be sought if
and when SEERAD approved the initial proposal.
6.2 It was agreed to submit a bid to SEERAD for £100k to cover the Adult Education programme
and the four isles airstrips in North Ronaldsay, Sanday, Stronsay and Papa Westray.
7. NHS Orkney Community Health Partnership Scheme of Establishment (attached)
7.1 The Chief Executive of NHSO introduced the Scheme of Establishment which had been
designed to meet the criteria of the Scottish Executive for CHPs while complementing the
work of the Joint Management Team. In future, the NHSO Board would set direction and
policy as directed by the Executive, while the CHP would be responsible for delivery of
7.2 It was noted that the OIC Corporate Management Team had already considered and accepted
the Scheme of Establishment as the best option available.
7.3 It was agreed to endorse NHS Orkney’s CHP Scheme of Establishment on behalf of the
Orkney Community Planning Partnership.
8. Information Sharing
8.1 It was noted that DASAT were keen to formalise information sharing procedure and establish
protocols for sharing information. Current issues related to data protection, marking papers
for Freedom of Information exemption, and surveillance. The key question was how we
could trade information legally and properly.
8.2 It was reported that the Scottish Executive was shortly to announce a fund to promote
information sharing, which could be worth up to £150k per year, over three years, to each
local authority area. In the meantime, the Isles Development Group had been considering
information sharing for community planning purposes, and funding of £6k had been secured
as part of the Community Planning Support Grant (item 4 above) for the development of a
data sharing protocol and community profiling database.
8.3 It was agreed that a local information sharing steering group was needed to address the
matter, and agreed that this should be co-ordinated by Chief Inspector Mike Cowdry on
behalf of the OCPP. Action: MC
9. Future options for Orkney Young Scot (Dialogue Youth)
9.1 It was noted that the purpose of the report was to request Council funding for Orkney Young
Scot (Dialogue Youth), to supplement the £30k per year already committed by the OCPP
from the Community Regeneration Fund. The report was scheduled for submission to the
Policy and Resources Committee on 24th February 2006.
10. Any other business
10.1 The Chief Executive of Orkney Enterprise Ltd requested an updated set of accounts for the
OCPP and it was agreed to bring these to the next meeting. Action: AFW
1st March 2006