Scottish Government

MG(06)16th Conclusions

MANAGEMENT GROUP

MINUTES OF MEETING HELD IN ST ANDREW'S HOUSE, EDINBURGH

AT 8.30AM ON THURSDAY, 4 MAY 2006

Agenda Item 1: Minutes of Previous Meeting and Matters Arising

1. The minutes of the meeting held on 27 April (MG(06)15th Conclusions) were approved.

Agenda Item 2: Current Issues

Report from PS/First Minister and Alan Johnston

2. Mr Naysmith said that the First Minister was preparing to speak at an anti-social behaviour conference on 5 May. The First Minister continued to be concerned about the quality of material provided through the ministerial correspondence system in response to diary invitations. MG agreed that Heads of Department should reinforce key messages on the accuracy and quality of material provided. (Action: Heads of Department)

3. Mr Naysmith said that the First Minister would be holding further informal discussions with portfolio Ministers about the assessments of progress against Partnership Agreement commitments, in parallel with the work being carried out to prepare for a further Cabinet discussion of the Cabinet Delivery Report.

4. Mr Campbell said that the First Minister was planning to deliver a speech on 'Futures' towards to end of May. The First Minister continued to take a close interest in the handling of issues around the non-deportation of non-UK nationals held in UK prisons, following the recent Home Office announcement. Mr Gordon gave an update on the current position. MG recorded its thanks to all those involved in the Executive's response to the Home Office announcement and agreed that it would be helpful to consider at a future meeting issues raised in preparing that response. (Action: Robert Gordon, Justice Department and Cabinet Secretariat)

5. Mr Johnston said that the Deputy First Minister was taking a close interest in discussions about the Scottish Enterprise budget and had given evidence to the Enterprise and Culture Committee on Tuesday 2 May. He was also looking forward to a range of activities, including accompanying Lord Coe on a visit to promote the UK-wide benefits of the London 2012 Olympics.

Events Planning Grid

6. MG noted the Events Planning Grid.

First Minister's Questions

7. MG agreed the draft answers and material for FMQs later that day, 4 May.

Agenda Item 3: Cabinet Business (Paper MG(06)54)

8. The Permanent Secretary gave a brief report from the Cabinet meeting held on Wednesday, 3 May. The Cabinet had discussed a range of issues, including the Scottish Enterprise budget and the implementation of the Action Plan on Tackling Sectarianism; and had agreed the publication of updated guidance for Accountable Officers on Best Value in Public Services. MG noted progress in preparing papers for forthcoming Cabinet meetings.

9. MG agreed that issues of accountability across the public sector should be considered in the context of the work on public service reform, and that it should consider a paper from the Public Bodies Unit on the particular role of Non Executive Directors on the Boards of public bodies in June. (Action: Andrew Goudie and the Public Bodies Unit)

Agenda Item 4: CISG Report (Paper MG(06)55)

10. Mr Gordon introduced paper MG(06)55 which updated MG on the issues considered by the Corporate Issues Sub Group (CISG) at its meeting on the 18 April. The sub group had noted the third CISD Quarterly Report, which had highlighted good progress on a number of CISD projects. Representatives from the trade unions had joined the sub group for a discussion on Workforce Planning, including policies on managed moves and promotion. The sub group had also considered FOI; the principle of cross subsidy within Departmental running costs budgets where they covered separate Ministerial portfolios; a paper on 'Purchase to Pay' and performance in paying invoices; and an update on the e-HR project. MG noted the report.

Agenda Item 5: FOI Update

11. Mr Thomson and Ms Wood updated MG on progress on handling requests for information under the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002. On 18 April CISG had agreed that a version of the staff directory would be developed for proactive publication on the internet. It was envisaged that this might give a description of business areas down to a divisional level; a list of the names of staff in those areas; and a single telephone 'enquiry point' number. A general approach to handling the release of names had also been agreed, which took account of health and safety considerations. Guidance would be produced to clarify arrangements to staff.

12. Mr Thomson said that as part of their regular programme of meetings, the Minister for Parliamentary Business and the Scottish Information Commissioner had met on 27 April. They had discussed the current FOI review, and issues around charging, costs and court appeals. Since the last update to MG, the Commissioner had issued one further decision on a case relating to the Executive. The FOI Unit was awaiting decisions on a further 70 cases. Decisions on these cases were likely to come in groups and the unit was developing a strategy to help ensure it could respond effectively.

13. Ms Wood said that 356 new requests for information had been submitted to the Executive in the first quarter of 2006. Refreshed guidance would shortly be issued to help staff meet the 20 working day target for responses and a new referral system designed to send email reminders to staff dealing with FOI requests would be installed by July. The guidance would also reiterate that the FOI Unit should be kept informed about the responses to requests and it would be useful for senior management to actively support this message, as there had been a marked reduction during the last quarter in the proportion of responses which were being brought to the Unit's attention.

14. In discussion the following points were made:

(a) Guidance from the FOI Unit outlined that Ministers should be informed when a FOI request was particularly unusual, sensitive, or related directly to the Minister, and officials would be expected to take a common sense approach to assessing whether a Minister should be notified before the release of any information;

(b) While it was important to reduce the number of late responses to enquiries, situations where a variation in response time had been agreed with the enquirer should be taken into account. When it was not possible to fully respond to a request within 20 working days, it was good practice to explain the situation to the applicant and, subject to their views, to agree to an extension of the deadline. Failure to make any kind of response to enquirers was not acceptable; and

(c) The process of responding to FOI requests was now firmly bedded in to the organisation and it was worth considering whether monthly updates to MG were still necessary. The FOI Unit were in the process of appointing a new Head of Unit to replace Tim Ellis, who would prepare proposals on future reporting for the next meeting.

15. MG agreed:

(a) That staff messages regarding the notification of responses to the FOI Unit and the need to respond to requests within target deadlines should be reinforced by Heads of Department; and (Action: FOI Unit, Heads of Department)

(b) To consider proposals for the future reporting of FOI issues to MG at the next corporate meeting . (Action: FOI Unit)

Agenda Item 6: Infrastructure Investment (Paper MG(06)56)

16. Dr Goudie said that the Executive had published an Infrastructure Investment Plan (IIP) in February 2005 and an Infrastructure Investment Group (IIG) had subsequently been established in FCSD to consider the recommendations in the plan. Since the publication of the plan, the profile of infrastructure investment issues had grown, due to, for example, the McClelland report on procurement, work on infrastructure investment elsewhere in the UK, and increased interest from both the Scottish Parliament and the market. The IIG was due to report to Ministers by the end of May setting out proposals for implementing the recommendations in the plan. Subject to MG's views on the proposals contained in the paper, it was envisaged that the Financial Partnerships Unit (FPU) would consult Departments in detail, possibly through the Heads of Group network, before finalising the IIG report.

17. Mr Rosie introduced paper MG(06)56, which considered the Scottish public sector's current capacity to deliver the Executive's infrastructure investment programme and sought agreement to proposals for implementing the improvement agenda set out in the IIP. Cabinet had been strongly supportive of the IIP when it had been published. There were clear links between the IIP and a number of the Executive's most significant policy initiatives, such as the National Planning Framework, and it would be important to reflect this in the IIG's report. The market had developed significantly over the previous two years and Scotland had to compete internationally for market attention. There was a need to co-ordinate dialogue with industry and the management of the flow of infrastructure projects across the range of Scottish public bodies. Whereas, for example, the Northern Ireland administration had established a single unit responsible for overseeing all infrastructure investment, arrangements in Scotland were more diffuse.

18. Mr Rosie said that at present, delivery expertise was somewhat fragmented across the public sector and the skills and experience of those responsible for the management of infrastructure projects was variable. The paper noted the value of the current Gateway process but emphasised that strengthening that process would not be a solution in itself and could not be a substitute for improving the level of procurement and project management skills in the public sector.

19. A number of proposals for improvement were set out in Annex D of the paper, grouped around the nine topics covered in the IIP, including a strengthening of the central support offered by FCSD to policy divisions. The proposals required further development, in consultation with Departments and the public sector more generally.

20. In discussion the following points were made:

(a) The paper presented an accurate assessment of the problems facing the Scottish public sector and the variability of skills and expertise. However, further work was needed on the proposed solutions. For example, it would be helpful to reflect on the lessons learned from the establishment of Transport Scotland and to avoid unnecessary duplication of the delivery expertise it offered;

(b) While there was a case for establishing more centralised procurement and delivery expertise, it was important to recognise that decisions based solely on technical and financial considerations might not always fully reflect Ministerial or public priorities;

(c) The paper raised a number of important strategic issues which it would be difficult to resolve before the end of May, particularly as there was a need for detailed discussions with Departments. A number of Group Heads in different Departments had indicated a desire to be more closely involved in the development of the IIG's proposals and it would important to capture the experiences and ideas of delivery experts in Departments;

(d) It would be helpful to reflect on experience in Development Department and Communities Scotland and the links between the IIP agenda and the National Planning Framework and Regeneration policy;

(e) The proposals set out in the paper had the potential to drive significant changes in the way in which Departments delivered infrastructure projects so it would be important to engage with experts in the line as they were taken forward;

(f) The paper could usefully explore in more detail the linkages with existing areas of central expertise;

(g) Many of the Executive's infrastructure priorities were delivered by a variety of arms length bodies, often in partnership with a further range of other bodies. It would therefore be difficult to try to replicate a particular level or type of expertise across the board, which supported the case for strengthening the centralised support that bodies could draw upon. However, it would also be important not to underestimate the scale of the practical and policy issues that such centralisation entailed;

(h) The forthcoming Budget Reviewers' report was likely to make fairly similar recommendations to those set out in the paper;

(i) The work of the IIG presented an important opportunity both to take on board best practice and to realise efficiency savings. Some useful learning might be drawn from the Ministry of Defence, which had created a body of independent project monitors for large projects;

(j) It would be helpful to undertake a mapping exercise to identify the pockets of excellence that existed in different parts of the public and private sector and help establish the potential for increased efficiencies;

(k) The market was fragmented and the IIG should continue to look at issues of scale and the Executive's timetables for delivery across portfolios. Proposals for improvement needed to take account of the high number of vacancies in the Scottish construction industry, which meant that there was strong competition across the public and private sector for construction services;

(l) There was no suggestion that a centralisation of expertise would also entail a centralisation of accountability for infrastructure projects. The focus of the proposals was on improving the level of support on offer to policy divisions;

(m) While the FPU recognised that some Departments felt that there should have been earlier consultation on the proposals for improvement, the IIG had felt it important to undertake some initial reflection on general practices and principles before engaging in a detailed dialogue with Departments and others. Such a dialogue would nevertheless be a crucial next step in the development of final proposals.

21. MG agreed that:

(a) While there was broad agreement to the thrust of the proposals made in the paper it was clear that there needed to be a phase of engagement and consultation with key players in Departments and Agencies to refine those proposals before they were submitted to Ministers;

(Action: Andrew Goudie and the Financial Partnerships Unit)

(a) It would be important for the IIG's final report to capture both internal issues of skills, capacity and priorities within the public sector and a view of key issues from a market perspective; (Action: Andrew Goudie and the Financial Partnerships Unit)

(b) The FPU, in consultation with Professor Bound, should prepare a further paper for MG to consider before the end of June to help it take strategic decisions about what advice should be given to Ministers on the balance between strengthening the procurement and project management expertise provided by the centre and building on the disaggregated centres of expertise that already existed across the public sector;

(Action: Andrew Goudie, Bill Bound and the Financial Partnerships Unit)

(c) In addition to the immediate phase of engagement with Departments on the proposals set out in the paper, the IIG should be expanded to include representatives from Departments and, subject to the views of the current members of the IIG, other parts of the public sector, to help take forward the proposals. (Action: Andrew Goudie and the Financial Partnerships Unit)

Agenda Item 7: Any Other Business

Capability Review

22. The Permanent Secretary said that the Capability Review was the UK Government's mechanism for driving forward change and excellence in government. While the Executive was not formally involved in the review, it was still a valuable means for sharing learning with the UK Government. It was envisaged that the Executive would voluntarily undertake its own review in the Autumn. This would inform the Executive's thinking at a point when it would be important to take stock and plan for the forthcoming four years, as happened in 2002 before the introduction of the Changing to Deliver agenda. MG agreed that it should discuss specific objectives for the review in due course, but that in the interim it would be useful for MG members to initiate preliminary discussions about the review with group heads. (Action: MG members)

Project Scotland

23. Mrs Munro said that the Executive was seeking to build up the number of Project Scotland volunteers on secondment to the Executive. Such secondees offered valuable skills and experience to the organisation. MG agreed that Mrs Munro should circulate information about the scheme, including the details of placements arranged to date, and that MG members should seek to identify possible opportunities in their Departments. (Action: Nicky Munro and MG members)

Cabinet/MG Secretariat

May 2006