Policy and Implementation Group
Minutes of the twenty-third meeting held at 7pm on 2ndJune 2005
in the Noust, Pickaquoy Centre, Kirkwall
Present:Cllr Stephen HaganConvener, Orkney Islands Council (Chairman)
Mrs Jenny DewarChair, NHS Orkney
Mr Bryan KynochChairman, Orkney Enterprise
Mr Alistair BuchanChief Executive, Orkney Islands Council
Mr Ken GrantChief Executive, Orkney Enterprise
Cllr Keith JohnsonChairman, Communities Advisory Group
Mr Jim LoveCorporate Services Officer, OIC (Acting Secretary)
Apologies:Mr Steve ConwayChief Executive, NHS Orkney
Mr Jeremy BasterChairman, Environment Partnership
Ms Anna WhelanHead of Policy, OIC (Secretary)
1.Minutes of the twenty-second meeting held 5thApril 2005
The minutes were agreed.
2.Matters arising
2.1Efficient Government
It was reported that the bid for Stage 1 funding had been successful. The consultant leading the process, Mr Richard Blackburn, had begun the task of meeting with key officials from the Council and NHS Orkney. Good progress was reported, and it was suggested that Mr Blackburn be invited to a future meeting of the PIG.
2.2Closing the Opportunity Gap and Rural Service Priority Areas
The draft letter to Ross Lindsey of SEERAD, which had been circulated by Anna Whelan for comment, was discussed. The paper was considered to present a particularly good analysis and argument, which would hopefully bring about a positive outcome.
2.330th Anniversary Weekend
The celebrations to mark the 30th anniversary of islands councils, held over 14th -16th May, were reported to have been a great success. The Chairman and AB thanked all of the Council’s partners who had contributed.
3.Membership of the OCPP groups and forums
3.1Following consideration of Paper A, which had been circulated, the meeting noted that a common feature of community planning partnerships elsewhere in Scotlandwas representation from the Police.Although the meeting felt that the current PIG makeup had a very strong overview of OCPP, there was agreement that the Police had the potential to add value, particularly so in view of their experience in the link between strategy and operations. It was also noted that the Audit of Best Value and Community Planning was due to be carried out by Audit Scotlandin 2006; there was therefore an urgent need for the Partnership demonstrate its direction and the delivery of joint strategies.
3.2It was therefore agreed that the Chairman would write to Chief Inspector Mike Cowdry, Area Commander to invite him to become a member of the PIG, and that the letter of invitation be copied to the Chief Constable.Action: JL
3.3There then followed a discussion on the recommendations of Paper A, and the following was agreed:
a)Whether the current membership of the PIG is optimal and ensures sufficient representation of themembers of the Partnership (see 3.1 and 3.2 above)
b)Whether the membership of the advisory groups and SOG needs to be reviewed and if so, by whom – agreed that no change is currently required
c)Whether the terms of reference of the advisory groups need updating – agreed that no change is currently required
d)Whether the advisory groups should report formally to all PIG meetings, and whether verbally or in writing – verbal reports are considered to be adequate
e)How communications between the PIG and other members of the Partnership could be improved – PIG minutes are now posted on the Communities website, and the Partnership’s first public performance report (PPR), is currently being drafted by the Council’s Policy Unit for publication in the near future
3.4The meeting then heard an update on the work of the advisory groups:
a)For a number of reasons, the SOG had not met recently; it was noted that a meeting should be convened in the near future
b)The CAG reported a good meeting in January 2005, when there was a high level of participation by those present. It was also reported that scheduling of meetings sometimes proved difficult, and that 6 monthly meetings were adequate
c)The LEF continues to meettwice per year, and does not intendto change, unless there is a change to the guidance on LEFs by the Scottish Executive
4.Community Engagement Report – Rousay April 2005
4.1Following consideration of Paper B, which had been circulated, the meeting noted that the content was very useful. After discussion, it was agreed that a framework was neededfor the analysis of the Rousay Report, and for others in the future; this should be considered at the next meeting.Action:AFW/JL
4.2The meeting also agreed that a letter be sent from the Chairman to the Executive Director of VAO, thanking all who had participated in the study, and advising that the PIG had considered and noted the report. Action:AFW/JL
5.Bids Received for Community Regeneration Fund
5.1Following consideration of Paper C, which had been circulated, the meeting noted the following:
Annex 1, upgrade and improve accessibility of the footpath through Papdale Meadow–this proposal was considered to be worthy of a place on the shortlist
Annex 2, part-time home care assessor for Stronsay, North Ronaldsay and Sanday–this proposal was considered to be a core function of the Council, and was not therefore placed on the shortlist
Annex 3, social care training for home carers/unemployed people on Stronsay, North Ronaldsay and Sanday - training was considered to be a core function of the Council, and the proposal was not therefore placed on the shortlist
Annex 4, social care development officer, to promote health and well-being – there was considered to be duplication between this proposal and the work of the Health Promotion Service, so the proposal was not therefore placed on the shortlist
Annex 5, exchange chip pans with thermostatically controlled deep fat fryers – this proposal was considered to be practical, had the precedent of the electric blanket exchange, and was therefore placed on the shortlist
Annex 6, Glaitness Challenge park – this proposal was considered to be practical and an example of good practice for others to follow, and was therefore placed on the shortlist
Annex 7, enhanced furniture project (repair/restoration/re-use) providing sheltered and supported work/training opportunities – this proposal was considered to have very good potential, but needs to be worked up, demonstrate sustainability - perhaps as a social firm - and was therefore placed on the shortlist
Annex 8, establish a supported employment facility – this proposal was considered to have very good potential, but needs to be worked up, demonstrate sustainability - perhaps as a social firm - and was therefore placed on the shortlist
Annex 9, Triple P (Positive Parenting Programme) training for parents and families - training was considered to be a core function of the Council, and the proposal was not therefore placed on the shortlist
Annex 10, youth development worker for Eday and Stronsay – see 5.2 below
Annex 11, working capital for the youth development workers in Westray/Papay and Sanday/North Ronaldsay – see 5.2 below
Annex 12, community education worker to supervise the youth development workers – see 5.2 below
Annex 13, increase from part-time to full-time, VAOs youth development worker post – see 5.2 below
5.2Following a discussion of the 4 proposals relating to youth work (annexes 10, 11, 12 and 13 above), it was agreed that no additional funding would be made available for these in 2005/06. Instead, a study would be undertaken as part of the Efficient Government Initiative, to identify any duplication and recommend where efficiencies could be made. This course of action would depend on the Partnership’s ability to postpone detailed funding proposals to Communities Scotland for 2006/07 and 2007/08, and contact will need to be made with them to confirm or otherwise. Action:AFW/JL
5.3The meeting then agreed that a funding proposal, based on 5.1 above, be drawn up for 2005/06 to be circulated to members of the PIG for their final agreement. Action:AFW/JL
5.4KG queried the ‘expenditure already approved by the PIG’ column for local capacity building. The meeting agreed that this will need to be clarified with AFW as soon as possible. Action:AFW/JL
6.Draft Regeneration Outcome Agreement (ROA)
6.1The meeting heard that although the ROA was at an advanced stage of draft, it would not be helpful for the document to be considered by the PIGuntil they had made their final decisions on the spending priorities detailed above, and these had been incorporated into the agreement.The meeting therefore agreed that since the ROA would need to be submitted to Communities Scotland by September, the draft would be circulated to members of the PIG for their approval, rather than an additional meeting being convened. Action:AFW/JL
7.Date of next meeting
7.1It was agreed that a meeting of the PIG would be convened in September, and a further one in either November or December 2005.Action: AFW/JL
8.Any other business
8.1BK advised the meeting of his intention to step down as Chairman of the LEF in March 2006.
Jim Love
14thJune 2005
1