HMIE Management Board
Monday 1 February 2010 at 10 am
Boardroom, Denholm House, Livingston
Present: Graham Donaldson (GHCD)
Bill Maxwell (WSM)
Neil McKechnie (NMM)
Alistair Delaney (AGD)
Chris McIlroy (CM1)
Gill Robinson(GNR)
Frank Crawford (FC1)
Kenneth Muir (KBM)
Stuart Robinson (SAR)
Sir Andrew Cubie (AC)
Shirley Young (SY)
Gary Kildare (GK)
Apologies:
Fiona Carlisle
Minutes:
Linsey Wilson
GHCD welcomed everyone to the meeting and extended a special welcome to Bill
Maxwell, who takes up post as Senior Chief Inspector on Monday 15 February; and a
warm welcome to AGD as this was the first HMIE Management Board meeting that he
had attended as a HM Chief Inspector.
1. Minutes of the meeting held on 20 September 2009
Noted: Three changes to the minutes were proposed. GNR appeared twice in the
attendee list; one was to be removed. Within the third line of the validated selfevaluation and new scrutiny bodies section, ‘the’ is to be removed and ‘assisted selfevaluation’ is to be replaced with ‘validated self-evaluation’.
2. Matters arising
Report from Audit and Risk Committee
Noted: It was noted that the Permanent Secretary’s Shaping Up review and study of the
agency model still needed to be completed before the proposed changes to the make-up
of the HMIE Management Board could be taken forward.
HMIE Performs
Noted: SAR updated the Board on HMIE Performs. Further dialogue was taking place
with HMCI to confirm the final shape and content of the new reports. WSM’s
appointment also afforded an opportunity for him to have an input to this important
development.
Future Financial Management
Noted: SAR updated colleagues on the success of measures to identify the savings
required to live within the reduced 2010-11 budget allocation. Some work was still
required to balance staff time within the overall business planning round but this was
scheduled to be a focus for the SMG meeting on Wednesday 3 February. GHCD noted
1
that the organisation is still faced with the challenge of delivering the existing inspection
generational cycle as well as meeting the requirements of National Performance
Framework targets. Discussion focused on the direction of future development of
approaches to inspection, the planned away day with the new Cabinet Secretary and the
possibility of exploring the frequency of inspection as part of that. AC concluded that the
possible impact of such an option will need to form part of the early discussion with the
Cabinet Secretary. GK noted that it might be necessary for HMIE to take tough
decisions in refocusing its resources and as a result move away from what has
previously been considered key areas of work. WSM noted that every organisation is
trying to define its core areas of business. It will be important for HMIE to be clear about
the medium and long-term agenda and to create the narrative that persuades people that
this is the correct direction of travel.
3. International Activity
Noted: GNR updated the Board on recent international activity within the organisation,
and the revised International Activities policy. There is great potential for HMIE to share
its expertise around the world, which would also benefit the organisation’s own learning.
GK recognised that this would be regarded as an area of potential revenue generation
for the organisation but that government protocols made it difficult for HMIE to exploit it
fully. He urged HMIE to maximise what it could do within the constraints. GNR
described the development of SICI’s virtual academy and how SICI were increasingly
acting as a clearing house/brokerage for arranging collaborative projects across various
inspectorates. AC noted that this would be a challenge for the organisation. It is core to
HMIE’s purpose but it is not clear whether the organisation have spare capacity. He
suggested that it would be important to carry out a rigorous cost-benefit analysis to
ensure that full cost recovery was being achieved. GNR outlined the significant support
from Scottish Ministers for HMIE’s international work. GK noted that reputation is
important and that HMIE’s reputation is valuable and can be built on. SAR noted that the
key constraint is the position with Crown Copyright. Any private sector company who
applies for a simple license is then free to exploit HMIE’s material for commercial
purposes while HMIE can only recover costs. GHCD noted that this reinforced the need,
in discussion with Ministers, to see international activity as an opportunity to build upon
Scotland’s reputation abroad. This is an important aspect of what we do as an
organisation.
Action 1: Cost-benefit analysis to be carried out on any prospective international activity
to ensure full cost recovery, where appropriate.
Action 2: The policy is to be strengthened and clarified, particularly with reference to
cost recovery and to bring out the intended outcomes – what HMIE is seeking to achieve
through this policy. The policy will be revisited next year.
4. ‘Good practice’ strategy
Noted: GNR updated the board on HMIE’s ‘good practice’ strategy. HMIE recognises
that the Inspectorate’s reputation is a large part of how successful we are in influencing
others. We therefore need to be careful that we do not undermine that by promoting
practice that is not going to lead to genuine improvement. Early changes to good
practice arrangements have helped simplify and streamline inspection activity (for
establishments, MIs and HMIE admin staff) as well as raise the bar in terms of what
HMIE will promote as practice worthy of sharing nationally. The collection of good
practice in child protection and sector leading practice in college inspections will still be
2
identified and published on the HMIE website. AC questioned whether the work had
been broad enough in focus to ensure that the impact issue had been addressed and
that the nexus between school communities and EAs is being properly developed in this
regard. GNR noted that HMIE had been receiving feedback about work in other areas
but that the key focus of this study had been on the Good Practice website and Good
Practice conferences. SAR noted that use of the ‘engage’ strategy will lead to the
development of an impact statement for each HMIE task that is being taken forward and
this should help with the broader impact issue. GNR noted that it is important to
understand exactly what it is that drives changes in practice, the more we understand
this, the greater our potential impact. GHCD noted that it is important that we continually
think differently about how we influence different groups and also consider where the
expertise lies to take this work forward – for example there could be more of a role for
LTS in this area. AC noted that this would be an opportunity for thought leadership, the
time is now right for different propositions to come to the fore. SY noted that key to this,
is being clear about what the right incentives are. GHCD agreed, we need to consider
the message and to look at what is in it that will lead to practitioners’ changing their
practice. He noted that HMIE were proposing a joint conference with LTS and the virtual
staff college to seek to encourage wider ownership of this agenda.
5. Finance
Noted: SAR updated the Board on the latest financial outturn report for 2009-10,
indicating that targeted efforts had been successful in driving down anticipated
expenditure to create a little headroom around the year end position. He advised that
plans to replace HMIE’s planning system (agreed at the last MB meeting) had been
delayed and would now go forward in 2010-11. Early work on budget allocations for
2010-11 was also positive, indicating that detailed considerations had been successful in
identifying measures to live within the reduced budget for next year.
6. FAI Update
Noted: GHCD noted that although the Sheriff’s outcome on the FAI was clear, there will
continue to be some public comment.
Noted: KBM discussed possible actions that HMIE could take as a result of the inquiry.
Discussion focused on the fact that HMIE continuously looked to improve all aspects of
what we do and that it would be important not to allow spurious connections between
normal improvement activity and the FAI. This applied in particular to the range of
activities outlined in KBM’s paper and the planned awayday with the Cabinet Secretary
and others, on 24 March, where inspection and review procedures will be discussed. AC
noted that the media coverage had been inevitable. He added that the Board were
impressed by how well informed and supported they felt by the continuous flow of
briefing they received before, during and after the FAI. AC also wondered whether it
might be useful for HMIE to consider media training for key staff. He confirmed that he
would be happy to attend the awayday on 24 March. SY confirmed her availability for
the day. GK noted that there can be occasions where it would be helpful for
non-executives to be at key events where external stakeholders are involved. He agreed
with AC about the importance of non-execs being kept up to speed with major, often fast
moving, events. GHCD noted that the muted reaction from stakeholder groups in the
media might be seen as reinforcing the strength of relationships with HMIE.
3
7. IRSG Policy
Noted: KBM updated the Board on the Inspection and Review policy. IRSG is currently
redefining its role and its relationship with other quality groups and Lead Inspectors.
Action: The IRSG policy will be tabled at the next meeting of Management Board in
March. The policy will be reviewed at this time in its final form.
8. Report on response to sharing RIF’s
Noted: KBM updated the Board on the response to sharing RIFs. The feedback has
been extremely positive. There is still an issue regarding the quality assuring of the RIFs
as this seemed overly burdensome. AC noted that it would be important for feedback on
this to be included in the Annual Report and in HMIE Performs.
Action: The feedback on RIF sharing to be included in both the Annual Report and HMIE
Performs.
9. DWP inspection update
Noted: KBM updated the Board on the progress of the DWP inspections, the first of
which is going ahead this week. Colleagues have been heavily involved in preparing
relevant guidelines and training. Most of those subject to review are private sector
training providers. GHCD noted that this was an interesting development and could have
implications for a wider role for HMIE in this area.
Action: KBM will provide a more detailed update at the next Management Board meeting
in March.
10. Update on new scrutiny bodies
Noted: NMM updated the Board on the progress of work surrounding the establishment
of the new scrutiny bodies. A number of key risks are the transition of the inspection
programme; resourcing issues for the new organisation; issues for current staff and the
impact on HMIE after 1 April 2011. GHCD noted that the risk of transfer for the
inspection programme after 1 April 2011 is still very significant and it will be important to
have a full debate on this at the next Board meeting in March.
Action: NMM to provide a paper on the new scrutiny body for the next Management
Board meeting in March.
11. HR update
Noted: CM1 provided an HR update to the Board. There is a continued emphasis on
PRAISE training, and the organisation is looking at ways of adjusting the balance of CPD
for staff and customising the training to specific needs. WSM confirmed that it would be
useful to use 18 February as a date to speak to staff. It was agreed that the HR paper
would be a substantive issue for discussion at the next Board meeting in March.
Action: CM1 to provide an Action Plan on Staff Survey paper to Management Board for
discussion at the June meeting.
4
12. Shared Risk Assessment
Noted: GNR updated the Board on the progress of the Shared Risk Assessment
process. The process is working as well as we could have hoped given the complexity
and the demands on HMIE resources at short notice it represents. It is also of high risk
to the organisation and robust quality assurance processes have been put in place.
Steps are also being taken to train colleagues in this area as appropriate. GNR also
advised that there are new expectations on HMIE as a result of the school consultations
bill. HMIE is now required to publicly comment on all proposed school/pre-school
closures. Again HMIE are looking at how we can establish a small team of people who
can be trained to carry out this work.
13. HMIE Publications.
Noted: Management Board noted the list of most recent publications.
14. Any other business
Noted: GHCD noted that this was his last meeting as Chair of Management Board.
GHCD thanked all Board members. In closing, he commented that it had been a
pleasure to Chair these meetings and he paid particular tribute to the non-executives
who had always been constructive and supportive. He recognised again that a key step
will be to strengthen the non-executives representation on the Board for the future. AC,
on behalf of all of the Board members, stated that it had been a privilege to work with
GHCD in his time at HMIE. He firmly believed that GHCD was leaving HMIE a much
stronger organisation than it was when he had taken over as HMSCI.
5