PPE Supply Implementation Project Board minutes: May 2022

Attendees and apologies

Scottish Government

• Alan Morrison (Chair) (AM)
• Alison Bell (AB)
• Graeme Cook (GC)
• Ruth Paterson (RP)
• Michael Healy (MH)
• Graeme Cook (GC)
• Adam Locke (Observer) (AL)
• Marie Murray (Secretariat) (MM)

NHS NSS National Procurement

• Gordon Beattie (GB)

Apologies

• Emma Nycz (EN)

Items and actions

Introductions to the meeting

Alan Morrison welcomed members to the meeting and asked for introductions from all present, and gave an explanation as to why this Implementation Project Board (IPB) has been set up.

No previous minutes as this is the first meeting.

Implementation Project Board working arrangements

AM explained the meeting today was to get things off the ground and to decide on the mechanics of this IPB

• this group has been formed as a small group for the time being. This may change through time if there are any gaps identified which may need filled. Others could then be called upon to attend
• initially the meetings would be monthly. The IPB could, however, alter this as and when needed
• IPB’s draft aim and remit are below. Broadly, it is charged with steering, directing and providing challenge to the work of the Future Pandemic PPE Supply Implementation Project throughout the financial year 2022-23

Aim

The aim of this IPB is to deliver a robust cross-sectorial pandemic provision in Scotland, to ensure we have a resilient supply in place ahead of any future pandemic. Specifically, the 12 aims agreed in the Future Governance Overview Paper.

Remit

• to receive from the disbanded PPE Strategy and Governance Board a suite of foundational project documentation, including a Scope of Work paper, a Project Brief, a Benefits Realisation paper, a Stakeholder Strategy paper, and a Risk Register, signed off at its meeting on 28 April 2022, and to oversee implementation work as set out in those documents
• to make go/no go decisions at key points throughout the year, securing sign-off from Scottish Ministers as required
• to provide strategic oversight to the management of risks and issues
• to provide strategic oversight to ensure the implementation project is delivered within an appropriate timescale
• to ensure benefits are monitored, realised and fully communicated to stakeholders as planned
• to make and record decisions about changes which may be proposed by the Project Team to the scope, deliverables, milestones, timeline or costs of the project (or such other changes as they may propose)
• to provide guidance and direction to the SG and NSS Project Team members.
• to ensure that the project is appropriately staffed and resourced
• to oversee and manage project spending and projected long term financial impacts; and to ensure project costs and risks are appropriately controlled
• to ensure strong strategic connections to other elements of pandemic preparedness such as the pandemic stockpile; wider work on pandemic countermeasures at Scotland and UK level; and the work of the Standing Committee on Pandemic Preparedness
• to ensure engagement with stakeholders is appropriately undertaken by the Project Team
• to close down the project in March/April 2023, and ensure appropriate handover of responsibilities and lessons learned. If needed at that point, determination of any future work required and how it is to be supported and funded

In discussion, the following points were made:

• assurance is needed regarding ongoing stakeholder engagement and the management of these aims, along with assurance of the resources available to maintain this. There may be a possible resource risk due to the Government’s current pause on recruitment
• after the Project is complete at the end of the Financial Year, that won’t be the end of the work. There may be a need for a type of SLA setup between SG and NSS, with assurance and KPIs
• what exactly do we mean, as a governance group, by pandemic preparedness and surge capacity? What work will this group cover and not cover and how does it connect to other, wider resilience work?

There was a discussion about lessons learned, actions taken so far and whether there was a report on this as there is a need to ensure that we are visibly progressing with it. AB noted a detailed lessons learned report had been prepared, which would be shared with IPB members.

The IPB agreed that the final bullet point should be amended to transition to a future SLA and ensuring fit with Countermeasures PIPP strategy. Further comments would be provided ahead of the next meeting.

Action – IPB members to provide any additional comments on aim, remit or working arrangements in writing ahead of next meeting

Action – PPEU to share the Lessons Learned Report with IPB members

Action - PPEU to amend remit in line with discussion and recirculate

Implementation Project foundational documents

RP stated that there were 5 workstream that have been formed to carry out the project deliverables, to report into and work with the Project Team (who meet at two week intervals). The Project Team would then report to the IPB. A risk register was in place and all five had different deliverables. There were also some deliverables outwith the workstream ones. Workstreams would be calling upon stakeholders’ advice and background knowledge and it is hoped there would be substantial local government input and engagement. COSLA were supporting and are committed to getting the governance side correct.

In discussion the following points were made:

• there was a discussion on the reporting lines from the IPB. AM as SRO would report upwards to HSCMB and Ministers, e.g. Cabinet Secretary HSC, DFM, Trade and Finance
• the remit to sign off or agree a decision financially does not sit with procurement, they cannot sign off on Local Authority budgets. There is a need to have the correct person/department on board to sign off and commit, e.g. a Commodity Advisory Panel
• in due course NSS would need to have letters of commitment on the funding of the service
• Scotland proposed to maintains its own stockpile albeit with ongoing four nations engagement. Reduction in waste would be effected through rotation of stock. The pricing would be more stable, a significant benefit from this work
• overall the project would need to demonstrate value for money and would need to engage with governance structures in local authorities, NSS, and all other participating organisations

Proposed timelines update

The IPB noted that there had been a delay in the consultation analysis, this has gone out to tender twice and was now out for a third time. As a result, some items on the initial timeline have been put back. RP advised that she would inform the SRO and the IPB about the resulting timeline changes further before or during the next meeting.

Action – PPEU to provide timeline update to next meeting

Date of next meeting

13 June 2022

AOB

It was observed that Project Team resources were small and so there needed to be an awareness of the potential impact of that – this formed part of the Remit of this group. It was agreed that the Project Team need to advise the IPB if any problems are foreseen or encountered in this regard.