POL00448394
POL00448394
From: Elliot Jacobs I
Sent: Tue 28/05/2024
To: Saf ismail I
Subject: Re: Discussion Document
Hi Saf
Yes, this captures our thinking and aims for the future and also encapsulates a lot of what we saw in
Vennells' evidence that remains areas for significant improvement.
I think we suggested instead of calling it an oversight committee a PM Advisory Committee sounded
better. This committee should have a clear mandate and terms of reference, bring together voices
from across the PM community, meet 4-6 times a year, and aim to educate and guide senior POL
members on the impact of proposals and strategies, ensuring a PM-centric approach in all our
activities. It should have the authority to call upon senior POL members to explain and challenge
what is working and what is not. It should also provide overwatch on PM investigations.
The lack of automation is shocking and needs the be right at the top of agenda - it is the only way to
build a sustainable network and if we ran our own network would have been invested in years ago.
On the point of candour - we must embrace the "uncomfortable" (such as the GT report) and stop
seeking to rewrite analysis for a better view rather than face into the changes we need to make.
Finally, the lack of Corporate Memory is a major problem - sighted by Vennells too and still a lesson
unlearned - we risk losing the learnings and experience in the desire to replace positive challenge
(No NEDs older than Saf and Elliot in situ, with many not looking to do a second term).
E
From: Saf ismail I
Sent: Tuesday, M:
To: Nigel Railton:
Cc: Elliot Jacobs ¢
Subject: Discussion Document
Hi Nigel
I hope all is well. Please find attached the document I have prepared for our discussion tomorrow. It’s a
work in progress, feel free to amend.
Regards
Saf Ismail
Non-Executive Director
100 Wood Street,
London, EC2V 7ER
postoffice.co.uk