UKGI00045974
UKGI00045974
OFFICIAL — SENSITIVE
HM Treasury
UKGI Board Meeting - 29 January 2020
MEETING
29 January 2020 13:00
PUBLISHED
22 January 2020
OFFICIAL — SENSITIVE
I_ 046631
UKGI00045974
UKG100045974
Agenda
Location Date
1 Victoria Street, London, SWiH oET- 29/01/20
Room UG-H/K
1. Agenda
2. Declaration of interest
3. Minutes from previous meeting (28 November 2019)
4. Board action log
5. Chief Executive's report (UKGI-BP-399)
6. People report (UKGI-BP-400)
7. Chief Financial Officer's update (UKGI-BP-401)
8. UKGI Risk Register review (UKGI-BP-402, 402a, 402b)
g. Special Situations update (UKGI-BP-40ga, 403a)
10. Internal Board review plan (UKGI-BP-404)
11. Best practice in Public Appointments (UKGI-BP-405)
12. Disputes and Litigation Protocol (UKGI-BP-406, 406a)
1g. Transaction Committee update (UKGI-BP-407)
14. Board forward look - proposed additions/changes (UKGI-BP-
408)
15. NED only discussion
Owner
Approval
Update
Discussion
Discussion
Approval
Discussion
Discussion
Approval
Discussion
Information
Discussion
Approval
13:00
13:00
13:15
13:35
13:45
13:55
14:10
14:25
14:50
15:00
“OT
‘IT
“Or
“bl
“St
‘or
“LT
“gt
“61
Continued on the next page...
(4040859)
UKGI00045974
UKG100045974
Agenda
Location Date
1 Victoria Street, London, SWiH oET- 29/01/20
Room UG-H/K
16. Dashboard - January 2020 (UKGI-409, 409a)
17. NED Project Assignments (UKGI-BP-410)
18. Board and Committee dates (UKGI-BP-411)
19. EDRM summaries (UKGI-BP-412)
Owner
Information
Information
Information
Information
13:00
“OT
‘IT
“Or
“bl
“St
‘or
“LT
“gt
“61
(4040859)
ae
UKGI00045974
UKGI00045974
OFFICIAL-SENSITIVE UKGI-BP-399
p
Company No. 9774296
UK Government
Investments
UK Government Investments Limited
(the “Company”)
27-28 Eastcastle Street, London W1W 8DH
Paper for the Board of Directors
Topic: Chief Executive’s Report
Date: 21 January 2020
Author: Justin Manson
Ref: UKGI-BP-399
Category: Paper circulated, for discussion
The election result has provided clarity for UKGI on a number of fronts. On Brexit no-
deal planning, we have handed back our no-deal funding to HM Treasury and are
standing down advisers and advisory firms. We will be looking to feed into the
government's manifesto commitments, particularly around zero carbon, and business
and export finance. On the review of the opposition parties’ manifesto commitments,
whilst there will obviously now be no need to implement the various plans, it was a good
demonstration of our capacity and skills to a wider audience within HMT. The approval
by the Secretary of State of the purchase of Cobham by Advent shortly after the election
closes out this workstream, and this may provide a steer on how similar scenarios might
be handled by this administration, although we will be cautious in reading too much from
this into future situations.
There remains one significant ongoing area of uncertainty for UKGI — the student loans
programme, and whether, in the light of the ONS reclassification, the government will
wish to proceed with future sales. We now know that there will be no sale before the
autumn window, the question remains as to whether there will be an indefinite
postponement of the programme. This uncertainty presents an obvious challenge for our
team, which currently comprises 18 FTE. The team remains in position to deliver any
further sales at short notice. We can conversely respond relatively quickly to any decision
to terminate the programme. That said, team members, including those on secondment
from other parts of government, will need new assignments in UKGI or host departments.
We will also have to consider carefully how to deliver the ongoing loan servicing
obligations for the two tranches sold in prior years; in isolation, this essentially
administrative role will not be an appealing career prospect for our highly skilled actuaries
and corporate financiers, so it may be difficult to adequately staff this from within UKGI.
We continue to be as transparent as possible with the team, and given the
circumstances, morale remains good.
Page 1 of 3
ow
-
im
EX
xy
90
°
iS
BE
rm"
b
i"
x)
-
BN
i"
a
a
a
BS
i
00
m
i}
I
UKGI00045974
UKGI00045974
OFFICIAL-SENSITIVE
On other asset realisations, we hope and expect that RBS and UKAR activity will be
more active in 2020. The UKAR project, Jupiter, is progressing well and we expect
market conditions to be more favourable for RBS than last year.
In our corporate finance sphere, British Steel continues to place significant demands on
the team. This partly arises from the fact that we are still planning for two fundamentally
different outcomes. Accordingly, we have further augmented the team, with Emily joining
the team, meaning that with Tim Martin we will have two of our most experienced EDs
working alongside Alex Reeves on this project. We have further expanded the team at
AD level. We will continue to monitor the capacity of this team and have scheduled a
project risk review; without doubt this remains a major risk for UKGI. Elsewhere, you will
have read about the deal agreed with Flybe to enable it to continue trading. The special
situations team were front and centre of these discussions. Once again, they assembled
an imaginative and multi-pronged package of state-aid compliant measures, including a
cash injection from shareholders, whilst having due regard to political sensitivities, for
example, around regional connectivity in support of the ‘levelling-up’ agenda. All of this
was done from a standing start in a very short space of time, much of it over a weekend.
Overall, the special situations team’s workload has been in line with expectations, but
we are mindful that the risk of an increase in volume will grow as the clock ticks towards
31 December and the end of the Brexit transition period.
Good momentum is being maintained in our governance work. Three key priorities for
our portfolio governance work in 2020 have been agreed: performance benchmarking;
organisational culture and sustainability/net zero. The first of these will build on the
discussion at the previous board meeting on various measures of performance for non-
profit making entities. The second will develop the lessons learnt from failings in
organisational culture at NDA and POL. The third priority will look to ensure that our
entities have appropriate strategies and management information to deliver the UK's
legal commitment to net zero.
UKGI and BEIS have now signed a new MOU, after some months of discussion. Whilst
on the face of it this might appear to be entirely administrative in nature, this document
now not only sets out the respective responsibilities for policy making and advice, it also
documents some key principles of the relationship, including a ‘one-team’ approach of
openness and collaboration, and commitment by the respective leadership teams to the
relationship. This will be manifested through a new forum which includes the UKGI CEO
and all of the BEIS DGs, and which will put the management of what is a very complex
relationship on a sound footing. Formalising our relationship will also put us in good
stead should there be machinery of government changes involving BEIS. Thanks are
due to Emily Ashwell for driving this process through to completion.
The Board will have noted the updated circulated in December regarding the very
positive news of the settlement between POL and the postmasters; UKGI was closely
involved, particularly in obtaining approval for the settlement figure of £58m from BEIS
and HMT ministers. Outstanding issues include the claimants’ request that BEIS pays
the postmasters legal costs, which they say amount to £47m, and their call for a public
inquiry. There is also the risk that postmasters who were not part of the group litigation
pursue their own claims. Finally, POL ay be at risk of claims of malicious prosecution
form postmasters who have their convictions overturned.
We have agreed in principle with MOD to refresh the terms of the Joint Unit's
engagement by way of a submission to the Permanent Secretary. We will need to be
cognisant of senior level moves at MOD, including the recently announced COO
Page 2 of 3
p
UKGI-BP-399
y
ow
-
im
EX
xy
90
©
iS
BE
rm
b
i"
x)
-
BN
i"
a
a
a
BS
i
00
a
i}
I
UKGI00045974
UKGI00045974
OFFICIAL-SENSITIVE
departure. The demand for work remains very high, and the team stretched. Henry has
taken up his board position at Defence Equipment and Support.
The governance group held a very successful event for RemCo members and chairs on
13 January; we had excellent speakers, a good panel, active discussions and the
subsequent networking event was very well attended; my thanks to Robert and Robin
for their contribution to this success and to Alex Reeves for his initiative and commitment.
There is clearly an appetite for development of a programme of events in this vein,
including a Chair and CEO event being planned for the summer; Susie’s report includes
a full calendar of events.
As mentioned in my previous report, as we navigate an uncertain period for UKGI, a
priority for me has been staff engagement. Therefore, I am pleased that our staff
awayday in December was such a success. As well as a fascinating, if somewhat
disquieting, talk on Al and data security in an era of realpolitik by Pippa Malmgren, a
former adviser to a US President, we had an open and wide-ranging ‘ask ExCo session’,
using an online app that allowed staff members to submit their questions anonymously.
My thanks to Susie for pulling the whole day together.
Given our focus on staff engagement, I'm very glad that Clare Hollingsworth has, subject
to Board approval, agreed to act as the designated non-executive director for employee
liaison. Robert and I agreed that the alternative mechanisms for workforce engagement
suggested in the Code (a director appointed from the workforce or a workforce advisory
panel) were not appropriate given the size of UKGI and its limited discretion over matters
such as pay and conditions. This will, nonetheless, be an important role, and given the
establishment of forums for ADs, managers, and other grades, there is a ready-made
structure for Clare to engage with. I’m sure that, like me, you'll be very interested to hear
the results of this engagement at future meetings.
I was pleased to note that two outgoing CEOs of UKGI portfolio entities, Ross McEwan
of RBS and Keith Morgan at BBB, were recognised in the New Year's honours list. This
was a well-deserved reward for their efforts in, respectively, turning around and
establishing two major institutions.
Page 3 of 3
p
UKGI-BP-399
y
ow
-
im
EX
xy
90
©
iS
BE
rm
b
i"
x)
-
BN
i"
a
a
a
BS
i
00
a
i}
I
UKGI00045974
UKGI00045974
OFFICAL-SENSITIVE UKGI-BP-402
UK Government Company No. 9774296
Investments
UK Government Investments Limited
(the “Company”)
1 Victoria Street - SW1H OET
Paper for the Board of Directors
Topic: UKGI Risk Register Review
Date: 29 January 2020
Author: Alex Cole
Email:
Endorsed by: Jon Ingram
Ref: UKGI-BP-402, 402a, 402b
Category: Paper circulated, for discussion
Executive Summary
Context: The risk summary covers the highest rated projects, and projects where the
reputational and/or delivery risk ratings have changed. The summary also covers any
new risk registers, or registers that have been closed. This update covers the risk
process between 25 October 2019 and 31 December 2019. An overview of the current
risk status of all UKGI projects is provided as an annex, along with the UKGI risk
heatmap.
1. Highest Rated Projects
Nuclear Decommi. ning Authority: Director — Alex Reeves
Delivery Risk: Red (No change)
Reputational Risk: High (No change)
p
“61 I
I
UKGI00045974
UKGI00045974
OFFICAL-SENSITIVE UKGI-BP-402
IRRELEVANT I
Post Office Limited: Director - Tom Cooper
Delivery Risk: Red (No change)
Reputational Risk: High (No change)
e Current status: POL successfully reached an agreement to settle the Horizon
litigation case with postmasters in December. This is a significant achievement,
although there are still outstanding issues relating to the convicted claimants
and those outside of the class action. The new CEO has completed an
Organisational Health Index to help improve the culture at POL and is digesting
these results. POL are developing a 5-year plan to help inform its potential
subsidy request in the upcoming Spending Review, including the State Aid
application and officials are working closely on this.
e Progress & mitigation: Key to an improved risk profile will be:
o Improvements in the culture at the company, aided by the introduction of
a new CEO who is prioritising this. POL is developing an Organisational
Health Index to track its progress.
o Successful implementation of the improved agent remuneration
identified in the agent pay review.
i"
Nv
co)
BN
a
a
e
Ke}
a
°
a
=
an
bb
b
@
[a
&
be
a
a
a
a
a
a
io)
m
o
I
°
°
UKGI00045974
UKGI00045974
OFFICAL-SENSITIVE UKGI-BP-402
More certainty on the likely outcomes, including the reputational and
financial impact of the litigation cases — both Horizon and the worker
status case.
Successful landing of the new CEO’s 5-year plan in early 2020
alongside the BEIS-led work on the long-term vision of the Post Office.
This is likely to include further funding requests which will need to be
negotiated during a Spending Review.
Improved controls and processes around investment spend to ensure
better use of taxpayer funding.
Signed Framework Document and Articles of Association, expected in
early 2020.
Development of a plan to secure the sustainability of the network.
e Reputational status: There is significant political interest in the Post Office
network and there are a number of clear policy objectives. The highest risk
relates to the ongoing POL litigation case that could potentially generate a high
level of negative coverage and may lead to questions about Government's
oversight of POL, including UKGI.
2. Closed Risk Registers
Single Electricity Market: Director — Michael Harrison
IRRELEVANT
i"
Nv
co)
BN
a
a
e
Ke}
a
°
a
=
an
bb
b
@
[a
&
be
a
a
a
a
a
a
io)
m
o
I
UKGI-BP-402a
DATA UP TO 31 DECEMBER 2019
F
i
i
w
2
[=
2]
FA
ii
C7)
OFFICIAL
IRRELEVANT
IRRELEVANT
SIM TWNOLLV.LNdad Syn
RED/AMBER
‘AMBER
GREEN/AMBER
UKGI00045974
UKG100045974
p
RRELEVANT
‘OT
IRRELEVANT I
mas
“Or
POL - Post Office Limited
(4 o«063)
“€L
“ST
“oI
IRRELEVANT I
“LT
“gt
“61
UKGI00045974
UKG100045974
UKGI-BP-402b
*OFFICIAL SENSITIVE: RISK SUMMARY *
OFFICIAL - SENSITIVE DATA UP TO 31 DECEMBER 2019
‘Annington Homes
(so00"W)
a
2
-)
I
8
5
Ss
=]
ire)
wf
x
2
oi
s
4
=}
°
=
a
eo
Kk
UKGI00045974
UKGI00045974
UKGI-BP-402b
Business Bank
IRRELEVANT
((<2000"9)
a
g
C}
2
i~
5
Ke}
<
ir)
1G
T+
x
ise)
9
N
s
FE]
d
fo}
g
a
UKGI00045974
UKGI00045974
UKGI-BP-402b
Carbon Net Zero
[CNZ]
JB er Rik Pole CAE [Overall Rak Protea
IRRELEVANT
((<20%0"9)
a
g
C}
2
i~
5
Ko}
<
ir)
1G
T+
x
ise)
%
N
s
FE]
d
fo}
g
a
UKGI00045974
UKGI00045974
UKGI-BP-402b
Highways England
((<20%0"9)
a
g
C}
2
i~
5
Ko}
J
ir)
1G
T+
x
ise)
%
N
I
FE]
d
‘or 6] ‘I £I ‘9I ‘sI +] I I 7]
UKGI00045974
UKGI00045974
UKGI-BP-402b
((<29%0"9)
a
g
C}
2
i~
5
Ko}
J
ir)
1G
T+
x
ise)
9
N
I
FE]
d
‘or 6] ‘I £I ‘9I ‘sI +] I I 7]
UKGI00045974
UKGI00045974
UKGI-BP-402b
‘Overall Risk Profile el eee OVOFAM Risk Profile
((<20%0"9)
a
g
C}
i~
5
Ko}
I
ir)
1G
T+
x
ise)
9
N
I
FE]
d
of sf sf 4] o] 5] +] ef]
UKGI00045974
UKGI00045974
UKGI-BP-402b
Project Oscar [osc] Post Office [POL]
Overall Risk Profile RA Overall Risk Profile
((<2000"9)
a
g
C}
=
i~
5
Ke}
=I
ir)
1G
T+
x
ise)
9
N
I
FE]
d
of sf sf 4] ef] +] ef
UKGI00045974
UKGI00045974
UKGI-BP-402b
Special Situations
[SSG]
RA
((<20%0"9)
a
2
C}
2
i~
5
Ko}
J
ir)
1G
T+
x
ise)
%
N
s
FE]
d
of sf sf 4] o] 5] +] ef]
UKGI00045974
UKGI00045974
UKGI-BP-402b
Overall Risk Profile EE ee 1.
Overall Risk Profile.
RA -
IRRELEVANT
((<2000"9)
a
g
C}
2
i~
5
Ke}
J
ir)
1G
T+
x
ise)
9
N
I
FE]
d
‘or 6! ‘I £I ‘9I ‘sI +] I I 7]
ae
UK Government
UKGI00045974
UKGI00045974
p
OFFICIAL SENSITIVE UKGI-BP-406 -
Investments
UK Government Investments Limited
(the “Company”)
27-28 Eastcastle Street, London W1W 8DH
Paper for the Board of Directors
Topic: Disputes and Litigation Protocol
Date: 21 January 2020
Author: Richard Watson
Email:
Ref: UKGI-BP-406, 406a
Category: Paper circulated for information
In the light of recent experience with the Post Office Group Litigation UKGI has
been giving further thought to what protocols we should put in place with an asset
when it is faced with substantial litigation.
We have sought input from Robert Webb QC and Christopher Saul (former
Slaughter & May senior partner), as well as a number of UKGI Directors, to inform
our thinking.
The UKGI Board is asked to note and agree the attached (UKGI-BP-406a) “UKGI -
Disputes and Litigation Protocol guidance”.
The precise provisions of any protocol will depend on the nature of the claim or
dispute and the issues it raises. It will also be subject to negotiation and agreement
with the asset. UKGI Legal will develop some template protocol wording so that is
ready to be deployed quickly for the future.
Key to the successful handling of substantial claims or disputes involving our assets
is the ability of the assets board to make timely and informed assessments of risk
and to have early input into the proposed handling strategy. The UKGI Director and
wider shareholder team, supported by UKGI legal, will have an important role to
play. Furthermore, a potentially helpful tool for boards when faced with such
disputes is the involvement of a “critical friend” to input into board and management
discussions and decision-making related to the claim.
Company No. 9774296
co)
BN
a
a
ee
Ke}
a
°
e
=
-
bv
b
@
[a
&
be
a
a
a
a
a
a
io)
m
Ne)
I
UKGI00045974
UKGI00045974
OFFICIAL SENSITIVE UKGI-BP-406a
UKGI — Disputes and litigation protocol quidance
Background
As part of the Magnox lesson learnt exercise, UKGI Legal developed template wording for
framework documents setting out in broad terms how our assets would report on litigation risk
and an acknowledgment that a litigation protocol to facilitate reporting for substantial litigation
would be required. UKGI’s current template wording for framework documents sets out:
1. arequirement that the asset shall provide a quarterly update to the Shareholder on the
existence of any active litigation and any threatened or reasonably anticipated litigation
2. an acknowledgement by the parties of the importance of ensuring that legal risks are
communicated appropriately to the Shareholder in a timely manner; and
3. an agreement that in respect of each substantial piece of litigation the asset and
UKGI will agree a litigation protocol which will include specific provisions to ensure
appropriate and timely reporting on the status of the litigation and the protection of
legally privileged information transmitted to the Shareholder to facilitate this.
Litigation protocol
Further consideration is now being given to the mechanics of agreeing litigation protocols and
their specific contents.
1. When is a protocol required: As part of the follow up to the active requirement of the
quarterly litigation reporting envisaged above, the relevant UKGI asset team must, in
conjunction with UKGI legal, determine in consultation with the asset which matters
where litigation is active, threatened or reasonably anticipated (“claims and disputes”)
are to be considered substantial. This will require active monitoring by the UKGI asset
team and regular dialogue with the asset. What will be considered “substantial” will
vary for each asset. This could be primarily by reference to the amount of money
potentially at stake — maybe expressed as a percentage of revenue or profit — but
should also cover other matters of high sensitivity (e.g. harassment, discrimination or
whistleblowing claims) or circumstances where the claim or dispute could have wider
implications for the asset's business model or reputation.
2. Timing of implementation: When agreeing a litigation protocol with an asset in
relation to a substantial claim or dispute it is essential that UKGI Legal are involved
and the protocol is put in place quickly. UKGI should require that within 14 days of a
claim or dispute being determined to be substantial, the asset must agree with UKGI
a protocol which details the manner in which UKGI will be consulted on/involved in:
(a) strategy
(b) key decisions; and
(c) public statements in relation to the matter.
3. Parties to the protocol: In relation to each substantial claim or dispute and the
associated protocol, UKGI will need to ensure that its approach is agreed with the
relevant Government Department and that the level of input provided by the
Department is made clear.
i"
1
wo
BN
a
a
~
@
Re}
a
°
a
=
-
i
b
i)
[a
&
be
a
a
a
a
BS]
a
io)
m
°
(4 o«063)
UKGI00045974
UKGI00045974
OFFICIAL SENSITIVE UKGI-BP-406a
4. Contents of the protocol: The asset will have conduct of the matter, and be
accountable for such conduct, but with the structured involvement of UKGI. Specific
consideration in each protocol should be given to the following:
© appropriate and timely reporting on the status of the claim or dispute;
e protection of Legal Professional Privilege
e provision that UKGI is consulted on the choice of external legal advisers, counsel,
expert witnesses and other advisers and that its reasonable recommendations are
taken into account
e provision that the asset will permit UKGI to put specific questions and request briefings
with the internal and advisory team any external advisers or expert witnesses
e provision that the asset will commission second opinion advice on matters deemed by
UKGI to be of particular significance for example, the merits of settlement
¢ provision that the board of the asset will, at important moments in the conduct of the
matter (as agreed with UKGI), appoint a critical friend (in consultation with UKGI) to
input into board and management discussions and decision-making related to the
litigation
e Provision for a consultation right for the shareholder over the most significant decisions
in the dispute. Asset teams will want to remind the asset that HMT approval is required
for settlement and that the asset will be required to work closely with UKGI to determine
the appropriateness, timing and quantum of any settlement package
e Media communications strategy
UKGI teams are reminded of the general and other lessons learnt from the Magnox
contract/litigation detailed in Annex A.
UKGI Legal
January 2020
e
1
wo
BN
a
a
~
@
Re}
a
°
a
=
-
i
b
i)
[a
&
be
a
a
a
a
BS]
a
io)
m
°
(4 o«063)
UKGI00045974
UKGI00045974
OFFICIAL SENSITIVE UKGI-BP-406a
ANNEX A
Extract from UKGI Internal report into the Magnox contract/Litigation
Lessons during the litigation
Issue: The NDA’s handling of the legal challenge was not sufficiently scrutinised or
challenged.
Steps UKGI can take to mitigate / address the underlying failings which caused this
issue going forward:
+ Government should be made aware of and approve key steps in substantial litigation.
To ensure the appropriate level of challenge and oversight of any future large-scale litigation
the NDA and other assets face in the future, UKGI should recommend that framework
documents with assets require immediate notification of, and Government approval for,
litigation above an identified threshold of “substantial” liability, set by reference to each asset's
risk profile.
* Establish what oversight will be provided by UKGI and the relevant Government
department. At the outset of any substantial litigation involving an asset, UKGI should agree
with the relevant Government department, and its lawyers, how oversight of the litigation will
be provided.
+ When, prior to contract award, there is a strong likelihood of a serious challenge, or a
challenge to a procurement has already been mounted, the decision to award the
contract should be fully tested. The asset's board should consider obtaining a second,
external, legal opinion as a means of fully gauging risks ahead of a recommendation to the
Secretary of State to award the contract.
+ Where a substantial legal challenge is mounted against an asset, UKGI should assure
itself of the asset’s internal legal capability. NDA’s in-house legal team was not sufficiently
experienced or staffed for the ES litigation. UKGI insisted on additional internal resource after
the judgment was rendered, but this should have been done earlier.
* In substantial cases, challenging the board on an asset’s choice of legal advisers is
key. In this instance, Burges Salmon was in place for two competitions and was also instructed
to defend the ES litigation. There are clear risks and potential conflicts of interest in permitting
the law firm that designed and assured the evaluation process to advise on how to respond to
a legal challenge on the competition. UKGI should also encourage — consistent with best
practice for FTSE 100 companies — all assets to regularly change external lawyers, to reduce
the risk of “group think’.
+ Where the stakes are high, source more than one external legal opinion. UKGI should
insist that the asset consider more than one external legal opinion to ensure that legal advice
and identified risks are thoroughly tested. Further, it should ensure that any opinions and their
authors appear put before the asset's board so that the board is able to take strategic decisions
with proper calibration of legal risk.
+ Legal strategy and mitigation of risk must be challenged. Throughout, the NDA
Executive Team portrayed the litigation as a “try-on” and entirely without merit. However,
litigation is universally recognised to be uncertain, and even a small risk of a very significant
set-back requires mitigation. UKGI should ensure a full discussion of the legal strategy to
ensure risk mitigation has been fully considered.
i"
1
wo
BN
a
a
~
@
Re}
a
°
a
=
-
i
b
i)
[a
&
be
a
a
a
a
BS]
a
io)
m
°
(4 o«063)
UKGI00045974
UKGI00045974
OFFICIAL SENSITIVE UKGI-BP-406a
« Attending the hearing. Going forward, where hearings of important cases take place, UKGI
should attend the hearing to gauge risk for itself. If a hearing goes badly, there is an
opportunity, ahead of judgment, to settle.
General lessons learnt
1. UKGI frequently interacted with the NDA on the competition, consolidation and litigation at
working and senior levels, both formally and informally, and in several different contexts, for
example on the CPB and the NDA ARAC. This provided the opportunity for broad discussion
and multi-layered challenge.
2. Despite these safeguards, risks in the competition process were not comprehensively
identified (or potentially mitigated) in a timely manner. With hindsight, the NDA Executive and
NDA Board underestimated problems, most clearly with respect to litigation and consolidation.
As UKGI does not have embedded procurementilitigation/consolidation expertise, it was
inevitable that, as regards project design, delivery and governance, UKGI would need to rely
on the appropriate project assurances provided by specialist bodies such as the MPA and IUK
and relevant external advisers. This did not prevent scrutiny and challenge from a general
corporate governance perspective.
3. Acentral part of UKGI’s governance role is to hold boards to account. UKGI needs to ensure
that this is done comprehensively, but also needs to balance against excessive intrusiveness
and, in doing so, should not seek to substitute itself for, or duplicate the role of, the board itself.
One of the Public Accounts Committee's recent conclusions on governance of ALBs is
relevant in this regard: “Departments’ existing oversight arrangements can introduce costs
and bureaucracy, or duplicate existing governance arrangements in arm’s-length bodies. We
heard examples of approaches that focus unduly on compliance and control, rather than
improving the value contributed by arm’s-length bodies.” UKGI should therefore provide
appropriate checks and challenges, without undermining the accountability of the
organisation.
4. The general recommendations below are made with this balance in mind:
* Several of the failings identified indicate that the NDA Board was not sufficiently robust in
challenging the NDA Executive or that it was not fully informed of the relevant facts at the
appropriate time. This is particularly so, given the importance of the role of the NDA Board in
providing governance of large-scale, complex projects. UKGI should ensure regular board
reviews consider whether an asset’s board has the complete set of skills and expertise
required (e.g. legal and/or procurement or nuclear knowledge). Where specific NED skills
cannot be obtained, additional measures should be considered, including retained specialist
advice to the board. The board review process should also regularly consider the quality
and completeness of the executive’s communications with an asset’s board, including
the board papers.
+ Where large legal risks are involved, UKGI should ensure that an asset’s board has direct
access to legal advice and to the in-house legal team. Legal advice should not be
relayed to the board by the executive team, as it was in this case.
Misunderstanding/misconstruing legal advice was a material factor which explained why the
NDA Board was slow to respond in both the litigation and the consolidation. Ensuring that an
asset's board is provided with the opportunity to discuss and challenge legal risk directly with
a General Counsel would mitigate this risk, as would ensuring that the General Counsel
reports directly to the CEO.
i"
1
wo
BN
a
a
~
@
Re}
a
°
a
=
-
i
b
i)
[a
&
be
a
a
a
a
BS]
a
io)
m
°
(4 o«063)
UKGI00045974
UKGI00045974
OFFICIAL SENSITIVE UKGI-BP-406a
e Ensure UKGI’s role is clearly defined and that Government stakeholders are not
looking for assurance from UKGI on specialist areas beyond UKGI’s competence. When
project governance structures (such as the CPB) which involve UKGI are established, UKGI
must ensure its own role within that structure is clearly established and is consistent with its
role of managing the shareholder function. This should not be at the expense of UKGI being
flexible and dynamic in providing assistance, but there should be a proportionate approach to
ensure UKGI's role and the expertise it brings (and does not bring) is understood by all.
¢ Where internal or external reviews of an asset’s governance processes or projects are
undertaken, UKGI must hold the asset to account so that any resulting recommendations are
promptly followed up.
+ In holding the NDA Board to account, UKGI should utilise its own board and its in-
house legal function on consideration of risks. To assist and develop its role in holding ab
asset's boards to account, UKGI could make more use of the UKGI internal risk management
process to encourage discussion and debate of the major identified and horizon risks being
faced by the assets it manages, especially by drawing on the expertise of the UKGI board and
UKGI in-house legal colleagues.
+ Use the Non-Executive Director appointed by Government as a means of obtaining
better quality information. The forthcoming appointment of a UKGI Director as an NDA NED
is an opportunity for fuller feedback on board discussions (and the performance of the NDA
Board members). To optimise this, specific guidance should be provided to NEDs to enable
them to fully inform the shareholder in a way that remains consistent with their obligations to
the NDA.
i"
1
wo
BN
a
a
~
@
Re}
a
°
a
=
-
i
b
i)
[a
&
be
a
a
a
a
BS]
a
io)
m
°
(4 o«063)
UKGI00045974
UKGI00045974
18.
fo}
o
19.
17.
16
15.
14.
13.
12.
1.
10.
—<
®607-da-ID4N
0z0z Ajenuer
pseoqyseq ION
AAILISNAS - 1WID1440
S]USLUISANI
JUBWLUBAOD Y
BS)
=
ry
©
©
UKGI00045974
UKG100045974
OFFICIAL - SENSITIVE UKGI-BP-409a [~~
-
To prepare and execute all significant
corporate asset sales by the UK Asset Sales (pages 3-4) FTE — 28.8
Government
—_s
Act as shareholder for, and lead Governance — Shareholder (pages 5-12) FTE — 23.5
establishment of, UK Government arm’s-
length bodies, as required and in line with Governance — NED role (pages 13-14) FTE — 0.3
HMT priorities Governance — Advisory (pages 15-17) FTE — 2.0
Corporate Finance Advice — Projects (pages 18-20)
To advise on other major corporate FTE - 7.8 4
finance matters, including all major UK FI
Government financial interventions into Corporate Finance Advice - Functions (pages 21-22) 1
corporate structures and on major UK FTE - 22.5 4
government corporate finance I
negotiations. Corporate Finance Advice — Appointments (pages 23) FTE 4
-0.1
‘gr
“6r
be99r0 WI
UKGI00045974
UKGI00045974
OFFICIAL - SENSITIVE UKGI-BP-409a ~~
Asset Sales (1/2) -
Priorities, quarterly objectives, risks and contextual factors ca
‘or
AJ
A
Tl
<
>
=<
—
ad
“St
“At
‘gr
“6L
vestment: CE Project key: Resources Stakeholder Alignment: On Track: assessment ‘Completed: Project
jestMents UKGI role agreed (EW secured: team, [EW onkey objectives and (EB of progress against © concluded, including 3 82
budeet. etc, proiect plan plan. close-out review
UKGI00045974
UKGI00045974
OFFICIAL - SENSITIVE UKGI-BP-409a ~~
Asset Sales (2/2) -
Priorities, quarterly objectives, risks and contextual factors
‘or
IRRELEVANT
1
1
ad
“St
or
“At
‘gr
“6L
CE Project Resources Stakeholder Alignment: On Track: assessment Completed: Project
DB uxctrote agreed (EY secured:team, (EQonkey objectives and (GB of progress against. — (EJ conclude, including
budget, etc, project plan plan dlose-out review 4 83
UKGI00045974
UKGI00045974
OFFICIAL - SENSITIVE UKGI-BP-409a ~~
Governance - Shareholder (1/7) .
Priorities, quarterly objectives, risks and contextual factors ~
‘or
IRRELEVANT
1
1
8
=
a
-
a
a
&
8
Quality of a
Company Departmental gam Financial Balance
Relationship <j Governance Management [0 } Relationship Performance Sheet & Risk
Team & Board 5 84
be99r0 WI
OFFICIAL - SENSITIVE
Governance - Shareholder (2/8)
Priorities, quarterly objectives, risks and contextual factors
UKGI00045974
UKGI00045974
UKGI-BP-409a
vestments
Quality of a
Company Departmental Balance
Relationship <j Governance baal [0 } Relationship [ F I Performance Sheet & Risk
‘or
1
1
“er
ad
“St
or
“At
‘gr
“6L
85
UKGI00045974
UKGI00045974
OFFICIAL - SENSITIVE UKGI-BP-409a ~~
Governance - Shareholder (3/8) rs
I Asset I Priorities, quarterly objectives, risks and contextual factors cd
*UKGr’s overarching objective: Shareholder oversight to ensure it delivers on its strategic objectives of (i)
° maintaining a network of post offices above the 11,500 branches (ii) compliance with the minimum network access *
requirements and delivery of Services of General Economic Interest, while (iii) operating as an increasingly
profitable commercial business aspiring to zero subsidy post 2021. I I 8 I a
Outlook — key issues/upcoming risks, including reputational:
* Nick Read started as CEO on 16 September and is undertaking a review of POL’s vision and strategy, which we »
expect to complete in March. This will feed directly into POL’s 5 year plan. The review is also directly (C) (C) @
addressing some of the criticisms levelled at POL’s business culture, with a heavy emphasis on refocusing the S
business on postmasters and customers and obtaining real data on their views to inform decisions .
© UKGI are working with BEIS policy on a long term vision for the post office, which will need to sync with POL’s
SYP and will inform a bid at the Spending Review. ~
© POU's leadership continues to be in significant transition, with 2019 seeing the departure of the CEO, CIO,
General Counsel and HR Director. Nick Read has also asked the Head of Comms and the CEO of Retail to leave >
the business. He may further restructure the leadership team and make a number of senior hires, most likely i
external. CFOO may also leave the business, given he also applied for the CEO role and the vesting period of his
6 month retention bonus is due in March, [R/High I 3
© Two new NEDs have been appointed, increasing the Board’s diversity. "
© Litigation: POL agreed a settlement of £57.75m to settle the GLO proceedings on 11 Dec. The settlement
includes other elements aimed at strengthening POL's relationship with its postmasters. POL is still potentially Tom Cooper e
exposed to further claims from i) the cohort of convicted claimants, and ii) other postmasters who were not
part of the GLO. 5
* A separate litigation case will be heard by the employment tribunal in October 2020, relating to 123
postmasters claiming “worker” status. If successful there are variety of rights that “worker” status would
bring, including holiday pay, pensions and an entitlement to the national minimum wage ry
* POLand BO! have now signed a new agreement that will run until 2026, and POL is separately seeking to
reduce the costs of operating FRES, the travel money business run as a joint venture with BOI.
* Negotiations with Royal Mail are progressing positively with both sides targeting an agreement on a new, non- =
exclusive 10 year deal in March 2020.
* The new Banking Framework began 1 Jan 2020 and includes Barclays, following stakeholder pressure. a
* POL continues to consider strategic options for its Telecoms business.
+ POLhave paused a corporate restructure programme pending the outcome of the new CEO’s strategic review. a7
As part of the project, we have now agreed a Framework Document and revision of the Articles of Association. ba
* Team investigating the increased use of outreaches and its effects on the post office network.
© BEIS policy and UKGI are working on a response to the BEIS Select Committee report issued in late October 3
* POL’s announcement of further increases in postmaster pay has been received positively by stakeholders.
&
8
Quality of sc anct
company Departmental jay Financial Balance
Relationship G severance Management [EJ Relationship Performance Sheet & Risk 7 86
Team & Board
UKGI00045974
UKGI00045974
OFFICIAL - SENSITIVE UKGI-BP-409a ~~
Governance - Shareholder (4/8) .
Priorities, quarterly objectives, risks and contextual factors ©
A
A
m
re
<
>
=<
—I
1
ad
“St
or
“At
‘gr
Quality of
Company oa bela la Departmental Financial Balance
Relationship Governance LD comm & Board [0 I Relationship Performance Sheet & Risk
“6L
UKGI00045974
UKGI00045974
OFFICIAL - SENSITIVE UKGI-BP-409a ~~
Governance - Shareholder (5/8) .
I Asset I Priorities, quarterly objectives, risks and contextual factors
BS
‘or
1
1
“er
ad
“St
or
“At
‘gr
Quality of
Company i Departmental Financial Balance
lanagement i a,
Relationship Ga Governance tone Boar ‘O Relationship Performance Sheet & Risk
“6L
UKGI00045974
UKGI00045974
OFFICIAL - SENSITIVE UKGI-BP-409a ~~
Governance - Shareholder (6/8) .
Priorities, quarterly objectives, risks and contextual factors eo
‘or
1
IRRELEVANT
1
“er
ad
“St
or
“At
‘gr
“6L
Quality of
Company pn ll Departmental Financial Balance 8
DB Relationship BB Governance GB Mareee ment IIB Relationship “performance EB sheet a risk 9
Governance - Shareholder (7/8) OFFICIAL - SENSITIVE
Priorities, quarterly objectives, risks and contextual factors
IRRELEVANT
a I
Quality of De f anc
Company Departmental Financial Balance
Relationship © covernance Management Relationship Performance Sheet & Risk
UKGI00045974
UKGI00045974
UKGI-BP-409a [>
‘or
1
“ar
“er
ad
“St
or
“At
‘gr
“6L
UKGI00045974
UKGI00045974
. UKGI-BP-409: "
Governance - Shareholder (8/8) OT'(“"- SENSITIVE ay
I Asset I Priorities, quarterly objectives, risks and contextual factors II Lead I y
‘or
1
1
“er
ad
“St
or
“At
‘gr
“6L
Quality of
Company Departmenta Financial Balance
BB Relationship G sovernance Lala aii [> I I Relationship Performance Sheet & Risk 12° on
UKGI00045974
UKGI00045974
OFFICIAL - SENSITIVE UKGI-BP-409a ~~
Governance — NED role (1/2) Ps
I The overview below should address the following questions:
- What is UKGI’s agreed role/purpose on the board? re
- What are the key corporate governance/corporate finance skills required, if any, to fulfil the directorship role? .
- Whatis the time commitment required?
- What is the development opportunity for the Director?
- _Whatare the risks to UKGI of the directorship, if any?
- Whatare the priority contributions UKGI should deliver? Is this something UKGI should re-consider its involvement in? a
OFFICIAL - SENSITIVE
Governance — NED role (2/2)
UKGI00045974
UKGI00045974
UKGI-BP-409a [>
I The overview below should address the following questions:
- What is UKG!’s agreed role/purpose on the board?
- What are the key corporate governance/corporate finance skills required, if any, to fulfil the directorship role?
- Whatis the time commitment required?
- What is the development opportunity for the Director?
- _Whatare the risks to UKGI of the directorship, if any?
- Whatare the priority contributions UKGI should deliver? Is this something UKGI should re-consider its involvement in?
al
Overview
IRRELEVANT
a
ae Ee
14
UKGI00045974
UKGI00045974
OFFICIAL - SENSITIVE UKGI-BP-409a ~~
Ld
Governance — advisory (1/3) 7
The overview below should address the following questions:
- What is UKGI’s agreed role/purpose? Ea
- What are the key corporate governance/corporate finance skills required, if any, to fulfil the role?
= Whats the opportunity for UKGI? or
= Whatare the risks to UKGI, if any?
- What are the priority contributions UKGI should deliver? Is this something UKGI should re-consider its involvement in? a
bd
-
8
$
£
G
7
a
3
&
3
94
UKGI00045974
UKGI00045974
OFFICIAL - SENSITIVE UKGI-BP-409a ~~
Governance — advisory (2/3) :
The overview below should address the following questions:
What is UKGI’s agreed role/purpose? e
What are the key corporate governance/corporate finance skills required, if any, to fulfil the role?
What is the opportunity for UKGI?
What are the risks to UKGI, if any? -
What are the priority contributions UKGI should deliver? Is this something UKGI should re-consider its involvement in?
UKGI00045974
UKGI00045974
OFFICIAL - SENSITIVE UKGI-BP-409a ~~
Governance — advisory (3/3)
The overview below should address the following questions: ry
- What is UKGI’s agreed role/purpose? 7
- What are the key corporate governance/corporate finance skills required, if any, to fulfil the role?
- What is the opportunity for UKGI? -
- What are the risks to UKGI, if any?
- What are the priority contributions UKGI should deliver? Is this something UKGI should re-consider its involvement in? ga
al
: . x
Le ntnnnnnnnEnnnEnnnEnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnNnnnnNtRnnnnnnennnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn 3
5
$
£
&
a
a
3
s
17 96
UKGI00045974
UKGI00045974
OFFICIAL - SENSITIVE UKGI-BP-409a ~~
Corporate Finance Advice — Projects (1/3) rs
Priorities, quarterly objectives, risks and contextual factors
‘or
1
IRRELEVANT
1
ad
“St
or
“At
‘gr
“6L
CF Project key: -
cEProlect Resources Stakeholder Alignment: On Track: assessment Completed: Project
DB uxt rote agreed EY secured: team, EY onkey objectives and GB of progress against ‘concluded, including
budget, etc. project plan plan close-out review 18 97
OFFICIAL - SENSITIVE
Corporate Finance Advice — Projects (2/3)
Priorities, quarterly objectives, risks and contextual factors I Assessment Lead I Py
IRRELEVANT
ject key: ' ,
SE Project la Resources Stakeholder Alignment: On Track: assessment Completed: Project
DB uxetrote agreed (EY secured: team, (EY on key objectives and of progress against. (GY concluded, including
budget, etc, project plan plan close-out review
UKGI00045974
UKGI00045974
UKGI-BP-409a [>
‘or
1
1
ad
“St
or
“At
‘gr
“6L
UKGI00045974
UKGI00045974
OFFICIAL - SENSITIVE UKGI-BP-409a ~~
Corporate Finance Advice — Projects (3/3) -
I Asset I Department Priorities, quarterly objectives, risks and contextual factors I tad I @
‘or
1
“ar
“er
ad
“St
or
“At
‘gr
“6L
20 99
UKGI00045974
UKGI00045974
OFFICIAL - SENSITIVE UKGI-BP-409a ~~
Corporate Finance Advice — Functions (1/2) Ps
Priorities, quarterly objectives, risks and contextual factors
‘or
1
“ar
“er
ad
“St
or
“At
‘gr
“6L
21 100
UKGI00045974
UKGI00045974
OFFICIAL - SENSITIVE UKGI-BP-409a ~~
Corporate Finance Advice — Functions (2/2)
IRRELEVANT
I) Asset I Priorities, quarterly objectives, risks and contextual factors
‘or
1
1
ad
“St
or
“At
‘gr
“6L
22 101
UKGI00045974
UKGI00045974
OFFICIAL - SENSITIVE UKGI-BP-409a ~~
Corporate Finance Advice — Appointments (1/1) =
I The overview below should address the following questions:
- What is UKGI’s agreed role/purpose? 2
- What are the key corporate governance/corporate finance skills required, if any, to fulfil the role?
- Whatis the time commitment required?
- What is the opportunity for UKGI?
- Whatare the risks to UKGI, if any?
- Whatare the priority contributions UKGI should deliver? Is this something UKGI should re-consider its involvement in? a
Appointed on
IRRELEVANT
or
“At
‘gr
“6L
vestments 23 102
UKGI00045974
UKGI00045974
OFFICIAL - SENSITIVE UKGI-BP-409a [~~
a
@ = Risk reduces
-
Explanation of the traffic lights for asset sales / advice :
WO = Norisk change -
Green EN
Investment CCRC)
Roger
> x
Start: mm/yy
i: mm/yy 7
—_——_ °
Start / end date: Illustrative scoring guidance:
‘The start date Green: ShEx role agreed with ‘Check box to be ticked ©
should be the documented sign-off ‘when the project has
date on which Green / Amber: Role agreed but concluded, including
ShEx began some doubt around sign-off (e.g. Ilustrative scoring guidance: completing a project =
srorking on the note from Board / Minister / key desurll aashed onesie lMlustrative scoring guidance: close-out review with °
project. stakeholder unclear) team, bldger, OGD support, Green: Al key stakeholders aligned lMlustrative scoring guidance: ‘assessment against
‘The end date Amber: Role agreed but no written ‘external advisers, etc.) identified behind agreed project objectives and Green: Project is on track to deliver Initial objectives and -
should be the ‘approval ‘and committed plan (including timeline) agreed objectives in line with agreed lessons learned r
target ‘Red / Amber: ShEx working on the Green / Amber: All required Green Amber: Stakeholders aligned project plan / tir snd to budget
completion date project without explicit approval or resources identified and some, but behind agreed project objectives and Green Amber: Project is currently
‘and may move position unclear not all, committed close to reaching alignment on plan running to plan and on budget but there iy
cover the life of Red: ShEx role not agreed ‘Amber: Some, but not all, Amber: Stakeholder alignment behind is material risk to one of these ‘
the project. resources identified and committed key objectives or project plan but not Amber: Project is off track and likely
‘Red / Amber: Process to identify both / not all stakeholders either to be delivered late or over 3S
‘and agree required resources ‘Red Amber: Some initial discussion / budget *
underway but no resources progress on agreeing objectives but key Red Amber: Projectis off track,
committed stakeholder alignment on both expected to deliver late and over
Red: Required resources yet to be ‘objectives and plan yet to be achieved budget but is still expected to deliver $
identified or committed to project Red: No stakeholder alignment on elther Red: Projects off track, expected to be
key project objectives or plan; key late, over budget and is at risk of not
stakeholders may not all be identified / delivering at all a
‘engaged
om
a
s
: ‘Stakeholder Alignment: . Completed: Project
Peale EB uci role agreed Resources Secrets EY on key objectives and hottest ital concluded, including =
7 " project plan Progress against P close-out review &
s
K Government
24 103