This is an HTML version of an attachment to the Freedom of Information request 'Independent Scheme Assurance Panel (ISAP)'.


 
 
 Minutes for the Assuranc P
e  anel Meeting Held on 23rd November  
 in room P 2. 25 in Peel Building from 12.00 until 4.30 
 
Attendees: 
 
Alan 
Hughes   C
 
hair 
  Simon 
Rice 
 
Programme 
John 
Clarke 
  IAP 
 
  Brian 
Cherrie 
 
Programme 
Sue 
Garrard 
  IAP 
  Lisa 
Lyne 
Programme 
Malcolm 
Mitchell 
 IAP 
   
Fergie 
Williams 
  IAP 
Xxxx 
Xxxxxx 
 
  (Secretary) 
 
 
The objectives of this meeting were to Introd
F
uce  ergie Williams to the Programme 
review the panels operation and to meet the new Programme Directors. 
 
Introductions and Apologies 
 
Nigel Seed, one of the new Directors of the Programme had sent apologies. There 
were no apologies from the Panel h
 w o were ful y represented. 
  
Al n
a  introduced Fergie Williams explaining he would replace Richard Dunlop who 
had left the Panel.  Fergie is to be inducted and given access to both the Gateway 
review pack and the recent Gateway report: Reason for Fergie to get to grips with 
OG
od 
C go
practice and the current state of play. (Post meeting note - the next 
Gateway review is Jan/Feb 2006). 
 
Xxxx to arrange this, timing – as part of Fergie Williams’s induction process 
 
The Programme and the Panel want to acknowledge Richard Dunlop’s extremely 
valuable contribution to the Panel and to the work of the Identity Cards Programme. 
 
Feedback from the Chair  
 
Alan explained the structure of the Programme as currently understood and advised 
that the Immigration and Nationality Directorate were now fully engaged. 
 
Alan also reported significant activity on the Procurement Strategy and said he had 
been asked to float some proc r
u ement priorities past the panel.  A discussion 
followed leading to a questioning of the assumptions behind the pricing.  It was 
agreed that Panel members would benefit from an Assumptions Walkthrough: 
Reason to better understand current thinking on the assumptions. 
 
Xxxx to contact Xxxxx Xxxxxx to find out if there are any Assumptions walkthrough’s 
planned.  
 
Alan advised he would raise the issues generated by the panel at the Programme 
Board and this would include the revised Terms of Reference. It was decided that the 
minutes of this meeting would be copied to the new Directors and Katherine 
9:50 AM28/10/2011 

Courtney: Reason to inform them of the outcome of the IAP’s internal review and 
make plain that the panel’s role will be more focussed. 
 
Xxxx to arrange for the Programme to have the Programme Board Documentation  
Xxxx to provide other Programme documentation risk log/issue log/Programme 
dashboard/ Key decision chart/Plan 

Xxxx to revisit the IT strategy for John Clarke 
Xxxx to provide the revised Procurement Strategy when available 
Xxxx is to arrange for the Panel to have a Glossary of Prince2 terminology. 
Xxxx is to arrange for the panel to have a Glossary of Home Office terminology. 
Xxxx is to refresh the contact list to include FW and all Directors emails and direct lines. 
 
Feedback from the Panel 
 
The Panel advised that there appeared to be no Communications or Marketing Plan 
at  
 a strategic level and no clea
ard 
r Bo
level ownership of this area. It was suggested 
that if this was the case then it could be indicative that Marketing and 
Communication were not being used as strategic tools.  The Panel considered this an 
omission with the potential for significant impacts when undertaking what could be 
regarded one of the biggest behaviour change requirements of the adult UK 
population in recent history. 
 
(post meeting note Sue Garrard has been asked to comment on the Marketing 
strategy as part of its review) 
 
It was agreed that Sue should meet with Alan Barnish reasonably soon – Xxxx to 
arrange 
 
Risk 
 
The Panel acknowledged the work going on during this transition period however; 
they expressed some concern over resourcing and structure around risk. They agreed 
that once the transition was over the Panel should review the way risks were handled: 
Reason to ensure that the structure and integrity of the Programme, as well as the low 
level risks, are taken into account. 
 
Review of the IAP  
 
Alan summarised issues raised at the previous meeting (the Panel was a very limited 
resource & Panel members may find themselves drawn into working outside of their 
remit with the potential impact that they w
  ould become less effective).  He explained 
that he had spoken to Alan Barnish the SRO to obtain his views and then facilitated a 
ge era
n
l discussion where the following points were covered. 
 
ƒ  The Panels remit could not include any expectation that it would deliver 
absolute assurance. The panel would, however, be able to deliver a degree 
of independent and flexible oversight that the Programme was fit to deliver 
the ID cards scheme. 
ƒ  The Panel could organise its priorities in rolling 3 month periods. These would 
be agreed with the SRO and be sourced from the SRO, the IA
n
P a d the Senior 
Management Team (SMT). 
ƒ 
i
W thin the priorities, panel members should be tasked at Panel meetings 
(either face to face or virtual). 
ƒ  The Panel would not simply record and walk away. They could engage with 
the Programme in those areas they were currently working on. This should take 
the form of advice and some limited assistance. 
9:50 AM28/10/2011 

ƒ  The SRO’s priorities were not reflected in the risk register. 
ƒ  Very few people understood the whole Programme and the panel
ld
 shou  
endeavour to join them. They needed to work towards developing an 
understanding of the complete picture (post meeting note – this will not work 
without a planned schedule of activities) 
ƒ  The panel did not need to meet every month. 
 
The Pan l 
e agreed its future process would include 
 
ƒ  Holding face to face  meetings less  frequently than once a month (exact 
timing to be dictated by work requirements) and using months without 
meetings to engage with the Programme 
ƒ  To hold a virtual meeting on months without a face to face meeting and at 
other times as required.  
ƒ  To use secure email for online discussion. 
ƒ  To develop a new TOR reflecting the above process and discussion points.  
 
The Panel reviewed its priorities and the focus points for the next three month period 
are:- 
 
Procurement 
 Strategy; 
 
Integration of and;  
 
The degree of outsourcing. 
 
Marketing and Communications  
There appears to be no clear, si
mind
ngle 
ed strategy linking into delivery 
(either at launch or steady state). 
 
Consumer behaviour  
(and how this squares with the Programme). 
 
Meeting the New Directors 
 
The Panel met with Lisa Lyne, Brian Cherie, Simon Rice. 
 
Al n
a  explained the IAP to the Directors and the Directors explained their roles with the 
caveat that (with the exception of Brian Cherrie) they were new to their current roles 
and were still getting to grips with the Programme. 
 
There was some discussion on the current state of play and Alan a
  dvised the Directors 
that they would find a Programme that was in fairly good shape although it was 
incomplete. 
 
It was agreed that these notes would be circulated to all
the meet
 at 
ing plus Andrew 
Dent, Nigel Seed and Katherine Courtney. 
 
Xxxx Xxxxxx  
Assurance  
9 December 2005 
9:50 AM28/10/2011