DFID Management Board
In working towards the delivery of the Public Service Agreement the Management Board will aim to:
- communicate the vision, role, direction and priorities of DFID to staff and other stakeholders;
- ensure DFID's financial resources and staff are allocated and managed effectively;
- monitor and improve DFID's performance;
- protect and enhance DFID’s reputation as a highly effective international development organisation.
Meeting on 30 June 2005
15.00 - 17.00 Location: PS 3W11
Topic |
Attending |
Purpose |
MB Obj |
Paper |
Corporate Governance Guidance Review |
Richard Calvert, Liz Davis, Helen Mealins, Simon Gill, Gail Marzetti |
To review progress and agree any changes needed |
A, B, C |
Covering minute |
People Strategy |
Liz Davis, John Anning, Ian McKendry, Chris Pontin |
Presentation and approval of the People Strategy - final draft |
A, B, C |
Covering minute |
Professional skills in Government (PSG) agenda |
Liz Davis, John Anning, Jane Clark, Lynnette Carrington |
To review progress and agree any changes needed |
A, B, C |
|
AOB: Human Rights Act (HRA) - information note |
Jane Alexander, Keith Mackiggan, Andrea Cook |
To agree how the Blue Book will be updated with information on HRA implications |
A, C |
Submission |
Next 3 years - Progress Report |
Richard Calvert, Liz Davis |
To assess progress towards the N3Y agenda, and identify ares needing further attention |
A, B, C |
SCS Leadership Day |
Attendees |
Suma Chakrabarti (Chair) Mark Lowcock, Masood Ahmed, Minouche Shafik, Helen Ghosh, Bill Grifiths |
|||
Observing |
Susan Loughead, Greg Briffa, Magui Moreno-Torres, Julia Bunting, Martin Leach, Neil Satchwell-Smith, Mark Richardson, Ana Wilson, Peter Forsey, Lillian Koma, Malcolm Geere, DFID Iraq (Baghdad) - Lindy Cameron and Helen Winterton |
|||
Corporate Governance Guidance Review
1. Helen Mealins introduced the update. The Code of Good Practice had been formally agreed and endorsed by the Cabinet Office, which had advised that Departments should implement it according to their own requirements. The approved Code was largely unchanged from the version reviewed by the Board in November 2004.
2. DFID's corporate governance arrangements broadly complied with or, in a number of cases, exceeded expectations of central government good practice as set out in the Code. At its meeting last November, the Board had noted DFID's strong performance overall, but agreed that some further work on corporate governance structures was needed. This had been addressed at the annual review of the Management Board and its sub-committees in May. Two areas remained where DFID was not compliant with the letter of the Code: that the Board received financial management reports on a quarterly (rather an monthly, as recommended by the Code) basis; and that the Board should include a qualified Finance Director (as recommended by the Code).
3. In addition to noting the above update, the Board were asked to give a view on six issues connected to the potential future development of DFID's corporate governance agenda, and to give advice on priorities for developing our corporate governance in future. The six issues were:
- whether the level and process of ministerial involvement in the strategic direction of DFID needed to be reviewed;
- whether the role and responsibilities of the sub-committees and the accountability of their members and linkage with the Board needed to be clearer;
- whether the role and responsibility of Directors and other senior staff in the formulation and delivery of corporate policy and messages was sufficiently clear, and whether incentive systems encouraged corporate behaviours;
- whether we were clear enough about the role, selection and appraisal of Non-Executive Directors, particularly as we seek in increase the range of their involvement;
- whether, building on the 2005 agenda, we need to look more systematically at governance arrangements for international development across Whitehall;
- whether we should put in place a more formal framework for medium term strategic and organisational planning.
4. In discussion, the Board:
- agreed that DFID performance in corporate governance was still strong. Further work was not needed. The two areas where DFID did not fully comply with the Code were not critical. The arrangements worked well and did not need to be revised, particularly since Departments had been advised to apply the Code flexibly;
- noted that Ministers had sent a strong signal during the SCS Day (23 June) that they were content with the way the Department is managed, and would not encourage a change to the current arrangements;
- noted that several sub committees existed outside the Management Board formal structures. These needed to have clear TORs and accountability arrangements, whilst retaining flexibility for committees to be set up and disbanded according to need;
- advised that the Audit Committee would decide at its next meeting whether to recruit an additional NED member;
- noted that the experience of the NEDs had been very good. We needed to be vigilant on the clarity of role, review and feedback;
- agreed that DFID needed to be better at identifying the organisational implications of strategy implementation and changes in the development policy environment.
5. In conclusion, the Board:
- thanked Helen Mealins, Richard Calvert and their teams for their useful update;
- agreed that given DFID's performance was good on corporate governance, and did not require any refinement;
- noted that on the six issues:
work is in hand to increase Ministerial involvement in risk management;
the relationship between the Board and the range of non-formal sub-committees was being clarified;
we needed to set out an agenda for the Leadership Group over the next 12 months. Richard Calvert was asked to lead work on this;
the Board was comfortable with the arrangements for the NEDs. However, one area for improvement was to make the process of feedback speedier and more systematic;
we should put in place a stronger 5 year framework for strategic and organisational planning, and asked Richard Calvert to take this forward;- congratulated the team involved in putting the PSA booklet together and asked FCPD to develop very quickly an effective communication programme.
People Strategy
6. Liz Davis and Chris Pontin introduced the Strategy, which set down for the first time the high-level goals for management of human resources in DFID. The strategy had been developed through an extensive consultation process. It set out four elements - high-level goals; key actions; success criteria; and accountability. It did not introduce new requirements, but brought together things that the Department and staff had already committed to doing. The Human Resources Director had a leadership role in taking forward some aspects, but Line Managers had a responsibility to cascade and deliver the strategy.
7. The Board were asked to agree the high-level goals and associated targets; agree the monitoring arrangements; note the intention to develop detailed implementation plans; and advise on the scale of the dissemination of the strategy and plans. The Strategy would be published once it was agreed by the Board and had received the 'Plain English crystal mark'.
8. In discussion, the Board:
- welcomed the bringing together of the values and high-level goals into one document;
- made specific suggestions for finalisation of the document:
i. the Strategy should be more customised to DFID, so that it read less as a generic document;
ii. diversity should either be a separate goal or incorporated into the first goal, to give it stronger presence in the strategy;
iii. the document could make clearer its relevance to SAIC, e.g. through reference in goal 2;
iv. baselines and projected end points should be given for the targets;
v. more was needed on how we would measure progress;
vi. the portrayal of shared ownership, and the setting out of accountability was very helpful. However, there was still excessive dependence on HRD to deliver what was a corporate strategy. The text should set out the responsibility of individuals in more detail;- advised that the strategy could be more explicit about how it would change the working environment for staff in DFID;
- emphasised the importance of accelerating the pace of implementation. An assessment at the end of the year would help to review - and give impetus to - change.
9. In conclusion, the Board:
- welcomed the People Strategy, and thanked the team for the good process and consultation behind it;
- noted that the areas for improvement (see above) should be incorporated into the Strategy:
- agreed that behavioural change was needed to ensure all staff acted upon their personal responsibility in HR management;
- noted that effective communication of the Strategy and all staff's responsibility in HR management would be key. The roll out should include details of the concrete deliverables that HRD had achieved (e.g. simplified processes for overtime, sick and travel claims) and those it had planned and by when. The Board members would also assist in its roll out through their visits to country offices;
- requested that Liz Davis circulate to the Board a narrative of 'killer facts' of changes to HR systems;
- noted that it was envisaged that PDP and AAF forms would be replaced this year with a simpler form which would allow for greater focus on discussion of performance, and which would be done on a financial years basis.
Professional Skills for Government
10. Lynette Carrington updated the Board on the progress of the Professional Skills for Government (PSG) agenda. The impact and implementation of PSG presented all Departments with some significant opportunities and challenges over the next few months. The Board was asked to note progress and the proposed way forward; and to confirm that DFID should continue to develop a detailed implementation plan adapted to DFID needs but working, wherever possible, to the Cabinet Office timetable.
11. In discussion, the Board:
- thanked Lynette and the team for the positive presentation and clear update on the PSG;
- noted that the Cabinet Office was still working through a lot of the details.
12. In conclusion, the Board:
- noted the concern amongst some staff about the implications of PSG;
- observed that a lot of details were yet to be worked out. We would need variations and refinements of the PSG agenda as we went along. This was common with other Departments. Suma Chakrabarti would discuss the PSG with the new Cabinet Secretary and Permanent Secretary colleagues;
- advised that further communication on PSG should be held until the details of PSG had were clearer. The information note presented to the Board provided useful background material that could be drawn on.
Next Three Years (N3Y)
13. The progress report on N3Y was introduced by Richard Calvert. The review was able to draw on discussions at the recent SCS Leadership Conference. The Board discussed the assessment of progress and the proposed areas for further action.
14. In conclusion, the Board:
- agreed that prioritisation and performance management needed much sharper focus. The Leadership Group would be discuss how to better to incentivise delivery on prioritisation and performance management at its next meeting, on the basis of further work to be lead by Richard Calvert;
- emphasised that we needed to communicate more effectively the impact and achievements of DFID's work;
- agreed the Permanent Secretary would write to the SCS on the key conclusions from the SCS Day and N3Y review, and how to take these forward.
AOB Human Rights Act (HRA)
15. Jane Alexander and Keith MacKiggan introduced the information note on the Implications of the HRA for DFID, which the Board considered as an AOB item. The HRA, which was introduced in October 2000, was relevant to DFID's work. It did not mean that DFID could no longer work in countries in which HR abuses occurred, but it meant that staff needed to think about how we worked there. The note addressed two key issues: i) the management of risks associated with the Act; and ii) the importance of a building a culture of respect for human rights, which was fully in line with DFID's values.
16. In discussion, the Board:
- noted that it was very helpful to have the guidance;
- asked that the guidance should outline the sources of legal advice on the HRA.
17. In conclusion, the Board:
- thanked the team for their good work on this, which brought together several months effort;
- welcomed the clear examples given in the guidance;
- requested that the team and FCPD revisit the 'Six Steps' set out in the guidance to ensure they gave a proportional approach. Having done this, the team would publish a spotlight notice and link the guidance to the Blue Book;
- requested that Richard Calvert re-issue guidance spelling out the sorts and sources of legal advice contracted by DFID.
