CONFIDENTIAL
3.1
3.4
Present:
Minutes of a Meeting of the Board of the
Transition Oversight Group held at Bloomsbury
Street Offices on 8th May 2015 at 8.00am
Peter Bucks
Steve Mogford
Gabrielle Edwards
Andrew Beaver
(Chair)
(SM) by Phone
(GE) by Phone
(AB)
Adam Cooper
Alan Sutherland
Janice Smethurst
Tim Burfoot
Martin Silcock
(AC)
(AS) by Phone
(JS) by Phone
(TB)
(MS)
In attendance: Jim Rickleton
Ann Bishop
Apologies for absence: None
(JR)
(AnnB) by Phone
1.1 The Chair welcomed those present and noted that all members were present.
2.1
3.2
3.3
The minutes of the previous meeting held on 1 st May were reviewed and approved.
AS confirmed MAP3 on track to publish on 11 th May but without the front end which is delayed due to the credit issue uncertainty. GE sought clarity on exactly what is being published on May 11. AB noted Ofwat were less sighted on the Company Readiness
Document than on the other appendices and would welcome opportunity to see it before publication.
PB suggested that AS discuss with GE and AB after the meeting to agree need for information to be shared prior to publication and, if necessary, a revised deadline for publication, preferably next week, for any parts of MAP3 held back from Monday May 11.
AC reported good engagement on transition planning. He had shared a letter with MOSL
Directors on assurance and hoped to finalise later that day. Ofwat moving forward on establishing the Codes Panel.
TB confirmed all elements of MOSL development on track.
1

2
Actions:
No.
03-01 Discussion to agree elements of MAP3 to be shared with Ofwat and
DEFRA prior to publication and agree revised publication dates for these parts of MAP3 if needed.
Responsible
AS, GE, AB
4.1
4.2
TB presented a first draft of overall programme budget. AB noted that the challenge in taking this forward was around ensuring all cost elements prepared on a consistent basis. He noted the importance of obtaining clarity on the transition plan and the impact this would have on costs, also suggested that we separate work on defining detailed costs from the narrative that would be needed to explain the numbers.
TB noted that there would be little progress in firming up Central Systems Costs until we get supplier input so we should concentrate on other costs. SM noted the need to look at business model options to fund central systems. He also expected to review Ofwat costs to agree how they would be explained to MOSL members. GE said she would like to be involved in developing the narrative around programme costs.
Actions:
No.
PB noted urgent need to agree the overall programme costs. He tasked OWML/MOSL/Ofwat team to bring more firm costs back to ToG in time for the next meeting of the group. Also he noted the need to establish a process for agreeing the narrative around the final numbers and a timetable for this.
Responsible
JR, AB, TB basis for presentation back to the next ToG meeting (15 May).
03-03
Ofwat/MOSL/DEFRA to establish process and timeline for narrative around programme budget
AB,AC,
TB,SM,GE
5.1
5.2
AB explained the thinking behind the presentation of risks against each transition option. The proposal was that Ofwat would write to MOSL seeking assurances around Option 2 (mid-
June). PB noted the aim of the group was to ensure all risks and factors affecting transition options were platformed. The decision was to be made by Ofwat and MOSL.
GE noted the criticality of the Codes team and questioned whether this had been sufficiently explored in terms of the 4 options. There was a round table discussion around the options and the potential impact on available resources. PB summarised the discussion in terms of the key risk being the availability of expert resources and how this risk might be mitigated.
This should be the focus of further work taken away from this meeting.

3
5.3
5.4
Actions:
No.
SM confirmed that MOSL were not planning to start their work with new expert resources, so the critical issue was when and if expert resources would be prepared to switch to MOSL. He also noted that the proposed change in the credit arrangements had come late in the day and risk to the programme from any further changes by the Codes Panel once it moves to Ofwat remains a concern.
PB suggested that DEFRA/Ofwat/MOSL need to discuss process and timetable to resolve credit terms issue. OWML/MOSL/Ofwat to prepare a further iteration of the transition planning options in time for the next meeting of ToG taking on board the issues raised in discussion.
Responsible terms issue.
GE, AC, AB,
TB
03-05
OWML/MOSL/Ofwat to prepare further version of transition planning options for next ToG meeting on 15 th May
JR, TB,AB
The next meeting will be held on Friday 15 th May at 8am at Bloomsbury Street offices.
As there was no further business, the Chair declared the meeting closed.
.............................................................................
Chairman