21 November 2024 - Minutes of the meeting of the Board of Commissioners
Minutes of the meeting of the Board of Commissioners, Thursday 21 November 2024.
Location: Victoria Square, Birmingham.
Commissioners:
- Charles Counsell (Chair)
- Lloydette Bai-Marrow
- Helen Dodds
- Sheree Howard
- Claudia Mortimore
- Helen Phillips
- Andrew Rhodes
- David Rossington.
Executive team:
- Helen Child
- Katharine Diamond
- Helen Gibson (item 5 only)
- Tim Miller (item 4 only)
- John Tanner (items 3 and 4 only).
In attendance:
- REDACTED (Item 3 only)
- REDACTED (Item 3 only)
- REDACTED (Item 6 only)
- REDACTED (Item 6 only)
- REDACTED (Item 3 only)
- REDACTED (Secretariat)
- REDACTED (Item 4 only)
- REDACTED (Hogan Lovells – Item 3 only)
- REDACTED (Item 4 only).
Apologies:
- Marcus Boyle
- Alistair Quigley
- Kay Roberts.
Item 1: Welcome, apologies, and declarations of interest
1.1 The Chair welcomed attendees to the meeting.
1.2 The Chair noted apologies from Marcus Boyle, the Chief Technology Officer and the Director of Operations, Alistair Quigley and Kay Roberts.
In his absence, Marcus had asked Charles to chair the meeting.
1.3 There was one declaration of interest; Charles Counsell noted the conflict between chairing the meeting and also acting as the Senior Independent Director.
POST MEETING NOTE: With the exception of the CEO, Head of Governance, and the General Counsel, members of the Executive Team attended this meeting only where they were presenting agenda items.
Item 2: Minutes, actions and forward look
2.1 The minutes of the meeting of 12 September 2024 were reviewed and agreed, subject to amendments submitted via email, and the following notes:
- REDACTED
- Board noted a matter arising for clarification on the item on Criminal Barristers Contract Award recommendation. Board reviewed the language in the minutes of 21 September 2024 and agreed that that the minutes should be revised to confirm that Board approved the business case (thereby agreeing the contract could be awarded) but that Board expect to see a paper on Value for Money during the contract lifetime.
ACTION: REDACTED
2.2 REDACTED
2.3 The Forward Look was reviewed, and Board noted that further development is required before the next meeting.
ACTION: REDACTED
Item 3: REDACTED
Item 4: Gambling Act Review update
4.1 The Board received papers setting out the Gambling Commission’s (the Commission) proposed response to the consultation on customer-led tools. A recommendation was made that the Commission consult on a requirement for business to consumer operators to remove non-compliant machines and respond to gaming machine staff alerts.
4.2 Board was asked to take the following decisions:
- Agree the (26) recommendations related to consultation outcomes on customer led tools to implement new and revised requirements and implementation guidance to the Remote gambling and software technical standards (RTS) 12 – Financial limits, made in this paper and in Annex A.
- Delegate authority to the CEO to finalise the wording of the RTS provisions, the content of and timing for publishing the response document, and implementation timeline.
- Approve inclusion of the 2 additional proposals relating to B2C operators in the upcoming gaming machine consultation and delegate authority to the CEO to finalise the wording of the consultation proposals and consultation timing.
4.3 Board noted their intention to deal with each decision in turn, with the 26 recommendations at point a. dealt with by exception.
4.4 DECISION: Board agreed the 26 recommendations at point a.
4.5 DECISION: Board agreed to delegate the finalisation of the wording as set out at point b.
4.6 DECISION: Board agreed the inclusion of 2 additional proposals as set out at point c.
4.7 Board noted the need to clarify what would be the desired outcome in terms of player-centric tools and measures at the end of the strategy period. A shared understanding of outcomes and clear narrative on the key strands of the strategy would be a useful development.
4.8 Board noted that a session is planned for an update to Board on progress on the corporate strategy, with a further strategy session in February 2026. Board suggested that a shared Board narrative could be developed with 3 to 4 examples across each theme.
4.9 Board noted that on the Gambling Act White Paper, there is scope to provide that shared narrative and examples for Board. There is a joint evaluation programme between the Commission and the Department for Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS) which will help to present the wider picture rather than just individual strands. Board noted that a route map setting out the overall direction would be of value.
4.10 The strategy session can be used to describe what consumers should be able to expect and how the various activities and measures interact.
ACTION: REDACTED
ACTION: REDACTED
Item 5: Business case: Microsoft Office 365
5.1 Board received the business case for the renewal of the Commission’s Microsoft 365 Enterprise Agreement. The current contract expires on 31 December 2024 and pricing for a 3-year agreement has been secured via an aggregation event run by Crown Commercial Services (CCS).
5.2 Board was asked to take the following decision:
Approve the Business Case for the renewal of the contract.
Board approval is sought as the maximum lifetime value of the contract is in excess of £500k.
5.3 Board noted that the business case is for a continuation of the existing service provided to the Commission, procured under the CCS framework. Board noted that the business case has been reviewed by all the people named in the paper. On the benchmarking of costs, Board noted that procurements run though CCS have been benchmarked, and the Commission uses frameworks as a preferred route because they provide a consistent and structured process for procurement.
5.4 Board noted that Microsoft 365 is part of the Commission’s core infrastructure for day-to-day work and is linked to the Digital Road Map.
ACTION: REDACTED
5.5 DECISION: Board agreed the business case for the renewal of the Commission’s Microsoft 365 Enterprise Agreement.
Item 6: Business case: Data Science and Analytical Services
6.1 Board received the business case for the Data Science and Analytical Service.
REDACTED
6.2 Board was asked to take the following decision:
Approve the Business Case for the spend on this contract.
REDACTED
6.3 Board noted that the business case is focused on delivering necessary support to deliver the Data Strategy. The rationale for the maximum contract value is set to allow for flex in the contract to avoid the need to re-procure. There was a misunderstanding in respect of the sign off process, which has resulted in the case being brought to Board at a late stage in the procurement.
6.4 Board noted that the proposed flexibility is over 100 percent of the contract value and the paper does not indicate what this will be spent on. Board noted the risk of seeking a contract of £815,000 against a budget of £415,000 which could result in suppliers inflating costs.
6.5 Board were advised that the control in respect of the risk is that spend beyond the approved budget would require an additional business case over and above the £415,000 over 3 years in agreed budgets. In developing the business case, the Digital Advisory Panel, amongst others, advised that some headroom should be included if funds became available and if business priorities dictated. Board are not expected to sign off a business case without visibility of what they might get for the money.
6.6 In respect of procurement, Board were advised the team have been clear about the initial amount that is available, noting that each piece of work will have a brief which will be quoted against. The team acknowledged the risk but felt that processes were in place to mitigate.
6.7 REDACTED
6.8 REDACTED
6.9 REDACTED
6.10 REDACTED
6.11 REDACTED
6.12 REDACTED
6.13 REDACTED
6.14 REDACTED
ACTION: REDACTED
6.15 Board were advised that there is no cost for the knowledge transfer element – this has been incorporated in the contracts to allow learning within the Commission. Contractual clauses on data usage cover the use of AI.
6.16 DECISION: Board gave approval for the Data Science and Analytical Service contract.
REDACTED
Item 7: Any Other Business
7.1 None notified.
Item 8: Below the Line items (for discussion by exception)
8.1 Board noted the positive Great Place to Work (GPTW) Annual Survey results, and noted this item should return to Board for further discussion. Board noted the score of 53 percent on the question ‘Our Board members fully embody the best characteristics of our organisation’ as an area for the Board to focus on.
ACTION: REDACTED
ACTION: REDACTED
8.2 On the National Audit Office (NAO) Management Letter, Board sought advice from the Audit and Risk Committee (ARC) on their interpretation of the recommendations. The Chair of ARC noted that there are issues which cannot be fixed until a new system is procured; that said, ARC have questioned the NAO and there were no errors found and no major concerns.
8.3 REDACTED
ACTION: REDACTED
8.4 REDACTED
ACTION: REDACTED
Meeting Closed 14:52