Minutes of the 74thmeeting of the Board of the Equality and Human Rights Commission
9November 2017, Fleetbank House, 2-6 Salisbury Square, London, EC4Y 8JX
Attending:
Commissioners
David Isaac, Chair
Susan Johnson
Lorna McGregor
June Milligan
Lesley Sawers
Swaran Singh
Caroline Waters
Rebecca Hilsenrath, Chief Executive Officer
Officers
Karen Grayson, Principal - Institutional Strategy (presentation of item 9)
Melanie Field, ED - Wales,and Strategy and Policy
Richard Mabbitt, Secretary to the Board (items 1-8 and 10-12)
OlufemiOguntunde, Director - Finance and Procurement (items 1-8 and 10-12)
Alastair Pringle, ED - Scotland and Corporate Delivery
Jacqui Thomson, Principal - Strategic and Business Planning (item 12)
Ben Wilson, ED for England and Corporate Improvement and Impact
Rachel Zaltzman, Director - Strategic Planning and Policy (items 1-8, presentation of item 9 and 10-12)
Observing
Gillian Lawrence, Principal - Scotland (items 1-8 and 10-12)
Laura Mingins, Senior Associate - Communications(items 1-8 and 10-12)
Hazel Wardrop, Senior Associate - Research (items 1-8 and 10-12)
Graham Wheaton, Senior Associate - Corporate Governance (items 1-8 and 10-12)
Apologies
Lord Shinkwin
1.Chair’s welcome, attendance and apologies for absence
1.1David Isaac welcomed attendees.Apologies had been received from Lord Shinkwin.
1.2Board members felt that the re-ordered agenda for this meeting was a helpful way of structuring future meetings to ensure that discussion prioritised strategic items for decision and substantive input over routine update items.
1.3An additional agenda item on sexual harassment had been introduced (item 11).
2.Declarations of interest
2.1 David Isaac reminded Board members of his recent declaration of Pinsent Masons’ acquisition of diversity consultancy Brook Mason. He had no involvement inthe acquisition and would have no part in the ongoing operations of Brook Mason.
2.2David Isaac asked Board members to declare any conflicts that they were aware of at this point or as they became apparent in the course of discussions. No declarations of interest were made additional to those already registered.
3. Round up of pre-meeting sessions
3.1 Board members had privately discussed Commissioner appointments.
3.2A well-received development session on Economic and Social Rights for Board members had been held, led by Carla Garnelas (Principal –Treaty Monitoring) and Professor Aoife Nolan (University of Nottingham).
4.Minutes of the previous Board meeting
4.1 Minutes of the Board’s 73rd meeting of 12 September 2017 (EHRC 74.01) were agreed with no amendments.
5. Matters arising
5.1 The Board reviewed the log of actions arising (EHRC 74.02).
5.2On Action 67/10.2Alastair Pringle reported that the formal “lessons learned” report on the Metropolitan Police Service had been reviewed by the Delivery Group, with learning from the investigation already applied to the current Housing Inquiry and to work with on Premier League stadium accessibility. Commissioners felt that the lessons learned report could usefully be shared with ARAC and the Board for information(Action: Alastair Pringle)
5.3The Board was content that other actions recorded were either complete, duly in progress, or would be addressed later in the meeting.
6. CEO’s and EDs’ Overview
6.1 Rebecca Hilsenrath, supported by Executive Directors, highlighted key points from the Performance and Resources Report (EHRC 74.03); the Strategic Risk Register (EHRC 74.04);and the Summary of CEO/Chair key activities (EHRC 74.05).
6.2The Board discussed the importance of investing sustainably in new projects addressing the potential 2018-19 underspend discussed at earlier meetings. In seeking to optimise resource use this year it was important that the Commission was not left with ongoing liabilities, the risk of which would increase as the financial year progressed. The Commission should also consider focussing on additional activities that would prepare the ground for projects due to start in the 2018-19 year.For future business planning, it was suggested that the Commission over-programmed in some areas.The Board noted the Commission’s recently-launched impact model and the need for financial and commercial capacity building within the Commission.
6.3The Board noted the ongoing risk of criticism of the Commission relating to perceived conflicts of interest: the recent meetings of the Chair with the Women and Equalities Select Committee had highlighted this. It was suggested that the Commission’s mitigations for the risks around conflict of interest could usefully be reviewed, in a systematic rather than an individualised way.
6.4The Board asked to be kept aware of developments in the Commission’s thinking on key performance indicators and the impact evaluation model.
6.5The Board discussed the role and value of human resources accreditation. It was noted that the Commission’s current people indicators were robust and positive action programmes were in place. Nonetheless there could be value in external and demonstrably independent scrutiny and confirmation of good practice. However the Commission also needed to consider the proportionality of doing so and the real added value provided by different accreditation routes. The Board asked the HRRC to provide further advice (Action: Caroline Waters, Joe Corcos).
6.6Commissioners discussed the Commission’s stakeholder tracking research (Information Paper 74A). They felt this provided very useful evidence to guide the Commission’s approach to stakeholder engagement. Commissioners looked forward toa fuller report (due at the January 2018Board meeting) on the next steps for capitalising on the strengths and addressing the areas of challenge highlighted in the report. They asked officers to reflect on:
a)Stakeholder views onindependence: while the rating for this was relatively high, this needed to be considered in context. How significant was this and how did it map onto the Commission’s strategy on independence (to be discussed at item 9)?
b)Segmentation: was any sectoralor issue-specific variation hidden in the aggregated results?
c)The direction of travel: how were these results being baselined?
d) How perceived characteristics mapped onto perceived roles: for example, with the Commission seen as an “information provider (74%)” what were the implications of a 58% score for “authoritative”)?
e)Comparability: how did the results compare against those for similar organisations?
f)The mismatch between the Commission’s aim of being more responsive, and the relatively low rating for ‘ambitious’. They felt that the 10th anniversary provided an opportunity to be more publicly ambitious.
Action: Ben Wilson: to discuss Board feedback with officers taking forward the Commission’s stakeholder strategy.
6.7Commissioners noted the updates on Working Forward (Information Paper 74B) and the Board Effectiveness Action Plan (Information Paper 74C) with no further comments.
6.8Overall, the Board was content with the Commission’s achievements against its work programme and with its approach to risk management.
7. Committee Chairs’ updates
Wales Committee
7.1June Milligan spoke to paper EHRC 74.06 which:
a)briefed Board members on prospective new Wales Committee members and sought Board approval for their appointment. Board members noted the robust and inclusive appointment process and welcomed the strong and diverse field of candidates that would bring fresh expertise and challenge to the Committee. The Board:
-was pleased to agree to the appointment of new members Rocio Cifuentes (for three years), Martyn Jones (for three years), and Geraint Hopkins (for two years) commencing from 1 December 2017;
-agreed to the reappointment of existing members Andrew Edwards and Sophie Howe each for a further two years until 31 December 2019;
-was content that the two named reserve candidates were appointable, and would support their appointment if it became necessary to fill any unexpected vacancies on the Committee.
b)presented the Annual Wales Review 2016-17. The Review set out the Commission’s key work and achievements in Wales. Its publication would be linked to the programme of 10th Anniversary events for the Commission in Walesand would be debated at the Welsh National Assembly in December. Board members:
-thanked the Wales Committee and the Wales team for their hard work across a range of work areas;
-felt that the exposition of progress towards how the Commission’s aims in Wales were being met was clear and helpful;
-noted the specific issues which affected mental health service provision in Wales.
7.2Board Members reflected on the events leading up to the death of former Welsh Assembly Minister CarlSargeant AM, who had been a noted champion of equality and human rights in Wales.
7.3Minutes of the Wales Committee meeting of 20 September (information paper 74H) were noted by the Board.
Scotland Committee
7.4Lesley Sawers thanked Board attendees for participating in the meetings of the Board, Scotland Committee, staff and stakeholders in Edinburgh and Glasgow on 31 October and 1 November. The meetings had been well-received and a note would be circulated shortly. Board members were requested to feed back to Lesley Sawers and JohnWilkes (Head, Scotland) with key points from conversations with stakeholders. (Action: all attending Commissioners). Board members thanked Gillian Lawrence and colleagues in the Scotland team who had invested considerable effort in organising and preparing for the meetings.
7.5Board members reflected on the role of the Commission as a trusted convenor, and noted that the meetings were likely to stimulate and support inter-stakeholder working relationships. They felt there was potential further to develop the relationships between Scotland stakeholders and their near-equivalents in other administrations and asked this to be borne in mind in developing the Commission’s follow up to the meeting.
7.6Lesley Sawers reported that the recruitment process for new Scotland Committee Memberswas proceeding well. As in Wales, efforts had been made to improve the diversity and range of skill sets of applicants, including open days for potential applicants. Due to the timing of forthcoming meetings she would seek Board approval for appointment of new members by correspondence shortly.
7.7Minutes of the Scotland Committee meeting of 5 September (Information Paper 74G) were noted by the Board.
Disability Advisory Committee (DAC)
7.8Melanie Field reported on the DAC meeting of 3 November on behalf of interim Committee Chair Rachel Perkins. She highlighted the Committee’s helpful comments on the draft Business plan (discussed under item 10). The second phase of Committee recruitment was now under way, with a closing date of 24 November. New appointments were anticipated to be made in January.
7.9Caroline Waters, who had attended the meeting as an observer noted the insightful and collegiate nature of the Committee’s discussion. She noted that the Committee had welcomed the attendance of David Isaac and Rebecca Hilsenrath at past meetings and were grateful for this‘line of sight’ to the Board. Board members, who were being kept aware of upcoming meetings and items of particular individual interest, remained keen to observe DAC meetings where useful and practicable.
7.10Board members noted with interest the report summarising the achievements of the statutory Disability Committee (information Paper 74D). The Committee’s recommendations about how its successor should operate had been taken on board in setting up the DAC.
Audit and Risk Assurance Committee (ARAC)
7.11ARAC had met on 24 September (information paper 74E). Susan Johnson highlighted the Committee’s thorough review of Cyber risk and of the General Data Protection regulations (GDPR), and commended the high quality of papers provided by officers on these challenging issues. The Committee had felt that implementing the GDPR would create a substantial workload. The Committee was content that the risk based approach being taken by the Commission on GDPR implementation was proportionate and defensible.
Human Resources and Remuneration Committee (HRRC)
7.12HRRC (inquorate) had met on 24 September. Minutes of the meeting were noted by Board members (Information Paper 74F). Caroline Waters reported that the Committee, with Joe Corcos, would be reviewing the Commission’s people policies for clarity and consistency.
8. Income Generation
8.1Femi Oguntunde introduced an initial scoping paper on alternative revenue generation for the EHRC (EHRC 74.07). Benefits and costs; risks and mitigations; and precedents were set out for the following.
a)Activities that fell within the scope of the Commission’s existing powers (including s.1.3 of the Equality Act 2006 relating to information, training and guidance):
-charging for existing publications or content
-subscription/fee-based access to online best practice/legal advice
-bespoke advice, guidance and training
b)other activities that did not fall within the scope of our existing powers.
-Accreditation
c)Direct funding through grants or sponsorship
-Institutional funding from EU or UN;
-Sponsorship;
-Foundations and individual donors;
8.2Commissioners welcomed the opportunity to discuss this issue. They:
a) highlightedthe prior question of whether any income generated would be offset against the Commission’s grant-in-aid from Government. It was noted that any income generated would need to at least cover the additional corporate cost required to initiate and manage that income stream;
b)suggestedinvestigating the merits ofa Community Interest Company as an income-generating vehicle separate from the Commission as an NDPB;
c)felt that an intelligent and proportionate scale of charges would mitigate the risk of restricting the availability of hitherto free-accesspublications and content. Likewise, for subscription or fee-based access to best practice or legal services, a tailored approach to subscriptions would mitigate availability issues;
d)noted the risk that EU grant funding options would be curtailed as the UK moved towards leaving the EU;
e)felt thatgrant application and management capability was not a current strength of the Commission. However, this was an area where outsourcing expertise could well be effective and proportionate;
f)acknowledged the risks around sponsorship, but felt that with sound processes in place, and with clarity about the links (if any) between specific sponsorship/donations and pieces of work these risks would be manageable for some donors/sponsors;
g)reflected on the Commission’s role in carrying out additional work beyond its remit in Great Britain. They felt that the Commission’s primary purpose would not necessarily be compromised by seeking to spread its activities more widely. Indeed, a case could be made that embedding equality and human rights more widely would benefit the Commission and its stakeholders in Great Britain, irrespective of the income generation benefits of so doing.
8.3The Board concluded that in the interests of future-proofing the Commission at a time of competing demands upon a lower level of public expenditure, it was incumbent upon the organisation to have a clear and justified approach on alternative revenue streams, even if this remained a contingency position for the present. It therefore agreed with the proposal for external consultants to carry out in this financial year a more detailed study of alternative revenue options (including comparison with other NHRIs) with more detailed recommendations into future viability, risks and opportunities.
Action: Femi Oguntunde to progress.
8.4Board members were not convinced that the lessons learned from securing the remunerated chairing of the Commonwealth forum would be directly applicable to other potential channels of income generation. They nonetheless agreed that this activity would be of substantial benefit to the Commission and its mission more generally, while also offering an income generating opportunity that would help to prompt a clearer position on offsetting earned income against grant-in-aid. The Board asked staff to press on with negotiations on this.
Action:Femi Oguntundeto monitor income generation implications of this work as it progressed.
9. The Commission’s independence, NHRI accreditation, and the Tailored Review of the Commission
9.1Karen Grayson and Rachel Zaltzman presented paper EHRC 74.08 which outlined the Commission’s proposed strategy for:
a)securing greater independence from Government;
b)ensuring ‘A’ status was preserved following the 2020 NHRI re-accreditation process;
c)levering benefits and managing risks associated with the forthcoming Tailored Review of the Commission by Government.
9.2Commissioners and Executive Directors discussed the paper in private session. They felt it important that the review process and report reflected:
a)the wider context of Devolution, and the need to think through the potential implications of the report’s findings for the operation of the Commission in Scotland and in Wales;
b)the wider context of Brexit, and whether the report should consider scenarios for the Commission’s future operations. Board members acknowledged that this would be restricted to some extent by the need to avoid politicisation;
c)a greater focus on accountability (as opposed to independence).
d)evidence of where current sponsorship arrangements have made the Commission less effective, and building a case for accountability as an operational enabler;
e)The importance of the reaccreditation of the Commission by the GANHRI Sub Committee on Accreditation (SCA) in 2020, and the need for Government and the Commission to make progress against the recommendations of the 2015 reaccreditation report;
9.3David Isaac thanked officers for their work on the strategy and asked them to take into account the Board’s views as the strategy was developed. In the light of the discussion on independence it was suggested that the Commission’s 10th anniversary communication should place less emphasis on independence. The importance of securing WEC and JCHR buy-in to the strategy was also emphasised. Action: Melanie Fieldto share feedback with officers developing the strategy.
10. Business Planning 2018-19
10.1Jacqui Thomson joined the meeting to brief the Board on the 2018-19 business planning process (paper EHRC 74.09 refers).
10.2Board members noted feedback from the Scotland Committee, which had:
a)Noted the absence of social care in the Business Plan’s aims
b)asked for clarity on how impact evaluation would reflect the Commission’s work in England, Scotland and Wales;
c)suggested better articulation in the Plan between protected characteristics and socio-economic inequality;