Minutes of the 73rd meeting of the Board of the Equality and Human Rights Commission
12September 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
Alexis Bennett, Senior principal – Corporate Law and Governance (item 10)
Verena Braehler, Principal - Research (item 8)
Karen Grayson, Principal – Institutional Strategy (item 7)
Jacqui Thomson, Principal – Strategic and Business Planning (item 12)
Richard Mabbitt, Board Secretary
Andrea Murray, Director – Human Rights and Research (item 8)
Olufemi Oguntunde, Director - Finance and Procurement (items 1 to 5)
Alastair Pringle, ED for Scotland and Corporate Delivery
Ben Wilson, ED for England and Corporate Improvement and Impact
Rachel Zaltzman, Director - Strategic Planning and Policy
Observing
Alasdair MacDonald, Director - Programmes
Libby McVeigh, Director - Programmes
Elizabeth Prochaska, Director - Legal
Graham Wheaton, Senior Associate - Corporate Governance Team
Elizabeth Davey, Principal - Legal
Apologies
Melanie Field, ED for Wales and Strategy & Policy
Lord Shinkwin
1.Chair’s welcome, attendance and apologies for absence
1.1David Isaac welcomed attendees, including recently arrived directors Alasdair MacDonald, Libby McVeigh and Elizabeth Prochaska who were observing the meeting.Apologies had been received from Melanie Field and from Lord Shinkwin.
2.Declarations of interest:
2.1 No declarations of interest were made additional to those already registered.David Isaac reminded Board members to declare any conflicts that became apparent in the course of discussions.
3. Round up of pre-meeting sessions
3.1 Risk Appetite and Strategy:Board Membershad welcomed the opportunity in the pre-meeting session for an extended discussion on this topicbased on paper EHRC 73.04 and led by Ben Wilson and Olufemi Oguntunde.Board members had:
a)discussed the definition of risk appetite, and risk appetite categories;
b)explored the Commission’s current and proposed risk appetite positions;
c)recommended that the Commission’s risk appetite should be as follows:
-Reputation and Credibility - ‘hungry’ (currently ‘open’).
-Operational Delivery - ‘open’ (currently ‘open’).
-Propriety and regularity - ‘averse’ (the current Financial Propriety and Regularity area stands at ‘averse’).
-Financial and Value for money - ‘open’ (the current Financial Propriety and Regularity area stands at ‘averse, and current Value for Money area stands at ‘open’).
-Enforcement and legal powers - ‘open’ (the current Legal and Regulatory area stands at ‘minimal’)
-Legal and regulatory compliance - ‘cautious’ (the current Legal and Regulatory Area stands at ‘minimal’).
-People and Capability: For Infrastructure: ‘cautious’; for People: ‘open’ (the current combined People and Capability area stands at ‘hungry’).
d)Asked for a note of this discussion to be shared with ARAC for its meeting of 27 September (Action: Richard Mabbitt).
3.2Commissioner appointments update:David Isaac and Rebecca Hilsenrath had reported on current discussions with GEO on Commissioner appointments. The current Commissioner application round would close on 12 September. Board members had expressed their appreciation for former Commissioner Sarah Veale’s contribution to the Commission, now that the Secretary of State had confirmed that she would not be re-appointed in the role.
3.3Horizon Scanning:Board members had felt that the tabled Horizon Scanning Digest presented useful intelligence clearly and effectively. They had asked Ben Wilson to discuss their feedback with officers(Action: Ben Wilson).
3.4EHRC 10th Anniversary:Board members had reviewed the regular Pipeline Documentand been briefed by Ben Wilson on the activities proposed around the Commission’s 10th anniversary and future vision. Board members had agreed that the anniversary was a timely opportunity to set out a refreshed vision for the future, and broadly supported the approach set out in his EHRC 10th anniversary briefing note. Board members had asked Ben Wilson to pass on their feedback to officers (Action: Ben Wilson).
3.5GEO presentation: Board members had welcomed Hilary Spencer, Director of the Government Equalities Office (GEO). Board members had discussed with Hilary Spencer:
a)changes to the GEO ministerial team and revised GEO priorities (reducing the gender pay gap, with large employers increasing transparency; tackling gender inequality in society; addressing discrimination faced by LGBT people; and securing and improving the wider equalities framework);
b)the importance of being able to demonstrate the Commission’s independence from Government. Board members had agreed that the forthcoming Tailored Review of the EHRC potentially offered an opportunity to take this discussion forward constructively and asked that consideration of how Government could support the Commission’s independence (including shorter term non-legislative changes) be included in the Terms of Reference of the Review.Action: Rachel Zaltzman / Hilary Spencer to reflect Board members feedback in ongoing GEO-EHRC discussions, especially in relation to the Tailored Review.
4.Minutes of the previous Board meeting
4.1 Minutes of the Board’s 72nd meeting of 3 July 2017 (EHRC 73.01) were agreed with no amendments.
5. Matters arising
5.1 The Board reviewed the log of actions arising (EHRC 73.02).
5.2On Action 67/10.2Rebecca Hilsenrath reported that the formal “lessons learned” report on the Metropolitan Police Service investigation was now scheduled for discussion by the Delivery Group. Learning from the investigation was already being applied to the current Housing Inquiry, and to the Commission’s work with the Premier League on stadium accessibility.
5.3On Action 72/7.5 Rebecca Hilsenrath reported than the Annual Report and Accounts (ARA) were now due to be laid on 14 September. She had been in discussion with Susan Johnson about more effective phasing of the ARA schedule, with the Board delegating sign off to ARAC. The Board was content with this. Olufemi Oguntunde would raise this with ARAC and report back to the Board (Action: Olufemi Oguntunde).
5.4On Action 72/8.3 Rachel Zaltzman reported that lead officers had been briefed on the pilot ‘Board buddying’ scheme. Board members acknowledged that limited capacity of both officers and Commissioners was currently restricting buddying activity, but were pleased that the framework for Commissioner support was now in place. They felt that the arrival of new directors would help encourage more officers to take advantage of the buddying support offered by Commissioners. (Action: Richard Mabbitt: to circulate updated list of buddying roles and officer responsibilities).
5.5On Action 72/13.2, Rebecca Hilsenrath highlighted that the Prioritisation Group and Transitional Disability Advisory Committee had considered Lord Shinkwin’s Abortion (Disability Equality) Private Member’s Billand a Commission position statement setting out the legal position and the range of issues at stake had been duly shared with Board members (4 August) before publication. Lord Shinkwin had been notified of this approach.
5.6On Action 67/8.3 (on income generation) and Action 72/6.1c (on the Commission’s independence), David Isaac noted that substantive papers would be presented at the Board meeting of 9 November.
5.7The Board was content that other actions recorded were either complete, in progress, or would be addressed later in the meeting.
6. CEO’s Overview, including key risks and performance and resource issues
6.1 Rebecca Hilsenrath drew the Board’s attention to the Performance and Resources report (EHRC 73.03); the strategic risk register (Annex C of EHRC 73.04); and the Legal Report (EHRC 73.05).The Board noted the high priority given by Executive Group and Delivery Group to addressing the Commission’s projected 2017-18 underspend, including considering proposals for grants to the advice sector for supporting its work on discrimination. The Board:
a)was content with progress in addressing the underspend, but felt that the delivery and reputational risksit posed remained high;
b)commented that it was important to consider the sustainability and lasting impact of work initiated by any potential Commission grant-funding. The Commission needed to be clear about the catalysing role of any future grant-funding activity and about where and how it planned longer term support, including syndication of such work among other agencies.
c)felt it would be helpful for Board members to be kept aware of developments in addressing the underspendacross the piece (Action: Olufemi Oguntunde).
6.2The Board suggested that ARAC could review the specificity of the success criteria for Strategic Risk 1 (on the Commission’s independence and authority) (Action: Olufemi Oguntunde).
6.3The Board noted the wide range of legal activity being carried out by the Commission. Rebecca Hilsenrath advised that officers in the Legal team would be happy to advise individual Board members further on specific cases or legal activity on request.
6.4Rebecca Hilsenrath and David Isaac updated Board members on their recent stakeholder engagements and activity, which included:
July 2017
a)David Isaac spoke at the ENEI Awards, covering the Queen’s Speech and employment issues, pay gaps and Working Forward.
b)David Isaac met Liz Sayce, former CEO of Disability Rights UK.
c)David Isaac attended a Downing Street reception for LGBT communities
d)Rebecca Hilsenrath participated in an advisory group meeting for theLammy Review into the treatment of Black, Asian and Minority Ethnic individuals in the Criminal Justice System.
e)Rebecca HilsenrathmetLocal Government Legal Ombudsman,Mick King,to discuss closer working and the Commission’s proposals on access to justice.
f)Rebecca Hilsenrath and officers metrepresentatives from Voice for Choice.
g) Rebecca Hilsenrath met Andrew Copson (Humanists UK), to discuss a range of issues including Faith Schools and Humanist Marriages.
August 2017
a)David Isaac met Cressida Dick, Metropolitan Police Service Commissioner, to discuss follow-up to the Commission’s Investigation, Hate Crime, and Stop and Search.
b)David Isaac met Baroness Meacher, to discussDignity in Dying, the Noel Conway case, Brexit and Independence.
c)David Isaac and Alastair Pringle met Scottish First Minister Nicola Sturgeon.
d)David Isaac met James Marshall (Policy Advisor to the Prime Minister) to discussed a range of issues including Brexit and Race Equality.
e)Rebecca Hilsenrath met Stephen Fisher (Deputy Head of Human Rights Foreign and Commonwealth Office) to discuss the Commission taking on chairing the Commonwealth Forum of NHRIs.
September 2017
a)Rebecca Hilsenrath met barristers working on the Premier League Football project.
b)David Isaac met Baroness Warsi to discuss Brexit, hate crime and the possibility of a Lords debate on the UPR.
c)David Isaac met Ian Blackford (SNP Westminster Leader) to discuss Brexit and support for EHRC amendments.
d)David Isaac met with Paul Farmer(CEO Mind), to discuss the Commission’s work on mental health.
e)David Isaac attended a Business and Diversity Group meeting chaired by Margot James.
f)David Isaac met with Disability Minister Penny Mordaunt, to discuss a range of disability issues including CRPD.
g)David Isaac met with Liberal Democrat leader Vince Cable.
h)David Isaac participated in the launch of the Report of the Lammy Review, including a panel discussion with other Advisory Group Members and a number of media interviews.
6.5Board members noted that capacity building and strategy development activity for senior management continued, with Executive Group development and strategy meetings in July and September and an Executive Director Strategy Away Day in August.
6.6The Board was pleased that constructive meetings had been held with PCS representatives. It noted that the Commission had extended the notice period for three members of staff under notice of redundancy to the end of October. This was to give them more time to find other roles and for the People Team to continue to provide them with support. In return, PCS had agreed to ballot union members by the end of October, with a recommendation that they end their dispute.
6.7The Board noted that David Isaac and Rebecca Hilsenrath had separately met GEO Director Hilary Spencer, and had discussed Commissioner Appointments, Independence and Pay Gaps. The Board felt that independence remained a critical issue for the Commission, and thanked David Isaac and Rebecca Hilsenrath for continuing to press GEO on this important issue.
6.8The Board noted other high profile work:
a)A range of activity around the UN CRPD Report, including strong calls for the Government to take action to addressthe failures to protect disabled people’s rights identified by the UN.
b)Parliamentary Briefing for the Second Reading of the EU (Withdrawal) Bill, and related stakeholder engagement. Board members thanked officers for the helpful briefing note on this provided as information paper 73.06.
c)The Welsh Government signing up to Working Forward.
d)The Commission’sapplication to be a participant in the Grenfell Inquiry.
The Board noted the range and volume of activity being carried out by the Commission and the outcomes it was generating, and asked Rebecca Hilsenrath to pass on their thanks to staff.
7. Access to civil justice: exchange of expertise and ‘advice for advisors’ helpline
7.1Karen Grayson joined the meeting to introduce paper EHRC 73.06. This provided an update on how, in line with the 2017/18 Business Plan, the Commission was taking forward its work on access to justice in a new direction, by sharing its expertise on equality and human rights with advisors and those providing alternative dispute resolution services. This would involve a pilot ‘advice for advisors’ helpline and online resources.
7.2Board members noted:
a)that the proposals had been discussed across the Commission and external stakeholders had been (and would continue to be) consulted, The proposal would also draw on advice from the Scotland, Wales and Disability Advisory Committees;
b)the timeline for the roll out of the service, with a launch proposed for November 2017;
c)the geographical focus (North West of England) of the regional element of the project. Board members felt that, on balance and given that this was a pilot project, this focus was justified. It was noted that as well as reflecting supply (the expertise and networks of primarily Manchester-based Commission staff) it also reflected demand: for example there was now only one law centre in Manchester, where there had previously been nine;
d)the risks set out in the paper. The Board suggested no additional risks, and were content with the mitigations proposed.
7.3Overall, Board members were content with progress and with the proposals for next steps. An update paper would be provided following evaluation of the pilot. (Action: Karen Grayson).
8. Measurement Framework update
8.1Board members welcomed Verena Braehler and Andrea Murray to the meeting to present paper EHRC 73.07. The paper was a summary of the Commission’s Measurement Framework for Equality and Human Rights ahead of its launch in October 2017.
8.2Board members noted the requirement under the Equality Act 2006 to monitor social outcomes from an equality and human rights perspective, and how this had been met by “Is Britain Fairer” (2015) and predecessor publications. The Framework will inform the next “Is Britain Fairer” reviews, which in turn will be used to influence other public bodies to improve equality and human rights outcomes, and the Commission’s own strategic plan.
8.3The Board discussed the key features of the new Framework. Board members:
a)welcomed the improvements to consistency and compatibility in equality and human rights monitoring that the new Framework would provide, and its helpful consolidation of four pre-existing measurement frameworks (on Equality, Good relations, Children, and Human Rights) under six domains: Education, Work, Living Standards, Health, Justice and Personal Security, and Participation;
b)discussed potential users of the Framework and felt that local authorities and city mayors should be targeted as key users. They noted that the Framework was already in use by Fife Council with other bodies having expressed interest in taking it up. Board members noted that arrangements for disseminating and leading learning on the framework were in preparation, and suggested that training or masterclasses for local government users needed to be explored, perhaps in partnership with the Local Government Association (Action: Andrea Murray to discuss with Susan Johnson approaching LGA). Board members also suggested the National Audit Office as another organisation that could well make use of it;
c)felt that the Framework and the research that lay behind it, represented a robust, substantial and cohesive body of academic research. There could be scope for thought leadership and academic publications based on this (Action: Andrea Murray to explore);
d)emphasised the need to retain corporate memory of how the Framework had been generated. As the Framework became more widely used, refinements would need to be addressed on an ongoing basis. They cited the effective way in which the Commissioner Working Group had been deployed to support the development of the Framework. Board members also suggested that the Commission monitor how the Framework was used by others and to assess its impact after three years;