MINUTES

BOARD MEETING

22 NOVEMBER 2016

Board:Sir David Bean, Chairman

Professor Nicholas Hopkins, Commissioner for Property, Family and Trust Law

Mr Stephen Lewis, Commissioner for Commercial and Common Law

Professor David Ormerod QC, Commissioner for Criminal Law

Mr Nicholas Paines QC, Commissioner for Public Law

Sir David Bell (Non-Executive Board Member)

Mr Phil Golding, Chief Executive

Item 5: Kat Shields

Olivia Bird

COP/001/001/6

Item 1: Approval of the Minutes of the Meeting on 18 October

  1. The minutes were approved.

Item 2: Matters Arising

  1. The Chair confirmed that Bronwen Maddox has accepted appointment as the second Non-Executive Board Member. Her first meeting would be on 20 December.
  1. The CEO said a new Head of CST and Head of Communications had been identified and would be starting on 3 January. He also confirmed a Band D and E would be advertised. He asked the Board formally to record their thanks for the excellent work Jacqueline Griffiths had undertaken in keeping CST functioning over what has been a lengthy period of uncertainty.
  1. The Chairman said he hoped he had identified a speaker for the Scarman Lecture but would not be in a position to confirm until the New Year.

Item 3: People Survey Results

  1. The Board discussed the recent People Survey results. The CEO said there were three areas of concern, which he thought it helpful to highlight. Before doing so, he thought it important to recognise the wider context. First, the results were still broadly positive when compared to other organisations. Second, it was perhaps not surprising that some areas had declined given the uncertainty created by the CST review, VEDs and general civil service-wide issues. That said, he felt there were areas of concern which could be addressed within the Commission, not least now many of the more difficult changes had been implemented. Overall, he felt there were positive foundations on which to build.
  1. Learning and development: the Board recognised that different staff had different expectations, but it was the case that as a small organisation the structure of the Law Commission could be rather flat with not many obvious routes to career development. The CEO thought time should be invested in having a clear strategy in this area and said work had already begun to identify opportunities which should be made available to staff. He also said line managers needed to ensure they are talking to their teams about their ambitions and focusing on development opportunities at appraisal discussions. The Board asked whether a discussion at the awayday would be helpful. The CEO said the agenda was already full but would consider how best the issue could be raised as it was an important area to address.
  1. Inclusion and fair treatment: the Board recognised the importance of this subject for the Commission. They were keen to know whether there were areas on which they could focus and said they would welcome more detail. The CEO said this was likely to be the area where time will need investing so as to work through what were likely to be complex and sensitive matters.
  1. Leadership and managing change: the CEO said it was important to understand whether the concerns raised were about the nature of the difficult changes which had recently taken place or how such changes were implemented. He said that the former was more difficult to address given the budgetary restrictions had meant there was no real alternative. It may have proved particularly unsettling for many staff because they had simply not been exposed to some of the financial difficulties seen in other parts of the civil service. On the latter, if there were lessons he could learn about how the changes were done, he would obviously wish to do so. The Board also noted that there were concerns expressed in some responses about the strategic direction of the organisation. The CEO agreed and said there may be an element of timing about this given some of the uncertainty created by funding and 13th programme. That said, it is clearly important the Board takes ownership of those issues where they can have a positive impact.
  1. The Board asked the CEO to ensure they are provided with regular feedback about progress.

Item 4: Cost Benefits Analysis

  1. The CEO said the paper by VS-H was simply for information. He said the information about the level of savings which would be achieved were the Commission's 15/16 reports to be implemented could be helpful in persuading Government - whether generally or in relation to specific projects - of our value. The Board agreed, although asked for para 1.5 to be deleted as the costs of Commission projects was a standalone issue not really relevant to this paper.

Item 5: RA Diversity

  1. The Board discussed the paper on Research Assistant Diversity. They expressed gratitude for the work done on this important issue. The CEO, OB and KS said they believed the data supported two further areas of work: (1) to ensure that the Commission is better able to identify those Law Schools who were likely to have greater BAME representation and socio-economic diversity, cross-referencing that with their ranking in the league tables; and, (2) making sure that our application material supported those going through the process who may not have as much prior knowledge of what is expected. In relation to (1), it is hoped that HESA will be able to provide the required data which will then ensure the Commission is able to focus its limited resources on ensuring outreach is most effectively targeted. On (2) the CEO said he would review the current material to check it provides sufficient information to help candidates who may not have acquired knowledge through word of mouth (which the data suggests is a key component for those who are successful). The Board asked whether previous exams, as well as a positive example of an answer, could be supplied so that applicants are clear about the intellectual demands of an RA post.
  1. The Board was keen to ensure this work helped to create equality of opportunity and not weaken/diminish those applications which currently are more likely to be successful, recognising the excellent quality of candidates the Commission attracts. The Board also asked whether more detailed analysis could be undertaken to explore why certain institutions in any given year attracted more applicants, who then went on to be successful. The CEO said Kent was an interesting case study because a former member of staff from the Commission is likely to have played a key influencing role which then led to more applicants who in turn met with some success in terms of interview and appointment. Birmingham was also worth exploring in more detail.
  1. The Board expressed some frustration that BAME data is not provided; the CEO said he did not think the MoJ would provide it but said he would ask again. The Board also asked whether consideration could be given as to capturing data on socio-economic background.
  1. The Board said there is a role for Commissioners in visiting Law Schools and encouraging applications.

Item 6: Any Other Business

  1. There was no Any Other Business.

PG 28/11/16

1