1
Notes of ECU Scottish HEI Liaison Group Meeting on 21 February 2018, at Glasgow Caledonian University.
Attendance
Gary Loke (Chair) / ECUAnne Ireson / ECU
Stephanie Millar / ECU
Emily Whitters / Robert Gordon University
Jill Hammond / Glasgow School of Art
Sharan Virdee / Heriot Watt University
Fiona Forrest-Anderson / Edinburgh Napier University
Roz Caplan / Royal Conservatoire of Scotland
James Nicholson / Abertay University
Edna Docherty / Stirling University
Kate Thornback / SRUC
Annie McLaughlin / University of Strathclyde
Denise Boyle / University of Edinburgh
Kerry Johnson / Abertay University
Adrian Lui / Glasgow Caledonian University
Naira Dar / University of the West of Scotland
Fiona Burns / SFC
Ajit Trivedi / University of Dundee
David Ruebain / ECU
Sukhi Bains / University of St Andrews
1.Welcome and apologies
=Gary Loke (ECU) welcomed members to the meeting.
=Jan Hulme, Vice Principal for Governance at Glasgow Caledonian University joined the start of the meeting to extend a warm welcome to the SLG. Jan stressed the importance of equality and diversity work for the sector and outlined the GCU approach to E & D as a top priority, including the development of an embedded culture. Jan also referred to significant progress with supporting young people with care experience and work on gender related violence.
=Apologies were received from: Kate Signorini, Open University; Mhairi Taylor, University of Glasgow;Muriel Masson, QMU;Pauline Hanesworth, HEA; Ann Duncan, University of Strathclyde; Kay Steven, David Bass, ECU.
2.Notes of the last meeting on Wednesday 4 October 2017.
=There was one outstanding action from the notes of the last meeting in relation to Item 7 regarding a host for the SLG meeting for October 2018. A host has still not been identified and offers of support were invited.
=The notes of the meeting were agreed.
3.Specific Duties - discussion and review of progress following 4 year reporting, to include update on Scottish Government and EHRC reporting reviews.
=Stephanie Millar (ECU) gave a presentation providing an overview of the work to analyse the April 2017 PSED reporting, with a commentary on some of the key issues emerging. Stephanie referred to both EHRC’s analysis of the reporting based on ‘Measuring Up? 7’, as well as ECU’s ownvery structured analysis.
=Stephanie commented that within the EHRC’s analysis, the education sector was assessed as relatively better, compared with the reporting and progress of other public bodies.
=Stephanie confirmed that ECU created an assessment framework to analyse institutional reports and this will shortly be collated and published as a report, with recommendations for institutions on how they can enhance their PSED reporting going forward.
=Some of the key questions or observations in ECU’s analysis where reporting could be enhanced, related to the following issues:
General points
–Better use of data is needed for benchmarking and monitoring institutional progress; data gaps need to be addressed.
–As part of addressing board diversity, consideration is needed not onlyof board member constitution, but also board succession planning.
–Clearer explanations and evidenceare needed of how progress was achieved within previous equality outcomes and how and why this linked to the development of new outcomes.
–Clearer understanding and focus on what an outcome is (as opposed to aims and activities) and more emphasis on ensuring outcomes are ‘smart’, enabling more robust and systematic measurement and evaluation of outcomes and their impact.
–There was discussion about reporting dates and members suggested it would be helpful to have closer alignment between legal reporting and SFC Outcome Agreement reporting.
Gender, pay gaps and equal pay (EP) statements
There was a significant amount of discussion on these issues with the key points identified as follows:
=In one to one work with institutions, Close the Gap are expressing the view that the legal requirement for one pay gap figure is unhelpful and too narrow.
=There was discussion about issues related to data analysis and the accompanying narrative needed to go with this but concerns were also expressed over the dangers of making assumptions using small numbers etc.
=There is an issue in career progression not being addressed as part of EP analysis; more needs to be done on this.
=Questions on whether HEIs have explored or published information on the gender pay gap specifically in relation to female v male starting salaries. One HEI reported using salaries rather than hourly rates where small numbers are concerned.
=Discussion re gender balance on boards and the role of SFC to monitor via Outcome Agreements (OAs) on behalf of the Scottish Government (SG) –there are clear indications from SG over their expectations.
=Questions re legal requirements of data gathering and any specific time periods or dates for EP data in relation to next PSED reporting period.
Actions:
=HEIsto provide information for the next meeting on whether they have explored or published information on the gender pay gap specifically in relation to female v male starting salaries.
=Anne to circulate a copy of Stephanie’s presentation.
=Anne to circulate a copy of Close the Gap’s recent ‘The Gender Penalty’ report.
4.ECU Briefing paper – programme updates and upcoming opportunities.
=Anne referred to the previously circulated ECU briefing paper and in particular, highlighted :
–An updated ECU briefing on embedding equality in OAs will shortly be published.
–The start of the project on Equality Impact Assessment linked to SFC Outcome agreements.
Discussion followed on OA reporting including the following points:
=Discussion re SFC’s agenda and aims for equality within OAs and specifically around targets – HEIs concerned about rigid targets (but there were also comments that some HEIs tend only to focus on specific requirements and asks from SFC in OAs).
=Questions around what a specific target might mean in practice (e.g. 75 / 25 % F / M ratios) –SFC clarified that this is intended as a national, rather than an institutional ambition.
=HEI view of OAs is that they should be designed to encourage ambition, proactive forward thinking and progressiveness and that ‘bolt-ons’ such as GAP, restrict action in this respect.
=SFC referred to embedding equality in OAs – there is a recognition of the difficulties and commented that many institutions are doing fantastic things. OAs should be aligned with EOs and include any additional specifically required SFC measures. For example, there are concerns over M under-representation. BSL is a focus but not expected to be embedded within the OA (e.g. a hyperlink to relevant information could be provided). There are expectations on race – work is ongoing with the Scottish Government on the REF and SFC are supportive of ECU’s REC and SREN, to help move this agenda forward but there are no specific requirements.
=Concerns were raised that current OA focus is seen as prohibitive to ambitious targets, and HEIs need “reward” and not punitive measures if targets in OAs are not met.
=Views were also expressed about the risk of ambition being held back in other areas of equality in case SG expectations are too high in comparison i.e. frameworks can be too rigid to allow a push for progressi.e. institutions are reluctant to commit in case it’s not achievable.
=SFC are working with data to ensure this is of good enough quality to use nationally. SFC are considering putting national progress measures in OA but are reluctant to add pressure to institutions. SFC can encourage institutions to do more if this would help?
=There were further observations including:
–The need for better future planning from OA guidance to enable future modelling.
–The need for consideration of impact, not just targets, and that focus should also be on areas of importance sometimes less predominant, including staff and race equality.
–Concerns about the requirement to contribute to national targets where this sometimes overtakes other institutional E & D priorities.
5.Presentation – David Faith from ‘Who Cares Scotland’.
David Faith and David Grimm joined the meeting to provide an overview of the organisation and its work. David Grimm shared some of his personal experiences and reflections about the disadvantage and impacts that arise from being in the care system.
A discussion of key issues then followed to include:
=The case being presented by Who Cares Scotland to have care experience treated as a protected characteristiclinked to issues of stigma and discrimination.
=Questions around disclosure of care status; the experience of those with care experience leads to fear of discrimination if they disclose.
=It was noted that the SFC has treated this as a priority issue within OA guidance and some institutions have made progress by implementing positive support approaches.
=It was suggested by both David’s that although Who Cares Scotland has been funded by SFC to deliver training to senior managers, there are still many practical issues for those who have been in care. They asked HEIs to raise awareness of the issues with senior managers and also to consider taking a ‘life skills’ approach as part of their widening access activities for schools.
=David F confirmed that he would like to set up a working group to discuss and consider the issues more fully and would be keen for HEIs to get involved.
Action:
=Anne to circulate an e:copy of the report David referred to, linked to the discussion on treating care as a PC.
=David F to liaise with Anne about the proposed working group and Anne to co-ordinate communication with HEIs.
6.Member institution updates
James (Abertay) raised concerns about BSL implementation plans and the lack of clarity about what action institutions are required to take before the October deadline.
A number of points of discussion followedto include:
=Concerns about the existing guidance on BSL implementation plans not being clear.
=Discussion about the approach to treat BSL as a language (in line with the approach for Gaelic) as opposed to this being viewed as a disability (and PC)issue, linked to consideration of reasonable adjustments.
=Queries about how staff needs can be taken into account as well as student needs, where the focus often lies.
=Questions about what the priorities for initial plans should be; it was suggested that recruitment functions and the development of websites should be treated as key priorities.
=Questions about when the national consultation will begin and what this means in relation to local consultation by individual HEIs; which should come first (?).
=Queries about whether there are any current technological developments such as apps, which might support institutional work and be incorporated in the development of plans.
=A joint conclusion that there is not sufficient detail in the current implementation guidance to inform action by institutions.
Fiona (Edinburgh Napier) had asked to raise a separate issue on whether HEIs have developedbest practice in terms of sexual harassment policies and guidelines. Fiona had to leave the meeting early and it was agreed to defer this item to the next meeting.
Action:
=Anne to provide feedback to SFC about the concerns raised, and request further clarification on the guidance.
=Anne to include BSL implementation plans as an agenda item for next SLG meeting.
=Anne to add deferred item from Fiona (Edinburgh Napier) to next SLG meeting.
7.Discussion on ECU merger.
David Ruebain, ECU Chief Executive and Interim Director for Equality Integration in Advance HE, joined the meeting to give an overview of the merger status. David gave a presentation followed by discussion.
Key points of discussion included the following:
=Concerns about how the funding model for Scotland will be developed to take into account current funded SFC support for institutions and how any add-ons will be costed.
=Where HEIs have a preference to opt in to, or out of, specific costed services, whether they will have the option to do this or have subscriptions discounted?
=Queries about how the current ECU charters will link to any new funding model, compared with the rest of the UK.
=David R advised that discussions are taking place about how to address these issues but with a clear recognition of the differences in Scotland (and other nations), in terms of legislative requirements, the divergence of existing support and guidance and the specialist knowledge needed to deliver this.
=Gary L also commented that he was aware institutions were looking for flexibility to buy specific services and this was currently being worked through. In looking at these issues, consideration is being given to balancing cost effectiveness against delivery and the individual options that might be available to institutions.
=David R also confirmed there will be ongoing discussions to address the issues where the work of the other two agencies overlap and also further discussions with SFC about E & D priorities in Scotland.
Action: Anne to circulate a copy of David R’s presentation.
8.Future meeting dates.
=Wed 9 May 2018 (Subsequently updated as University of Glasgow, Vet School, Garscube campus).
=Wed 10 October 2018 (Subsequently confirmed as University of Edinburgh).
9.AOB
No items raised.