Minutes of the 69th meeting of the Board of the Equality and Human Rights Commission
23January 2017, Fleetbank House, 2-6 Salisbury Square, London, EC4Y 8JX
Attending:
Commissioners
David Isaac, Chair
Susan Johnson
Lorna McGregor(by telephone)
June Milligan
Lesley Sawers
Swaran Singh (items 1-12)
Caroline Waters
Rebecca Hilsenrath, Chief Executive Officer and Commissioner ex officio
Officers
Alexis Bennett,Principal (legal), Corporate Law and Governance (item 10)
Melanie Field, ED for Wales and Strategy and Policy
Karen Grayson, Principal – Institutional Strategy (item 12)
Jenny Oklikah, Director of Public Services (item 10)
Richard Mabbitt, Secretary to the Board.
Alastair Pringle, ED for Scotland and Corporate Delivery (by video link)
Ben Wilson, ED for England, and Corporate Improvement & Impact (items 7-15)
Rachel Zaltzman,Principal – Policy Secretariat (item 11)
Guest
Hilary Spencer, Director of Government Equalities Office (item 9)
Sarah Veale
1. Chair’s welcome, attendance and apologies for absence
1.1David Isaacwelcomed attendees.The Commission was awaiting confirmation from the Government Equalities Office (GEO) of new Commissioner appointments following the expiry of the terms of Commissioners Evelyn Asante-Mensah, Laura Carstensen Sarah Veale and Chris Holmes. Sarah Veale was attending the meeting as an observer at the Chair’s invitation.
1.2There were no apologies for absence.
2. Declarations of interest:
2.1Swaran Singh informed the Board of his interest in a Cabinet Office initiative on youth mental health.
2.2In respect of matters discussed at item 14.1(a) Susan Johnson reminded the Board of her non-executive role at the Sports Grounds Safety Authority.
2.3No further declarations of interest were made additional to those already registered by Board members.
3. Round up of pre-meeting session
3.1In its informal pre-meeting session, Rebecca Hilsenrath had briefed orally on new Commissioner appointments and Great Place Plan progress.
3.2Commissioners had also provided feedback on a draft horizon scanning digest. (Action: Richard Mabbitt to circulate tabled document and advice on further contributions, and schedule further discussion at future Board meetings) and noted the regular ‘pipeline’ document.
3.3As part of the regular programme of Board development, Commissioners had been briefed on the Commissions developing work on welfare reform. Commissioners had provided high-level feedback, with more fully worked up proposals to be brought back to the Board in due course.
4. Minutes of the previous meeting
4.1The minutes of the Board’s 68thmeeting of 15November(EHRC 69.01) were agreed as a correct record.
5. Round-up of Commissioners’ informal meetingsin Cardiff
5.1Those Commissioners attending the meetings with stakeholders and the informal Board discussion in Cardiff on 5-6 December (David Isaac, June Milligan, Lesley Sawers, Lorna McGregor, Sarah Veale, Rebecca Hilsenrath) agreed the notes of the meetings (EHRC 69.03). They felt that the meetings had been very useful and offered a good model for future Board-level engagements in Scotland and England.
6. Actions Arising
6.1The Board reviewed the actions log (EHRC 69.02).
6.2On action 67/8.3 (income generation) Susan Johnson reported that risks and opportunities around income generation would be discussed by ARAC at its meeting of 15 March with a view to a paper being presented to the Board meeting of 11 May. Work in progress that took into account ARAC’s advice could be shared with the Board for comments in advance of the May meeting. The Board was content with this approach, noting the complexities around income generation which would need to be considered (include resourcing implications; competition with stakeholders; and perceived and actual impacts on the Commission’s independence). Nonetheless, it felt that other regulators had been able to develop viable income generation strategies that did not impinge upon their regulatory functions, and the Commission needed to explore fully its potential for income generation.
6.3Other actions were progressing satisfactorily in the course of business or would be addressed in later agenda items.
7.CEO’s Overview
7.1Rebecca Hilsenrath reported that she and ELT remained focussed on implementing the operating model. Two further meetings had been held with unions and ACAS (28 November and 13 January) and she and ELT continued to be in contact with staff in all offices, including participating in 1-to-1 selection meetings. A further round of all-staff site meetings was planned for the week commencing 23 January. A Legal Leadership Team strategy day (4 January) had taken place. The first Principals and Senior Principals day (8December) had been held with others to follow, along with similar sessions for Associates and Senior Associates.
7.2Since the last meeting she had:
a)met with Simon Woolley(Director, Operation Black Vote) on 21 November;
b)attendedSupersonas gender equality networking event hosted by Pinsent Masons on 23 November;
c)met Neil Carbery (Director for People and Skills,Confederation of British Industry) on 28 November;
d)attended aCivil Justice Council Forum meeting on 2 December;
e)metLesley Longstone (Chief Executive of the independent Police Complaints Commission) on 7 December;
f)teleconferenced with Evelyn Collins (Chief Executive of the Northern Ireland Equality Commission) on 10 January
g)participated in a Joint meeting of the Commission, the Scottish Human Rights Commission, the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission and the Northern Ireland Equality Commission on 16 January
h)met GEO officials to discuss gender pay gaps on 1 December
i)met Sam Smethers, (Chief Executive, Fawcett Society) on 12 Dec
j)met Trevor Phillips on 17 January
k)metwith Keir Starmer MP, Shadow secretary for exiting the EU on 20 January;
l)contributed to HRRC and ARAC meetings and the Informal Commissioner meetings in Cardiff.
7.3She drew to the Boards attention:
a)the publication of Protecting human rights: key challenges for the UK's third Universal Periodic Review (12 December);
b)religion and belief guidance for employers, and evaluation of the effectiveness of the current legal framework on religion and belief published by the Commission at (30 November);
c)Housing Inquiry terms of reference, published on 14 December.
7.4Rebecca Hilsenrath noted thatthe Legal Report scheduled for the Boards attention asinformation paper 69 I had been deferred to the 70th meeting (9 March) and would, as Commissioners had requested,explore in a more granular way the beneficial outcomes of cases, including those which were classed as “unsuccessful”.
7.5She highlighted the outcome of Paulley vs FirstGroup plc, backed by the Equality and Human Rights Commission, which meant wheelchair users should be given priority spaces on buses, and bus companies should have policies and training in place to remove the barriers faced by wheelchair usingtravellers. Commissioners agreed that while not all coverage of the case had been fully contextualised, the outcome was positive, and a basis for wider attitudinal change towards wheelchair users using public transport.
7.6She reported that in the light of the House of Lords Select Committee on the Equality Act 2010 and Disability recommendations and a number of other factors, the Commission had introduced a pilot scheme using part of the remaining programme funding for 2016/17 to improve access to justicefor disabled people who have experienced discrimination. This includedlegal advice and assistance for disputes in employment, access to services, public functions, housing or education. Such cases would no longer need to meet the “strategic” value criteria set out in the strategic litigation policy in order to benefit from Commission assistance under section 28 of the Equality Act 2006. Board members supported this approach, noting that in addition to the support provided to individuals, such case work would help the Commission to:
a)contextualise and bring the “lived experience” of disability discrimination into the Commission’s high-level work (notably the housing Inquiry; CRPD reports; and the Commissions upcoming Disability report);
b)understand the likely future flow of cases relating to both disability and other protected characteristics, should the criteria for Commission support for litigation be adjusted;
c)exemplify its stated role as a“more muscular regulator”.
7.7Rebecca Hilsenrath and David Isaac reported on their oral evidence to the Women and Equalities Committee(WEC) on 18 January. Overall WEC were supportive of the Commission’s work. WEC felt it would be helpful to find out more about the detail of the Commissions legal enforcement and pre-enforcement activity, and discuss further the effectiveness of different levels of legal intervention. Further meetings were likely. Commissioners noted the benefits of getting pre-litigation activities and outcomes into the public domain.
8.Business Planning
8.1Melanie Field spoke to paper EHRC 69.04, which set out progress to date on the development of the 2017-18 Business plan. This was being developed in line with the 2016-19 Strategic plan and the Commissions commitment to doing “fewer, bigger, better” work streams. It also reflected the emerging context of Brexit and the Prime Minister’s stated priorities. The paper amended the sign-off timetableput to the Board at its 67th meeting (13 September 2016).
8.2Commissioners noted the contextual changes and practical constraints set out in the paper, and the actions being taken to operationalise the fewer, bigger, better approach. Six groups with cross-Commission membership had been set up and allocated an area of life:Work; Participation and private life; Living Standards; Securityand justice; Education; and Health and social care.A programme of facilitated ‘domain days’ using the theory of change methodology to develop strategies for each group had now been completed, and aims, intermediate activities, enabling factors and assumptions identified at a high level. These areas would be subject to further discussion and refinement including detailed costing and adjustment in the light of available resources.
8.3Board members:
a)emphasised the importance of maintaining clarity of ownership and transparency in the business planning process and decision–making structures, and the need to avoid unnecessary complexity
b)Welcomed the representation of Scotland and Wales teams across the six groups. They noted the importance of securing input from Scotland Wales and Disability Committees and were content with the arrangements proposed for so doing so;
c)Felt that the process for developing the business plan satisfactorily enabled the Commission to identify what type and level of legal intervention was best for what issue;
d)Suggested that when describing expenditure patterns to external audiences “administrative spend” should be rendered in plainer English.
e)Noted the table of activities that the Commission had already committed to undertake or for which the end date had been rolled forward. Board members noted that projects from previous years which were not yet initiated would be subject to prioritisation alongside ‘new’ projects.
f)Noted the importance of aligning domain strategies with the impact evaluation strategy.
g)Flagged the ‘Building our Industrial Strategy’ Green paper as a further contextual development that would need to be factored into the Work domain.
g)felt that ARAC would need to review Business Plan risks. It would not be able to do this in depth until its meeting of 15 March, and early circulation of drafts could help it provide its input more effectively. Action: Susan Johnson to discuss options with Ben Wilson and Paola Uccellari.
8.4Overall, the Board was content with the progress of the business plan and the proposed sign off timetable. It looked forward to receiving a full final draft at its meeting of 9 March 2017.
9.GEO Director’s Briefing
9.1David Isaac introduced GEO Director Hilary Spencer to the meeting. Hilary Spencer welcomed the opportunity to brief the Board on current GEO priorities.
9.2She reported that the Secretary of State for Education and Minister for Women and Equalities, Rt. Hon. Justine Greening MP, was personally committed to the equality agenda and was well-engaged with WEC.Justine Greening’s priorities were reflected in the GEO programme which fell into three core policy areas:
a) Gender equality and the role of women (notably work on the gender pay gap and on women on boards).
b)Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender (LGB&T) equality whereJustine Greening was keen that the strong legislative framework in the UK was used as the basis for promoting wider behavioural and institutional change (including tackling LGB&T bullying in schools, reviewing the gender recognition Act 2004, and working with DH on LGB&T and health and social care intersectional issues). Justine Greening’s previous role had been Secretary of State for International Development, and she was keen to sustain the UK’s leading international role as a leader on LGBT equality. GEO was engaging with DfID and FCO on promoting equality through global engagement: for example, seeking to play astrong influencing role on improving LGBT rights in Commonwealth countries.
c) Maintaining the equality framework (including EHRC sponsorship, Contract management of the EASS, PSED and private sector regulations; and parliamentary accountability).
9.3Board membersreviewed the key points briefing provided by GEO (paper EHRC 69.05and noted:
a)Justine Greening’s and GEO’s strong focus on evidence based policy-making to deliver value-for-money change.Board members discussed GEO’s approach to evaluating the impacts of its work, particularly with regard to its broader influence and leadership role across government. They noted that the level and quality of debate across government on equalities might be reflected in fewer PSED challenges; and in the reach of GEO messages to key players in other departments, notably lawyers advising on policy development. Ultimately, a key measure of GEO’s success or otherwise would be reflected in social and cultural norms, and its tracking of social attitudes (for example changing perceptions ofsame sex relationships) was critical.
b)the positive working relationship between GEO and EHRC. Board members felt that both bodies should be open to making common cause where this was appropriate. Equally,they recognised that some issues (particularly those where the Commission’s capability to generate change derived from its independence and arm’s-length from Government) were more appropriately approached separately. Either way,well managed communications and a sound mutual understanding of objectives and approaches remained crucial.
c)Hilary Spencer’s quarterly meetings, and ongoing working-level engagement with counterparts in the Scottish and Welsh Governments and Northern Ireland Executive. It was noted that the Wales and Scotland Committees were sources of local intelligence, learning and leadership that could be fed back to GEO.
9.4Board members and Hilary Spencer also discussed:
a)measures being put in place by GEO to assess the performance of EASS and how management information relating to the service might inform the Commission’s work programme. Hilary Spencer agreed to circulate further information about the Service Level Agreement with the Contract holders G4S and on how thematic and performance information (including onward referral) were being tracked. Action: Hilary Spencer
b)The amount and type of work on equalities being commissioned by GEO and how the commissioning space it shared with the Commission might be approached in a joined up way that could deliver value for money without compromising the Commission’s independence.
c)GEO’s leadership role within government, and its capacity to catalyse action by other departments (notably the Home office, Department for Communities and Local Government, Department for Work and Pensions, and MinistryofJustice).Board members felt that from an end user perspective there were wider issues of clarity of responsibility for equality issues, which were particularly apparent in intersectional issues. Board members highlighted the Commission’s race report and its recommendation for a Race strategy. Board members noted GEO’s rolling programme of meetings around legislation and policy by policy engagements with OGDs (for examplewith the Home Office on violence against women and girls, and with BEIS on women in the workplace.Board members recognised the value of a dedicated part of government that led on equalities, which was not always the case in other countries.
d)the wider Government framework for human rights (as opposed to equality) policy development and delivery, and how this impacted on Government sponsorship of the Commission. It was noted that the FCO in particular had a number of teams working on human rights-related issues.
9.5David Isaac thanked Hilary Spencer for briefing the Board. A number of issues had been raised in the conversation which could usefully be followed up in ongoing officer level meetings between the Commission and GEO (Action: Paola Uccellari). He looked forward to continued constructive dialogue.
10.Disability Committee Transition Arrangements
10.1Jenny Oklikah and Alexis Bennett joined the meeting to introduce paper EHRC 69.06 which proposed an approach to the transition of the Disability Committee from a statutory body to a strategic advisory body. The approach drew on feedback by the Board at its July Informal meeting and a series of discussions withChris Holmes and the membership of the present Disability Committee.