Minutes of the 52nd meeting of the Board of the Equality and Human
Rights Commission held on 1 July 2014 at the Commission's
London Office, Fleetbank House, 2-6 Salisbury Square, London
EC4Y 8JX (10.05 – 14:30)
Present
Commissioners:
Onora O'Neill (Chair)
Caroline Waters
Sarah Anderson
Evelyn Asante-Mensah
Ann Beynon
Laura Carstensen
Chris Holmes
Kaliani Lyle
Swaran Singh
Sarah Veale
Mark Hammond
Officers:
Ian Acheson - Chief Operating Officer
Curtis Juman - Chief Resources Officer
Rebecca Hilsenrath - Chief Legal Officer
Kate Bennett - National Director, Wales
Melanie Field - Director of Corporate Affairs
Colin Douglas - Interim Director of Communications
Linda Wike - Director of Business Planning
Louise Sutton - Senior Executive Assistant
Karen Grayson – Head of Corporate Policy
Sally Houghton – Director of Finance (item 8)
Charles Hamilton – Programme Head of Human Rights, Human Rights and
Respect (item 9)
Also present:
Charles Ramsden - Government Equalities Office
Helen Carter – shadowing Sarah Anderson
Lucy Dennett – Board Effectiveness session
Roger Dunshea - Independent member of the Audit and Risk Assurance
Committee
1
Dean Parker - Independent member of the Audit and Risk Assurance
Committee
Apologies:
Alastair Pringle - National Director, Scotland
SECTION 1: FORMAL ITEMS
Item 1: Welcome
52/1.1
The Board noted that Commissioner Chris Holmes would be
joining the meeting later due to parliamentary duties.
52/1.2
The Chair introduced Lucy Dennett, who would be facilitating
the discussion on Board Effectiveness and was attending to observe the
meeting; and noted that the independent members of the Audit and Risk
Assurance Committee (ARAC) would also be observing. Helen Carter was
present, shadowing Commissioner Sarah Anderson.
Item 2:
Declaration of Interest
52/2.1
The following declarations of interest were noted:
 Standing declaration: Commissioner Caroline Waters is a Board
member of National Equality Standard.
 New Declaration: the Chair had been asked to be part of an
Independent Panel looking at UK Surveillance Programmes,
convened by Kings College London.
Item 3:
Minutes of Board Meeting – 26 March 2014 (EHRC 52.01)
52/3.1
The minutes of the meeting held on 26 March 2014 were
approved as a correct record.
52/3.2
Commissioner Evelyn Asante-Mensah noted that she had been
late to the 26 March meeting as she had been attending a meeting with the
Office of the Commissioner for Public Appointments (OCPA). This had
been a positive meeting and the EHRC was scoping work with the
2
Commissioner on diversity in appointments. Karen Jochelson was leading
on this.
Item 4:
Matters Arising from the Minutes (EHRC 52.02)
52/4.1
Board members asked for an update on the following items
which had not been completed in the Matters Arising Report:
 44/7.3 – Action F – Litigation Strategy
52/4.2
Rebecca Hilsenrath confirmed that she expected to bring a
framework for consultation to the Board in September, to enable the
Commission to consult with the sector over the Autumn.
 51/5.2 – Action E – remove repetition
52/4.3
The Board noted that although the Performance Report had
been slimmed down, there was still repetition throughout the paper.
52/4.4
Curtis Juman explained that the Board was provided with the
Summary which was seen by GEO, along with the detail of the report; this
meant that there was some repetition but staff were working to remove as
much as possible. The Chair noted that it was important to be as succinct
as possible.
 51/8.3 – Action N – letter to GEO regarding the Equality Advisory and
Support Service
52/4.5
Mark Hammond noted that, although GEO had not yet sent a
formal response to the letter, he had raised the issue in discussion with the
Director of GEO. He understood that GEO had their own concerns as
contract managers and were aware of the issues – both matters relating to
Wales and Scotland and others – including the lack of referrals of strategic
legal cases. The Commission continued to attend the Stakeholder
meetings, and Mark expected that engagement on this issue would
increase as GEO considered the next steps on the contract up to its
planned end date in 2015.
52/4.6
Officers noted that the following Actions in the Matters Arising
Report had been completed:
 51/3.3 Action B and C
 51/4.2 – Action D
3
 51/5.2 – Action F
 51/6.2 – Action G
 51/7.7 – Action M
 51/12.4 – Action Q
In addition, 51/12.2 – Action P would be carried forward to 2015.
52/4.7
The Matters Arising report was noted.
SECTION 2: STANDING ITEMS
Item 5: Communication (EHRC 52.03)
52/5.1
Colin Douglas introduced his paper. The Communications
Strategy had been agreed at the meeting on 26 March, and this was an
update on the first phase of implementation.
52/5.2
Generally there had been good progress in implementing the
strategy. The key messages and corporate narrative were being embedded
and used consistently across key products, including the Business Plan,
Annual Report and Accounts, press statements and other documents.
52/5.3
Unfortunately the mapping of key stakeholders activity had
slipped slightly. Colin expected to take a paper to Senior Management in
July, and then hoped to catch up with this exercise.
52/5.4
The launch of the new website had been a success, bringing a
more technically accessible product. The Legal Team continued to update
guidance.
52/5.5
The Communications Directorate restructure had been
finalised, with the formal implementation date of 7 July although there were
a number of vacancies still to be filled within the team.
52/5.6
The main point for the Board to be aware of was the Advertising
and Marketing Plan. Cabinet Office approval was required for spend on
communications activity over £100k. The submission had been sent to the
Cabinet Office, and Colin Douglas noted his thanks to Charles Ramsden
and other GEO and DCMS colleagues for their support.
4
52/5.7
Substantial elements of the Business Plan depended heavily on
communications to deliver, or to deliver effectively, and this had been
impressed upon the Cabinet Office. The paper presented options for the
Board in the event that Cabinet Office delayed their decision, or rejected
the Advertising and Marketing Plan in part or in full.
52/5.8
It was noted that accepting a negative decision from Cabinet
Office would have implications for delivery against the Business Plan and
could call the Commission's independence into question. On the other
hand, while spending on communications activities without approval could
lead to issues with the National Audit Office on accounting rules and
appropriateness of spend.
52/5.9
The following points were made in discussion:
 A high-level discussion with Cabinet Office could be beneficial,
particularly considering the improvements the Commission had
achieved in its internal spending controls in recent years.
 There was concern about the burden of completing requests such as
these from the Cabinet Office.
 Commissioners sought clarity about which activities are classified as
‘advertising or marketing’ and how this relates to delivery of core
functions, such as publicising Inquiries.
 As well as engaging with the Cabinet Office, it might be helpful to
discuss the issue with the Foreign and Commonwealth Office.
 The JCHR had recently approached the Commission with a number
of follow-up questions relating to the Chair’s evidence session. This
included whether any additional controls to the discretionary
programme-funded element of the Commission’s budget were in
place – this may provide a useful conduit to engage with the JCHR on
this issue.
52/5.10
In response, Colin noted that the Commission had been able to
negotiate what was classified as marketing and advertising to some extent
– as such, launching an Inquiry was out of scope, but a good deal of
activity remained in scope. He suggested that the risk be escalated from
the Operational Risk Register to the Strategic Risk Register.
5
52/5.11
As a decision from the Cabinet Office was outstanding, the
Board agreed that Melanie Field and Colin should try to establish contact at
the Cabinet Office (Action A) to discuss this preemptively at a strategic
level, and if necessary engage the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. The
response to the JCHR’s additional questions should include a summary of
the Marketing and Advertising Plan controls (Action B). In addition, the risk
on the Marketing and Advertising Plan would be escalated to the Strategic
Risk Register under the two strategic risks on the Commission’s A Status
and Delivery of the Business Plan (Action C).
Item 6: Period 2 Performance Report (EHRC 52.04)
52/6.1
The Board received the Period 2 financial results and delivery
performance against the 2014/15 Business Plan. The Chair welcomed
Roger Dunshea and Dean Parker, the independent members of the Audit,
Risk and Assurance Committee (ARAC). Curtis Juman noted that the
launch of the Business Plan on time meant the Commission was better
placed than at the same time the previous year.
51/6.2
Commissioners considered the paper in detail, and the
following key points were made during discussion:
 Commissioner Sarah Anderson expressed concern about the delays
to the FTSE350 and Cleaning Sector projects. Linda Wike explained
that the FTSE350 work had been delayed by a month, contributing to
the under spend. Deputy Chair Caroline Waters noted that the delay
to the Cleaning Sector project was due to taking the opportunity to
obtain additional research and evidence from cleaning firms.
 Curtis Juman noted that the delay to the Disability Committee
recruitment had been due to agreeing the role profile, and that the
profiling of the spend had been optimistic. However, dates were in the
diaries for sifts and interviews and this should be caught up over the
Summer.
 The Board queried the expected end dates of a number of Interim
and Agency workers. Curtis Juman explained that the
communications restructure may result in an extension to one
contract, and that plans were in place for the Communications
Director post.
 Commissioner Sarah Anderson queried who the Board-level lead on
the SME Advisory Group and research would be once she departed.
6




It was important that Board received candid, authentic qualitative
input from the group, therefore the membership would need
managing to ensure that this happened. Ian Acheson would review
the membership (Action D) and Ian and Karen Jochelson would work
with Sarah Anderson and Caroline Waters to agree a Board lead for
this work (Action E).
The Board queried the work on disabled people's access to banking
services. Curtis clarified that this was in the scoping phase following
the input from the Disability Committee.
On caste, Charles Ramsden updated the Board that the Government
was awaiting the outcomes of the full hearing in October on an
employment case, and was considering a feasibility study.
Commissioner Sarah Veale was concerned that there was significant
pressure from both sides of the lobby and that the Commission
should have a clear position. Colin Douglas would circulate agreed
lines to Commissioners to ensure that they had them to hand (Action
F). The Chair noted that she had met with Lord Harris and Lord
Avebury.
Sarah Anderson noted that the arrow for the staff sick days lost to
illness had been coded wrongly. Curtis Juman and Linda Wike would
correct (Action G).
Commissioner Evelyn Asante-Mensah noted that the Commission
had been waiting for the outcome of the Parliamentary Inquiry into
FGM, and wondered whether there was any update. Mark Hammond
confirmed the report had just been published, and would be
considered shortly.
52/6.3
The Performance Report for Period 2 was noted.
Item 7: Update on Strategic Risks (EHRC 52.05)
52/7.1
The Board received a paper providing an update on the current
status of the Commission's strategic risks and progress on mitigating
actions.
52/7.2
The Board noted that the scheduling of the ARAC meeting and
the Board meeting had meant changes made to the risk register at ARAC
had not been reflected in the Board papers. Curtis Juman would check the
scheduling of ARAC meetings to ensure this only occurred when the
Annual Report and Accounts was being agreed (Action H). Ann Beynon
7
noted the need to amend the constitutional change risk and other risks
discussed at the ARAC meeting, and Linda Wike would reflect these
(Action I).
52/7.3
Curtis Juman then spoke to the Financial Risks. He did not
expect any further reductions from HM Treasury before the General
Election. The Commission was living inside its budget with controls in
place, and Curtis Juman thanked Charles Ramsden for the positive
relationship between the Commission and DCMS and GEO Colleagues
and continuing constructive dialogue.
52/7.4
Curtis Juman’s team were modeling potential future changes,
spending reviews etc. In respect of the Commission's A status, the ICC
would be concerned with whether future budget reductions were
proportionate in relation to cuts to the wider public sector.
52/7.5
It was important to note that the Commission was tightly
budgeted on staff and resources, with little spare capacity and that
unforeseen events could put projects at risk. However, staff were working
hard, and further productivity gains could be made. Now there was a focus
on driving up quality, including training on forecasting on project spending.
SECTION 3 – PAPERS FOR DECISION / KEY PAPERS FOR
INFORMATION
Item 8: Annual Report and Accounts (EHRC 52.06)
52/8.1
The Board received a copy of the Annual Report and Accounts
which had been considered by the Audit Risk and Assurance Committee on
26 June. One point had been raised by the Secretary of State, to which the
Commission had responded, and agreement for the Annual Report and
Accounts to be laid before Parliament was now awaited.
52/8.2
As Chair of ARAC, Sarah Anderson thanked Sally Houghton
and her team for getting the Commission to such a good place. She also
thanked the independent members of ARAC for their input on the Annual
Report and Accounts. She noted she had met with the new Internal
Auditors.
8
52/8.3
The Board agreed the Annual Report and Accounts.
52/8.4
In relation to the Information pack which was circulated in May,
a number of questions were asked about the Period 12 Performance
Report.
 The covering sheet needed to be clearer about sickness absence –
Curtis agreed to amend (Action J)
 The £560k underspend would be returned to HM Treasury, but it was
important that the Commission continued to improve its forecasting
on the budget. Curtis noted that there would be a re-forecast in
September to ensure that budget was spent (Action K)
 It was important all Commissioners received the end of year
performance report and had a chance to discuss it.
Item 9: Constitutional Change (EHRC 52.07)
52/9.1
Ian Acheson introduced the paper which explored a range of
events which could fundamentally change the Commission’s remit in the
devolved administrations, including forthcoming referendum on Scottish
independence, the Silk Commission and other issues. The paper presented
a number of threats and opportunities and made a number of
recommendations.
52/9.2
The following comments were raised in comments on the
paper:
 The paper provided a useful scene-setter for the complexity of issues
facing the Commission on this issue.
 It was important to be clear about what the Commission's position
was and remain focused on this – no diminution of equality or human
rights protections regardless of the constitutional position.
 The details of the seminars needed to be worked up – for example:
o Any seminars would have to have a clear ‘question’ to answer;
o Important the seminars drew a wide-range of participants to
ensure the events did not become political and were not limited
to academics;
o The seminars should not be called ‘debates’.
9
 There was concern that it would not be feasible to resource all three
recommendations, and it was noted that any potential exit from the
European Union was a long way off.
 However, it was important that the consideration of the European
Charter of Fundamental Rights was included as there was no ‘opt out’
of this.
 It was also important that the Wales and Scotland Committees had a
chance to consider the paper.
 It would be helpful to see a timeline for the planned actions.
52/9.3
In response, Mark Hammond noted that the paper had been
presented to the Board for their steer, which had been helpful and would
allow Charles Hamilton and Alastair Pringle to take the plans forward over
the summer.
52/9.4
The Board agreed to remove plans for a seminar on EU exit,
but that issues around the Fundamental Rights Charter should be
considered, along with the European Court, the Human Rights Act and the
constitutional changes. The Board asked for the paper to be re-worked for
the September Board for further consideration, including further detail on
the seminars. Charles Hamilton and Alistair Pringle would take this forward
and circulate a simple timeline around Commissioners (Action L).
Item 10: Freedom of Expression (EHRC 52.08)
52/10.1
The Board received a paper on how the Commission addresses
‘offensive speech’ in the context of the right to freedom of expression. Mark
introduced the paper, and noted that there were many other issues
captured under freedom of expression that were not included in the paper.
Instead, the paper focused on the issues which presented themselves to
the Commission with increasing frequency and with increasing pressure.
52/10.2
Points raised in discussion included:
 It would be helpful if the Commission’s lines on freedom of
expression could be in the public domain to try to deflect the pressure
from media and other organisations.
10
 However it was important that the Commission didn’t imply
‘judgement’ on an issue by referring matters to another regulator or
the police.
 The Commission couldn’t possibly respond to every instance of a
complaint about offensive speech; therefore any action needed to be
strategic.
 The Commission should strengthen its links with regulators such as
IPSO, Impress and OfCom if possible.
52/10.3
The Board agreed to the policy conclusions and proposed
action to produce a paper on the legal framework.
Item 11: Any Other Business
Appointment of Acting Chair of Audit and Risk Assurance Committee
52/11.1
The Board agreed that Commissioner Laura Carstensen be
appointed as Acting Chair of ARAC, pending completion of the recruitment
exercise and appointment of two new Commissioners.
Reappointment of two members of the Scotland Committee
52/11.2
The Board agreed that Morag McLaughlin and Neelam Bakshi
each be reappointed for a further term of office of 2 years, commencing on
1 September and 15 September respectively.
Review of MoU with Scottish Human Rights Commission (IP33.02)
52/11.3
Mark Hammond outlined that the MoU with the Scottish Human
Rights Commission, which had been in place for some time, was subject to
a periodic review. The review had taken place, and the MoU was found to
be fit for purpose. Mark and Kaliani recommended that the MoU be
readopted with the minor changes proposed. The Board agreed.
MoU with Children's Commissioner (IP33.03)
52/11.4
Mark Hammond noted that the Commission had been doing
more work with the Children’s Commissioner, and felt it was important to
formalise the relationship with the establishment of a MoU with the
Children’s Commissioner to reflect that the OCC had amended powers
from April 2014. The Board agreed.
11
Establishment of Commissioner Working Group on the Quinquennial
Review (IP33.04)
52/11.5
Mark Hammond asked the Board to approve establishment of
the Working Group with the members being Ann Beynon, Sarah Veale,
Swaran Singh, and one of the new Commissioners yet to be appointed.
The Board agreed.
Programme bids
52/11.6
Mark Hammond confirmed that the Commission had received
initial decisions from the Secretary of State. He thanked GEO and DCMS
for their ongoing support. A number of details needed to be clarified with
other government departments, but the current situation was as follows:
 LGBT Hate Crime – MOJ and Cabinet Office were due to have a final
meeting with the Commission to agree the reporting arrangements.
 Equality and Human Rights Training for Care Quality Commission –
DH had responded to a number of questions and an MoU on the
measurement framework was being devised.
 Religion and Belief in the Workplace – work was ongoing between
the Commission and DCMS to resolve the Secretary of State’s
outstanding questions, and a letter of support from Baroness Warsi
had been received.
 Discriminatory Recruitment Practices – the research phase had now
been approved.
 Sports Bid – a number of Governing Bodies had given their support to
the bid and a launch event was being planned.
The Board noted their thanks to the team.
Electoral Conduct
52/11.7
Mark Hammond had shared with Board members the note of
the meeting between Helen Grant MP, the Commission and members of
the APPG Against Anti-Semitism. Whilst it was noted that the
Commission's powers and duties relevant to this area were very limited,
there was some scope for action. It was proposed that the Commission
submit a programme bid to update and re-publish guidance to local
12
councils and officials on their Public Sector Equality Duty responsibilities
with relevance to elections, and potentially to offer training. The Board
agreed such a bid should be submitted and the Commission should
undertake this work if it was funded by agreement of DCMS Ministers.
Unconscious Bias
52/11.8
Commissioner Ann Beynon asked if the information on the
seminar on unconscious bias could be shared with the Commissioners as
this was an emerging issue Commissioners were interested in. Mark
Hammond agreed to share this information (Action M).
Sarah Anderson
52/11.9
The Chair noted that this was the last meeting that
Commissioner Sarah Anderson would attend, and thanked Sarah for doing
more for the Commission than some would be aware of. The Chair added
her thanks for Sarah’s rigour, thoughtfulness and persistence and said she
would be a hard act to follow. Sarah noted her thanks.
52/11.10 The Chair added that she would be part of the panel that will
interview for new Commissioners in the coming month and thanked Laura
for stepping into the breach as Acting Chair of ARAC.
Item 12: Board Effectiveness Review
52/12.1
Deputy Chair Caroline Waters introduced Lucy Dennett who
had been leading on the review of Board effectiveness. The Board
considered the emerging findings from the review and proposed actions for
continued improvement. These would be developed into an Action Plan
which would be sent to the Board before the September Meeting and once
agreed, the Board would monitor progress quarterly. (Action N Melanie)
The meeting closed at 14.30.
[Agreed by Board and signed by Chair at the Board meeting of 17
September 2014]
13