Minutes of the 55th meeting of the Board of the Equality and
Human Rights Commission held on 17 December 2014 at the
Commission’s London Office, Fleetbank House, 2-6 Salisbury
Square, London EC4Y 8JX
Commissioners attending
Onora O’Neill (Chair)
Ann Beynon
Laura Carstensen (by video link)
Chris Holmes
Sarah Veale
Mark Hammond
Officers attending
Ian Acheson, Chief Operating Officer
Kate Bennett, National Director, Wales
Colin Douglas, Interim Director of Communications
Jayne Hardwick, Interim Director Human Rights & Respect*
Rebecca Hilsenrath, Chief Legal Officer
Melanie Field, Director of Corporate Affairs
Curtis Juman, Chief Resources Officer
Richard Mabbitt, Board Secretary
Alastair Pringle, National Director, Scotland
Linda Wike, Director of Business Planning
*for item 5, by video link
Other attendees
Omar Ralph, Head of Sponsor Team, GEO (observing)
Anna Lawson and Rachel Perkins, EHRC Disability Committee
Apologies
Commissioner Evelyn Asante-Mensah
Commissioner Kaliani Lyle
Commissioner Swaran Singh
Commissioner Caroline Waters
1.
Venue information, attendance and apologies
1.1
The Chair noted apologies from Commissioners Evelyn Asante
Mensah, Kaliani Lyle, Swaran Singh, and Caroline Waters. She
welcomed newly appointed members of the Disability Committee
Anna Lawson and Rachel Perkins who were observing the
meeting as part of their induction programme. Omar Ralph was
1
observing the meeting on behalf of the Government Equalities
Office.
1.2
The Chair noted that formal appointment letters had now been
sent from the Secretary of State to two new Commissioners.
Susan Johnson (Chief Executive at County Durham and Darlington
Fire and Rescue Service) and Professor Lorna McGregor (Reader
in Law and Director of the Human Rights Centre at the University
of Essex) would be taking up their four-year appointment in
January. They were unable to observe the present meeting but
had received papers for information. Arrangements for their
induction were in preparation. The appointments were not yet in
the public domain. A Commission announcement would follow the
formal GEO announcement which was expected shortly.
2.
Declarations of interest:
2.1
No interests additional to those noted in the register of
Commissioners’ interests were declared.
3.
Minutes of the previous meeting
3.1
The minutes of the Board’s 54th meeting (19 November 2014)
EHRC 55.01 were agreed as a correct record and signed off by the
Chair.
4.
Matters arising from the minutes of previous meetings
4.1
The Board reviewed the log of action points (EHRC 55.02).
4.2
Laura Carstensen and Rebecca Hilsenrath updated on the
investigation into the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) (minute
54/0.2). Terms of reference had been agreed thanks to Board
members’ timely responses, and published. Officers were now
focussing on building up the investigation team (including
appointing an external investigator and counsel) and planning web
updates. A constructive working relationship was being developed
with the MPS, which formed a good basis for the investigation and
augured well for future work with the MPS beyond the Investigation
itself. Rebecca Hilsenrath was meeting the MPS director of human
resources in January. Regular reports were being made to SMT
and to Laura Carstensen. In future, Laura Carstensen would be
2
reporting back formally to the board. Action: Laura Carstensen to
update the Board on MPS investigation developments.
4.3
The Board welcomed this progress, noting that:
a)
the investigation could prompt requests for the Commission
to become involved in other cases. It agreed that such
requests would have to be considered on a case by case
basis;
b)
dialogue with the ACAS team working with the MPS would
be helpful and the investigation team had made initial contact
with ACAS;
c)
the strategic risk register had been updated to reflect the
positive and negative elements of the Commissions
involvement in this high profile Investigation.
4.4
The report to the Board on income generation policy (minute 47/6
Action D) had been deferred to the 26 February Board Meeting.
4.5
In relation to minute 52/7.2 Action H and minute 51/2.2 Action P
(ARAC and HRRC work programmes and membership), Board
members noted that the appointment of new commissioners
offered the opportunity to refresh the membership of ARAC and
HRRC and to appoint permanent chairs. The Chair confirmed that
expertise in the areas covered by these committees had been a
criterion of the selection process. She would discuss with new
appointees their roles on non-statutory Committees as part of their
induction programme.
4.6
All other actions had been completed, were in hand or would be
addressed under later agenda items.
5.
UN Accreditation of EHRC’s National Human Rights
Institution status 2015
5.1
Jayne Hardwick introduced paper EHRC 55.03 which set out
further details on the accreditation process. This responded to
questions raised at the November Board meeting on the role of the
Office of the High Commissioner of Human Rights and National
Human Rights Institutions (NHRIs), and on the working
relationship between the Commission and the other UK NHRIs. It
3
also fed back observations from Alan Miller, the Regional Chair
and ICC Secretary (Scotland).
5.2
The Board discussed how the proposed duty for non-economic
regulators to have regard to growth under the Deregulation Bill (the
‘growth duty’) might affect the Commission and its NHRI
accreditation. Mark Hammond reported that significant progress
had been made in making the case to the Department for
Business, Innovation and Skills (BIS) for an exemption from the
duty for the Commission. The Commission had argued that it
carried out only a minimal amount of activity to which the duty
could meaningfully apply and that application of the growth duty to
the Commission’s activities posed a risk to its NHRI ‘A’ status. It
was likely that Lord McNally would propose a Bill amendment to
this effect. The Chair and officers continued to press. Mark
Hammond noted that the recent consultation on extensions to the
duty had referred to a potential exemption for the Commission
which was evidence that the Commission's representations were
gaining traction.
5.3
The Board agreed that if the Commission was neither exempted
from the duty on the face of the legislation, nor in secondary
legislation then it could be argued that it faced a greater risk of
being unduly driven by economic considerations.
5.4
Board members felt that exemption on the face of the legislation
would present wider benefits in terms of the Commission's
independence. Exemption in secondary legislation would be less
satisfactory and the likely timescale of drafting regulations postelection presented uncertainties for the NHRI accreditation
process.
5.5
The Board asked for the CEO and Chair to continue making the
case for an exemption and to be kept aware of developments on
the growth duty, and for growth duty-related risks be monitored.
Action: Mark Hammond to update the Board on growth duty
developments at its next meeting.
5.6
The Board discussed Alan Miller’s observations that some parts of
the UN and ICC had reported experience of ‘A’ rated NHRIs who
were insufficiently independent or effective, and that poor levels of
accreditation could lead to removal of rights at the UN. The Board
noted that more robust re-accreditation procedures might
4
consequently be expected by the Commission and other NHRIs
and felt that the Commission needed to be alive to the need to
explain the substance and outcomes of what it was achieving in
practice as well as the procedures and infrastructure that enabled
it to meet the Paris Principles.
5.7
The Board noted the perception that the Commission’s response
to recent proposals to reform the Human Rights Act 1998 had
been muted in comparison to those of the other UK NHRIs, and
that the Commission was not generally perceived as a vocal
contributor to wider public debate about human rights. The Board
felt that is was important to articulate clearly that whilst the
Commission did not undertake political campaigning and lobbying
in the way that NGOs did, it was nonetheless an active impartial
commentator with an educational and promotional function.
5.8
Overall, the Board was content with the Commission's
management of the accreditation process. The Board agreed to
delegate to the Commissioners Working Group on Treaty
Monitoring initial consideration of accreditation review findings, and
initial consideration of any staff action needed to address
compliance with the Paris Principles. The Board agreed that
officers should be alert to any compelling and exceptional grounds
for the Commission to request postponement of the accreditation
process and alert the Board accordingly. Action: Ian Acheson
with the Commissioners Working Group on Treaty Monitoring to
ensure Board’s Comments taken into account in progressing the
accreditation process and report back to Board .
6.
Business Plan for 2015/16
6.1
Mark Hammond introduced the draft 2015-16 Business Plan
(previous iterations having been seen by the Board at its
September and November meetings), and the covering paper
(EHRC 55.04). The three new projects (work on pay gaps, on
access to civil justice, and on attitudes and behaviours) agreed by
the board were included, along with a proposal for a further project
on diversity in broadcasting.
6.2
In terms of the structure and content of the document as a whole,
the Board felt that the draft provided for a convincing narrative. It
suggested that the references to uncertainty and challenge in the
introduction could be given less prominence. Board members
5
agreed to provide other minor drafting suggestions directly to
officers.
6.3
In terms of the resource allocation, the board was pleased that
there would be no reduction to the Commission’s core funding in
2015-16 following the Chancellor of the Exchequer’s Autumn
Statement. The Board was content that officers were planning on
the basis of 80% capacity, given the substantial and cross cutting
nature of the three new projects, the Commission’s historic overcommitment to projects, and a range of possible post-election
pressures. The Board emphasised the importance of accurately
including the contribution of Statutory Committees and teams
working with them into resource allocation calculations for crosscutting projects.
6.4
In terms of the new business plan proposal for a project on
diversity in broadcasting, The Board:
a)
noted that Diversity in broadcasting was a priority for Minister
of State for Culture and the Digital Economy Ed Vaizey
which he had raised in his meeting with Rebecca Hilsenrath
and Melanie Field (1 December) and telephone conversation
with the Chair (10 December.
b)
emphasized that the Commission's work programme content
and timing, and the integrity of its business planning process
should not be unduly influenced by ministerial priorities or
political pressure;
c)
recognised that good business planning involved responding
appropriately to emerging opportunities, and that a
responsive approach did not of itself undermine the
Commission’s independence. In this instance the Board was
satisfied that the proposal was complementary to existing
planned activities, and would sit comfortably alongside
related work on a series of legal framework documents
(gender segregation in universities; diversity on company
boards; and freedom of expression/hate speech). It was work
that had been called for independently by broadcasting
sector interests. It would only be taken forward with full cost
recovery through programme funding and it would not
replace other EHRC work;
6
d)
agreed that a project plan and programme funding
application be taken forward. This should emphasise the
points at 55/6.4(c) above. Action Curtis Juman to initiate
programme bid and reflect in amended Business Plan.
6.5
The Board agreed these proposed changes to the planned
programme of work. Action: Curtis Juman to take forward and
amend delivery plans accordingly.
7.
Board effectiveness review: progress update
7.1
Melanie Field provided an update on the implementation plans for
the conclusion of the Board Effectiveness review (EHRC 55.05).
7.2
The Board felt that the measures introduced to support more
effective board meetings and to improve relationships had been
helpful.
7.3
Board members reported that the three Board Development
Programme presentations so far had been had been useful, wellpitched, and informative. The Board suggested for future
discussion a detailed session on disability discrimination; and a
session on equality issues relating to Gypsy and Traveller
communities perhaps as part of a wider race equality themed
session.
7.4
Board members were interested in the proposed induction
schedule for new commissioners and were happy to assist where
possible. The Board noted that separate arrangements were
being made for incoming Committee members and asked officers
to make sure that these were joined-up the wider Board
development programme, for instance by sharing briefing material.
7.5. The Board welcomed the improved consistency and clarity of
Board papers and presentations. Papers were circulated in a
timely fashion and communications between officers and Board
members in between meetings were being managed efficiently.
7.6. The Board discussed the CEO's and Chair’s report. This had
evolved to be a lengthy round-up of committee, legal and
operational activities. Given the information now routinely
presented as standing “Resource performance and risk reports”,
and that Committee minutes were already shared for information
7
the Board wondered if the CEO’s and Chairs’ report could be
recast as a shorter and more active review of and look-ahead to
key issues.
7.7
The Board was happy for officers to continue implementing the
actions set out in the plan, including the minor amendments set out
in the paper. Action: Melanie Field to take forward, including
sharing Board induction programme, and investigating the
availability of Commissioners to contribute to the programme.
8.
Communications Update
8.1
Colin Douglas provided an update on communications (EHRC
55.06). Given the short time since the last report there were no
significant engagements to report. However, work was continuing
on developing the Communications plan for 2015/16. Significant
communications activity related to the major projects of “Is Britain
Fairer? 2015”, pregnancy and maternity, and religion/belief was
expected, along with post-general election relationship-building
with stakeholders on a range of issues.
8.2
The Commission could also expect ongoing debate about reform
of the Human Rights Act 1998. Any such reform would commence
after the general election, but the debate prompted by published
Conservative party proposals meant that this was already a live
communications issue. The Chair summarised discussion that had
taken place on this matter in the Board’s private session preceding
the meeting. Board members had felt that:
a)
it would not be helpful or appropriate for the Commission to
provide detailed but necessarily speculative, and potentially
perceived as partisan commentary before any publication of
a draft Bill. Equally, the Commission could not remain silent;
b)
until such publication the Commission should reiterate its
well-established position that any proposals for reform of the
Human Rights act (including its replacement by a differing
Bill of rights) should not dilute the human rights protection
currently provided by the Act;
c)
other than some minor presentational and drafting
amendments suggested by Board members, the draft text
and Q&A brief on points of law pre-circulated to Board
8
members articulated the Commission’s position accurately
and clearly.
8.3
The Chair asked officers to use the text and Q&A (as amended) as
the basis for the Commission's ongoing external communications
on this issue and to monitor developments, including other political
parties’ emerging manifesto positions on reform of the Act. Action:
Rebecca Hilsenrath, Colin Douglas and Melanie Field to take
forward.
8.4. The Board noted the importance within the Commission’s overall
communications strategy of 'engagement in the course of
business’ with government and other organisations with whom
there was regular, strategic, but not necessarily public-facing
discourse.
9.
Smith Commission
9.1
Alastair Pringle provided an oral update. Detailed discussion on
this item would be re-scheduled for the Board’s meeting of 26
February 2015, the Smith Commission being due to publish more
detailed proposals on 25 January. The Smith Commission’s 27
November report did not go into detail on equality, proposing that
“the Equality Act 2010 will remain reserved. The powers of the
Scottish Parliament will include, but not be limited to, the
introduction of gender quotas in respect of public bodies in
Scotland. The Scottish Parliament can legislate in relation to socioeconomic rights in devolved areas.”
9.2
The Board noted that the Scotland Committee had met and
commented on the proposals, and that the Chair had written to
Lord Smith highlighting that any proposals must maintain, or
enhance the protection of equality and human rights across the
UK, and be supported by workable frameworks of legal and
administrative responsibilities and accountability.
9.3
Additional points raised by the Board to be borne in mind for the
forthcoming discussion, included:
a)
devolution of benefits incentivising ‘gaming’ on differential
Scotland and England benefits;
9
10.
b)
a context of increasingly robust party political debate and
tactical positioning in the run-up to the general election;
c)
the need to ensure that the Commission remained informed
about stakeholders and structures in the English regions in
the absence of a specifically “England” committee. The
recruitment of and engagement with a new panel of counsel
was one way of approaching this. The benefits of the
Scotland and Wales Committees peripatetic schedule of
meetings were noted.
P7 Resource, performance and Risk Report.
10.1 Curtis Juman introduced the resource, performance and risk report
for period seven (paper EHRC 55.08), which included some post
period updates. He highlighted that:
a)
overall, financial performance was positive and the
Commission’s work programme on track. Amber-rated
objectives included six discretionary programme-funded
workstreams where there had been delays to GEO’s
approval of funding;
b)
in terms of people and organisational development, there
was sound evidence of progress. 18 of 23 surplus staff had
now been matched and offered posts. The remainder were
actively engaged in Commission work programmes pending
redeployment. There remained one stayed employment
tribunal case relating to TUPE interpretation and contractual
pay based on the Earle Employment Appeal Tribunal case.
Sickness absence was falling, and three instances of long
term sickness absence were being actively managed. The
PCS “action short of a strike” in relation to the pay settlement
had been withdrawn;
.
c)
d)
management action had been taken to resolve minor issues
with FOI request response times;
around 70% of staff had registered 2014-15 work objectives
on line and around 40% had registered mid-year reviews.
These figures under-played the proportion of staff who had
agreed objectives and completed mid year reviews but not
yet formally registered them online. Nonetheless completion
10
rates were regarded by SMT as unsatisfactory and formal
reminders had been issued to staff and managers.
10.2 The Board noted the report. It was content that the Commission
was on track materially to deliver its business plan and to stay
within its financial control totals, and that strategic risks were being
managed appropriately.
10.3 The timing of the present meeting meant that the period eight
report had not been completed and signed off in time for advance
circulation. The Board asked for this to be circulated separately for
information. Action: Curtis Juman: to circulate P8 report to
Board.
11.
Update on strategic risks
11.1 Curtis Juman introduced the update on Strategic Risks,
highlighting Risk 1 (“Loss of NHRI status”) where the growth duty
issue discussed by the Board at item 5 was addressed. This would
be kept under review.
11.2 The Board noted that risks relating to “devolution in the UK (Risk
5), and risks relating to the changing environment in UK’s
relationship with Europe (Risk 6) had been separated out as
requested by the Audit and Risk Assurance Committee and Board.
11.3 Board members had no comments further to those made under
previous agenda items.
12.
Any other business and information pack.
12.1 The Board noted the updates presented in the CEO and Chairs'
report (EHRC Info Paper 55.01).
a)
Mark Hammond had attended the Scotland Committee
meeting of 12 November. In addition to discussing the Smith
Commission’s recommendations, the Committee had
provided useful comments on the new Business Plan
workstreams discussed by the Board at its last meeting, and
their delivery in Scotland. The Board endorsed the
appointment of Emma Ritch and Lorraine Barrie to fill the two
vacancies arising in the Scotland Committee from February
2015, subject to satisfactory references. Draft Minutes of the
11
Scotland Committee meeting on 12 November were provided
for Board information (EHRC Info Paper 55.05)
b)
The Wales Committee Chair noted that the Committee had
met on 3 December and had supported the new business
plan workstreams. Draft minutes would be circulated with
February Board papers for information.
c)
The Chair of the Human Resources and Remuneration
Committee was not present, but had updated the board on
the Committee’s activities at the Board’s November meeting.
The Board noted that Director of People, Claire Field had left
the Commission and her interim replacement Justine Kenny
was now in post. The Board asked Curtis Juman to pass on
their thanks for Claire’s contributions to the Commission.
Draft minutes of the ARAC meeting of 13 November were
circulated for the Board's information as EHRC Info Paper
55.07.
d)
There were no additional updates from the Chair of the Audit
and Risk Assurance Committee (ARAC). Draft minutes of the
ARAC meeting of 13 November were circulated for the
Board's information as EHRC Info Paper 55.06.
12.2 The Board noted that the Commission’s governance framework
was overdue for review (EHRC Info Paper 55.02) and agreed that
a light touch review be carried out by officers reporting to Caroline
Waters, with final sign off by the Board in March. Statutory
Committee chairs requested the opportunity to feed into decisions
relating to statutory committees. (Action: Melanie Field to initiate
review of Governance Framework).
12.3 The Board was pleased with progress on the Commission's Inquiry
into non-natural deaths in detention of adults with mental health
conditions (EHRC Info Paper 55.03). The Chair thanked officers
and Lead Commissioners Swaran Singh and Evelyn AsanteMensah for their efforts. Mark Hammond noted positive discussion
at his meeting of 16 December with key stakeholders*. There had
been a strong view that the statutory duty of candour set out in the
Mid Staffordshire NHS Public Inquiry report be extended to prisons
when investigating non-natural deaths. Key stakeholders were
keen to work together in response to the Commission's inquiry in
the best interests of genuine improvement. The Board:
12
a)
noted the useful and sensitively-managed INQUEST family
day of 7 November;
b)
noted that the cost of improvements and how to resource
them was outside the scope of the inquiry but would no
doubt by picked up by other interested organisations,
drawing on the Inquiry’s conclusions;
c)
felt the inquiry had highlighted some telling evidence, for
example the lack of comprehensive data on deaths in
hospitals, and the delays in registering deaths:
d)
considered that the inquiry was likely to fulfil its aim of
providing a fresh perspective, drawing together and
reinforcing concerns identified by different parties but not
shared between them.
* Dame Anne Owers (Independent Police Complaints Commission;
Nick Hardwick and Louise Finer (HM Inspectorate of Prisons for
England and Wales); Drusilla Sharpling CBE HM Inspectorate of
Constabulary for England and Wales; Michael Loughlin, and John
Cullinane (Prisons and Probation Ombudsman’s Office); Sue McMillan
(Care Quality Commission); Lord Toby Harris (Independent Advisory
Panel on Deaths in Custody)
12.4 The Board supported the proposed approach to the statutory
revision of the Commission’s Strategic plan set out in EHRC Info
Paper 55.04, with a more fundamental revision deferred to align
with the publication of "Is Britain fairer? 2015". The Board had no
comments on the new proposed text of the strategic plan, and
delegated to SMT the tasks of finalising the plan, sending it to the
Secretary of State to lay before Parliament and publishing it.
(Action: Melanie Field to co-ordinate SMT clearance of revised
strategic plan and make arrangements for Secretary of State to lay
it before Parliament in line with the statutory timetable).
12.5 With no other matters arising, the Chair closed the meeting,
thanking attendees and reminding them that the next meeting was
on 26 February at Fleetbank House.
Agreed by the Board at its meeting of 26 February 2015 and signed by
the Chair.
13