Minutes of the 72Nd Meeting of the Board of the Equality and Human Rights Commission

Minutes of the 72nd meeting of the Board of the Equality and Human Rights Commission

3 July 2017, Fleetbank House, 2-6 Salisbury Square, London, EC4Y 8JX

Attending:

Commissioners David Isaac, Chair Susan Johnson Lorna McGregor June Milligan Lesley Sawers Swaran Singh (by video link) Caroline Waters Rebecca Hilsenrath, Chief Executive Officer

Officers Erica Boardman, Principal - Corporate Communications, (item 12) Joe Corcos, Director - People and Infrastructure Martin Deller, Interim Strategic Communications Advisor (item 12) Melanie Field, ED - Wales and Corporate Strategy and Policy Rachel Zaltzman, Director - Strategic Planning and Policy Richard Mabbitt, Board Secretary (minutes) Alastair Pringle, ED - Scotland and Corporate Delivery

Observing Sarah Veale Ruth Coombs, Head of Wales John Wilkes, Head of Scotland Graham Wheaton, Senior Associate - Corporate Governance Team

Apologies Ben Wilson, ED - England and Corporate Improvement and Impact Lord Shinkwin

1. Chair’s welcome, attendance and apologies for absence

1.1 David Isaac welcomed attendees. Rachel Zaltzman was acting as Director, Strategic Policy and Planning during Paola Uccellari’s maternity leave. Ruth Coombs and John Wilkes were observing as National Heads, and Graham Wheaton was observing developmentally.

1.2 David Isaac thanked Sarah Veale for attending. The Commission was actively pursuing a decision from the Secretary of State on her future role. David Isaac noted that for this meeting Sarah was attending at his invitation. Board members welcomed her attendance.

1 1.3 Apologies had been received from Ben Wilson, for whom Joe Corcos was standing in, and from Lord Shinkwin.

2. Declarations of interest

2.1 David Isaac thanked Board members for their responses to the annual reminder issued by the Corporate Governance Team. Completed declaration forms were tabled for Commissioners’ information. No further declarations of interest were made.

2.2 David Isaac reminded Board members to declare any conflicts that became apparent in the course of discussions.

3. Round up of pre-meeting session

3.1 Board members felt that the pre-meeting session on the Commission’s Human Rights Promotion Strategy had been very helpful, and thanked Charlie Hamilton and Rachel Albinson (EHRC Policy Secretariat) for briefing them. Board Members looked forward to receiving a worked up version of the Strategy in the autumn. Action: Charlie Hamilton to note comments from Commissioners and bring the worked-up Strategy back to the Board at its November meeting.

3.2 Board members had found the briefing from Claire Craig (Director of Policy, the Royal Society) and Adrian Weller (Senior Research Fellow in machine learning, University of Cambridge) a useful follow-up to earlier horizon scanning discussions, and welcomed the proposed ongoing engagement with the Royal Society on machine learning in society and its implications for equality and human rights. Action: Andrew Harding to note comments from Commissioners, and follow up with the Royal Society, including possible presentation to staff on the issue.

3.3 The regular Pipeline Planning Grid had been reviewed by Board members, and David Isaac had provided an update on Commissioner appointments.

4. Minutes of the previous Board meeting

4.1 Minutes of the Board’s 71st meeting of 9 March 2017 (EHRC 72.01) were agreed, subject to clarification of Sarah’s Veale’s role at the meeting.

5. Matters arising

5.1 The Board reviewed the log of actions arising (EHRC 72.02). Rebecca Hilsenrath reported that:

2 a) on Action 67/10.2 (a) the delayed “lessons learned” report on the Metropolitan Police Service investigation would shortly be brought to Delivery Group. Matters to be addressed by the report included the setting of the Inquiry’s terms of reference and the challenges and opportunities posed by its size and complexity. David Isaac noted that he would be meeting Metropolitan Police Service Commissioner Cressida Dick in August;

b) on Action 69/14.1(a), productive discussions continued with the Sports Ground Safety Authority (SGSA) relating to the Commission’s work with the Premier league and others of stadium accessibility. A memorandum of understanding relating to the shared concerns of the Commission and the SGSA was under consideration;

c) on Action 67/8.3, a paper on income generation would be brought to the Board at its September meeting. She noted that the Commission was considering a request to take up the chairing of the Commonwealth Forum of NHRIs, and was in discussions with the Foreign and Commonwealth Office regarding funding to do so.

5.2 The Board was content that other actions recorded were either complete, in progress, or would be addressed later in the meeting.

6. CEO’s Overview, including key risks and performance and resource issues

6.1 Rebecca Hilsenrath introduced the Performance and Resources report (EHRC 71.03). The Board noted progress to date against the 2017-18 Business Plan, delivery highlights, the overview of the Commission’s financial position, and programme delivery status. Board members:

a) noted the shifting political context to the Commissions work following the general election. The Commission continued to be actively engaged in discussions about the implications of Brexit for equality and human rights (for example Rebecca Hilsenrath’s participation in the Women and Equalities Panel at a University of Manchester event on Brexit, Regulation and Society). The Commission had analysed the recent Queen’s Speech for gaps and opportunities to influence legislation, and proposals for doing so were being addressed by the Prioritisation Group;

b) reflected on the full year forecast final position and potential underspend. The Board supported the approach of developing proposals for work that would amplify current business plan outcomes without increasing the delivery burden on officers. The Board advised that the Commission be mindful of the deliverability of newly initiated work should there be further cuts to the Commission’s funding in the future.

c) Noted the impact of the recent general election purdah on the Commission’s communications activity. While recognising the

3 importance of impartiality during the election period, the Board remained concerned that Government’s blanket approach to the application of purdah rules restricted the Commissions capacity to operate independently to fulfil its mandate. The Board felt that some high level political campaigning relating to human rights protections had been based on flawed or simplistic premises. The Board noted that concerns about the fitness for purpose of current purdah restrictions were shared by other bodies, including academic institutions. The Board suggested that a dedicated discussion of how the Commission maintained its independence of government would be timely. The UN International Co- ordinating Committee Sub-Committee on Accreditation had expressed concerns about this during the Commission’s re-accreditation as an ‘A’ status NDPB in 2015, and it would be necessary to respond to their concerns in advance of the next re-accreditation process. Board members noted that the issue had been raised in Rebecca Hilsenrath’s meetings with senior DfE officials and in David Isaac’s correspondence with Secretary of State Justine Greening. They felt that it should continue to be highlighted in future exchanges. Rebecca Hilsenrath’s participation in the Network of CEOs of DfE Non-Departmental Public Bodies would also provide useful read across from other bodies on the implications for NDPB independence and sound governance of Ministerial non-executive appointments. Action: Rachel Zaltzman to bring paper summarising independence issues to Board for further discussion;

d) were content with the 11 ‘key objectives’ suggested for future reports to the Board, and satisfied with progress against them;

e) noted key deliverable and activities.

6.2 Board members reviewed the Strategic Risk Report (EHRC 72.04).

a) Board members discussed Strategic Risk 5 (arrangements for oversight of delivery of strategic aims) and felt that the amber rating was appropriate given the current vacancies on the Board. This presented immediate quorum issues for the Human Resources and Remuneration Committee (HRRC) and Audit and Risk Assurance Committee (ARAC) and longer term risks in terms of the Board’s breadth of expertise, and how the Commission’s independence of government was perceived.

b) The Board agreed that it was now appropriate to de-scope Strategic Risk 3 (delivery of operating model, organisational culture and people arrangements), and replace it with a more wide-ranging people and infrastructure risk. Business continuity, particularly in the light of recent terrorist incidents and cyber-attacks, was an area under discussion by ARAC, and should, the Board felt, be addressed under this heading. The Board also advised that the robust information management and compliance with General Data Protections Regulations requirements (also scheduled for discussion by ARAC) should fall under the new heading.

4 Action: Paul Mrazek to take into account the Board’s views in updating the Risk Register

6.3 Rebecca Hilsenrath introduced the Quarterly Legal Report (EHRC 72.05). The Board noted the highlights of the Commission’s litigation work, and of its non- litigation legal work, and was satisfied with progress. The Board:

a) noted the successful completion of the Commission’s pilot work providing front line advice and representation for disability discrimination claims (including first instance and non-strategic claims);

b) was pleased that the Commission’s legal work was becoming more integrated with the Commission’s external communications, with rapid responses to high profile media stories, including legal action against a landlord who had banned Indian and Pakistani people from renting his properties;

c) noted other legal deliverables, including the Commissions first use of interdict powers to challenge potentially discriminatory content on the website of a B&B in Scotland;

d) emphasised the importance of making legal cases relevant to a general audience and of explaining the relevance of legal outcomes in meaningful terms that related to people’s everyday experience.

6.4 Rebecca Hilsenrath and Joe Corcos introduced paper EHRC 72.06 which set out a proposed People programme to deliver Great Place priorities, to improve the Commission’s diversity and inclusion, and to make the Commission an exemplary employer. The paper reflected feedback from HRRC. Board members:

a) welcomed the positioning of the programme as the next step after the transition to the new operating model. With infrastructural changes largely in place, the focus could now be brought back to the wider cultural Great Place objectives. Board members noted the proactive efforts being made to re-communicate the principles behind the plan to staff, including through all staff meetings;

b) were pleased at the large number and high calibre of applicants to Commission vacancies and strongly supported the positive action being taken to promote diversity through new recruitment;

c) noted that staff were being briefed on the results of the ‘Hive’ rolling staff survey, and actions being taken to respond to Hive feedback. Capacity issues during the operating model transition had been highlighted particularly strongly by staff. Senior executive and Board level visibility was also an area which would need addressing further.

5 d) noted that although the transition to the new operating model was now substantively complete, the PCS and Unite unions remained in dispute with the Commission and that rolling strike action had taken place in all offices over May. Board members remained supportive of the approach being taken by the Commission in its discussion with the Unions. The Board was pleased with progress in filling vacancies, and especially that (with the appointments of Elizabeth Prochaska as Legal Director, and Alasdair McDonald and Libby McVeigh as Programme Directors) a full cohort of Directors was in place.

e) commended the efforts of staff who despite challenging changes over the period of transition had delivered substantial outcomes. They felt that staff events (including the well-attended and engaging address by Deputy President of the Supreme Court, Lady Hale) were helping to build morale and develop networks across the organisation. The Executive group meetings (19 July and 14 September) on strategy, leadership and engagement would be particularly useful.

6.5 The Board supported the proposed People Programme content and timeline as set out in the paper.

7. Annual Report and Accounts

7.1 Rebecca Hilsenrath and Joe Corcos introduced the draft Annual Report and Accounts (ARA) for 2016-17 and the National Audit Office (NAO) Audit Completion Report including management letter on the 2016/17 financial statement Audit (all presented as EHRC 72.07) and asked Susan Johnson to summarise ARAC’s views.

7.2 Susan Johnson spoke to her ARAC Chair’s report (paper EHRC 72.10A) which summarised discussion at the ARAC meeting of 27 June attended also by representatives of the NAO and the Commission’s internal auditors, Grant Thornton. The Committee had discussed and challenged the suite of reports (ARA, annual governance statement, and internal audit annual report and opinion) which comprised the 2016/17 year-end reporting requirements.

7.3 The Board noted:

a) the thorough review by ARAC, NAO, Government Equalities Office, Rebecca Hilsenrath (as the Commission’s Accounting Officer) and the Executive Leadership Team/Executive Group. Their comments had been duly incorporated into the draft documents;

b) that Grant Thornton had provided a “substantial" assurance opinion on the adequacy and effectiveness of corporate governance, risk management and internal controls. This opinion was based on the areas reviewed under the annual audit plan, and in the context of the implementation of the Commission’s transition to its new operating

6 model with took place during the reporting period. ARAC had discussed the justification for this assurance rating in detail with Grant Thornton;

c) NAO’s recommendation in its annual completion report to the Comptroller and Auditor General that the financial statements be certified with an unqualified opinion;

b) that ARAC had recommended some minor clarifying amendments to the wording of the report relating to the achievements of the Commission on devolved matters in Scotland and Wales, and to arrangements following the expiry of the Disability Committee’s period as a statutory Committee of the Commission. The Board supported these amendments;

7.4 Rebecca Hilsenrath notified the Board that a minor unadjusted error would need to be included in the ARA. This related to a voluntary redundancy payment that (with the employers contribution added) had marginally exceeded (by less than £10) the threshold for Ministerial approval, a matter which should immediately have been brought to the Commission’s attention by the administrators of the Civil Service Pension Scheme, MyCSP. NAO, on becoming aware of this issue only after the ARAC meeting, had notified the Commission and advised that it needed to be recorded as an unadjusted error. The Commission had subsequently discussed with Cabinet office officials who advised that no retrospective action was necessary in this instance. The Board regretted that this had not been adjusted for in the ARA, but noted the problem had been properly dealt with by the Commission as soon it became apparent and that the error on the part of MyCSP was entirely outside the control of the Commission. Action: Susan Johnson and Rebecca Hilsenrath to discuss possible follow-up action.

7.5 The Board therefore approved the Annual report and Accounts and agreed that Rebecca Hilsenrath as Accounting Officer sign and submit the Annual Governance statement. Action: Rebecca Hilsenrath

7.6 The Board was pleased that the possible delay in laying the Annual Report and Accounts before Parliament until after the Summer Recess that had been raised by GEO before the present meeting was no longer anticipated, and that a laying date of 20 July was expected.

7.7 On behalf of the Board, David Isaac asked Rebecca Hilsenrath to thank staff involved in producing the Annual Report and Accounts for their hard work and professionalism. NAO had commented on the constructiveness and high standard of delivery of the finance team under challenging circumstances, including lots of staff changes. Action: Rebecca Hilsenrath.

8. Board Buddying

8.1 Further to the Board’s discussions at its last meeting, Richard Mabbitt outlined proposed terms of reference for a “buddying scheme” (EHRC 71.06) whereby individual Commissioners provided support and advice related to Business Plan

7 domains and/or key programmes of work. The terms of reference sought to address the points previously raised by Commissioners relating to: Commissioner and staff capacity and the need to avoid a blurring of responsibilities between the executive and non-executive parts of the Commission.

8.2 Board members felt that the proposals:

a) were sensible and manageable and clearly spelt out the terms of engagement, including making clear distinctions between executive and non-executive roles;

b) provided for future engagement of some statutory and advisory Committee members in buddying beyond their Committee remit. Board Members agreed that it would be sensible to review the operation of the scheme, and for Committee Chairs to discuss potential roles with their members (including recent and new arrivals) before doing so.

c) Agreed the allocation of buddying roles as a working list, with Susan Johnson offering to cover the Housing Inquiry (under the Standard of Living and Personal Autonomy domain) and the Accessibility of Football Stadia programme.

8.3 Board members agreed that the scheme be rolled out using the terms of reference as drafted, with amendments in due course to reflect the engagement of Committee members in buddying roles. Action: Rachel Zaltzman to brief domain leads and facilitate initial contact between officers and buddies.

9. Disability Advisory Committee Update

9.1 Melanie Field reported that a two-phase application process was under way for membership of the Disability Advisory Committee:

a) Members of the former Disability Committee (plus its non-voting representatives from the Scotland and Wales Committees) had been asked to submit CVs and a short account of their interest in joining the new Committee, including any expressions of interest in chairing the Committee.

b) Applications would shortly be invited from a wider field of stakeholders.

9.2 In the meantime, the “transitional” Disability Advisory Committee (comprising members of the former statutory Disability Committee plus its non-voting representatives from the Scotland and Wales Committee chaired by Rachel Perkins, the former deputy chair of the statutory Disability Committee) would be meeting on 11 July. The agenda would include discussion of the Commission’s legal work related to disability; the Housing Inquiry; and work relating to the UN Convention on Rights for Persons with Disabilities. It would be attended by David Isaac and Rebecca Hilsenrath.

8 9.3 Board members welcomed the efforts to provide continuity through the transitional arrangements and hoped that the Disability Advisory Committee in its final format and membership would be speedily constituted.

10. Committee Chairs’ Updates

Wales Committee

10.1 June Milligan drew Board members’ attention to the notes of the last Wales Committee meeting (Information paper 72C) held in Bangor, alongside a series of engagements with North Wales stakeholders. She introduced the Wales Committee report (EHRC 72.09), highlighting:

a) the results of the general election in Wales, which had resulted in an aggregate losses of three conservative seats and the only liberal democrat seat, and gains of one Plaid Cymru seat and three Labour seats. The UKIP vote share across Wales had dropped by 11.6%, and the Green Party vote share by 2.2%;

b) a productive meeting with Welsh Cabinet ministers to discuss Being Disabled in Britain;

c) A meeting with the Welsh Language Commissioner Meri Huws, including areas for potential future collaboration, especially on identifying and sharing learning on strategic cases on discrimination, where the weakness of the advice sector in Wales and geographical factors posed particular problems. The Board noted that any future collaboration would be facilitated by the Commission’s forthcoming appointment of a principal leading on Access to Justice issues. Melanie Field reported that the Prioritisation Group was considering a case in Wales (on reasonable adjustments for commonhold premises) prompted by the Access to Justice pilot;

d) The Commission’s Annual Equality and Human Rights Exchange conference to be held on 6 July in Cardiff. Board members were impressed by the quality of speakers and the depth of issues which would be covered. June Milligan noted that parts of the event would be livestreamed via Facebook, and that videos of the key discussions would be made public after the event.

Scotland Committee

10.2 Lesley Sawers spoke to the Scotland Committee report (EHRC 72.10). Board members also noted the minutes of the last Scotland Committee meeting (Information Paper 72B). She reported on:

a) a range of achievements, notably:

9 - ongoing work on Is Scotland Fairer; the Housing Inquiry; Transfer of Expertise; social security; and UNCRPD; - engagements with City Deal Partners and Partnerships (including Glasgow City Council, the largest City Deal in Scotland) to discuss collaborative work on investment and equality. A tender for specialist support on this would be issued in July with the expectation of contracts being appointed in August; - completion of monitoring Scottish public authorities’ compliance with PSED specific duties 2013-17, and work on a tender specification for work on PSED effectiveness; - the likely commencement of the Scottish Government’s consultation on the new Socio Economic Duty in early July;

b) David Isaac’s meetings with Scotland-based staff and Scotland Committee members which had been well-received. It was hoped that the postponed meeting with the First Minister would be rearranged shortly;

c) planning for the recruitment of new Scotland Committee members. Inclusiveness and diversity would be emphasised in the process, and skills gaps targeted. The Commission was looking to learn from other bodies experiences and was considering ‘open house’ sessions for potential applicants.

10.3 Lesley Sawers drew Commissioners attention to the tabled EHRC Scotland 2016/17 Annual Report which would shortly be published. The report set out the Commission’s role and highlights of its work in Scotland, as well as a brief look-ahead. She felt that the report was a useful factual document, although as a summary document it did not cover the whole breadth and depth of the Commission’s work in Scotland. She would be looking at ways of making the next Report a more engaging document (for example by using infographics) and a purposeful communication tool within the context of the Commissions overall Communications strategy.

10.4 The Board welcomed the Report, noting the importance of giving greater prominence to the Commission’s achievements and challenges in Scotland (and in Wales), and thanked Lesley Sawers, the Scotland Committee and Scotland Staff for their efforts in the reporting year.

Human Resources and Remuneration Committee (HRRC)

10.5 Caroline waters reported orally on the 15 June meeting of the HRRC. Minutes were being prepared and would be circulated shortly. She:

a) noted the ongoing quorum problems faced by the group. The Board was content that the Committee continued to meet inquorately under the circumstances. She thanked Board members for their assent by correspondence to the proposals for the 2017/18 Pay Remit, prior to negotiation with the Trade Unions and submission of the Commissions business case to the DfE;

b) thanked the Commission’s people team for its hard work in reducing the number of staff vacancies. The quantity and quality of applicants was evidence that the Commission was an attractive employer;

c) suggested that the Commission also needed to think about the package of development it offered to its executive team. Board members welcomed the proposed developmental emphasis of the first meeting of the new Executive Group, and the intention to repeat this quarterly;

d) reported that the Committee felt that the Commission’s key people indicators were within acceptable parameters, and that the Commission’s people function was operating well. The Board was aware that some Employment Tribunal cases were likely to be brought as a result of the transition to the new operating model, and HRRC had asked to be kept fully briefed on these.

Audit and Risk Assurance Committee (ARAC)

10.6 Susan Johnson reported that as well as the Annual Report and Accounts (see item 7) ARAC at its meeting on 27 June had reviewed the Strategic risk register and discussed the Performance Report. It had also discussed Business Continuity and cyber threat measures, and would be revisiting this at its next meeting.

11. Independence, effective working relationships with GEO, and Board meeting attendance

11.1 Melanie Field spoke to paper EHRC 72.11 which updated the Board on progress against Action 3 of the Board Effectiveness Action Plan Action (supporting and demonstrating the independence of the Commission). It also set out administrative measures for Board and Committee meetings aimed at balancing the need to maintain a positive relationship with the Commission’s sponsor department without compromising the Board’s ability independently to deliberate and make decisions.

11.2 Board members noted that:

a) the current Government-EHRC framework document set the parameters for an effective working relationship, with GEO, with the Commission’s independence not unduly constrained. Looking forward, the Commission would be developing plans to move towards greater accountability to Parliament rather than Government in the context of the Tailored Review (expected to start in Q4);

b) strategic meetings between senior GEO officers, and the Commission Chair and CEO continued to be useful. Further meetings would be arranged (including with the Secretary of State) in line with the framework agreement.

11 11.3 Board members discussed GEO attendance at Board meetings. Some Board members had previously expressed concern that such attendance could inhibit open discussion or create a perception that the Commission’s independence was being undermined. At present GEO officials were not invited to attend. Board members felt that clearly signalling the Commissions Independence of Government remained as important as ever, but:

a) noted the value of having a sponsor department which was fully briefed on the Commissions activities (for example in terms of early avoidance of duplication of effort);

b) acknowledged that there were some discussions where GEO input would be timely and helpful. It was noted that GEO attendance at ARAC meetings was useful, and provided an opportunity to ask pertinent question and agree next steps in real time.

c) felt that purposeful and clearly defined engagement by GEO at the Commissions explicit invitation could be seen as demonstrating the Commissions independence rather than inhibiting it;

11.4 The Board felt that, on balance, a decision by the Chair on GEO attendance or otherwise should be made at the point of agreeing the Board meeting agenda, with the additional option of recusing GEO attendees if appropriate in the course of meetings.

11.5 Board members agreed the list of standing staff invitees to Board meetings, following operating model changes to roles and responsibilities. It was agreed that the Heads of Wales and Scotland should be invited to Board meetings for specific purposes such as presentation of the Wales and Scotland annual reports, or following attendance at tri-nations meetings in Fleetbank House. Some Board members remained concerned that meetings risked becoming crowded.

11.6 The Board agreed to implement the decisions at 11.3 and 11.4, and review their workability after the next two Board meetings. Action: Rachel Zaltzman

12. Communication Strategy

12.1 Erica Boardman and Martin Deller introduced the Commission’s Communications Strategy for 2017-18 (paper EHRC 72.12), highlighting:

a) the Commission’s communications mission statement and contextual factors, which included the need for higher levels of flexibility and responsiveness. These were supported by core objectives (protecting and promoting equality and human rights, informing about rights and obligations, engagement to change behaviours, policy and legislation, and promoting confidence in the Commission);

12 b) core external Communications themes (access to justice, a fair Brexit; improved standards of living and personal autonomy, promoting human rights, and protecting liberty and freedom from harm);

c) priority campaigns (“Working Forward”, human rights promotion, and Access to Justice). Scoping work was also under way on campaigns relating to the Housing Inquiry, intolerant behaviour and hate crime, and flexible working as a day 1 right;

d) the upcoming stakeholder reputation survey and a series of Communication improvement objectives across all channels.

12.2 Board members:

a) felt that the strategy provided a sound basis for judging when and how to make important reactive and opportunistic communications interventions, and well as more planned activities.

b) were pleased, given the devolution agenda and city mayors, that local and regional media were seen as high priority, noting their aggregated reach and credibility with audiences.

c) were broadly supportive of individual staff members communicating the Commissions messages via their own social networks, in terms both of increasing reach and of empowering staff and demonstrating trust. They felt that some training (for example the informal workshops originally scheduled for the 2016 Development Day) for staff would be beneficial.

12.3 The Board agreed the Strategy.

13. Information Papers and Any Other Business:

13.1 Board members noted the Commissioner Briefing Pack (Information paper 72A); the further details of the Prioritisation Group (Information Paper 72E) and the discussion summarised in the minutes of the Commissioner Working Group on Treaty Monitoring (Information paper 72F).

13.2 David Isaac reported that Lord Shinkwin had asked the Commission to support a Private Member’s Bill entitled ‘Abortion (Disability Equality) Bill’ that he would introduce to the House of Lords on 11 July. The Board agreed that the Commission’s Prioritisation Group should consider this at its next Prioritisation group meeting (12 July). Action: Melanie Field to arrange for the Private Member’s Bill to be brought to Prioritisation Group and provide feedback to the Board at its next meeting”

13.3 With no other business matters raised, David Isaac thanked attendees and closed the meeting. The Board would next meet on 12 September 2017.

[agreed by the Board at its 73rd meeting of 12 September and signed by the Chair]