Download original attachment
(Word document)
This is an HTML version of an attachment to the Freedom of Information request 'Copies of papers and minutes since 2006'.

Note of WNC Learning Exchange

30th October 2007

Those present:

Joyce Gould (JG) Interim Chair

Anita Gale (AG) Commissioner

Sabin Malik (SM) Commissioner

Bronagh Hinds (BH) Commissioner

Susan Green (SG) Acting Director, WNC

Daniel Barrow (DB) Deputy Director, WNC

Leon Bond (LB) Business Manager, WNC

Barbara Keeley MP (BKy) PPS to Harriet Harman

Barbara Follett MP (BF) Minister for Women and Equality

Anna Easton (AE) PS to Barbara Follett

Helene Reardon-Bond (HRB) Sponsor Team, GEO

Apologies:

Liz Kelly Commissioner

Ranjana Bell Commissioner

Brenda King Commissioner

1) JG opened the meeting, setting out the timetable for the two days and detailing the attendees who would be joining the meeting later on.

Apologies had been received in advance from Liz Kelly and Ranjana Bell. As Ranjana was unwell, it was agreed to try to arrange to send flowers and best wishes from the Board, for a speedy recovery.

Action Point LE1 - DB to arrange card and flowers for Ranjana, wishing her a speedy recovery.

2) JG went through the recommendations from the WNC light touch Review report, to agree which, if any, items should be raised with BF. The points raised are listed below;

Section A

  1. It was agreed that the Board should review the financial implications of any work programme, prior to it's presentation to Ministers by the Chair.

  2. It was noted that a full financial breakdown had not been included in recent annual reports and this should be reinstated.

Section B

  1. The recommendation for a formal memorandum of understanding (MOU) with GEO was accepted, and the following points were also made. AG asked how the administrations of the devolved nations could be included, alongside Westminster. It was agreed to raise this with BF, with a view to including recognition within the MOU of WNC's four-nation role.

  2. There was uncertainty over the meaning of `Delivery Partner' in the Recommendations, in the context of setting up protocols with them. SG explained that it was likely to be referring to work carried out for, and so funded by, other government departments.

Section C

  1. Working with the new EHRC was seen as core work for the WNC. Alongside the paper that the recommendation suggested, agreeing a formal MOU with them was thought to be worth pursuing. It was agreed that completion of this recommendation was likely sooner than the 2009 deadline proposed. Relationships needed to be built while the EHRC was being set up, as this would allow WNC to influence and assist (where possible) policy development.

Section D

  1. The recommendation for the Board to act collectively as `non-executive directors' was accepted, although the meaning of non-executive directors in this context was unclear. There was uncertainty if this was suggesting a more involved role for individuals in WNC work or a more supervisory role for the Board as a whole.

  2. Reviewing the progress of the WNC and monitoring performance was seen as key for the Board. It was agreed to bring this into the following day's discussions on the future work programme.

Section E

  1. On this and (ii), where regular and more direct oversight of WNC procedures was put forward, this governance of WNC was seen as something that needed to be built into terms of reference for Commissioners and form part of the overall WNC remit.

  2. As above

  3. Commissioners felt that business planning flowed from the governance arrangements for the commission, so this point could be taken with (i) and (ii) in any discussion with BF.

  4. The meaning of the paraphrased `building on good practice' and `WNC's quarterly meetings' was felt to be slightly unclear in it's meaning, it was agreed to seek further clarification on this.

BH said that the role of Commissioners, their operation as a Board, and the extent to which they were involved in oversight of WNC staff, were the key things that should drive forward the agenda and work of the commission.

Section F

  1. JG explained her thoughts that the principle of remunerating Commissioners for time spent on WNC business was `good news', not for personal financial reasons, but because it raised the profile and status of WNC and its work. The proposed remuneration would be for all agreed, non-personal work carried out for the WNC, i.e. work done on request by the Chair or as delegated by the Board. SG explained that the figure listed was likely to be raised in line with inflation.

  2. Raising the level of the chair's honorarium was also seen as good news as the current £10,000 had not increased for many years.

  3. SG was asked to examine any implications of the proposals put forward for funding the above costs, and to keep the issue under review until it was clarified.

Section G

  1. The Directorate was asked to talk to GEO in connection with this recommendation, to ensure that when WNC was drawing up and putting forward costings for work carried out for other departments, a firm line was taken to ensure that WNC was not `out of pocket' through this. It was expected that GEO would assist WNC if asked, in pressing for those departments to fully fund any work.

  2. SG explained that given the changes involved in setting up the GEO, recruitment of a new WNC Director by GEO may not occur until the start of the 2008/09 financial year.

  3. It was agreed to ask for the recommended two to three year Director's posting to be extended to five years. On the basis that the level of experience they would need to acquire, together with the timescale for many projects could reduce the incumbent's ability to successfully take forward work to completion.

Alongside the Director post, the background experience and skill level, hence the civil service grading, for all Directorate posts was felt by BH to need examining. This was to ensure that the team was properly equipped with the right skills for the work it undertook.

Section H

  1. The recommendations on effective and cost-efficient work, together with strengthening stakeholder engagement were accepted.

BH raised a concern that WNC's core remit appeared to be stated differently between some of the WNC's publications and the Commissioners' terms of reference, constitution, etc. JG expressed her view that the remit still remained constant as being “To bring the voices of women to government”, possibly redrafting of the constitution, etc. would allow a single form of words to be used throughout.

3) SG briefed Commissioners on the Government Equalities Office (GEO), its legal status as a separate department, its likely future and location. It was anticipated that BF would expand on these areas when she spoke.

4) At this point BF, BKy, AE and HRB joined the meeting.

BF introduced herself, with an update on her position within government. She was no longer a DWP minister and her new office was being established at 26 Whitehall, within the Cabinet Office. BKy, HRB and AE then also introduced themselves.

JG welcomed them to the meeting, adding she was delighted that BF had taken on her role as Minister for Women and Equality (MfW)

BF explained her wish to go over the Review with Commissioners initially, before discussing how WNC could take things forward.

Everyone introduced themselves and JG added that three Commissioners were not present. JG felt that in order to move the work of the WNC forward, a total of twelve Commissioners were needed, rather than the proposed ten suggested in the Review.

5) BF gave a short introduction to the report, covering her thoughts on the WNC and its future role. She believed the WNC was important, in the current climate with the new EHRC and gender duty. She was keen for WNC to be a platform for women's views and a bridge between the sector and government. New Commissioners would allow the WNC to spread its network wider and she was especially keen for electronic communication to be used to its fullest, to reach out to those whom WNC might not reach through traditional means. She added that she wished to meet and discuss WNC's work regularly and the GEO was ready to help where needed in strengthening governance and business planning procedures. Finally, although the report proposed a remuneration for Commissioners, this was still dependent on GEO finances being finalised successfully, following discussions with HMT.

6) JG welcomed BF's words. She referred to the consultation that WNC had undertaken for Harriet Harman on her priorities as MfW, explaining that it had been very effective and that it was something that could be built upon. JG had ideas for replicating this in other areas of WNC's work, especially using e-communications. AG added that the work done around the consultation in Wales had been extremely successful and WNC would need to use the experience to help build up its profile across the four nations and regions. Outreach was key and this needed to be reflected in the resources that the Directorate had at its disposal to support this work.

7) BF suggested that WNC use the existing networks and the links built up within constituencies by MPs, towards promoting exchanges of information on cross-cutting issues. In a non-partisan way, WNC could reach out to groups beyond its current audience, especially by using women MP's from each nation and region, looking across the political spectrum, at backgrounds, beliefs and religions.

JG agreed, adding that this could also feed into the development and direction of policy.

BF referred to the Corston report as a subject that was coming up the agenda, and suggested that there may be work springing from this that WNC could feed into. She also felt there were `exciting things happening', with the push to use the equality duties on public bodies to raise standards, especially the gender duty.

8) BH contrasted the situation in N. Ireland with that in other nations. In NI, not all parties were fully engaged with the issues around gender equality. BH offered to pass papers on a particular issue regarding the NI Bill of Rights Forum to BF as an example. On the MfW priorities consultation, the issue of stretched staff resources within WNC was raised, which may impact on the ability of WNC to deliver on issues identified. BH suggested an integrated overall strategy for working in the regions and nations could be more effective, as opposed to addressing them individually.

9) BF added that at the local government level, there were also issues that needed to be addressed and asked for views on taking that forward. JG raised the European level which was often not included when looking at an international perspective on equality. Brenda King had valuable links in Europe that WNC could build on further. WNC had not recently engaged at local government level, but JG had recently met Jane Roberts from the Councillors Commission, who had asked to attend a future meeting. JG hoped that alongside representation, the Commission would address issues of support services for councillors and target the cultural impact of having a largely male dominated bureaucracy.

Action Point LE2 - To invite Jane Roberts from the Councillors Commission to a future Board meeting.

10) SM felt there was a need at all levels to include a focus on women within socially excluded white communities, with the danger that right-wing extremists attempting to build support could go unchallenged. These women were often disengaged from the political process.

11) BH described Peter Hain's work as N. Ireland Secretary, where he challenged delegations and appointments which appeared to lack a proper and fair level of female representation. BH suggested that the responsible Ministers for Equality from each nation should meet regularly with BF to discuss these types of issue.

Action Point LE3 - GEO to arrange for BF to meet Equality Ministers in the Regions.

12) JG fed back the points discussed by Commissioners on the Review's recommendations prior to BF's arrival, and detailed above. JG added that WNC welcomed the Review and did not foresee many problems in taking it forward.

13) HRB asked for thoughts on the manner and timing of the Review's release. GEO did not object if the entire report was made available to partners. JG believed that a decision needed to be made on whether to send the entire report to partners, or to either summarise it, or its key recommendations.

Action Point LE4 - Directorate to recommend options for publicising the Review report details to JG.

14) BKy offered to assist in liaising with MPs to help raise the profile of WNC and build links via them to organisations in constituencies. JG welcomed this and said they would certainly be keen to take up her offer.

Action Point LE5 - Directorate to explore with BKy building links with organisations via MP's.

BF offered the WNC best wishes in its work and asked for future meeting dates, so she could check her availability to attend. Unfortunately she could no longer attend that evening's dinner, but would aim to attend a future one.

15) At 17.50, the meeting was closed, with Commissioners, BKy and staff attending dinner in the HoL that evening.

Page 1 of 6