Minutes of the 75th meeting of the Board of the Equality and Human Rights Commission

23 January 2018, Fleetbank House, 2-6 Salisbury Square, London, EC4Y 8JX

Attending:

Commissioners

David Isaac, Chair

Susan Johnson

Lorna McGregor (items 8-11)

June Milligan

Lesley Sawers

Swaran Singh

Caroline Waters

Rebecca Hilsenrath, Chief Executive Officer

Officers

Rachel Albinson, Senior Associate - Policy Secretariat (pre-meeting briefing)

Martin Deller, Principal - Communications (pre-meeting briefing and item 9)

Charlie Hamilton, Principal - Policy Secretariat (pre-meeting briefing)

Melanie Field, ED - Wales and Strategy and Policy

Richard Mabbitt, Senior Associate - Corporate Governance

Callum MacInnes, Principal - Corporate Governance

Olufemi Oguntunde, Director - Finance and Procurement

Alastair Pringle, ED - Scotland and Corporate Delivery

Jacqui Thomson, Principal - Strategic and Business Planning (item 10)

Ben Wilson, ED - England and Corporate Improvement and Impact

Rachel Zaltzman, Director - Strategic Planning and Policy

Observing

Stephen Davies, Senior Associate - Institutional Strategy

Matthew McArdle, Senior Associate - Treaty Monitoring

Graham Wheaton, Senior Associate - Corporate Governance

1.Chairs welcome, attendance and apologies for absence

1.1David Isaac welcomed attendees.

1.2Board members congratulated Lesley Sawers on receiving an OBE in the New Year Honours List.

2.Declarations of interest

2.1 David Isaac reminded Board members of his recent declaration of Pinsent Masons work with the BBC on technology related matters. He had no direct involvement in this work.

2.2Caroline Waters asked for her work mentoring a senior member of staff at the British Film Institute to be registered.

2.3No further declarations of interest were made additional to those already registered. David Isaac reminded Board members to declare any interests that became apparent in the course of discussions.

3. Round up of pre-meeting sessions

3.1 Board members had privately:

a)discussed the progress of the current Commissioner appointment round;

b)discussed the recent Cabinet reshuffle, and the administrative implications for the sponsorship of the Commission;

c)been updated on the progress of appointments to the Disability advisory Committee by Caroline Waters, who had sat on the assessment panel. Board members had noted that there had been a strong field of applicants including a high proportion of people with disabilities. It was anticipated that appointments would be made in March 2018.

3.2The Board had been briefed on the Commissions Human Rights Promotion Strategy, in particular audience and messaging research which was now nearing completion. Discussion had covered the strategic approach to human rights promotion; the research findings (focusing on segmentation, attitudes, and how to influence); and how the Commission would use the research in a targeted communications campaign and messaging framework. Board members felt that this work was important and progressing well, and thanked Charlie Hamilton, Rachel Albinson and Martin Deller for a comprehensive and stimulating briefing. They asked for a further briefing at a future meeting. Action: Charlie Hamilton to take forward.

4.Minutes of the previous Board meeting

4.1 Minutes of the Boards 74th meeting of 9 November 2017 (EHRC 75.01) were agreed with no amendments.

5. Matters arising

5.1 The Board reviewed the log of actions arising (EHRC 75.02).

5.2 Femi Oguntunde gave an update on:

a)item 74/6.5 (on scoping options for alternative revenue generation). Preliminary discussions had taken place with the Department for Education on whether additional income would be netted off against grant in aid. Officers would be meeting with the Danish Institute for Human Rights to learn from their experience in income-generating activity;

b)item 74/6.6 (on funding-related lessons to be learned from Chairing the Commonwealth Forum of NHRIs). He reported that measures were in place to monitor wider income generation implications. An update on the chairing bid itself would be provided at item 6.

5.3The Board was content that other actions recorded were either complete, satisfactorily in progress, or to be addressed later in the meeting.

6. CEOs and EDs Overview

6.1Rebecca Hilsenrath, supported by Executive Directors, provided an overview of accountability, reporting and governance items for the Boards information and review.

Performance and resources

6.2Board members reviewed the Performance and Resources Report (EHRC 75.03).

6.3Rebecca Hilsenrath reported that the projected 2017-18 underspend now stood at around 186K. Board members felt that this was a reasonable level at this stage, but asked that continuing close oversight be maintained during the final quarter of the year. Board members were pleased that lessons from the 2017-18 spend were being taken on board for 2018-19 planning, including a greater delegation of spending decisions to director level and an element of over-programming. It was felt that reining back projected overspend would generally be more manageable than ramping up activity in the face of an underspend. Board members emphasised the need for a clear narrative on the reasons for the projected underspend and the activities generated to address it. In particular it was important to make clear that new activities had not been carried out to the detriment of other activities, or that they reflected additional resource that could have been spent differently. Action: Femi Oguntunde to take Board views into account in ongoing management of the projected underspend, and to report back at the next meeting.

6.4Ben Wilson reported that a review of KPIs for 2018/19 was under way with the aim of improving the Commissions approach and methodology, with a greater emphasis on outcome measures shaped by our impact model. This would be rolled out under the 2018-19 Business plan. Audit and Risk Assurance Committee was due to discuss KPIs at its meeting of 21 February 2018, and the Board would be briefed on progress its next meeting. Action: Femi Oguntunde.

6.5Rebecca Hilsenrath reported that following a period of extensive recruitment, the Commission was substantively up to a full complement of staff. Development aimed at maximising the potential of new and existing staff continued, with the All-Staff Development Day of 12-13 March a good example. Plans for this event were now being finalised by a staff team co-ordinated by Programmes Director Libby McVeigh. It was hoped that at least some Board members would be able to participate in the event. The Board fully supported the event and recognised its potential to engage and inspire staff and make connections with the real-life impacts of their work.

6.6On balance, the Board was content with the Commissions progress across its work plan and that the Commissions resources were being managed effectively.

Strategic Risks

6.7Board members reviewed the Strategic Risk Register (EHRC 75.04).

a)Under Strategic Risk 3a (People and Capability), the Board:

-noted that the dispute with the trade unions was still ongoing, although the matters under dispute had largely been overtaken by events. The Board agreed that reasonable management action had been taken to engage with the unions and hoped that their internal discussion would allow them shortly to ballot on formally ending the dispute.

-suggested that nil amendments could be more clearly presented in future reports.

b)The Board felt that EU Continuity Bills in Scotland and Wales needed to be referenced under Strategic Risk 4 (appropriate response to devolution and constitutional changes in the UK and the UK's relationship to Europe).

c)Risks relating to gender pay gap reporting were discussed (see paragraph 6.15).

Action: Femi Oguntunde to incorporate the Boards feedback into the Strategic Risk register.

6.8The Board was content overall with the risks identified, and the approach being taken to manage them.

Legal update

6.9The Board felt that the legal update (EHRC 75.06) showed good evidence that the Commissions was fulfilling its aim to be a more muscular regulator. The Board noted in particular the decision by the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions not to appeal the High Court ruling that Personal Independence Payments regulations discriminate against people with mental health impairments.

6.10Board members were briefed on the new legal grants programme, which was disbursing around 600K. The Board:

a)noted the generally positive response from stakeholders to the programme;

b)was pleased that that some amendments to the original scheme criteria had been made to improve its accessibility by smaller organisations (a point that the Scotland Committee had asked Lesley Sawers to flag to the Board); and

c)discussed the forthcoming review of the scheme by the National Audit Office to look at the schemes overall governance and decision-making on grant recipients. Board members noted that although the award of grants was not of itself a novel or contentious approach to delivery of the Commissions objectives, the Commissions grant-giving function had been in abeyance for a number of years, and had previously been problematic. It was important that the Commission showed clearly that the relevant requirements set out in managing Public Money were being met. The Board asked that ARAC was kept aware of the review and its outcomes. Action: Elizabeth Prochaska

High level stakeholder engagements

6.11Board members noted the summary of Chair and CEO engagements (EHRC 74.05). Following the Cabinet reshuffle earlier in the month, the role of Minister for Woman and Equalities was now held by Home Secretary Amber Rudd. The detail of ministerial responsibilities in relation to equality and human rights was still being clarified, as were the administrative arrangements and lines of accountability for the Government Equalities Office.

Commonwealth Forum of NHRIs.

6.12Rebecca Hilsenrath briefed on the Commissions proposed new role as Chair of the Commonwealth Forum of NHRIs. She reported that discussions with the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) continued, with the expectation that ministerial approval would shortly be given for funding of the more limited model focussing on capacity-building proposed by the Commission. There were ongoing discussions with the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission as incumbent Chairing body. The bid to FCO included funding for an event to mark the transition of chair and set the scene for the Commissions work in this area.

6.13Commissioners:

a)noted the positive feedback from FCO at official level and hoped that ministerial approval of funding would soon be confirmed. They felt that the Commissions proposed approach was likely to sit well with FCOs focus on NHRI capability building;

b)noted the importance of building on the experience of previous chairing bodies, and recognised that because patterns of engagement by member NHRIs had been inconsistent, a degree of flexibility needed to be built into plans for set-piece engagement events;

c)discussed the potential benefits and risks arising from connections to the Commonwealth Games Federation. It was noted that while the Australia and Northern Ireland NHRIs had done a lot of work through sport, this was not a priority in the Commissions present bid; and

d)felt it would be helpful to be briefed further on the event launching the Commissions chairing of the Forum and asked for a summary of the Commissions proposals to be circulated. Action: Ben Wilson

Gender pay gap reporting

6.14Rebecca Hilsenrath reported that the Commission was presently consulting on its enforcement strategy for the new Gender Pay Gap Reporting regulations. While advice to employers, informal action and cooperation were the Commissions preferred approach to enforcement, subject to resources the Commission would be enforcing where there was a lack of compliance. Section 20 of the Equality Act 2006 provided for the Commission to investigate formally potential breaches of the Regulations by private and voluntary sector employers (with other provisions for the public sector), and there was provision for employers to enter into a written agreement with the Commission under Section 23 as an alternative to continuing with the investigation.

6.15Board members noted the resource implications of this new work area. Although in the short term some funding was identified from the Commissions projected 2017-18 underspend, around 290K extra was likely to be required on current projections. The Commission was proceeding on the basis of advice that this would be likely to be provided by Government, but was seeking urgent written assurance on the matter. The Chief Executive would keep the Board updated.

6.16Board members felt that:

a)for both external communications and internal management purposes the varied options for enforcement, and the different points at which interventions could be made could helpfully be presented graphically.

b)there were reputational risks associated with the quantum of reporting, and that it was important for the Commission to be clear about what it could and could not do on gender pay equality. They acknowledged that the approach to enforcement was essentially binary at this stage (i.e. the Commission intended to focus its enforcement work on employers who do not publish the information required by the regulations, rather than seeking to quality assure the data that was published or the actions being taken by employers to assure equality). The Board emphasised that expectations on the Commission would be very high, and managing perceptions of success criteria would be critical. The Board asked that this be addressed in the strategic risk register.

6.17Board members noted that the Commission needed to make sure that its progress across different fronts on gender-related issues demonstrated a coherent narrative about the Commissions aims and its capability as a regulator. It was important to have a clear vision for what needed to happen in terms of policy and compliance after pay gap data had been published, and how the data could be used in a formative way. The Commission noted the important role of industry bodies and business organisations as gatekeepers in this regard and felt that some sectoral analysis would be helpful.

6.18Rebecca Hilsenrath further updated the Board on the Commissions work on Sexual harassment, which cut across other work areas, notably on gender pay gaps. The Commissions data gathering exercise on sexual harassment in workplaces had just closed and analysis of responses had begun. Board members acknowledged the Commissions important role here, and felt it particularly important that it retained a unique, clear and authoritative voice in what could be a crowded and polarised debate.

6.19The Board asked to be kept aware of progress on gender pay gap reporting and for its comments to be taken into account as the work developed. It looked forward at its March meeting to seeing the results of the consultation and proposed next steps, and felt that a briefing on GEO activities on pay inequality would be useful also. Action: Elizabeth Prochaska.

Brexit

6.20Rachel Zaltzman provided an update on the Commissions public affairs and parliamentary engagement on the EU (Withdrawal) Bill. The Commission continued to work on its five-point approach to ensure post-Brexit protection of the UKs equality and human rights legal framework and its global leadership on equality and human rights.

6.21Board members noted that:

a) Commission briefing and advice had contributed to some compromise on the principle of non-regression of equality and human rights law.

b)The Commissions intervention had influenced some rethinking of the Governments position on retaining the protections in the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights.

As the Bill passed through the Lords, the Commission would continue to engage with parliamentarians and key stakeholders on these and on the use of delegated powers to amend equality and human rights laws; on a domestic right to equality; and on ensuring that it is clear when the courts should have regard to relevant EU case law.

6.22The Board felt that these were, under testing circumstances, sound achievements. It was vital that the Commission continued to make strong and evidence-based representations in a way that aligned with key stakeholders approaches, but which made clear the Commissions authoritative position and unique perspective. The Board asked to be kept aware of key developments and briefings as the Bill progressed. Action: Rachel Zaltzman

7. Committee Chairs updates

7.1The Board had received minutes from the Scotland Committee meeting of 1 November 2017 (Information Paper 75A); the Wales Committee meeting of 6 December 2017 (Information Paper 75B); The Disability Advisory Committee meeting of 3 November 2017 (Information Paper 75C); The Audit and Risk Assurance Committee meeting of 6 November 2017 (Information Paper 75D) and the minutes of the Human Resources and Remuneration Committee of 6 November 2017 (information paper 75E).

7.2The Board noted the Committees activities with no further comments. Wider discussion about the role and remit of the Commissions committees would take place under item 8.

8. Board Development

8.1Melanie Field introduced paper EHRC 75.07 which put to the Board proposals for a refreshed approach to Board development. These included a framework of actions to better support and develop the Board fulfil its roles of:

a)providing leadership and strategic direction for the Commission as a GB-wide organisation;

b)ensuring appropriate corporate governance arrangements;

c)scrutinising and assuring financial and operational management and performance through appropriate systems and key performance indicators;

d)supporting and amplifying the Commissions work through effective and strategic stakeholder and media engagement.

Board members noted the progress made so far with regard to Board composition; strategic direction; corporate governance; assurance of performance; and external engagement.

8.2The Board welcomed the opportunity to discuss the proposed additional development actions. It:

a)agreed the premise of the paper and the importance of ensuring that the Board was fulfilling its roles effectively and with purpose, striking the right balance between governance (value-protection) and strategy (value creation);

b)agreed in principle to securing external support for key aspects of Board Development, but felt that this should be facilitative rather than prescriptive.

8.3The Board felt that in order to calibrate the governance / strategy dynamic, it might be helpful to carry out an internal desk-based review of current arrangements against good practice (as set out in Cabinet Office and other guidance). As well as self-evaluation, this could be a useful exercise for responding to external scrutiny and as preparation for the forthcoming Tailored Review of the Commission.

8.4The Board felt that it was important to continue emphasising to GEO the need for a shared understanding between the Commission and Government about the right skills and experience required for an effective and strategic Board. They agreed that the descriptions of the role of Commissioners in the Governance Manual, Framework Document, future adverts and terms and conditions of appointment could usefully be reviewed for consistency against this understanding.

8.5.Board members reflected on their roles as Commissioners (as defined by the Equality Act 2006); as Board members of a non-departmental public body; as representatives of a NHRI; and on how these roles were perceived by officers and stakeholders. They noted the particular role of the Scotland and the Wales Commissioners and the extent to which they were seen in and beyond Scotland and Wales as individuals, as Commissioners, and as national representatives on the Board. Some Board members felt that their role as individual Commissioners came out strongly in developmental and briefing sessions of Board meetings and through buddying. Board members agreed there was work to do in clarifying and embedding these roles.

8.6Board members felt that while, on an individual level, they were aware of and managed the risks around conflicts of interest, the Commission as a whole could develop a more overarching policy on conflicts. They suggested investigating whether external expertise would be of value in developing this.

8.7Board members agreed that the nature and extent of non-executives and executives decision-making roles could be clarified and any misperceptions addressed. It was vital that there was a shared understanding of reserved and delegated matters. Equally, it was important that delegation and escalation were exercised responsibly and sensibly.

8.8Board members reflected on the role of the Commissions advisory Committees, HRRC and ARAC. The Board felt that:

a)there were externally defined obligations for the Commission and similar bodies non-executive audit and risk assurance function (Managing Public Money, for example) and that to a large extent the remit of ARAC was non-negotiable. Review of the effectiveness of ARAC within these parameters, however, and perhaps of the feasibility of taking on additional roles was something to explore. With ARAC only just quorate, a greater onus fell on the independent and co-opted members, who were not normally expected to have a detailed understanding of the organisation.

b)Some form of strategic advice and scrutiny function for Human Resources and Remuneration was required, especially since the Commission needed to exemplify best practice in these areas. It was noted that the effectiveness of HRRC, had been weakened (and the Committee was not currently active) due to the shortfall in Commissioners, and that the Committee needed either to be revived or replaced with a robust alternative.

8.9Board members reflected on the importance of understanding the factors that shaped their individual approaches to key issues, and felt their engagement with the Commissions horizon scanning work was crucial. Board members suggested that a discursive session, perhaps with external facilitation, could be enhance their role in setting the Commissions strategic direction.

8.10David Isaac thanked discussants, and asked officers to take forward the actions set out in the paper relating to:

a) governance arrangements that provide for appropriate delegations;

b) performance scrutiny that is proportionate to risk;

c) Board meetings and other engagements that maximise opportunities for value creation;

having in mind the points raised by the Board, with the desk-based exercise suggested at paragraph 8.3 as a first step. Action: Melanie Field

9. Stakeholder Survey

9.1Further to the introductory paper presented at the previous meeting, Ben Wilson and Martin Deller presented paper EHRC 75.08 which set out a number of strategic questions arising from the results of the Commissions recent stakeholder survey. The survey results had broadly been positive, but also raised issues about the extent to which the Commission was seen as a catalyst for change; its enforcement activity; and its capacity to respond in an agile way to emerging issues.

9.2The Board supported the management actions aimed at strengthening the Commissions enforcement role. It felt that the Commissions current and projected enforcement activity represented a convincing narrative of a more powerful regulator.

9.3The Board supported the management actions aimed at improving the Commissions ability to be a catalyst for change. Looking ahead to the next strategic plan, they felt that:

a) among key levers for change would be: city mayors (Board members noted the secondment of programmes team principal Jackie Driver to Devolution Manchester); Departmental Special Advisers; and Parliamentary Committees;

b)a more forceful exposition of the outcomes and impacts of the Commissions work would demonstrate its influence and add credence to its role as a catalyst; and

c)the challenges of working with stakeholder organisations with a rapid staff turnover. These challenges were less evident in working with Scottish and Welsh Government officials.

9.4The Board supported the management actions aimed at improving the Commissions visibility and accessibility. Board members noted:

a)that is was important to contextualise the ratings for visibility and accessibility. These related to known stakeholders. Those stakeholders who were invisible to the Commission were most likely to not to know what it stood for or offered. The Commission needed to be alert to the risks of listening to and engaging with only with those who wanted and were able to be engaged.

b)the importance of identifying influential intermediaries to generate a multiplier effect, and the need to engage with them on their own terms. Health and Safety Executive work with sectoral bodies (industry bodies and umbrella groups) was cited as an example of this.

9.5The Board supported the management actions aimed at improving the Commissions agility. Board members noted:

a)the Commissions high quality communications outputs and the responsiveness of its social media channels. It felt that vigilance was needed to ensure that the Commission retained a voice distinctive from those of primarily lobbying or single interest groups;

b) that the aggregated findings might underplay communications successes in specific areas;

c)The way the Commission had rapidly reoriented its activity to manage the projected underspend in 2017-18 was evidence of a commendably agile approach; and

d)that there was scope for a stronger underlying theme, or unifying message within which specific communications outputs sat. Ben Wilson reported that work was underway to refine the Commissions strategic narrative, including consultation with staff, with a view to using it as a unifying theme of the upcoming All-staff Development Day.

9.6David Isaac thanked Board members for their comments. He felt that while the survey highlighted areas where more effort was needed, on balance it represented sound evidence that the Commission was becoming a highly effective organisation. He emphasised the importance of effective articulation between the Commissions stakeholder engagement capability and its ongoing policy and delivery functions, and asked that the Board be kept aware of the Commissions developing Strategic Narrative. Action: Ben Wilson.

10. Business Planning 2018-19

10.1Jacqui Thomson joined the meeting to brief the Board on the 2018-19 business planning process (paper EHRC 75.09 refers).Since the last Board meeting, the Executive Group had reviewed all Domain and Infrastructure theories of change, the intermediate changes identified for 2018/19, and planned activities. Executive Group had assessed these across the piece, and for: Scotland and Wales implications; potential stresses on particular functions such as communications and research; added value from the Commissions unique powers and levers; and for an indicative resource analysis. A process of operationalising the theories of change through the development of detailed; project briefs and resource profiles, and quality assurance process was under way.

10.2 The Board was content with the risks and equality analysis of the emerging Business Plan set out in the paper, which highlighted that all of the Domains proposed activities cover disability; six included age, race and sex; while pregnancy and maternity was a key focus of the Work Domain. There was less focus on sexual orientation, gender reassignment, and religion or belief. The Commission would seek to monitor risks and opportunities here and where appropriate address these areas through reactive work in 2018-19.

10.3The Board felt that overall, the business planning process had been robust and comprehensive and it was satisfied with progress. Board members:

a)acknowledged the three nations approach that had been taken. The Commissions effort to engage with the Scotland Committee and Scottish Human Rights Commission (which they felt was likely to lead to greater ownership and buy-in to the Plan) was recognised;

b)flagged the need to ensure that for those projects which required procurement of services, due time was factored in for effective procurement and contract management;

c)welcomed the inclusion of work on asylum seekers, and specifically minors.

d)asked for clarification about the focus on third sector organisation for work relating to offensive comments by elected officials; and

e)noted that some domains were more heavily weighted than others, and that the Commission had not sought artificially to create an even distribution of work across domains. Board members agreed that this was a justifiable approach.

10.4On behalf of the Board, David Isaac thanked officers from across the Commission who had contributed to and co-ordinated the business planning process. The Board would be asked for formal sign-off at its next meeting on 6 March following further input from Wales Committee and Disability committee in February, with publication of the final Plan before the turn of the Financial year Action: Jacqui Thomson: to take the Boards comments into account in finalising the Business Plan, and bring to Boards next meeting.

11.Information Papers and Any Other Business

Commissioner Working Group (CWG) on Treaty monitoring

11.1Board members considered the updated Terms of Reference of the CWG on Treaty monitoring (Information Paper 75J) , which included amendments consequent to the implementation of the Operating Model and revisions to the governance manual, along with a change of emphasis in the activities of the group towards strategic steerage on reports, rather than formally sign-off.

11.2The Board was content with the revisions. It agreed to formalise the appointment to the Committee of June Milligan, and that new Board members be also considered for appointment in due course.

Tailored Review of the Commission

11.3With draft terms of reference now having recently been received from the Government Equalities office, the Board felt discussion of the issues presented in Information Paper 75G was timely. Board members were grateful for sight of the terms of reference, noting that they had not yet received ministerial clearance, and that given the recent changes in ministerial responsibilities, and administrative arrangements relating to GEO, further iterations could be expected. Board members noted:

a)the potential for the Review to advance the Commissions proposed independence strategy, including through increasing its accountability to the UK Parliament rather than Government;

b)that, as routine for reviews of this sort, it would also be assessing the Commissions efficiency and governance, and the balance of implementation work and resources, in particular in the areas of research and enforcement; and

c)that Commission officers were contributing to the development of the terms of reference and that the Chair and CEO were sighted on developments. The Board supported the list of opportunities and risks presented in the paper and the approach being taken to manage them.

11.4The Board felt that:

a)the current iteration of the terms of reference was focussed on process rather than outcomes. The Board was not convinced that the current metrics underlying the Commissions performance reporting to Government gave a fully contextualised narrative of performance and that this was an area that the review could pick up on;

b)the terms of reference needed not only to consider whether or not the Commission was making good use of the funds already allocated to it, but also the resources needed in total to achieve its aims;

c)the governance and steerage of the review itself was important. The reviewers needed to balance the requirements of being well-informed about the Commissions operations without being partisan. The review needed to engage with stakeholders in a deliberative way and a stakeholder panel model was supported by the Board; and

c)Representation from the devolved administrations in the review process was vital.

11.5Board members asked to be kept aware of key developments on the Tailored Review and the Commissions independence strategy more widely. Action: Rachel Zaltzman.

Other matters

11.6Board members noted the pipeline of forthcoming activities and outputs (Information Paper 75H). The proposed Board buddying report (Information paper 75I) had been deferred to allow for full feedback from Commissioners, and would be circulated after the meeting.

11.7Board members thanked officers for preparing the Horizon Scanning Digests (at information Paper 75F), and highlighted the challenges and opportunities that emerging technologies would present for equality and human rights. Machine discrimination was highlighted. The Commission remained keen for Board members input to Horizon scanning and the Horizon scanning team would follow up with Board members after the meeting. Action: Andrew Harding.

11.8With no other business matters raised, David Isaac thanked attendees and closed the meeting. The Boards next formal meeting would take place on 6 March 2018.

As agreed by the Board at its meeting of 6 March 2018.

1