12 May 2011
EQUALITY ADVISORY GROUP
Meeting on 12 May 2011 at 09.30am
Livingston Civic Centre
Marsha Scott (Chair)
Alan Parfery (Minutes)
|
Members
|
Delegates
|
|
Bushra Iqbal
Bruce Adamson
Liz O’Neill
|
Karen Kennedy
Morag McLaughlin
Sandy Mackie
Ruth McQuaid
Lesley Shoniwa
|
|
Apologies:
|
Attending:
|
|
Alan McCloskey
Bill Gray
Jim Sweeney
Pramila Kaur
Tim Hopkins
Joe O’Donnell, HM Inspectorate
Monica Lee-MacPherson
Susan Anderson
Fiona Duncan, Scottish Court Service
|
David Young, Scottish Court Service
John MacFarlane, COPFS
Geri Watt, COPFS
|
1. Welcome and Introductions:
1.1 Welcome to Ruth McQuaid, new Equality Champion for COPFS. MS gave thanks to Morag McLaughlin, former Equality Champion, for all her work and commitment to the equality and diversity agenda over the last few years. MS wished Morag well in her future endeavours.
1.2 MS noted that a number of members had given their apologies for the meeting and for the last two meetings also. She asked for some attendance statistics to be prepared for the next meeting.
Action Point 1:
2. Minutes of previous meetings
2.1 The minutes of the meeting held in Crown Office on 10 Feb 2011 were approved.
Action Point 2:
MS raised that the Skills for Justice e-learning pack hadn’t been discussed. JMac to action this.
Action Point 3:
LO’N to do a note on issue of paternity leave not being taken up by men in the workplace
3. Matters arising
3.1.1 MS gave an update about her meeting with JO’D, HM Chief Inspector of Prosecution in Scotland. There was discussion about the lack of knowledge on interplay between the Inspectorate and the EAG. The two processes are to be more closely linked up. Planned inspections should involve discussion and consultation with the EAG. In addition, the EAG will be able to recommend possible areas for inspection.
MS advised SM that the EAG was not sufficiently engaged with the strategic direction of COPFS and should have more observation and input.
3.1.2 MS gave an update on her meeting with Janice Irvine, Director HR. She said that it was a very productive meeting. One outcome being that EAG should liaise more closely with HR on issues such as budget cuts etc. The EAG are keen to be of assistance as and when required rather than only at quarterly meetings.
3.1.3 MS praised COPFS for taking Equality Impact Assessments seriously (EIA). The EAG don’t want to be involved in every EIA, but want to see priority cases and have access to those priorities and then feed in to priority EIA’s where necessary. SM informed the group that he is the HR rep for EIA’s.
MMcL believes that the EAG is an underutilised resource for COPFS and that COPFS should seek to make better use of their considerable knowledge and contacts. She thought that there should be more frequent input from the EAG on strategic matters affecting COPFS. In particular, the Change Programme; MMcL suggested that GW use the EAG as a source of advice on EIA during the Change Programme. MS responded that the EAG are very keen to become more involved with COPFS at a strategic level and that the group would look to progress such matters.
3.2 KK ran through the action points from the February 2011 meeting and advised that the text relating to requesting documents in larger sized fonts and different formats cannot be adjusted until the next series of scheduled template updates from Information Systems Division (ISD).
She also advised that the Scottish Government voted against implementing the specific duties of the Equality Act 2010, because they felt that the duties weren’t comprehensive enough. Consequently COPFS and most public bodies in Scotland are working towards the rejected specific duties as the minimum requirement for public bodies and expect that additional duties will be added by the Scottish Government in due course.
3.3 SM advised that there was little to report from a HR perspective. He said that COPFS had received positive feedback from Stonewall Scotland on its Staff Survey.
LS advised that COPFS now has an LGBT staff network called “Proud in COPFS” which would help contribute to future COPFS policies. KK advised that COPFS also has a Staff Disability Advisory Group (SDAG) which met quarterly to discuss disability related issues for staff and the service.
MMcL added that the LGBT network was initially difficult to set-up, but that it had been a good learning process on how to set up a group network within COPFS. Two members of staff agreed to set up and run the Network. MMcL was very impressed with the work of ‘Proud in COPFS’, and advised that any other group could use it as a model going forward.
3.3.2 SM mentioned the Scottish Public Sector Practitioners group is a stand alone group focusing on employment issues. He thought it very positive that the Crown Agent, Catherine Dyer, who is the Diversity Champion for Scottish Government was so involved in equality and diversity issues at present, and would be able to drive this forward as the group’s Chair.
BA suggested that the starting point is equality, and this needs to be clear to senior Civil servants. MS echoed this view.
BI praised the good work COPFS was doing, and the fact that COPFS has developed a better practice for feedback. She added that there is a distinction between “equality” and “diversity”. Until the top level duties are put in place it will be very difficult for organisations to put in place processes to achieve the General Duties (of the Equality Act). The cascading process will be very important for a successful outcome for COPFS. Equality must come first and then look at issues of diversity. BA added that many people get the distinction between equality and diversity mixed up.
MS added that the EAG are very pleased with how engaged Catherine Dyer is with the equality and diversity agenda. She believes that the timing of change for the new COPFS Diversity Champion is very good as it coincides with a new direction for the EAG and its relationship with COPFS.
3.3.3 MS asked what is the COPFS strategy for forming staff groups around protected characteristics? MMcL replied that there wasn’t one but perhaps this is something that HR could look at in the future.
MS stated that while it is not necessary for every protected characteristic to be represented by a “group”, it was important to look at having a group where appropriate. HR can look at lessons learned from Stonewall in order to facilitate this.
BI added that there are cultural assumptions for different genders. For example for women in some cultures, starting a family can take priority over career progression.
3.3.4 MS raised that part-time workers are often unable to get higher positions as work-life balance can halt career progression. LO’N asked whether there is a chart or log that says ‘by what age should someone be a ‘high-flyer’, and expressed concern that measurement of performance was made by time spent in office rather than output.
MMcL said that this was not necessarily the case at COPFS: More than half of people at Management Board level are women. However COPFS is a nationwide organisation and there are issues with women being unable to take higher grade positions because of geographical restrictions - for example family commitments or perhaps because partners are unwilling or financially unable to move location.
MS felt there are beginnings of culture change but still the majority of higher management staff work full-time hours and often well beyond that. This may be an issue for HR to consider. LO’N added that in her opinion “it’s a ‘sticky floor rather than a glass ceiling”.
KK ventured that there is a different approach now with regards to flexible working patterns and a more employee friendly approach is being taken. LS continued that we have used healthy working lives groups to inform policies on work life balance and it may be that these are groups we may look at for additional guidance from.
Action Point 4:
MS asked for a summary of Stonewall’s views on how things have improved in COPFS for LGB&T staff. LS will liaise with HR staff to provide update for August meeting.
SM will speak to Sarah Carter and Janice on best ways to gather evidence of improvement, and will draw-up a document detailing lessons learned from Stonewall experience.
Action Point 6:
MS would like updates from “Proud in COPFS” and from “SDAG” on an annual basis for the EAG. First annual update to be May 2012.
New Business
4. Equality Act 2010 Implementation Plan
4.1 JMacF advised that staff awareness has been raised through various articles on PF EYE (staff intranet); an article in the Staff Bulletin entitled ‘new equality act’ and an article in UpDate, an internal e-zine. Learning and Development are in the process of purchasing an e-learning pack from Skills for Justice, working with Marshall ACM, who will provide ongoing maintenance and regular updating of the pack. Some technical issues have still to be ironed out but the Crown Agent had approved its roll out to staff. There will be monitoring of staff completion of the pack. The pack will also be a “pre-curser” to a two day mandatory class based course to be run at the Scottish Prosecution College.
4.2 The pack has been through a quality assurance process involving a working group, Policy Division and Learning and Development as well as consultants at Skills for Justice. Feedback from all the different groups has been very positive.
4.3 BI expressed concern over how much information will be retained after e-learning package training. She also expressed concern that staff attending training at the Scottish Prosecution College have not always been fully prepared for the training sessions. She also wondered if the pack was worth the price paid for it seeing as the material from the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) was very good and free.
KK explained that the course referred to was a pilot course and that some staff attending the course were only confirmed shortly before the course commenced and did not have an opportunity to complete the pack but that it would be completed shortly after their return to regular duties.
4.5 BA asked whether there is support for the e-training if staff are struggling with the content. KK explained that e-learning is often done in a group setting, so that learners can share knowledge and ask questions throughout the session. MMcL further explained that contact details for any questions are also on the e-learning package. KK advised that Skills for Justice commissioned the package, which was then pitched to all the criminal justice partners. Those who were interested in the pack then had a more tailored pack created for them.
4.6 DY explained that Scottish Court Service had not signed up to the package as it was considered too unwieldy (75 pages) and were developing their own package. MS expressed concern that this decision was not communicated to the EAG, and asked for involvement in future.
4.7 Given that the pack can be updated as and when required, the EAG can suggest changes or additions to the pack.
Action Point 7:
EAG to be given access to the diversity e-package. KK to provide log-in details etc.
4.8 JMacF advised that specialist training was needed on the Equality Act, and the project team would take this forward. Equality Outcomes have to be published in April 2012. The EAG will be used as part of this process. JMacF would be happy to provide quarterly updates for the group. MS asked that the Project Team think about how the EAG can be as useful as possible to the implementation plan.
4.5 LO’N asked how COPFS monitors change of behaviour following raising of awareness. KK advised that L&D have a review process built in to their evaluation strategy following training. SM advised feedback also comes from staff surveys and from groups such as Stonewall.
Action Point 8:
JMacF to provide quarterly updates to the EAG on the implementation plan.
4.6 BI suggested that operational feedback from diversity issues should take place at weekly or monthly team meetings and that any issues requiring more knowledge of a particular group or issue could then be addressed for staff. Hopefully the feedback will be that “I don’t treat everybody the same because everyone has different needs”
BI felt better understanding of the protected characteristics builds confidence in staff. LO’N added that she would be very interested in seeing the evaluation of the e-learning pack and the two day course and hoped that it would be more comprehensive that just “happy sheets” KK replied that Learning and Development had in place a comprehensive evaluation strategy for all learning provision.
Action Point 9:
EAG would like to see the evaluation of the new equality and diversity programme when it is available.
4.7 MS asked if the EAG could also have sight of the COPFS Our Commitment to Victims and Witnesses e-learning pack. MMcL said that this could also be arranged.
Action Point 10:
EAG to be given access to the OCVW e-package. KK to provide log-in details etc.
5. COPFS Change Programme
5.1 GW introduced herself, gave her personal professional history, and gave some background information on the role of the Strategy and Delivery Division (SDD), which she has responsibility for. She also explained that the way Management Board operates had recently changed: it would still met every quarter but each meeting would have a rotational focus i.e. one quarterly meeting would focus on Change Management while the next would focus on Operational Management, etc.
This new way of working is still in its infancy and Management Board has only met once so far as a “Change Board”. Its remit is to discuss change initiatives on how to deliver the business more efficiently. Any change initiatives must be aligned with the strategic objectives of COPFS.
MS asked how starting with an idea, aligned to the strategic objectives? GW answered that no project, no matter how large or small goes ahead unless it can be aligned to COFPS’ strategic objectives.
GW explained that some ideas may only affect a small area of the organisation; some ideas will have a national affect i.e. it will involve Learning and Development (LDD) or Information Systems Division (ISD); and another set of ideas, the ones that come before Change Board, involve major strategic change. These large projects must use a disciplined Project Management methodology.
A “local” idea would be managed by the area involved but we would check that the area are not trying to reinvent the wheel or that another area isn’t in the process of working on the same idea at the same time.
GW explained that the reason behind the change in organisational management was that previously we had 49 offices and 49 different ways of doing things. Now the organisation has moved to one efficient way of doing a national process and this is managed by Strategy and Delivery Division.
There has been huge change in COPFS over the past 10 years but that we haven’t always looked enough at the benefits of change or at the lessons learned from going through change.
MS asked if GW could provide examples of different ideas that fit the three levels of SDD involvement? GW responded with:
Local Level – Plan to improve engagement with the local Defence Agents. Because there is no ISD or LDD involvement, the project would sit completely within the control of the local area Procurator Fiscal.
National Level – Policy change on COPFS’ commitment to victims and witnesses. This would be driven by Policy Division because the change would affect every office in the service but the financial cost of the change would be quite low as there might only be minimal involvement of ISD and LDD ie no additional hardware or software is required and no national role out of a new training programme.
Change Board Level – Paperless Office, New Case Management System. Both of these projects would have enormous financial implications for both ISD and LDD and would involve the procurement of new computer software as well as a comprehensive training programme that would be delivered to all staff. It would also involve procedural and process change to staff roles and responsibilities.
BI queried how building community confidence was involved in the Change Programme. GW responded by saying SDD is looking for any input from the EAG on this. GW went on to explain how change is implemented across COPFS. The key is that it is done in a controlled manner and with objective that improved practices that can be delivered across COPFS and that it should be communicated effectively and institutionalised, rather than having 49 different working practices across 49 different offices. The intention is to have every office working the same way. That way work can be mobilised, rather than people. A business case must be built for any proposed project and any change must comply with the 2010 Equality Act.
5.2 MS asked what level the project Purpose Driven Precognitions would sit at? GW responded that the project predated the new 3-tier system but that it would sit somewhere between National and Change Board level. She explained that it was necessary to implement this project, not just from an economic perspective but to justify the change to staff and to make the best use of shrinking resources, to explain the necessity of this policy change but also to do it in the best possible way with the use of focus groups, staff involvement and feedback etc.
GW added that SDD are still at the stage of going out to Areas to pitch this new way of project organisation and management.
5.3 MS is keen to ensure EIA’s are systemised and processed in accordance with these principles of SDD. MS asked GW to consider how EAG might be involved in changes across the service. She suggested that the EAG could be the bridge between good and bad change processes.
Action Point 11:
GW to provide examples of existing ideas to MS. This will be done to obtain feedback from an equality perspective. A spreadsheet of current and planned projects will be created by KK and given to EAG at quarterly meetings.
6. AOCB –
KK advised that the annual Hate Crime statistics will be published on the 18th May 2011. MS asked if these could be circulated by e-mail to the group.
Action Point 12:
KK to email Hate Crime statistics to the group once published.
7. Date and venue of next meeting and proposals for agenda
The venue for the next meeting will be Conference Room 1, Crown Office. The date will be Thurs 11th August, starting at 9.30am.