1. The last line of defence and leading from the front – developing boards of governance Stephanie Millar Senior Policy Adviser, ECU

2. Presentation objectives
I intend to cover:
using positive action in elections and for non-appointed members.
increasing diversity beyond gender.
remaining challenges and the need for further work.

3. Journey travelled Women Count 2016 revealed:
38% of Scottish HE governing body membership are women (up from 32% in 2013);
28% of chairs are women (up from 9% in 2013); and
30% of governing bodies are gender balanced (up from 11%).
Colleges Scotland figures show similar progress from 2014:
42% of governing body membership being women (up from 35% in 2014);
However, college chairs were 28% women in 2014, now less than 20%.

4. What has made the difference?
National leadership.
Sector codes.
Individual institutional leadership.

5. National leadership Partnership for Change – 50:50 by 2020.
Scottish Government’s Equality Outcomes:
Theme: Participation in decision making.
Outcome: Ministerial public appointments are more diverse reflecting broadly the general population by 2021.
SG public appointments system – Public Appointments Improvement Programme.
Developing a public sector evidence base for board diversity.

6. Public Appointments Improvement Programme
A three strand approach:
Process and systems
Definition of merit
Core Skills Framework
Person specifications
Methods of application and assessment
Attraction and outreach
Working with intermediaries and networks
Come on Board
Round by round…
Succession planning
New guidance and toolkit published Jan 2017
Developing the pipeline

7. National Confidential Forum Members round
Learning from the
National Confidential Forum Members round
Applications from males would also be particularly welcome. Our current members are all female and some applicants to the Forum have expressed a wish to have their testimony heard before a male.
The main aim of the round was to encourage applications from men as all existing forum members were female. This text was used prominently in the publicity material.
The publicity strategy targeted networks where the panel knew appropriately skilled candidates would be found.
Outcome: 44% applications from women; 56% men. 67% of those interviewed were female; 33% male. Of the two appointments made, one was female (50%) and one male (50%.)

8. Sector leadership Voluntary sector codes:
Code of Good Governance for Scotland’s Colleges.
Scottish Code of Good HE Governance.
Board responsibility and diversity.
Since 2013.

9. Institutional leadership
University of Edinburgh used external consultants working with the Vice Principal for equality to deliver seminars to board members.
‘ The main mechanism that I have, as chair, for discussing university business as a whole is that the principal and I meet generally once a fortnight, and that’s usually a couple of hours we meet for... That very regular meeting with the principal is actually quite an important mechanism, not just in relation to this (equality) but in relation really to keeping myself happy about the activities of the university as a whole.’
Chair

10. Challenges to board diversity in the Scottish sector
Board composition:
Government appointed, board selected, nominated by stakeholders groups i.e. staff and students.
Focus on gender to he detriment of other groups.
Geography.
Time commitment.
Skills/experience required.
Institutional leadership.
Changing priorities/leadership.
Lack of legislative framework?

11. Could legislation help?
Equality Act 2010 (Specific Duties) regulations 2012 reg 6A:
SG will gather and collate diversity data of boards and give national data back to sector.
Boards must use data to take steps towards greater diversity.
Board must publish gender composition of board.
Gender Representation on Public Boards (Scotland) Bill:
Non-executive directors only.
Inclusion of universities controversial.
Focus on gender.

12. Beyond gender Public Appointments Improvement Programme
For the year to 31 December 2016:
43% of applicants and 59% of appointees were women.
27% of applicants were under 50, and 31% of appointees were under 50.
9.8% of applicants and 10.1% of appointees were disabled people.
5.5% of applicants came from a minority ethnic background, with 1% being appointed.
4.4% of applicants were gay, lesbian or bisexual, with 7.1% appointed.