While the Committee notes that, under Section 75 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998, the Department's Equality Scheme is to be endorsed by the Equality Commission, the Committee wishes to respond to the draft Scheme, in order to assist and advise the Minister in the formulation of policy with respect to promoting equality of opportunity.

The Committee commends the Department for its express intent to build on its strong tradition of commitment to equality, and acknowledges the many positive aspects of the draft, such as:

• Defining the main groups (Annex A);

• The start which has been made in mapping an impact assessment process (Annex D);

• Identifying specific polices for impact assessment (4.2.10), and undertaking to set priorities (4.2.14) and conduct a programme of equality impact assessments covering the whole range of its functions;

• The commitment to issuing Letters of Guidance to partner bodies not required to prepare Equality Schemes (4.1.16); and

• Targeting the consultation process to some relevant issues such as communicating the Scheme to young people and people with learning disabilities.

The Committee also wishes to advance a number of essential considerations and specific issues which require further attention.

The Committee starts from the premise that all equality schemes must have a strong focus upon actively promoting equality of opportunity and affirmative action in order to redress any real imbalances. Within the Department therefore, staff training and awareness raising, and active examination of all policies in line with Annex D principles (with due regard to the scale of assessment appropriate to the impact of the policy), will be important tools to secure adherence to equality principles.

The Committee has been advised that, in relation to equality legislation, recent European Commission research states that the quality of the policy statement and the assumed 'equality neutral' character of the policy were two difficulties in promoting what it referred to as 'mainstreaming' i.e. implementing equality legislation in the workplace. The Committee notes that, at this stage, the Department has failed to produce quality statements of its policies. As the Department has only included, in the present draft, broad headings rather than policy statements, it is impossible to operationalise the consequences of policy and policy change.

The Committee queries the Department's description of 'policy', and its reference to the treatment of consultation for "micro-level policies" (whatever these are - definitions might vary if others, for example, the voluntary sector, were asked to identify Departmental policy.) The Committee is concerned that, if the Department does decide to adopt a new policy, service or programme (or wishes to change an existing service or programme) there is no assurance that this will be assessed and monitored, or at what level it will be reported upon. (Quinquennial review seems only to relate to certain, employment related policies.)

The Committee expressed concern that structures were not in place across departments to co-ordinate the implementation of Section 75 obligations. The Committee notes only limited evidence of 'joined up government' discussion of how one department's policy might influence another's (e.g.in respect of education policies).

The Committee has identified a number of possible problems in terms of methodology. There is no detail on how an impact assessment might be carried out in terms of a "before and after" monitoring study, or more complex research design incorporating multivariate analyses. Nor is there discussion of the merits of cross-sectional or longitudinal monitoring. We would anticipate that the Department will have to increase its monitoring on the impact of various policies on participation in HE/FE and training etc. (Paragraph 4.3.2).

No reference is made to an assessment of the lifestyle of an equality group (the nine categories). This would be the first step in coming to a decision about whether or not a given group might be adversely or otherwise affected by implementation of a policy. For example, public transport is not a gender-neutral issue; information provision (about training, social security or health) is not an age or gender neutral issue. These conclusions would emerge from a lifestyle analysis (based on academic and government household surveys). However, the Department does not set their plans in the context of 'what if' policy scenarios.

While consultation is given a great deal of credence in the scheme, the Committee notes with concern that nowhere are mechanisms described to incorporate the results of consultation into the policy development process, nor is any independent authority attached to the results of consultation. There are some possible anomalies regarding the list of bodies for possible consultation (p 30). On equality regarding religions there is no provision to talk to any of the religious groups (e.g. churches etc) and on equality regarding political opinion no provision to consult with political parties.

In summary - the scheme is a statement of intent and as such complies with the spirit of section 75 and schedule 9. However, it is doubtful whether the scheme complies with the requirement to produce viable impact analysis plans. Measurable policy statements are needed, and particular care will be required to avoid erroneous or implicit assumptions regarding policy neutral effects. More detailed comments on Committee concerns follow.

The Committee notes, and welcomes, that a good start has been made to setting up inclusive arrangements for publication of this Scheme (4.8.1), and proposes similar publication arrangements for the results of impact assessment (4.4.3). The Committee also considers that, since the results of monitoring are a key element of assessing compliance, these also need to be publicly accessible. Monitoring processes themselves should ideally be open, and include feedback from constituent and community groups, while clear and workable timeframes must be established to ensure that all stakeholders are enabled to engage in the process as active participants.

The Committee notes that the Department's approach to consultation actively seeks to remove any barriers to participation by Section 75 groups. It commends a proactive approach to consultation arrangements, which would also take account of differing social, economic, geographic circumstances etc. (For example carefully selecting locations, using trained personnel and accessible language, providing care facilities for dependants at consultation sessions, advertising in newspapers and literature specific to each of the main relevant groups.) Where appropriate, and where people so desire it, relevant documentation and information should be made available in lesser used languages.

It is desirable that at 4.1.9 onwards in the draft, there should be assurances of independent validation that target groups' views had been given due weight. Perhaps this, as well as independent oversight and investigation of complaints, is an area where the Equality Commission's role should be emphasised.

The list at Annex B should include community organisations working on behalf of the named categories and groups or individuals with a legitimate, particular interest in the impact of the Department's policies on equality of opportunity and good relations (e.g. churches). Annex B includes some, but arguably not enough, organisations based outside Belfast. As well as umbrella groups for the voluntary sector, the Committee considered that the major Trades Unions operating in this sector should be specified in this Annex.

It will be important that your equality scheme should be clearly commmunicated, whatever the medium or language. It is important too that the media through which it is communicated are inclusive and diverse, and do not exclude disadvantaged groups subject to there being a real demand for that media.

The Committee would suggest that the Department publishes, as part of the Scheme, the estimated one off and ongoing financial implications of communicating the Scheme.

Schedule 9 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998 requires each 'authority' which has a statutory duty to promote equality of opportunity, to state its arrangements for assessing its compliance with the duties under section 75. The draft scheme is in broad agreement with the spirit of the legislation but in many places fails to state explicitly or in detail what arrangements are needed e.g. in order to carry out an equality impact assessment of its policies. In order to assess compliance, the current position must be compared with the position following the implementation of a new/revised policy. This is the biggest flaw in the scheme - lack of detail in assessment plans.

All policies of a public body have a direct or indirect relationship to equality provision, and the Committee therefore welcomes the Department's clear commitment to apply the equality assessment criteria to all policies and functions (4.2.13); and to subject policies that are most likely to have a direct bearing upon equality provision, to the application of broader criteria to determine their long term impact on equality.

The Committee would be content that that the priority of policies that will undergo an

impact assessment be established, but considers that any policies which are excluded should be reviewed on a regular basis, in consultation with Section 75 groups.

The Committee welcomes the Department's specific reference to employment and procurement at 3.7 and 3.8, but strongly recommends that Section 75 compliance should be explicitly stated at these references (as for example at 4.2.17).

At 4.2.13 to 4.2.20, the Committee suggests that the Department might give guidance on how to deal with any statutory or common law duties which may contradict or override the equality of opportunity duty, so as to clarify that perceived conflicting legal obligations must not be used as a means to screen policies out of equality assessment.

The Committee recommends a clearer iteration, in the scheme, of methodology of assessment and monitoring (types of comparison, information to be recorded on returns; timescales to be applied); and of the characteristics required of data (accurate, up-to-date, qualitative and quantitative).

The Committee considers that the final equality scheme must give a far clearer, unambiguous commitment to implementing measures to counter any adverse effects on equality of opportunity which arise though impact assessment and monitoring (4.2.20, 4.3.4); and to publishing results of impact assessments and monitoring, to include what measures or alternative policies have been considered to mitigate any adverse effects, and what had actually been done.

The Committee recommends clarification of the complaints procedure, including reasonable response times and provision for independent appeal.

The Committee is not satisfied that the review procedures (4.10) satisfy consultation requirements.

The timetable at 4.7.1 lacks clarity - while some objectives and targets are included, it does not give guidance on when key consultation will take place. It should transparently set out how the department intends to prioritise those policies it believes should be subjected to full impact assessment, and steps to ensuring a cost effective and comprehensive review of the policies in question. It could be argued that the target date for assessing compliance has been pushed back to 31 March 2004 (para 4.1.4) without adequately charting the intermediary targets between March 2001 and March 2004 for establishing a base position ("where are we now") and targets along the way ("what do we need in place as a matter of priority, by when").

The Committee would like to see a clearer indication of how the Department proposes to gauge compliance by other section 75 bodies that fall within their remit (4.1 13, 4.1 15); and how universities, higher and further education colleges, and other bodies not covered by section 75, will assess and monitor equality issues.

The Committee welcomes the positive commitment to training for all staff, and suggests that it is important that trainers should, as far as possible, reflect a diversity of Section 75 differences. The Committee recommends an explicit commitment to evaluating and monitoring the effectiveness of staff training in the equality dimension.

It is noted that a joint statement from the Minister and the Permanent Secretary will be included after public consultation on the draft scheme has taken place - some Committee members considered that this should have been included in the draft document. The consultation was conducted under a covering letter from the Permanent Secretary - in view of the importance of the Scheme, it was felt this should have been a joint letter.

There is a need for a more explicit statement of the line management of equality duty. The Draft Scheme mentions that responsibility for driving forward legislation within the Department will be located in the DHFETE Equality Unit under the responsibility of a Grade 5 official. However it is not clear whether this official, or all officials from Grade 5 to Permanent Secretary, or every member of staff, will have day to day responsibility for carrying out the policy as defined in the Equality Scheme. (Para 4.1.2)

With whom does the responsibility lie for co-ordinating and monitoring the implementation of administrative arrangements to ensure that the Section 75 duty is complied with by the Department in carrying out its functions? What is the role of the Permanent Secretary - if for example there is unequal implementation of equality arrangements across senior management responsibilities? Or in respect of ensuring that appropriate resources and effective implementation procedures are put in place and widely publicised?

While acknowledging that there will be resource implications, the Department has given no indication as to whether it intends to review the resource implications of progressing towards equality of opportunity. If the department intends to review resource implications when will this be carried out?

The importance of the equality duty is, in the Committee's view, underplayed in the references to administrative arrangements and staff training. No reference is made to equality awareness and observance as a core competence, or of incorporating the equality duty within staff appraisal requirements and sanctions. There was some divergence of views within the Committee regarding the requirement to disclose membership of certain organisations.

Nor for example is there any detailed indication of the scope of staff training, or whether there is a timeframe for initial training of all existing staff, appropriate to grade and responsibilities, etc. (Questions raised by the Committee included: Will staff be made aware not only of the requirements of the Equality Scheme but of the arrangements for equality impact assessment? Will all new staff be informed of the requirements of Section 75 and the Equality scheme in their induction training? Will copies of the Equality Scheme be given to all management and supervisory staff?)

The Committee considered that your Equality Scheme should outline how the equality dimension would be incorporated into planning processes, and how the Department would set, measure and report progress against targets. They considered that this should be an important element of published Departmental medium and short term strategies and plans.

Esmond Birnie

ESMOND BIRNIE
22 June 2000