developments in the field
Recent submissions:
Material relating to the recent judicial review that CAJ joined as an intervenor:
Responses to recent consultations:
Other Submissions:
In addition to our own 'internal' Coalition meetings, the Coalition also meets on a regular basis with the Equality Commission, and the Equality Directorate of the Office of the First Minister and Deputy First Minister. Such meetings with oversight bodies are part of our attempt to ensure that the ongoing work of government in Northern Ireland fully reflects the equality and human rights principles enshrined, not only in the Belfast Agreement but also in legislation such as the Fair Employment and Treatment Order, Race Relations Order, Sex Discrimination Order etc.
CAJ also meets with a organisations regarding how they might most effectively fulfil their responsibilities with respect to Section 75. Indeed, it is worth noting that with regard to Section 75 there are some excellent examples of the legislation entering the bloodstream of the public sector, and the legislation doing what the Belfast Agreement intended (see on: "Section 75 successes").
Significantly, what has happened with most of these successes, is that the people in the organisations concerned have adhered both to the letter and the spirit of the legislation. Or if they have failed to do so section 75 has been invoked by others to secure greater equality.
Unfortunately, however, the pattern in relation to implementation of Section 75 across the public sector as a whole is not uniformly positive. Indeed, a pattern seems to have emerged in which the closer one gets to central government, the less effective that implementation of Section 75 seems to be. Progress over the last number of years for example in relation to securing an equality assessment of the Northern Ireland Programme for Government/Budget has been painfully slow, notwithstanding representations made by CAJ, and others who are keen to discover just how much the Northern Ireland Budget is likely to reduce, or for that matter increase inequality.
Last year, due to suspension of the Northern Ireland Executive and Assembly, there was no Programme for Government, instead a 'Position Paper' was produced. In light of the more limited consultation, and opportunity for engagement, CAJ produced a more brief response this year, and essentially re-iterated a number of concerns raised previously
It is very clear to CAJ, and the Coalition, that if Section 75 and equality analyses are not applied adequately to the 'big decisions' emanating from central government then there is little hope of the aspirations contained within the Agreement of being realised. This is why it is crucial that Section 75 considerations be fully integrated into developments regarding the Review of Public Administration for example.
It is also fair to say that criticisms about the failure of Section 75 to deliver on its potential have come from a range of quarters, and cover a range of issues. Some organisations/groups have criticised the primacy given by the legislation to equality over good relations for example. Other criticisms have pointed to procedural requirements of the legislation, or the difficulties posed by trying to promote equality across such a broad range of categories.
In order to try and address these criticisms and stimulate debate on what would be the most useful strategy for a way forward with Section 75, the Coalition organised a major conference on this issue in April 2003. The purpose of the event was to debate the range of options and points of view currently being put forward in order to tease out the most effective way forward. CAJ, through the Coalition is currently finalising a report in light of the conference which we hope will provide a useful tool for ensuring the legislation succeeds in delivering on the equality that the Agreement promised.
Section 75 Successes
In relation to Equality Impact Assessments (EQIA) that have 'got it right' there have been a number which show what can happen when Section 75 is operationalised in the manner in which the Agreement and the legislation intended.
For example, a number of Education and Library Boards recently let a private finance initiative contract for information technology facilities and libraries. Some of the sections of the original contract would have meant the transfer of library staff to the private sector. The EQIA showed that there would have been an adverse impact on the predominantly Catholic, female members of staff. As a result, the contract was rewritten so as to retain the library staff in-house.
Furthermore, as a result of the EQIA process, specific training programmes were introduced to develop the IT skills of older people, who raised concerns during consultation that the move to electronic libraries would have an adverse impact on them. As a result, these older people who had expressed concern at the move to an unfamiliar system, now express approval for training which also allows them to communicate more effectively with their families, particularly those with family members abroad.
In a recent EQIA of the closure of some facilities in a Hospital and the relocation of services the consultation established that one of the facilities moving was the clinic for visually impaired people. Originally, there was no proposal to support or help people with visual impairment coming to the new clinic. Following the EQIA measures were put in place to provide support and assistance for the visually impaired including getting around the hospital. In other words, the facilities were still moved, but mitigating measures were put in place to lessen the adverse impact.
Another Trust recently conducted a detailed equality consultation on whether or not to return domestic cleaning services in-house. The consultation identified clear equality gains from going in-house - the services were returned in-house on an agreement which gives substantial clinical gain to patients at the weekend, and leaves the mainly female, rural-based workforce, with dependants better off.
Another positive outcome concerns non-English speaking workers in Tyrone who had been issued with arrest warrants for non-payment of TV licenses. After interventions by the statutory and non-governmental sectors, there was an agreement by the criminal justice authorities to withdraw the warrants and provide more pro-active language support. Section 75 was also used recently in relation to ensuring that a proposed reduction in the number of places for Irish language schools in mid-Ulster was over-turned.
Some organisations, such as the Arts Council have used Section 75 analyses to highlight gaps in their client base. Other positive developments include the 'Fair Chance' report, launched in May 2002. This was a groundbreaking series of four events across NI, where people with a learning disability were able to share experiences and opinions about the health and social services they received. These are all direct results of section 75.
Top
