Equality
by Christopher McCrudden
From Human Rights, Equality and Democratic Renewal In Northern Ireland edited by Colin Harvey
Hart Publishing 2001
"Policy appraisal and fair treatment" (PAFT)
Anti-discrimination law (even of the breadth of the fair employment legislation) was, however, gradually perceived as insufficient to achieve the substantial change that the 1987 SACHR Report had defined as necessary. In its Second Report (1990) SACHR argued that the government should establish machinery that would monitor the impacts of legislation, policy and administration on equality of opportunity and on relations between the two sections of the community.
Another development at this time involved the reform of "community relations" policy making within the Northern Ireland Office. In September 1987 Tom King, then Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, announced the establishment of a Central Community Relations Unit within the Central Secretariat of the Northern Ireland Office. The purpose of this reorganisation, according to the announcement, was to ensure that in "every decision we take, whether it is in the fields of housing, education, planning or employment, or any other fields of government,....we have taken into account any community relations aspects there may be".1 The new unit would co-ordinate all Northern Ireland policy making. In discussions with the Northern Ireland Office before the new initiative was announced, SACHR was informed that it was intended that a senior officer in each department would be made responsible for examining policies and proposals in relation to their community impact. If, in the view of that officer, any such policy or proposal might have a disparate community impact, the matter could be taken to the Permanent Secretary and ultimately to the Secretary of State for decision.
More generally, British administrative policy in the rest of the United Kingdom was becoming more favourably disposed to attempts to engage systematically in "policy appraisal", and to "mainstream" other policies in government.2 Since the 1980s regulatory impact assessments had often been required, as had occasional cost/benefit analyses of proposed projects. In addition, "proofing" government policy proposals to ensure compliance with certain obligations was becoming more common.
All these elements contributed to the announcement by government in 1990 that a non-statutory policy of "equality proofing" would be introduced in Northern Ireland. A circular was issued giving advice to all Northern Ireland departments about the need to consider discrimination in relation to religious affiliation, political opinion and gender.3 This was co-ordinated with an initiative launched in the UK by the ministerial group on women's issues that encouraged all government Departments to develop basic guidance on equality proofing throughout the United Kingdom.
There were several years of controversy over the content of the guidelines in Northern Ireland, including the failure to cover areas such as race, disability and age. Revised and more inclusive guidelines, renamed the Policy Appraisal and Fair Treatment guidelines (PAFT), came into effect in January 1994. The groups coming within the scope of its guidelines went beyond the two religious communities, and included people of different gender, age, ethnic origin, marital and family status and sexual orientation, and the disabled. PAFT was an attempt to establish a procedure within government decision making by which the principles of equity and equality could be made effective. "Equality and equity", it said, "are central issues which must condition and influence policy making in all spheres and at all levels of Government activity".4 We can see here the crucial shift from an anti-discrimination to a mainstreaming approach. But little detailed guidance was given to departments or other public bodies as to how to accomplish this task, although a commitment was subsequently given that the Annual Report on PAFT implementation by the Central Community Relations Unit (CCRU) would be published, providing a degree of transparency to the process.
There were, moreover, a number of unresolved ambiguities. First, it was
unclear how far the government was willing to go beyond action of an anti-discrimination
kind. Second, it was unclear whether the initiative was much more than "window dressing" in response to political pressure, particularly from the United
States. Third, many aspects of the guidelines - the stress on the UK context,
their inclusiveness, the use of international human rights language and
concepts - seem to have been designed to make more acceptable to civil servants
and public opinion an initiative whose primary rationale was the need to
tackle Catholic disadvantage. |
