Background to the Research

• The PAFT guidelines were a UK wide initiative brought in ensure issues of equality and equity were integrated into policy making and practice in all areas and at all levels of government activity. PAFT came into effect in NI in January 1994. PAFT in NI sought to ensure that policy and practice did not discriminate against people on the grounds of religion or political opinion, gender, age, ethnic group, disability, marital status or sexual orientation.
• The guidelines had a particular resonance in NI where a substantial section of the nationalist community felt socially, economically and politically excluded from the wider society. The authors sought to explore the implementation of the PAFT guidelines in NI and to evaluate the impact of the guidelines on public policy decisions and the delivery of services.
  

Research Approach

• Semi-structured interviews were carried out with personnel in government departments, agencies and NDPBs. Five case studies were carried out with organisations selected from lists provided by government departments of areas of policy, programme development or evaluation where PAFT had been implemented. Interviews were carried out with the Department of Education and Employment in London and contact was made with Unison.

Implementation

• CCRU is responsible for implementing PAFT guidelines. CCRU circulates the guidelines, monitors departmental policies and promotes and co-ordinates action where appropriate. Whilst CCRU has a co-ordinating and challenging role, departments take full responsibility for assessing the implications of their own policies in relation to PAFT. Therefore, power and authority on a particular policy or action lies with each department. Co-ordination of the implementation of PAFT is achieved through the forum of the Lead Officers' group which includes a representative from each department.

Implementation Approaches

• There appear to be two main models of implementation. The first is the 'sensitivity model'. This rejects large scale monitoring for new sources of data in favour of a senior officer monitoring proposals and evaluating changes to policies by subjectively scrutinising them to assess the PAFT implications. The second model is the 'checklist or scientific model'. Data are analysed within the context of an assessment of PAFT guidelines, which in turn is dictated by the data. In reality the two models overlap and departments reveal differences in emphasis in relation to the models. The 'sensitivity model' appears to predominate at present.
  

Main Findings

• CCRU's role in implementating the guidelines requires clarification and it needs to take a more proactive role. Some departments felt CCRU was not exerting its challenge role decisively enough.
• The role outlined for the Lead Officer's group by the CCRU is not being fulfilled; the group meets very infrequently and has not been a mechanism for the identification of best practice across departments.
• Lead Officers were not always located in the main policy branches and divisions of their respective departments. In order to be effective they need to be located within the senior management structure of the department concerned.
• Lead Officers ensured that PAFT guidelines were sent to NDPBs, but several NDPBs felt that some departments did not think it was the role of their officers to provide training or guidance on PAFT to NDPBs.
• PAFT relies on statistical monitoring of data in its appraisals. Whilst data on religion and gender has improved, collection and access to this data is not uniform across departments. Data on the other specified sections of the population are less readily available to departments.
• The annual report on PAFT published each year should be followed by PAFT appraisals being made available to the public and to NDPBs.
• The Northern Ireland Select Committee should add a review of equity issues, including PAFT, to its schedule.

NDPBs

• Research demonstrates that the mechanism for selection of members of NDPBs is not open to the broad spectrum of the population and women are under-represented on these bodies.
• The implementation of PAFT among NDPBs is patchy. The Education and Library Boards have given little priority to the implementation of PAFT guidelines, partly because of a perceived lack of pressure from DENI. The Rural Development Council had no recollection of receiving the guidelines and the Industrial Development Board tended to concentrate on TSN. The Training and Employment Agency has developed an equality unit for dealing with PAFT and TSN. LEDU were frustrated that the CCRU were not offering advice.

The Case Studies: DOE and Relocation of DENI

• Research has shown a lack of confidence among the Catholic education sector in DENI. This stemmed from the low representation of Catholics employed in DENI, which in turn partly stemmed from the location of DENI headquarters in predominantly Protestant North Down.
• The DOE decided that DENI should carry out the PAFT review. DENI decided, after identifying its employment profile as the main issue, that relocation would have little impact as DENI personnel who were disproportionately senior and therefore more mobile. Furthermore, turnover in lower grade staff was low and therefore change would be slow.
• The opposite case could have been proved. If DENI were to relocate to a more neutral position for both communities and move 450 jobs to central Belfast this would, over time, provide opportunities to the disadvantaged areas of both communities. Eventually, DENI's employment profile would have better reflected the two communities, especially among the lower grades where DENI has the lowest representation of Catholics in all NICS departments. None of this data was presented in the PAFT review.

The EU Structural Funds

• The drafting of the NI plan for the use of structural funds was co-ordinated by DFP and involved extensive consultation with community groups, voluntary groups and statutory bodies. The Fair Employment Agency suggested that in pursuit of employment equality business organisations in receipt of EU funds should be required to demonstrate fair participation. This was rejected by DFP as unenforceable. The Equal Opportunity Commission's recommendations for the realisation of greater equality and equity were not specifically accepted in the final plan.

Domestic Energy Efficiency Scheme

• The scheme is overseen by the DED and is designed to save energy and improve comfort levels for people in receipt of one of five state benefits and those aged 60 years or over. The scheme is run on the department's behalf by a non-profit making private body which itself uses sub-contractors. DED implemented PAFT and found that Catholics were more likely to benefit from the scheme than Protestants because they were more dependent on state benefits and the scheme was not available to the under 60s. The differential impacts were acceptable because of the purpose of the scheme.
• Contractual obligations were set in place with the non-profit making body and its sub-contractors not to discriminate on the grounds of religion and a mechanism was set in place to monitor the implementation of the scheme by religion. This represents a model of good practice and could act as a template for other departments.

The Safer Towns Scheme

• The scheme is run by the NIO and tries to implement a variety of crime prevention schemes, administrated by Extern. It was decided to drop one of the areas that received funding and funding was available for two new areas. NIO sought advice on the selection of these areas from Extern and CCRU. CCRU pointed out that there was no town in the scheme with a working class Catholic area. Extern provided data on crime rates in various towns and a town with a large Catholic working class representation was selected.

Transport to School

• A review of transport provision to schools became necessary because the cost had risen due to open enrollment. It was decided to restrict provision to pupils not able to find a suitable school or college within statutory walking distance. DENI identified four entitlements arising from the PAFT assessment, parental choice based on a preference for non-denominational/denominational, Integrated/Irish School. The definition of a 'suitable school' could not differentiate between single-sex and co-education schools. Account needed to be taken of the fact that slightly higher numbers in Catholic Schools stay on after leaving age and slightly more go on to further education. It acknowledges that the new rules had no implications for pupils with special needs. In this case study it can be noted that the data necessary for the PAFT appraisal was routinely collected by DENI.

Conclusions

• To some civil servants PAFT is just another scheme which they have to implement. It was noted that civil servants were suffering from initiative fatigue because of the number of changes that had taken place in the civil service in the last decade.
• Urgent attention needs to be given to how CCRU exercises its challenge role with departments. More work is needed to ensure NDPBs implement guidelines. The allocation of resources within CCRU also needs attention.
• The competing models issue should be resolved, a unified model, which reflects both approaches, is needed.
• The importance of PAFT may be greater as Protestant mistrust is now added to Catholic mistrust. A PAFT initiative, which is only partly adopted, is likely to be particularly damaging politically. It is in danger of being seen by both sides of the community as a gesture and not a fully incorporated dimension of policy.
• It is perhaps the case that the lack of priority for PAFT is the result of decades of direct rule, as civil servants became integrated with a UK wide policy agenda and thus removed from the local agenda.
• In a context of competing policy priorities brought about by the NI constitutional position within the UK, the question remains as to how PAFT fits in.