DOE FINAL BUDGET PLAN

Transcription

1 DOE FINAL BUDGET PLAN 24 MARCH

2 CONTENTS Page 1. Introduction Final Budget Outcome 3 3. Receipt Income 5 4. Necessary expenditure Local Government Grants 9 6. Remaining budget Reductions Equality Screenings 13 Appendix 1: Opening Budget allocations by Departmental Group 14 Appendix 2: Equality Screenings

3 DOE Final Budget Introduction The final Budget was agreed by the Executive on Thursday 15 th January The purpose of this document is to: set out the DOE s final budget allocations; set out how significant reductions to budgets will be achieved; and present assessments of the equality implications of these plans. This Plan builds on the DOE s previous Assessment of the implications of the draft Budget position for the Department published on 27 November Final Budget Outcome The outcome of the final Budget incorporated an across the board reduction in the Department s previous budget offset by allocations made at both draft and final Budget stages. The Department s non ring-fenced Resource Departmental Expenditure Limit (DEL) budget was reduced by 15.1% ( 17.6) million. Allocations were also made as part of the draft and final Budget exercises and the Department was allocated 6.7 million (comprising 2.7 million; a further 2.0 million for local government and 1.9 million for the De-Rating Grant). A number of other adjustments were made at final Budget stage to take account of the sums being transferred to councils as part of the final funding package associated with local government reform. The figures are summarised in Tables 1 and 2 below. 3

4 Table 1: Non ring-fenced Resource DEL Budget Position Non ring-fenced Resource DEL % million Opening Position Reduction 15.1% (17.6) Allocations ( 2.7m, 2.0m & 1.9m) Adjustments: Funding for Planning function transferred out (6.8) Transfer of functions grant transferred in 4.5 EU funding 0.9 Closing Position Table 2: Overall Net Reduction Non ring-fenced Resource DEL Summary % million Opening Position Closing Position Overall Reduction 10.7% (12.4) The Department also has a budget of 3.46 million for ring-fenced resource DEL which relates mainly to budget cover for depreciation. Table 3: Total Non ring-fenced Resource DEL and ring fenced Resource DEL Budget million Non ring-fenced resource DEL Ring-fenced Resource DEL 3.5 Total RDEL budget The Department was also allocated an envelope of Capital Funding of 7.5 million and 50.5 million of Financial Transactions Capital Funding as part of the final Budget. It is proposed that the Capital Funding of 7.5 million will be used to fund a number of projects and items across the Department. These are outlined in Table 4 below. 4

5 Table 4: Conventional Capital Budget Conventional Capital Budget million Driver Licensing Replacement IT System 3.5 IT amendments to Planning Portal 0.5 Departmental IT 0.1 Heritage Led Development 1.0 NIEA Vehicles and Equipment 0.3 Capital Grant for Exploris 0.7 Waste Management Capital Grant 1.0 Capital Grant for Local Government (Transfer of functions) 0.4 Total Conventional Capital budget 7.5 The DOE has been allocated a sum of 50.5 million Financial Transactions Capital in the final Budget. This funding is linked to a proposed private sector development of an energy from waste plant that would be delivered on behalf of the councils comprising the Arc 21 Waste Management Group. The budget outlined above and in the sections that follow excludes provision for the vehicle and driver testing service provided by the Driver and Vehicle Agency. This service is funded by a statutory Trading Fund which consists of vehicle and driver testing fees paid by the public. These fee receipts can only be used for the delivery of vehicle and driver testing services and cannot be reallocated for other expenditure purposes by the Department. 3. Receipt Income The current forecast receipt income for equates to approx 22.7 million (plus 4.2 million for Carrier Bag receipts). Analysis of the income is outlined in Table 5 below. 5

6 Table 5: Budgeted Receipt income Budgeted Receipt Income million Driver, Taxi, Bus & Goods vehicle income 10.4 Regulatory & Commercial Income 8.4 Marine Licensing 0.1 Planning receipts 0.2 Carrier bag administration 0.5 Dividend income from DVA Trading Fund 0.7 Recharges to DVA Trading Fund 2.4 Sub-total 22.7 Carrier Bag Receipts 4.2 Therefore, taking the receipt income into account, the total gross RDEL budget for is million, plus 4.2 million Carrier Bag Levy (CBL) receipts, as outlined in Table 6 below. Table 6: Total Gross RDEL budget Gross RDEL Budget million Non ring-fenced resource DEL (Table 3) Receipt income (Table 5) 22.7 Sub-total Carrier Bag Receipts (Table 5) 4.2 Total budget Necessary expenditure in Turning to how the budget will be spent next year, we have first sought to identify those items of expenditure we believe to be necessary in the sense that the costs are unavoidable for at least the timescale of the next financial year. There has been further review and analysis carried out on these expenditure items since the draft Budget stage to ensure the amounts included are an accurate estimation of the necessary spend pressures in These are set out in Table 7 below. 6

7 The largest of these expenditure items is the opening cost of staff salaries in the Department, based on an opening profile of 1, FTE staff (excl DVA Testing staff) at 1 April 2015 (i.e. after 401 planning staff have transferred to the new councils). We anticipate that staff numbers should reduce during the course of next year when exits start to happen under the NICS Voluntary Exit Scheme (VES) from October onwards. However the scale and timing of these savings cannot be accurately forecast at this stage and thus no assumptions about them have been built into the opening Budget position. This position will be monitored as the year progresses and any emerging savings considered for reallocation to other areas of the Department s Budget. 7

8 Table 7: Necessary expenditure Expenditure Narrative for figures Spend Plan million Salaries Includes 0.4m ring-fenced Carrier Bag Team 60.6 Includes 0.5m overtime Travel & Subsistence Includes 0.03m for ring-fenced Carrier Bag Team 0.7 Staff Training 0.5 Other Staff Costs Includes medical test costs, counselling, protective 0.3 clothing etc and ring-fenced CBL costs 0.1m Operating leases For office equipment, buildings etc. 0.2 Accommodation Includes electricity, maintenance, rates, waste disposal, 1.2 water charges etc. Communications Includes telephone and mobile phones calls and rental 0.4 etc. Computer Charges Includes software maintenance for Department s IT 2.2 systems etc Other Office Services Includes franking costs, mapping information charges, 1.5 photocopying charges, postage, stationery etc. Advertising Re Strategic Planning applications etc. 0.1 Contracted out services Includes contract cleaning, contract security, HR 3.6 Connect Charge ( 1.1m), charge from DVSA (GB)for processing freight licences ( 0.5m), charge for Driver Licensing card production & bulk printing ( 0.8m), Grass cutting ( 0.2m), Pollution sampling ( 0.2m), Water supply analysis ( 0.1m) etc. Managed Services Includes costs for Superannuation team etc. 1.0 Professional Costs Includes Driver Licensing applicant s medical costs 2.4 ( 1.9m) and charge for team of statisticians ( 0.4m) etc. Vehicle & Plant Costs Includes fuel, insurance etc. 0.5 Other Operating Costs Includes laboratory fees and analysis charges, 0.5 monitoring charges, survey costs, vetting clearance, bank charges etc. Materials Includes landscaping materials, tools and small plant & 0.3 equipment etc. Depreciation Relating to DVA depreciation which is not covered by 1.0 the ring-fenced funding. Provisions Includes provisions for judicial reviews and Planners 0.7 VER Scheme Other Costs Includes compensation payments, intra departmental 0.3 hard charges, non-capital purchases etc Coastal Communities 0.5 Fund EU Expenditure 0.9 Grants JNCC Grant 0.3 Expenditure sub-total 79.7 Local Government De-Rating Grant 25.8 Grants Rates Support Grant (reduced by 15.1%) 15.5 Transfer of Functions Grant 4.5 Total Expenditure

9 5. Local Government Grants De-Rating Grant, Rates Support Grant and Transfer of Functions Grant The above Table 7 also includes provision for De-Rating Grant, Rates Support Grant and Transfer of Functions Grant. De-Rating Grant Baseline funding for the De-Rating grant was reduced to 21.9 million after the 15.1% reduction was applied. This grant is set by a statutory formula linked to various derating schemes determined by DFP. Thus it cannot lawfully be reduced unless changes are made to the statutory de-rating scheme or specific rating reliefs granted by DFP. Therefore 2.0 million (allocated at draft Budget stage) and the 1.9 million (allocated at final Budget stage) have been used to restore this grant to the opening baseline amount of 25.8 million. It should also be noted that even after restoring this grant to the opening baseline amount, there is still an in-year shortfall in funding of approximately 1.3 million. This pressure will have to be addressed during the financial year. The figures for the De-Rating grant are outlined in Table 8 below. Table 8: De-Rating Grant De-Rating Grant million Opening funding position 25.8 Reduction (15.1%) (3.9) Closing draft Budget stage 21.9 Allocations: Draft budget allocation 2.0 Final Budget allocation 1.9 Closing funding position 25.8 Rates Support Grant The final budget plan includes 15.5 million for the Rates Support Grant which is payable to Local Government. This is a reduction of 15.1% ( 2.8 million) from the opening baseline position. This grant is paid to those less well off councils to help make good the difference between their rates income and the money they need to maintain parity of service provision with more wealthy councils. 9

10 Transfer of Functions Grant Adjustments have been made by DFP to the Department s budget to include financial provision for the Transfer of Functions Grant. The Department transferred 6.8 million of our baseline to DFP in relation to the Planning and Environment functions transferring to Local Government on the 1 April 2015 and received the total Transfer of Functions Grant to the Department s baseline which amounts to 4.5 million. This grant is ring-fenced and cannot be used for other purposes. 6. Remaining budget After taking into account the necessary items of expenditure and the amounts for the De-Rating Grant and Transfer of Functions Grant the balance of budget remaining now amounts to 1.4 million as outlined in Table 9 below. In addition, the 4.2 million of Carrier Bag Levy funding is available for allocation. Table 9: Remaining budget Budget million Gross RDEL Budget (table 6) Necessary expenditure (table 7) (125.5) Remaining budget: RDEL Budget 1.4 Carrier Bag Levy 4.2 The spending plans for the remaining budget of 1.4 million and the anticipated Carrier Bag income of 4.2 million are outlined in Tables 10 and 11 below. Table 10: Spending plan for 1.4 million remaining budget Description million Road Safety communications, grants and educational materials 1.0 Grants and payments to voluntary bodies 0.1 Contracted services to support priority work

11 Table 11: Carrier Bag Spending Plan Carrier Bag Spending Plan m Challenge Fund 0.75 Sustainability Innovation Fund 0.05 Community Waste Fund 0.61 Local Clean Up Grants 0.2 Local Air Quality Grants 0.1 Natural Heritage Grant Programme & contracts 1.1 Listed Buildings 0.5 Climate Change Committee 0.07 Exploris 0.12 Barroso Grant 0.1 Eco Schools 0.12 Wildlife & Access Projects 0.17 Environmental programmes Further information on each of the proposals is outlined below: Challenge Fund: grants payable to applicants under The Challenge Fund for Community based environmental projects. Sustainability Innovation Fund: relates to the administration cost of the Challenge Fund (Northern Ireland Environment Link) and partnership work relating to Prosperity Agreements. Community Waste Fund: The funding for will fund crucial waste activity that is core DOE waste work for the community. Local Clean Up Support: relates to the cost to councils of fuel laundering waste cleanup. 11

12 Natural Heritage Grant Programme: relates to community based projects under the Natural Heritage Grant Programme. Listed Building Grant: relates to community based projects under the Listed Building Grant Programme. Climate Change: Climate Northern Ireland is an intersectoral network devoted to increasing understanding of climate change impacts and risks within Northern Ireland and promoting the adaptation actions necessary to address these. Exploris: comprises funding to Ards Borough Council for Exploris. Barroso Grant: The Barroso grant is disbursed to third party organisations with the aim to deliver innovations for the waste supply chain to help promote recovery of valuable materials from waste. These innovation projects are funded from EU funding and the funding provided by DOE represents the match funding element. Eco Schools: comprises funding to Keep NI Beautiful (formerly Tidy NI) to administer the Eco Schools Programme. 7. Reductions As previously outlined, the Department s net budget for has been reduced by some 15% after payment of the De-rating Grant. In allocating the opening budget for the year, reductions have been made in all areas of spend across the Department. As a result numerous areas of spend have been curtailed or ceased completely for the year. Table 12 below outlines the reductions necessary. 12

13 Table 12: Reductions million Rates Support Grant 2.8 Grants to Councils 1.1 Natural Heritage Grant programme 1.1 Voluntary sector grant/support funding 0.2 Listed Building grants 1.6 Environmental related grants and programmes 1.7 Road Safety communications 1.3 Contracted services for environmental programmes Equality Screening Equality screening for the final budget allocations for the key areas of spend in the Department has been completed in accordance with Section 75 (1) and (2) of the Northern Ireland Act These are attached at Appendix 2. We consider that in relation to Section 75 groups these assessments have indicated a largely neutral impact and therefore a full Equality Impact Assessment is not considered necessary. In deciding on the reductions to be made, the Department s expenditure has been thoroughly reviewed in order to determine how the required level of reductions could be delivered whilst safeguarding Section 75 groups and frontline services as far as possible. The relative impact of the reductions has been equality screened and the Department s screening analysis forms are included at Appendix 2. The spending reductions identified above follow on from some very difficult decisions regarding funding and seek to optimise the use of resources through scaling back programmes and taking forward other cost reduction measures. The Minister is committed to a balanced and fair approach to delivering the reductions, ensuring that all possible steps are taken to protect the most vulnerable in our society. 13

14 Appendix Opening Budget allocations by Departmental Group Environment Group million Environmental and Regulatory Policy Divisions 5.1 Marine Division 3.7 Northern Ireland Environment Agency 37.3 Total Environment Group 46.1 Planning Group million Strategic Planning Division 3.5 Planning Policy Division 2.1 Total Planning Group 5.6 Local Government, Road Safety and Corporate Services Group million Local Government Policy Divisions 48.3 Driver and Vehicle Agency 13.2 Road Safety & Vehicle Regulation Division 4.3 Corporate Services (Finance and Business Planning & HR and Org Change) 13.6 Total Road Safety and Corporate Services Group 79.4 Total Opening Budget allocations million Environment Group 46.1 Planning Group 5.6 Local Government, Road Safety and Corporate Services Group Funded by: Executive allocation Income from operations 26.9 Total Budget

15 Appendix 2 Equality Screenings Key Spending Area Pages Environment & Marine Planning Road Safety Services Local Government

16 DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT SECTION 75 EQUALITY OF OPPORTUNITY SCREENING ANALYSIS FORM Under Section 75 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998, the Department is required to have due regard to the need to promote equality of opportunity between the groups listed at Appendix 1. In addition, without prejudice to its obligations above, the Department is also required, in carrying out its functions relating to Northern Ireland, to have regard to the desirability of promoting good relations between persons of different religious beliefs, political opinion or racial group. This form is intended to help you to consider whether a new or revised policy (either internal or external) or legislation will require a full equality impact assessment (EQIA). Those policies identified as having significant implications for equality of opportunity must be subject to full EQIA. The form will provide a record of the factors taken into account if a policy is screened out, or excluded for EQIA. It will provide a basis for consultation on the outcome of the screening exercise and will be referenced in the Annual Report to the Equality Commission. Reference should be made to the outcome of the screening exercise and subsequent consultation in any submission made to the Minister. It is important that this screening form is completed carefully and thoughtfully. Your business area s Equality Representative and the Department s Equality Team (ext 54991/37061) will be happy to assist with all aspects of the screening process and will help with the completion of the form, if required. All screening forms should be signed off by the policy maker, approved by a senior manager responsible for the policy and sent to the Equality Team who will arrange to have them posted on the Department s website. Policy Title: DOE Budget Business Area: Environment & Marine Group Contact: Peter Aiken 16

17 Screening flowchart and template Introduction Part 1. Policy scoping asks the Department to provide details about the policy, procedure, practice and/or decision being screened and what available evidence has been gathered to help make an assessment of the likely impact on equality of opportunity and good relations. Part 2. Screening questions asks about the extent of the likely impact of the policy on groups of people within each of the Section 75 categories. Details of the groups consulted and the level of assessment of the likely impact. This includes consideration of multiple identity and good relations issues. Part 3. Screening decision guides the Department to reach a screening decision as to whether or not there is a need to carry out an equality impact assessment (EQIA), or to introduce measures to mitigate the likely impact, or the introduction of an alternative policy to better promote equality of opportunity and/or good relations. Part 4. Monitoring provides guidance on monitoring for adverse impact and broader monitoring. Part 5. Approval and authorisation verifies the Department s approval of a screening decision by a senior manager responsible for the policy. All screening templates must be signed off by the relevant policy maker, approved by a senior manager responsible for the policy and forwarded to the Department s Equality Team for quality assurance, approval and publication on the Department s website. Part 6. Submission to the Departmental Equality Team Contact details for the Equality Team can be found in this section. 17

18

19 Part 1. Policy scoping The first stage of the screening process involves scoping the policy under consideration. The purpose of policy scoping is to help prepare the background and context and set out the aims and objectives for the policy, being screened. At this stage, scoping the policy will help identify potential constraints as well as opportunities and will help the policy maker work through the screening process on a step by step basis. Policy makers should remember that the Section 75 statutory duties apply to internal policies (relating to the Department s staff), as well as external policies (relating to those who are, or could be, served by the Department). Information about the policy Name of the policy DOE Budget Is this an existing, revised or a new policy? New policy What is it trying to achieve? (intended aims/outcomes) (Please give clear explanation of policy aims/outcomes) DOE s Budget has been reduced by 10.7%. The aim of this policy is to establish budget allocations across the Department to ensure that the Department can continue to meet its strategic objectives during whilst giving consideration to the need to promote equality of opportunity and regard to the desirability of promoting good relations. Are there any Section 75 categories which might be expected to benefit from the intended policy? If so, explain how. No Who initiated or wrote the policy? Finance & Business Planning Division Who owns and who implements the policy? DOE 19

20 Background The overall aim of the DOE is to protect and improve the environment, promote and protect community well being and support a sustainable economy and strong effective local government. Key spending areas The Department s key spending areas are as follows: Creating prosperity and well being through effective environmental and heritage management and regulation; Delivering improved road safety and better regulation of the transport sector; Support and consolidate the new planning system; and Support the consolidation of new local government structures. Budget Outcome Under the final Budget for , the DOE s non ring-fenced Resource Departmental Expenditure Limit (DEL) budget was reduced by 10.7% to million. The Department has also been allocated 3.5 million in ring-fenced Resource DEL, relating mainly to depreciation charges, Capital funding of 7.5 million and Financial Transactions Capital funding of 50.5 million. Key issues/challenges in Reductions of such magnitude in non ring-fenced resource DEL means that will be an exceptionally challenging year for the DOE. The financial allocations in the final Budget may have some implications for the services provided by the DOE and for its clients, stakeholders and staff. In order to deliver on its core statutory obligations and ensure protection of public health the Department will have to reduce activity across a wide range of discretionary functions, and withdraw funding to a wide range of external bodies while seeking to implement substantial reductions in staff numbers under central Civil Service voluntary exit schemes. It will be necessary to make immediate and substantial reductions in key statutory rates support payments to councils. This may impact negatively on those less well off councils that have access to these grant payments to help make good the difference between their rates income and the money they need to maintain parity of service provision with more wealthy councils. 20

21 Implementation factors Are there any factors which could contribute to/detract from the intended aim/outcome of the policy/decision? Yes No If yes, are they financial legislative other, please specify: Main stakeholders affected Who are the internal and external stakeholders (actual or potential) that the policy will impact upon? staff service users other public sector organisations voluntary/community/trade unions other, please specify: Other policies with a bearing on this policy what are they? NI Executive Final Budget who owns them? NI Executive 21

22 Available evidence Evidence to help inform the screening process may take many forms. Policy makers should ensure that their screening decision is informed by relevant data. What evidence/information (both qualitative and quantitative) have you gathered to inform this policy? Please specify details for each of the Section 75 categories. For further advice please contact Analytical Services Branch (ASB), (Gary Ewing, ext 40245) or the Equality Team (Angela Starkey, ext or Jeff Johnston, ext 37061). Section 75 category Religious belief Political opinion Racial group Age Marital status Sexual orientation Men and women generally Disability Dependants Details of evidence/information There is no evidence to suggest that the budget allocations will impact disproportionately on this Section 75 group. 22

23 Needs, experiences and priorities Taking into account the information referred to above, what are the different needs, experiences and priorities of each of the following categories, in relation to the particular policy/decision? Specify details for each of the Section 75 categories. Section 75 category Religious belief Political opinion Racial group Age Marital status Sexual orientation Men and women generally Disability Dependants Details of needs/experiences/priorities The budget allocations will not impact disproportionately on this group. 23

24 Part 2. Screening questions Introduction In making a decision as to whether or not there is a need to carry out an equality impact assessment, policy makers should consider the answers to the four screening questions. If your conclusion is none in respect of all of the Section 75 equality of opportunity and/or good relations categories, then you may decide to screen the policy out. If a policy is screened out as having no relevance to equality of opportunity or good relations, you should give details of the reasons for the decision taken. If your conclusion is major in respect of one or more of the Section 75 equality of opportunity and/or good relations categories, then consideration should be given to subjecting the policy to the equality impact assessment procedure. If your conclusion is minor in respect of one or more of the Section 75 equality categories and/or good relations categories, then consideration should still be given to proceeding with an equality impact assessment, or to:- measures to mitigate the adverse impact; or the introduction of an alternative policy to better promote equality of opportunity and/or good relations. In favour of a major impact a) The policy is significant in terms of its strategic importance; b) Potential equality impacts are unknown, because, for example, there is insufficient data upon which to make an assessment or because they are complex, and it would be appropriate to conduct an equality impact assessment in order to better assess them; 24

25 c) Potential equality and/or good relations impacts are likely to be adverse or are likely to be experienced disproportionately by groups of people including those who are marginalised or disadvantaged; d) Further assessment offers a valuable way to examine the evidence and develop recommendations in respect of a policy about which there are concerns amongst affected individuals and representative groups, for example in respect of multiple identities; e) The policy is likely to be challenged by way of judicial review; f) The policy is significant in terms of expenditure. In favour of minor impact a) The policy is not unlawfully discriminatory and any residual potential impacts on people are judged to be negligible; b) The policy, or certain proposals within it, are potentially unlawfully discriminatory, but this possibility can readily and easily be eliminated by making appropriate changes to the policy or by adopting appropriate mitigating measures; c) Any asymmetrical equality impacts caused by the policy are intentional because they are specifically designed to promote equality of opportunity for particular groups of disadvantaged people; d) By amending the policy there are better opportunities to better promote equality of opportunity and/or good relations. In favour of none a) The policy has no relevance to equality of opportunity or good relations. b) The policy is purely technical in nature and will have no bearing in terms of its likely impact on equality of opportunity or good relations for people within the equality and good relations categories. Taking into account the evidence presented above, consider and comment on the likely impact on equality of opportunity and good relations for those affected by this policy, in any way, for each of the equality and good relations categories, by applying the screening 25

26 questions given overleaf and indicate the level of impact on the group i.e. minor, major or none. Screening questions 1 What is the likely impact on equality of opportunity for those affected by this policy, for each of the Section 75 equality categories? minor/major/none Section 75 category Details of policy impact Level of impact? minor/major/none Religious belief Political opinion Budget reductions to Environment and Marine Group grant funding programme and other environmental services. The public consultation on the draft Departmental budget did not identify any negative impacts to this Section 75 group.. None None Racial group. None Age. None Marital status. None Sexual orientation. None Men and women generally. None 26

27 Disability. None Dependants. None 2 Are there opportunities to better promote equality of opportunity for people within the Section 75 equalities categories? Section 75 category If Yes, provide details If No, provide reasons Religious belief Political opinion Within the constraints of a very challenging budgetary position the Department has worked to ensure that there are no disproportionate impacts on any section 75 groups and so not to decrease equality of opportunity.. Racial group. Age. Marital status. Sexual orientation. Men and women generally. 27

28 Disability Dependants.. 3 To what extent is the policy likely to impact on good relations between people of different religious belief, political opinion or racial group? minor/major/none Good relations category Details of policy impact Level of impact minor/major/none Religious belief There will be no impact on good relations. None Political opinion. None Racial group. None 4 Are there opportunities to better promote good relations between people of different religious belief, political opinion or racial group? Good relations category If Yes, provide details If No, provide reasons Religious belief Within the constraints of a very challenging budgetary position the Department has worked to ensure that there are no disproportionate impacts on any section 75 groups and so not to decrease equality of opportunity. Political opinion. 28

29 Racial group. Multiple identity Generally speaking, people can fall into more than one Section 75 category. Taking this into consideration, are there any potential impacts of the policy/decision on people with multiple identities? (For example; disabled minority ethnic people; disabled women; young Protestant men; and young lesbians, gay and bisexual people). Yes No Provide details of data on the impact of the policy on people with multiple identities. Specify relevant Section 75 categories concerned. N/A Part 3. Screening decision If the decision is not to conduct an equality impact assessment, please provide details of the reasons. The Department s 2015/16 budget has been reduced by 10.7%. The reductions to the Environment & Marine Group are in the main to its grant funding programme and environmental services. Grants are not provided to Section 75 specific voluntary groups. A public consultation on DOE s draft budget did not identify any negative impacts to any Section 75 group and as such a full EQIA is not considered necessary. If the decision is not to conduct an equality impact assessment the policy maker should consider if the policy should be mitigated or an alternative policy be introduced. 29

30 N/A If the decision is to subject the policy to an equality impact assessment, please provide details of the reasons. N/A All public authorities equality schemes must state the authority s arrangements for assessing and consulting on the likely impact of policies adopted or proposed to be adopted by the authority on the promotion of equality of opportunity. The Commission recommends screening and equality impact assessment as the tools to be utilised for such assessments. Further advice on equality impact assessment may be found in a separate Commission publication: Practical Guidance on Equality Impact Assessment. Mitigation When you conclude that the likely impact is minor and an equality impact assessment is not to be conducted, you may consider mitigation to lessen the severity of any equality impact, or the introduction of an alternative policy to better promote equality of opportunity or good relations. Can the policy/decision be amended or changed or an alternative policy introduced to better promote equality of opportunity and/or good relations? If so, give the reasons to support your decision, together with the proposed changes/amendments or alternative policy. N/A Timetabling and prioritising 30

31 Factors to be considered in timetabling and prioritising policies for equality impact assessment. If the policy has been screened in for equality impact assessment, then please answer the following questions to determine its priority for timetabling the equality impact assessment:- On a scale of 1-3, with 1 being the lowest priority and 3 being the highest, assess the policy in terms of its priority for equality impact assessment. Priority criterion Effect on equality of opportunity and good relations Rating (1-3) N/A Social need Effect on people s daily lives Relevance to a public authority s functions N/A N/A N/A Note: The Total Rating Score should be used to prioritise the policy in rank order with other policies screened in for equality impact assessment. Is the policy affected by timetables established by other relevant public authorities? Yes No If yes, please provide details. Part 4 - Monitoring 31

32 You should consider the guidance contained in the Commission s Monitoring Guidance for Use by Public Authorities (July 2007). The Commission recommends that where the policy has been amended or an alternative policy introduced, the Department should monitor more broadly than for adverse impact. Effective monitoring will help you to identify any future adverse impact arising from the policy which may lead to completion of an equality impact assessment, as well as help with future planning and policy development. Part 5 - Approval and authorisation (to be completed by Business Area) Screened by: Position/Job Title Date Peter Aiken Grade 7 Finance 19/2/15 Approved by: Anthony Carleton Director Finance and Business Planning 19/2/15 Note: A copy of the Screening Template, for each policy screened should be signed off by the policy maker, approved by a senior manager responsible for the policy and forwarded to the Department s Equality Team who will make the form available on the Department s website. Business areas should ensure that the form is made available on request. 32

33 Part 6 Submission to Departmental Equality Team PLEASE FORWARD AN ELECTRONIC COPY OF THE COMPLETED FORM TO: [email protected] QUERIES TO: DOE EQUALITY TEAM 8 th FLOOR GOODWOOD HOUSE MAY STREET BELFAST BT1 4NN Angela Starkey, Ext [email protected] Jeff Johnston, Ext [email protected] 33

34 Appendix 1 Main Groups Relevant to the Section 75 Categories Category Religious belief Main Groups Protestants; Catholics; people of non-christian faiths; people of no religious belief Political opinion Unionists generally; Nationalists generally; members/supporters of any political party Racial Group White people; Chinese; Irish Travellers; Indians; Pakistanis; Bangladeshis; Black Africans; Black Caribbean people; people with mixed ethnic group Men and women generally Marital status Age Persons with a disability Persons with dependants Sexual orientation Men (including boys); women (including girls); transgendered people Married people; unmarried people; divorced or separated people; widowed people For most purposes, the main categories are: children under 18, people aged between 18-65, and people over 65. However, the definition of age groups will need to be sensitive to the policy under consideration Disability is defined as: A physical or mental impairment, which has a substantial and long-term adverse effect on a person s ability to carry out normal day-to-day activities as defined in Sections 1 and 2 and Schedules 1 and 2 of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 Persons with personal responsibility for the care of a child; persons with personal responsibility for the care of a person with an incapacitating disability; persons with personal responsibility for the care of a dependant elderly person Heterosexuals; bi-sexuals; gays; lesbians 34

35 DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT SECTION 75 EQUALITY OF OPPORTUNITY SCREENING ANALYSIS FORM Under Section 75 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998, the Department is required to have due regard to the need to promote equality of opportunity between the groups listed at Appendix 1. In addition, without prejudice to its obligations above, the Department is also required, in carrying out its functions relating to Northern Ireland, to have regard to the desirability of promoting good relations between persons of different religious beliefs, political opinion or racial group. This form is intended to help you to consider whether a new or revised policy (either internal or external) or legislation will require a full equality impact assessment (EQIA). Those policies identified as having significant implications for equality of opportunity must be subject to full EQIA. The form will provide a record of the factors taken into account if a policy is screened out, or excluded for EQIA. It will provide a basis for consultation on the outcome of the screening exercise and will be referenced in the Annual Report to the Equality Commission. Reference should be made to the outcome of the screening exercise and subsequent consultation in any submission made to the Minister. It is important that this screening form is completed carefully and thoughtfully. Your business area s Equality Representative and the Department s Equality Team (ext 54991/37061) will be happy to assist with all aspects of the screening process and will help with the completion of the form, if required. All screening forms should be signed off by the policy maker, approved by a senior manager responsible for the policy and sent to the Equality Team who will arrange to have them posted on the Department s website. Policy Title: DOE Budget Business Area: Planning Contact: Terry Curran 35

36 Screening flowchart and template Introduction Part 1. Policy scoping asks the Department to provide details about the policy, procedure, practice and/or decision being screened and what available evidence has been gathered to help make an assessment of the likely impact on equality of opportunity and good relations. Part 2. Screening questions asks about the extent of the likely impact of the policy on groups of people within each of the Section 75 categories. Details of the groups consulted and the level of assessment of the likely impact. This includes consideration of multiple identity and good relations issues. Part 3. Screening decision guides the Department to reach a screening decision as to whether or not there is a need to carry out an equality impact assessment (EQIA), or to introduce measures to mitigate the likely impact, or the introduction of an alternative policy to better promote equality of opportunity and/or good relations. Part 4. Monitoring provides guidance on monitoring for adverse impact and broader monitoring. Part 5. Approval and authorisation verifies the Department s approval of a screening decision by a senior manager responsible for the policy. All screening templates must be signed off by the relevant policy maker, approved by a senior manager responsible for the policy and forwarded to the Department s Equality Team for quality assurance, approval and publication on the Department s website. Part 6. Submission to the Departmental Equality Team Contact details for the Equality Team can be found in this section. 36

37

38 Part 1. Policy scoping The first stage of the screening process involves scoping the policy under consideration. The purpose of policy scoping is to help prepare the background and context and set out the aims and objectives for the policy, being screened. At this stage, scoping the policy will help identify potential constraints as well as opportunities and will help the policy maker work through the screening process on a step by step basis. Policy makers should remember that the Section 75 statutory duties apply to internal policies (relating to the Department s staff), as well as external policies (relating to those who are, or could be, served by the Department). Information about the policy Name of the policy DOE Budget Is this an existing, revised or a new policy? New policy What is it trying to achieve? (intended aims/outcomes) (Please give clear explanation of policy aims/outcomes) DOE s Budget has been reduced by 10.7%. The aim of this policy is to establish budget allocations across the Department to ensure that the Department can continue to meet its strategic objectives during whilst giving consideration to the need to promote equality of opportunity and regard to the desirability of promoting good relations. Are there any Section 75 categories which might be expected to benefit from the intended policy? If so, explain how. No Who initiated or wrote the policy? Finance & Business Planning Division 38

39 Who owns and who implements the policy? DOE Background The overall aim of the DOE is to protect and improve the environment, promote and protect community well being and support a sustainable economy and strong effective local government. Key spending areas The Department s key spending areas are as follows: Creating prosperity and well being through effective environmental and heritage management and regulation; Delivering improved road safety and better regulation of the transport sector; Support and consolidate the new planning system ; and Support the consolidation of new local government structures. Budget Outcome Under the final Budget for , the DOE s non ring-fenced Resource Departmental Expenditure Limit (DEL) budget was reduced by 10.7% to million. The Department has also been allocated 3.5 million in ring-fenced Resource DEL, relating mainly to depreciation charges, Capital funding of 7.5 million and Financial Transactions Capital funding of 50.5 million. Key issues/challenges in Reductions of such magnitude in non ring-fenced resource DEL means that will be an exceptionally challenging year for the DOE. The financial allocations in the final Budget may have some implications for the services provided by the DOE and for its clients, stakeholders and staff. In order to deliver on its core statutory obligations and ensure protection of public health the Department will have to reduce activity across a wide range of discretionary functions, and withdraw funding to a wide range of external bodies while seeking to implement substantial reductions in staff numbers under central Civil Service voluntary exit schemes. It will be necessary to make immediate and substantial reductions in key statutory rates support payments to councils. This may impact negatively on those less well off councils that 39

40 have access to these grant payments to help make good the difference between their rates income and the money they need to maintain parity of service provision with more wealthy councils. It is unlikely that any grants will be issued by the Planning Group in Historically grants have been paid to Disability Action and Community Places. Implementation factors Are there any factors which could contribute to/detract from the intended aim/outcome of the policy/decision? Yes No If yes, are they financial legislative other, please specify: Main stakeholders affected Who are the internal and external stakeholders (actual or potential) that the policy will impact upon? staff service users other public sector organisations voluntary/community/trade unions 40

41 other, please specify: Other policies with a bearing on this policy what are they? NI Executive Final Budget who owns them? NI Executive Available evidence Evidence to help inform the screening process may take many forms. Policy makers should ensure that their screening decision is informed by relevant data. What evidence/information (both qualitative and quantitative) have you gathered to inform this policy? Please specify details for each of the Section 75 categories. For further advice please contact Analytical Services Branch (ASB), (Gary Ewing, ext 40245) or the Equality Team (Angela Starkey, ext or Jeff Johnston, ext 37061). Section 75 category Religious belief Political opinion Racial group Age Marital status Details of evidence/information There is no evidence to suggest that the budget allocations will impact disproportionately on this Section 75 group. 41

42 Sexual Orientation Men and women generally Disability Dependants Reductions to support/grant funding may have a minor negative impact. Reductions to support/grant funding may have a minor negative impact. As Religious Belief Needs, experiences and priorities Taking into account the information referred to above, what are the different needs, experiences and priorities of each of the following categories, in relation to the particular policy/decision? Specify details for each of the Section 75 categories. Section 75 category Religious belief Political opinion Racial group Age Marital status Sexual orientation Details of needs/experiences/priorities There is no evidence to suggest that the budget allocations will impact disproportionately on this Section 75 group. 42

43 Men and women generally Disability Dependants Reductions to support/grant funding may have a minor negative impact. Reductions to support/grant funding may have a minor negative impact. As Religious Belief Part 2. Screening questions Introduction In making a decision as to whether or not there is a need to carry out an equality impact assessment, policy makers should consider the answers to the four screening questions. If your conclusion is none in respect of all of the Section 75 equality of opportunity and/or good relations categories, then you may decide to screen the policy out. If a policy is screened out as having no relevance to equality of opportunity or good relations, you should give details of the reasons for the decision taken. If your conclusion is major in respect of one or more of the Section 75 equality of opportunity and/or good relations categories, then consideration should be given to subjecting the policy to the equality impact assessment procedure. If your conclusion is minor in respect of one or more of the Section 75 equality categories and/or good relations categories, then consideration should still be given to proceeding with an equality impact assessment, or to:- measures to mitigate the adverse impact; or the introduction of an alternative policy to better promote equality of opportunity and/or good relations. In favour of a major impact 43

44 a) The policy is significant in terms of its strategic importance; b) Potential equality impacts are unknown, because, for example, there is insufficient data upon which to make an assessment or because they are complex, and it would be appropriate to conduct an equality impact assessment in order to better assess them; c) Potential equality and/or good relations impacts are likely to be adverse or are likely to be experienced disproportionately by groups of people including those who are marginalised or disadvantaged; d) Further assessment offers a valuable way to examine the evidence and develop recommendations in respect of a policy about which there are concerns amongst affected individuals and representative groups, for example in respect of multiple identities; e) The policy is likely to be challenged by way of judicial review; f) The policy is significant in terms of expenditure. In favour of minor impact a) The policy is not unlawfully discriminatory and any residual potential impacts on people are judged to be negligible; b) The policy, or certain proposals within it, are potentially unlawfully discriminatory, but this possibility can readily and easily be eliminated by making appropriate changes to the policy or by adopting appropriate mitigating measures; c) Any asymmetrical equality impacts caused by the policy are intentional because they are specifically designed to promote equality of opportunity for particular groups of disadvantaged people; d) By amending the policy there are better opportunities to better promote equality of opportunity and/or good relations. In favour of none a) The policy has no relevance to equality of opportunity or good relations. 44

45 b) The policy is purely technical in nature and will have no bearing in terms of its likely impact on equality of opportunity or good relations for people within the equality and good relations categories. Taking into account the evidence presented above, consider and comment on the likely impact on equality of opportunity and good relations for those affected by this policy, in any way, for each of the equality and good relations categories, by applying the screening questions given overleaf and indicate the level of impact on the group i.e. minor, major or none. Screening questions 1 What is the likely impact on equality of opportunity for those affected by this policy, for each of the Section 75 equality categories? minor/major/none Section 75 category Details of policy impact Level of impact? minor/major/none Religious belief Political opinion The public consultation on the draft Departmental budget did not identify any negative impacts to this Section 75 group. None None Racial group None Age None Marital status None Sexual None 45

46 orientation Men and women generally Disability The budget allocations have included reduced funding to Community Places and Disability Action. These organisations provide advice on Planning issues to amongst others, people with disabilities, disadvantaged communities and other Section 75 groups. The reductions to funding may have a minor negative impact on this group. The budget allocations have included reduced funding to Community Places and Disability Action. These organisations provide advice on Planning issues to amongst others, people with disabilities, disadvantaged communities and other Section 75 groups. The reductions to funding may have a minor negative impact on this group. Minor - negative Minor negative Dependants As Religious belief. None 2 Are there opportunities to better promote equality of opportunity for people within the Section 75 equalities categories? Section 75 category If Yes, provide details If No, provide reasons Religious belief Political Within the constraints of a very challenging budgetary position the Department has worked to ensure that there are no disproportionate impacts on any section 75 groups and so not to decrease equality of opportunity. 46

47 opinion Racial group Age Marital status Sexual orientation Men and women generally Disability Dependants 3 To what extent is the policy likely to impact on good relations between people of different religious belief, political opinion or racial group? minor/major/none Good relations category Details of policy impact Level of impact minor/major/none Religious belief There will be no impact on good relations. None Political opinion None Racial group None 47

48 4 Are there opportunities to better promote good relations between people of different religious belief, political opinion or racial group? Good relations category If Yes, provide details If No, provide reasons Religious belief Political opinion Within the constraints of a very challenging budgetary position the Department has worked to ensure that there are no disproportionate impacts on any section 75 groups and so not to decrease equality of opportunity. Racial group Multiple identity Generally speaking, people can fall into more than one Section 75 category. Taking this into consideration, are there any potential impacts of the policy/decision on people with multiple identities? (For example; disabled minority ethnic people; disabled women; young Protestant men; and young lesbians, gay and bisexual people). Yes No Provide details of data on the impact of the policy on people with multiple identities. Specify relevant Section 75 categories concerned. N/A 48

49 Part 3. Screening decision If the decision is not to conduct an equality impact assessment, please provide details of the reasons. The Department s 2015/16 budget has been reduced by 10.7%. The reductions to the Planning Group include its support/grant funding programme. The reductions in funding to Disability Action and Community Places may have a minor negative impact on the groups serviced by these two organisations. As the impacts are minor an EQIA is not considered necessary. If the decision is not to conduct an equality impact assessment the policy maker should consider if the policy should be mitigated or an alternative policy be introduced. The budget reductions do not provide room for an alternative policy to be introduced and as the impact will be minor no Equality Impact Assessment is required. If the decision is to subject the policy to an equality impact assessment, please provide details of the reasons. N/A All public authorities equality schemes must state the authority s arrangements for assessing and consulting on the likely impact of policies adopted or proposed to be adopted by the authority on the promotion of equality of opportunity. The Commission recommends screening and equality impact assessment as the tools to be utilised for such assessments. Further advice on equality impact assessment may be found in a separate Commission publication: Practical Guidance on Equality Impact Assessment. Mitigation When you conclude that the likely impact is minor and an equality impact assessment is not to be conducted, you may consider mitigation to lessen the severity of any 49

50 equality impact, or the introduction of an alternative policy to better promote equality of opportunity or good relations. Can the policy/decision be amended or changed or an alternative policy introduced to better promote equality of opportunity and/or good relations? If so, give the reasons to support your decision, together with the proposed changes/amendments or alternative policy. The budget reductions do not provide room for an alternative policy to be introduced and as the impact will be minor no Equality Impact Assessment is required. Timetabling and prioritising Factors to be considered in timetabling and prioritising policies for equality impact assessment. If the policy has been screened in for equality impact assessment, then please answer the following questions to determine its priority for timetabling the equality impact assessment:- On a scale of 1-3, with 1 being the lowest priority and 3 being the highest, assess the policy in terms of its priority for equality impact assessment. Priority criterion Effect on equality of opportunity and good relations Rating (1-3) N/A Social need Effect on people s daily lives N/A N/A Relevance to a public authority s functions N/A 50

51 Note: The Total Rating Score should be used to prioritise the policy in rank order with other policies screened in for equality impact assessment. Is the policy affected by timetables established by other relevant public authorities? Yes No If yes, please provide details. Part 4 - Monitoring You should consider the guidance contained in the Commission s Monitoring Guidance for Use by Public Authorities (July 2007). The Commission recommends that where the policy has been amended or an alternative policy introduced, the Department should monitor more broadly than for adverse impact. Effective monitoring will help you to identify any future adverse impact arising from the policy which may lead to completion of an equality impact assessment, as well as help with future planning and policy development. Part 5 - Approval and authorisation (to be completed by Business Area) Screened by: Position/Job Title Date Terry Curran Grade 7 Acc (Acting) 16/02/15 Approved by: Anthony Carleton Director Finance and Business Planning 19/02/15 51

52 Note: A copy of the Screening Template, for each policy screened should be signed off by the policy maker, approved by a senior manager responsible for the policy and forwarded to the Department s Equality Team who will make the form available on the Department s website. Business areas should ensure that the form is made available on request. Part 6 Submission to Departmental Equality Team PLEASE FORWARD AN ELECTRONIC COPY OF THE COMPLETED FORM TO: [email protected] QUERIES TO: DOE EQUALITY TEAM 8 th FLOOR GOODWOOD HOUSE MAY STREET BELFAST BT1 4NN Angela Starkey, Ext [email protected] Jeff Johnston, Ext [email protected] 52

53 Appendix 1 Main Groups Relevant to the Section 75 Categories Category Religious belief Main Groups Protestants; Catholics; people of non-christian faiths; people of no religious belief Political opinion Unionists generally; Nationalists generally; members/supporters of any political party Racial Group White people; Chinese; Irish Travellers; Indians; Pakistanis; Bangladeshis; Black Africans; Black Caribbean people; people with mixed ethnic group Men and women generally Marital status Age Persons with a disability Men (including boys); women (including girls); transgendered people Married people; unmarried people; divorced or separated people; widowed people For most purposes, the main categories are: children under 18, people aged between 18-65, and people over 65. However, the definition of age groups will need to be sensitive to the policy under consideration Disability is defined as: A physical or mental impairment, which has a substantial and long-term adverse effect on a person s ability to carry out normal day-to-day activities as defined in Sections 1 and 2 and Schedules 1 and 2 of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 Persons dependants with Persons with personal responsibility for the care of a child; persons with personal responsibility for the care of a person with an incapacitating disability; persons with personal responsibility for the care of a dependant elderly person Sexual orientation Heterosexuals; bi-sexuals; gays; lesbians 53

54 DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT SECTION 75 EQUALITY OF OPPORTUNITY SCREENING ANALYSIS FORM Under Section 75 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998, the Department is required to have due regard to the need to promote equality of opportunity between the groups listed at Appendix 1. In addition, without prejudice to its obligations above, the Department is also required, in carrying out its functions relating to Northern Ireland, to have regard to the desirability of promoting good relations between persons of different religious beliefs, political opinion or racial group. This form is intended to help you to consider whether a new or revised policy (either internal or external) or legislation will require a full equality impact assessment (EQIA). Those policies identified as having significant implications for equality of opportunity must be subject to full EQIA. The form will provide a record of the factors taken into account if a policy is screened out, or excluded for EQIA. It will provide a basis for consultation on the outcome of the screening exercise and will be referenced in the Annual Report to the Equality Commission. Reference should be made to the outcome of the screening exercise and subsequent consultation in any submission made to the Minister. It is important that this screening form is completed carefully and thoughtfully. Your business area s Equality Representative and the Department s Equality Team (ext 54991/37061) will be happy to assist with all aspects of the screening process and will help with the completion of the form, if required. All screening forms should be signed off by the policy maker, approved by a senior manager responsible for the policy and sent to the Equality Team who will arrange to have them posted on the Department s website. Policy Title: DOE Budget Business Area: Road Safety Services (including DVA) Contact: Lucia O Connor 54

55 Screening flowchart and template Introduction Part 1. Policy scoping asks the Department to provide details about the policy, procedure, practice and/or decision being screened and what available evidence has been gathered to help make an assessment of the likely impact on equality of opportunity and good relations. Part 2. Screening questions asks about the extent of the likely impact of the policy on groups of people within each of the Section 75 categories. Details of the groups consulted and the level of assessment of the likely impact. This includes consideration of multiple identity and good relations issues. Part 3. Screening decision guides the Department to reach a screening decision as to whether or not there is a need to carry out an equality impact assessment (EQIA), or to introduce measures to mitigate the likely impact, or the introduction of an alternative policy to better promote equality of opportunity and/or good relations. Part 4. Monitoring provides guidance on monitoring for adverse impact and broader monitoring. Part 5. Approval and authorisation verifies the Department s approval of a screening decision by a senior manager responsible for the policy. All screening templates must be signed off by the relevant policy maker, approved by a senior manager responsible for the policy and forwarded to the Department s Equality Team for quality assurance, approval and publication on the Department s website. Part 6. Submission to the Departmental Equality Team Contact details for the Equality Team can be found in this section. 55

56

57 Part 1. Policy scoping The first stage of the screening process involves scoping the policy under consideration. The purpose of policy scoping is to help prepare the background and context and set out the aims and objectives for the policy, being screened. At this stage, scoping the policy will help identify potential constraints as well as opportunities and will help the policy maker work through the screening process on a step by step basis. Policy makers should remember that the Section 75 statutory duties apply to internal policies (relating to the Department s staff), as well as external policies (relating to those who are, or could be, served by the Department). Information about the policy Name of the policy DOE Budget Is this an existing, revised or a new policy? New policy What is it trying to achieve? (intended aims/outcomes) (Please give clear explanation of policy aims/outcomes) DOE s Budget has been reduced by 10.7%. The aim of this policy is to establish budget allocations across the Department to ensure that the Department can continue to meet its strategic objectives during whilst giving consideration to the need to promote equality of opportunity and regard to the desirability of promoting good relations. Are there any Section 75 categories which might be expected to benefit from the intend policy? If so, explain how. No Who initiated or wrote the policy? Finance & Business Planning Division 57

58 Who owns and who implements the policy? DOE Background The overall aim of the DOE is to protect and improve the environment, promote and protect community well being and support a sustainable economy and strong effective local government. Key spending areas The Department s key spending areas are as follows: Creating prosperity and well being through effective environmental and heritage management and regulation; Delivering improved road safety and better regulation of the transport sector; Support and consolidate the new planning system ; and Support the consolidation of new local government structures. Budget Outcome Under the final Budget for , the DOE s non ring-fenced Resource Departmental Expenditure Limit (DEL) budget was reduced by 10.7% to million. The Department has also been allocated 3.5 million in ring-fenced Resource DEL, relating mainly to depreciation charges, Capital funding of 7.5 million and Financial Transactions Capital funding of 50.5 million. Key issues/challenges in Reductions of such magnitude in non ring-fenced resource DEL means that will be an exceptionally challenging year for the DOE. The financial allocations in the final Budget may have some implications for the services provided by the DOE and for its clients, stakeholders and staff. In order to deliver on its core statutory obligations and ensure protection of public health the Department will have to reduce activity across a wide range of discretionary functions, and withdraw funding to a wide range of external bodies while seeking to implement substantial reductions in staff numbers under central Civil Service voluntary exit schemes. It will be necessary to make immediate and substantial reductions in key statutory rates support payments to councils. This may impact negatively on those less well off councils that have access to these grant payments to help make good the difference between their rates 58

59 income and the money they need to maintain parity of service provision with more wealthy councils. Implementation factors Are there any factors which could contribute to/detract from the intended aim/outcome of the policy/decision? Yes No If yes, are they financial legislative other, please specify: Main stakeholders affected Who are the internal and external stakeholders (actual or potential) that the policy will impact upon? staff service users other public sector organisations voluntary/community/trade unions other, please specify: 59

60 Other policies with a bearing on this policy what are they? NI Executive Final Budget who owns them? NI Executive Available evidence Evidence to help inform the screening process may take many forms. Policy makers should ensure that their screening decision is informed by relevant data. What evidence/information (both qualitative and quantitative) have you gathered to inform this policy? Please specify details for each of the Section 75 categories. For further advice please contact Analytical Services Branch (ASB), (Gary Ewing, ext 40245) or the Equality Team (Angela Starkey, ext or Jeff Johnston, ext 37061). Section 75 category Religious belief Political opinion Racial group Age Marital status Sexual Details of evidence/information There is no evidence to suggest that the budget allocations will impact disproportionately on this Section 75 group. 60

61 orientation Men and women generally Disability Dependants Needs, experiences and priorities Taking into account the information referred to above, what are the different needs, experiences and priorities of each of the following categories, in relation to the particular policy/decision? Specify details for each of the Section 75 categories. Section 75 category Religious belief Political opinion Racial group Age Marital status Sexual orientation Men and Details of needs/experiences/priorities The budget allocations will not impact disproportionately on this group. 61

62 women generally Disability Dependants Part 2. Screening questions Introduction In making a decision as to whether or not there is a need to carry out an equality impact assessment, policy makers should consider the answers to the four screening questions. If your conclusion is none in respect of all of the Section 75 equality of opportunity and/or good relations categories, then you may decide to screen the policy out. If a policy is screened out as having no relevance to equality of opportunity or good relations, you should give details of the reasons for the decision taken. If your conclusion is major in respect of one or more of the Section 75 equality of opportunity and/or good relations categories, then consideration should be given to subjecting the policy to the equality impact assessment procedure. If your conclusion is minor in respect of one or more of the Section 75 equality categories and/or good relations categories, then consideration should still be given to proceeding with an equality impact assessment, or to:- measures to mitigate the adverse impact; or the introduction of an alternative policy to better promote equality of opportunity and/or good relations. In favour of a major impact a) The policy is significant in terms of its strategic importance; 62

63 b) Potential equality impacts are unknown, because, for example, there is insufficient data upon which to make an assessment or because they are complex, and it would be appropriate to conduct an equality impact assessment in order to better assess them; c) Potential equality and/or good relations impacts are likely to be adverse or are likely to be experienced disproportionately by groups of people including those who are marginalised or disadvantaged; d) Further assessment offers a valuable way to examine the evidence and develop recommendations in respect of a policy about which there are concerns amongst affected individuals and representative groups, for example in respect of multiple identities; e) The policy is likely to be challenged by way of judicial review; f) The policy is significant in terms of expenditure. In favour of minor impact a) The policy is not unlawfully discriminatory and any residual potential impacts on people are judged to be negligible; b) The policy, or certain proposals within it, are potentially unlawfully discriminatory, but this possibility can readily and easily be eliminated by making appropriate changes to the policy or by adopting appropriate mitigating measures; c) Any asymmetrical equality impacts caused by the policy are intentional because they are specifically designed to promote equality of opportunity for particular groups of disadvantaged people; d) By amending the policy there are better opportunities to better promote equality of opportunity and/or good relations. In favour of none a) The policy has no relevance to equality of opportunity or good relations. b) The policy is purely technical in nature and will have no bearing in terms of its likely impact on equality of opportunity or good relations for people within the equality and good relations categories. 63

64 Taking into account the evidence presented above, consider and comment on the likely impact on equality of opportunity and good relations for those affected by this policy, in any way, for each of the equality and good relations categories, by applying the screening questions given overleaf and indicate the level of impact on the group i.e. minor, major or none. Screening questions 1 What is the likely impact on equality of opportunity for those affected by this policy, for each of the Section 75 equality categories? minor/major/none Section 75 category Details of policy impact Level of impact? minor/major/none Religious belief Political opinion The public consultation on the draft Departmental budget did not identify any negative impacts to this Section 75 group. None None Racial group None Age None Marital status None Sexual orientation None Men and women 64 None

65 generally Disability None Dependants None 2 Are there opportunities to better promote equality of opportunity for people within the Section 75 equalities categories? Section 75 category If Yes, provide details If No, provide reasons Religious belief Within the constraints of a very challenging budgetary position the Department has worked to ensure that there are no disproportionate impacts on any section 75 groups and so not to decrease equality of opportunity. Political opinion Racial group Age Marital status Sexual orientation Men and 65

66 women generally Disability Dependants 3 To what extent is the policy likely to impact on good relations between people of different religious belief, political opinion or racial group? minor/major/none Good relations category Details of policy impact Level of impact minor/major/none Religious belief There will be no impact on good relations. None Political opinion None Racial group None 4 Are there opportunities to better promote good relations between people of different religious belief, political opinion or racial group? Good relations category If Yes, provide details If No, provide reasons Religious belief Political Within the constraints of a very challenging budgetary position the Department has worked to ensure that there are no disproportionate impacts on any section 75 groups and so not to decrease equality of opportunity. 66

67 opinion Racial group Multiple identity Generally speaking, people can fall into more than one Section 75 category. Taking this into consideration, are there any potential impacts of the policy/decision on people with multiple identities? (For example; disabled minority ethnic people; disabled women; young Protestant men; and young lesbians, gay and bisexual people). Yes No Provide details of data on the impact of the policy on people with multiple identities. Specify relevant Section 75 categories concerned. N/A Part 3. Screening decision If the decision is not to conduct an equality impact assessment, please provide details of the reasons. Whilst there is a reduction in the Road Safety Communications budget the reductions will not impact disproportionately on any Section 75 group and as such a full EQIA is not considered necessary. If the decision is not to conduct an equality impact assessment the policy maker should consider if the policy should be mitigated or an alternative policy be introduced. N/A 67

68 If the decision is to subject the policy to an equality impact assessment, please provide details of the reasons. N/A All public authorities equality schemes must state the authority s arrangements for assessing and consulting on the likely impact of policies adopted or proposed to be adopted by the authority on the promotion of equality of opportunity. The Commission recommends screening and equality impact assessment as the tools to be utilised for such assessments. Further advice on equality impact assessment may be found in a separate Commission publication: Practical Guidance on Equality Impact Assessment. Mitigation When you conclude that the likely impact is minor and an equality impact assessment is not to be conducted, you may consider mitigation to lessen the severity of any equality impact, or the introduction of an alternative policy to better promote equality of opportunity or good relations. Can the policy/decision be amended or changed or an alternative policy introduced to better promote equality of opportunity and/or good relations? If so, give the reasons to support your decision, together with the proposed changes/amendments or alternative policy. N/A Timetabling and prioritising Factors to be considered in timetabling and prioritising policies for equality impact assessment. If the policy has been screened in for equality impact assessment, then please answer the following questions to determine its priority for timetabling the equality impact assessment:- 68

69 On a scale of 1-3, with 1 being the lowest priority and 3 being the highest, assess the policy in terms of its priority for equality impact assessment. Priority criterion Effect on equality of opportunity and good relations Social need Effect on people s daily lives Rating (1-3) N/A N/A N/A Relevance to a public authority s functions N/A Note: The Total Rating Score should be used to prioritise the policy in rank order with other policies screened in for equality impact assessment. Is the policy affected by timetables established by other relevant public authorities? Yes No If yes, please provide details. Part 4 - Monitoring You should consider the guidance contained in the Commission s Monitoring Guidance for Use by Public Authorities (July 2007). The Commission recommends that where the policy has been amended or an alternative policy introduced, the Department should monitor more broadly than for adverse impact. Effective monitoring will help you to identify any future adverse impact arising from the policy which may lead to completion of an equality impact assessment, as well as help with future planning and policy development. 69

70 Part 5 - Approval and authorisation (to be completed by Business Area) Screened by: Position/Job Title Date Lucia O Connor Grade 7 Finance 17/2/15 Approved by: Anthony Carleton Director of Finance and Business Planning 19/2/15 Note: A copy of the Screening Template, for each policy screened should be signed off by the policy maker, approved by a senior manager responsible for the policy and forwarded to the Department s Equality Team who will make the form available on the Department s website. Business areas should ensure that the form is made available on request. Part 6 Submission to Departmental Equality Team PLEASE FORWARD AN ELECTRONIC COPY OF THE COMPLETED FORM TO: [email protected] QUERIES TO: DOE EQUALITY TEAM 8 th FLOOR GOODWOOD HOUSE MAY STREET BELFAST BT1 4NN Angela Starkey, Ext [email protected] Jeff Johnston, Ext [email protected] 70

71 Appendix 1 Main Groups Relevant to the Section 75 Categories Category Religious belief Main Groups Protestants; Catholics; people of non-christian faiths; people of no religious belief Political opinion Unionists generally; Nationalists generally; members/supporters of any political party Racial Group White people; Chinese; Irish Travellers; Indians; Pakistanis; Bangladeshis; Black Africans; Black Caribbean people; people with mixed ethnic group Men and women generally Marital status Age Persons with a disability Men (including boys); women (including girls); transgendered people Married people; unmarried people; divorced or separated people; widowed people For most purposes, the main categories are: children under 18, people aged between 18-65, and people over 65. However, the definition of age groups will need to be sensitive to the policy under consideration Disability is defined as: A physical or mental impairment, which has a substantial and long-term adverse effect on a person s ability to carry out normal day-to-day activities as defined in Sections 1 and 2 and Schedules 1 and 2 of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 Persons dependants with Persons with personal responsibility for the care of a child; persons with personal responsibility for the care of a person with an incapacitating disability; persons with personal responsibility for the care of a dependant elderly person Sexual orientation Heterosexuals; bi-sexuals; gays; lesbians 71

72 DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT SECTION 75 EQUALITY OF OPPORTUNITY SCREENING ANALYSIS FORM Under Section 75 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998, the Department is required to have due regard to the need to promote equality of opportunity between the groups listed at Appendix 1. In addition, without prejudice to its obligations above, the Department is also required, in carrying out its functions relating to Northern Ireland, to have regard to the desirability of promoting good relations between persons of different religious beliefs, political opinion or racial group. This form is intended to help you to consider whether a new or revised policy (either internal or external) or legislation will require a full equality impact assessment (EQIA). Those policies identified as having significant implications for equality of opportunity must be subject to full EQIA. The form will provide a record of the factors taken into account if a policy is screened out, or excluded for EQIA. It will provide a basis for consultation on the outcome of the screening exercise and will be referenced in the Annual Report to the Equality Commission. Reference should be made to the outcome of the screening exercise and subsequent consultation in any submission made to the Minister. It is important that this screening form is completed carefully and thoughtfully. Your business area s Equality Representative and the Department s Equality Team (ext 54991/37061) will be happy to assist with all aspects of the screening process and will help with the completion of the form, if required. All screening forms should be signed off by the policy maker, approved by a senior manager responsible for the policy and sent to the Equality Team who will arrange to have them posted on the Department s website. Policy Title: DOE Budget Business Area: Local Government Contact: Terry Curran 72

73 Screening flowchart and template Introduction Part 1. Policy scoping asks the Department to provide details about the policy, procedure, practice and/or decision being screened and what available evidence has been gathered to help make an assessment of the likely impact on equality of opportunity and good relations. Part 2. Screening questions asks about the extent of the likely impact of the policy on groups of people within each of the Section 75 categories. Details of the groups consulted and the level of assessment of the likely impact. This includes consideration of multiple identity and good relations issues. Part 3. Screening decision guides the Department to reach a screening decision as to whether or not there is a need to carry out an equality impact assessment (EQIA), or to introduce measures to mitigate the likely impact, or the introduction of an alternative policy to better promote equality of opportunity and/or good relations. Part 4. Monitoring provides guidance on monitoring for adverse impact and broader monitoring. Part 5. Approval and authorisation verifies the Department s approval of a screening decision by a senior manager responsible for the policy. All screening templates must be signed off by the relevant policy maker, approved by a senior manager responsible for the policy and forwarded to the Department s Equality Team for quality assurance, approval and publication on the Department s website. Part 6. Submission to the Departmental Equality Team Contact details for the Equality Team can be found in this section. 73

74

75 Part 1. Policy scoping The first stage of the screening process involves scoping the policy under consideration. The purpose of policy scoping is to help prepare the background and context and set out the aims and objectives for the policy, being screened. At this stage, scoping the policy will help identify potential constraints as well as opportunities and will help the policy maker work through the screening process on a step by step basis. Policy makers should remember that the Section 75 statutory duties apply to internal policies (relating to the Department s staff), as well as external policies (relating to those who are, or could be, served by the Department). Information about the policy Name of the policy DOE Budget Is this an existing, revised or a new policy? New policy What is it trying to achieve? (intended aims/outcomes) (Please give clear explanation of policy aims/outcomes) DOE s Budget has been reduced by 10.7%. The aim of this policy is to establish budget allocations across the Department to ensure that the Department can continue to meet its strategic objectives during whilst giving consideration to the need to promote equality of opportunity and regard to the desirability of promoting good relations. Are there any Section 75 categories which might be expected to benefit from intended policy? If so, explain how. No Who initiated or wrote the policy? Finance & Business Planning Division 75

76 Who owns and who implements the policy? DOE Background The overall aim of the DOE is to protect and improve the environment, promote and protect community well being and support a sustainable economy and strong effective local government. Key spending areas The Department s key spending areas are as follows: Creating prosperity and well being through effective environmental and heritage management and regulation; Delivering improved road safety and better regulation of the transport sector; Support and consolidate the new planning system ; and Support the consolidation of new local government structures. Budget Outcome Under the final Budget for , the DOE s non ring-fenced Resource Departmental Expenditure Limit (DEL) budget was reduced by 10.7% to million. The Department has also been allocated 3.5 million in ring-fenced Resource DEL, relating mainly to depreciation charges, Capital funding of 7.5 million and Financial Transactions Capital funding of 50.5 million. Key issues/challenges in Reductions of such magnitude in non ring-fenced resource DEL means that will be an exceptionally challenging year for the DOE. The financial allocations in the final Budget may have some implications for the services provided by the DOE and for its clients, stakeholders and staff. In order to deliver on its core statutory obligations and ensure protection of public health the Department will have to reduce activity across a wide range of discretionary functions, and withdraw funding to a wide range of external bodies while seeking to implement substantial reductions in staff numbers under central Civil Service voluntary exit schemes. It will be necessary to make immediate and substantial reductions in key statutory rates support payments to councils. This may impact negatively on those less well off 76

77 councils that have access to these grant payments to help make good the difference between their rates income and the money they need to maintain parity of service provision with more wealthy councils. Implementation factors Are there any factors which could contribute to/detract from the intended aim/outcome of the policy/decision? Yes No If yes, are they financial legislative other, please specify: Main stakeholders affected Who are the internal and external stakeholders (actual or potential) that the policy will impact upon? staff service users other public sector organisations voluntary/community/trade unions other, please specify: 77

78 Other policies with a bearing on this policy what are they? NI Executive Final Budget who owns them? NI Executive Available evidence Evidence to help inform the screening process may take many forms. Policy makers should ensure that their screening decision is informed by relevant data. What evidence/information (both qualitative and quantitative) have you gathered to inform this policy? Please specify details for each of the Section 75 categories. For further advice please contact Analytical Services Branch (ASB), (Gary Ewing, ext 40245) or the Equality Team (Angela Starkey, ext or Jeff Johnston, ext 37061). Section 75 category Religious belief Political opinion Racial group Age Marital status Sexual orientation Details of evidence/information The budget reductions in the grants to local councils may have a minor negative impact on this Section 75 group. 78

79 Men and women generally Disability Dependants Needs, experiences and priorities Taking into account the information referred to above, what are the different needs, experiences and priorities of each of the following categories, in relation to the particular policy/decision? Specify details for each of the Section 75 categories. Section 75 category Religious belief Political opinion Racial group Age Marital status Details of needs/experiences/priorities The budget allocations may have a minor negative impact on this Section 75 group. Sexual orientation Men and women 79

80 generally Disability Dependants Part 2. Screening questions Introduction In making a decision as to whether or not there is a need to carry out an equality impact assessment, policy makers should consider the answers to the four screening questions. If your conclusion is none in respect of all of the Section 75 equality of opportunity and/or good relations categories, then you may decide to screen the policy out. If a policy is screened out as having no relevance to equality of opportunity or good relations, you should give details of the reasons for the decision taken. If your conclusion is major in respect of one or more of the Section 75 equality of opportunity and/or good relations categories, then consideration should be given to subjecting the policy to the equality impact assessment procedure. If your conclusion is minor in respect of one or more of the Section 75 equality categories and/or good relations categories, then consideration should still be given to proceeding with an equality impact assessment, or to:- measures to mitigate the adverse impact; or the introduction of an alternative policy to better promote equality of opportunity and/or good relations. In favour of a major impact a) The policy is significant in terms of its strategic importance; 80

81 b) Potential equality impacts are unknown, because, for example, there is insufficient data upon which to make an assessment or because they are complex, and it would be appropriate to conduct an equality impact assessment in order to better assess them; c) Potential equality and/or good relations impacts are likely to be adverse or are likely to be experienced disproportionately by groups of people including those who are marginalised or disadvantaged; d) Further assessment offers a valuable way to examine the evidence and develop recommendations in respect of a policy about which there are concerns amongst affected individuals and representative groups, for example in respect of multiple identities; e) The policy is likely to be challenged by way of judicial review; f) The policy is significant in terms of expenditure. In favour of minor impact a) The policy is not unlawfully discriminatory and any residual potential impacts on people are judged to be negligible; b) The policy, or certain proposals within it, are potentially unlawfully discriminatory, but this possibility can readily and easily be eliminated by making appropriate changes to the policy or by adopting appropriate mitigating measures; c) Any asymmetrical equality impacts caused by the policy are intentional because they are specifically designed to promote equality of opportunity for particular groups of disadvantaged people; d) By amending the policy there are better opportunities to better promote equality of opportunity and/or good relations. In favour of none a) The policy has no relevance to equality of opportunity or good relations. b) The policy is purely technical in nature and will have no bearing in terms of its likely impact on equality of opportunity or good relations for people within the equality and good relations categories. 81

82 Taking into account the evidence presented above, consider and comment on the likely impact on equality of opportunity and good relations for those affected by this policy, in any way, for each of the equality and good relations categories, by applying the screening questions given overleaf and indicate the level of impact on the group i.e. minor, major or none. Screening questions 1 What is the likely impact on equality of opportunity for those affected by this policy, for each of the Section 75 equality categories? minor/major/none Section 75 category Details of policy impact Level of impact? minor/major/none Religious belief The budget reductions in the grants provided to local councils may have a minor negative impact. Minor Political opinion Minor Racial group Minor Age Minor Marital status Minor Sexual orientation Minor Men and women 82 Minor

83 generally Disability Minor Dependants Minor 2 Are there opportunities to better promote equality of opportunity for people within the Section 75 equalities categories? Section 75 category If Yes, provide details If No, provide reasons Religious belief Political opinion Within the constraints of a very challenging budgetary position the Department has worked to ensure that there are no disproportionate impacts on any section 75 groups and so not to decrease equality of opportunity. Racial group Age Marital status Sexual orientation Men and women 83

84 generally Disability Dependants 3 To what extent is the policy likely to impact on good relations between people of different religious belief, political opinion or racial group? minor/major/none Good relations category Details of policy impact Level of impact minor/major/none Religious belief There will be no impact on good relations. None Political opinion None Racial group None 4 Are there opportunities to better promote good relations between people of different religious belief, political opinion or racial group? Good relations category If Yes, provide details If No, provide reasons Religious belief Within the constraints of a very challenging budgetary position the Department has worked to ensure that there are no disproportionate impacts on any section 75 groups and so not to decrease equality of opportunity. Political 84

85 opinion Racial group Multiple identity Generally speaking, people can fall into more than one Section 75 category. Taking this into consideration, are there any potential impacts of the policy/decision on people with multiple identities? (For example; disabled minority ethnic people; disabled women; young Protestant men; and young lesbians, gay and bisexual people). Yes No Provide details of data on the impact of the policy on people with multiple identities. Specify relevant Section 75 categories concerned. N/A Part 3. Screening decision If the decision is not to conduct an equality impact assessment, please provide details of the reasons. The Department s 2015/16 budget has been reduced by 10.7%. The reductions to Local Government grants may have a minor negative impact on the Section 75 groups and it may be necessary for each council to carry out an EQIA on the impact of the specific reductions to the Section 75 groups. An EQIA is not considered necessary by the Department as we will be bidding for additional funding during the monitoring rounds in 2015/16. If the decision is not to conduct an equality impact assessment the policy maker should consider if the policy should be mitigated or an alternative policy be introduced. 85

86 N/A If the decision is to subject the policy to an equality impact assessment, please provide details of the reasons. N/A All public authorities equality schemes must state the authority s arrangements for assessing and consulting on the likely impact of policies adopted or proposed to be adopted by the authority on the promotion of equality of opportunity. The Commission recommends screening and equality impact assessment as the tools to be utilised for such assessments. Further advice on equality impact assessment may be found in a separate Commission publication: Practical Guidance on Equality Impact Assessment. Mitigation When you conclude that the likely impact is minor and an equality impact assessment is not to be conducted, you may consider mitigation to lessen the severity of any equality impact, or the introduction of an alternative policy to better promote equality of opportunity or good relations. Can the policy/decision be amended or changed or an alternative policy introduced to better promote equality of opportunity and/or good relations? If so, give the reasons to support your decision, together with the proposed changes/amendments or alternative policy. In order to mitigate any potential adverse impact of the budget reductions to the statutory rate support payments to the less well off councils the Department will seek to bid for additional funding in the monitoring rounds during the 2015/16 financial year. Timetabling and prioritising 86

87 Factors to be considered in timetabling and prioritising policies for equality impact assessment. If the policy has been screened in for equality impact assessment, then please answer the following questions to determine its priority for timetabling the equality impact assessment:- On a scale of 1-3, with 1 being the lowest priority and 3 being the highest, assess the policy in terms of its priority for equality impact assessment. Priority criterion Effect on equality of opportunity and good relations Rating (1-3) N/A Social need Effect on people s daily lives Relevance to a public authority s functions N/A N/A N/A Note: The Total Rating Score should be used to prioritise the policy in rank order with other policies screened in for equality impact assessment. Is the policy affected by timetables established by other relevant public authorities? Yes No If yes, please provide details. Part 4 - Monitoring You should consider the guidance contained in the Commission s Monitoring Guidance for Use by Public Authorities (July 2007). 87

88 The Commission recommends that where the policy has been amended or an alternative policy introduced, the Department should monitor more broadly than for adverse impact. Effective monitoring will help you to identify any future adverse impact arising from the policy which may lead to completion of an equality impact assessment, as well as help with future planning and policy development. Part 5 - Approval and authorisation (to be completed by Business Area) Screened by: Position/Job Title Date Terry Curran Grade 7 Acc (Acting) 16/02/15 Approved by: Anthony Carleton Director of Finance and Business Planning 19/02/15 Note: A copy of the Screening Template, for each policy screened should be signed off by the policy maker, approved by a senior manager responsible for the policy and forwarded to the Department s Equality Team who will make the form available on the Department s website. Business areas should ensure that the form is made available on request. Part 6 Submission to Departmental Equality Team PLEASE FORWARD AN ELECTRONIC COPY OF THE COMPLETED FORM TO: [email protected] QUERIES TO: DOE EQUALITY TEAM 8 th FLOOR GOODWOOD HOUSE MAY STREET BELFAST BT1 4NN Angela Starkey, Ext [email protected] Jeff Johnston, Ext [email protected] 88