Section 75 Screening Form - Safeguarding and Child Protection Policy

Download this screening form as a PDF (32 pages, 410KB)

View the full list of the Section 75 Statutory Equality Duties for Public Authorities.

The promotion of equality of opportunity entails more than the elimination of discrimination. It may also require proactive measures to be taken to maintain and secure equality of opportunity.

Section 75 (1) requires the Assembly Commission in carrying out its functions, powers and duties to have due regard to the need to promote equality of opportunity between:

• persons of different religious belief, political opinion, racial group, age, marital status, or sexual orientation
• men and women generally
• persons with a disability and persons without
• persons with dependants and persons without.

Without prejudice to the obligations set out above, the Commission is also required to:

a) have regard to the desirability of promoting good relations between persons of different

• religious belief
• political opinion; or
• racial group

b) meet legislative obligations under the Disability Discrimination Order.

What is a policy?

The Equality Commission for Northern Ireland (ECNI) state in their guidance that the term 'policy' is used to denote any strategy, policy (proposed/amended/existing) or practice and/or decision, whether written or unwritten. The Commission's Equality Scheme reflects the ECNI's definition of a policy and this should be applied in determining what needs to be screened. The Equality Scheme states:

"In the context of Section 75, 'policy' is very broadly defined and it covers all the ways in which we carry out, or propose to carry out, our functions in relation to Northern Ireland. In respect of this equality scheme, the term policy is used for any (proposed / amended / existing) strategy, policy initiative or practice and/or decision, whether written or unwritten and irrespective of the label given to it, e.g. 'draft', 'pilot', 'high level' or 'sectoral'."

If you are in doubt, please contact the Equality and Good Relations Unit for advice. Equality screening guidance notes are also available on Assist.

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 to 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.

The ECNI, in their 'model equality screening form', note that public authorities should remember that the Section 75 statutory duties apply to internal policies (relating to people who work for the authority), as well as external policies (relating to those who are, or could be, served by the authority).

Policy Details

Name of the policy to be screened/description:

Safeguarding and Child Protection Policy

Is this policy an existing, new or revised policy? (Please append policy to screening form)

Revised Policy - view the Safeguarding and Child Protection

What is it trying to achieve? (brief outline of intended aims/outcomes of the policy)

The purpose of the Policy is to:

• Support the promotion of a safe working environment and a culture of care in which the rights of all children and vulnerable adults are protected and respected;
• Clarify the roles and responsibilities of all parties working within the scope of the Policy;
• Provide clear guidance and procedures for those working with children and vulnerable adults; and
• Promote best practice in how Commission staff interact with children and vulnerable adults attending Parliament Buildings, or events sponsored by the Assembly Commission at other venues.

Are any of the Section 75 categories which might be expected to benefit from the intended policy/decision? Please explain how.

The policy is titled 'Safeguarding and Child Protection Policy and covers children and vulnerable adults.

Both of these categories are covered under section 75 in relation to the categories of AGE and/or DISABILITY but not from an Assembly Commission staff perspective but instead from persons protected under the Policy. The policy details the arrangements that the Assembly Commission has established to provide a safe environment for children and vulnerable adults.

Who initiated or wrote the policy?

The Safeguarding and Child Protection Policy has been developed by the HR Office in consultation with relevant Business Areas. The Head of Security and Usher Services has been consulted on the changes to the Security Clearance Policy. Formal consultation has been completed with Trade Union Side.

Directorate responsible for devising and delivering the policy?

Corporate Services

Was consultation carried out as part of this screening exercise?

Yes

Background to the Policy to be screened

Include details of any pre- consultations/consultations which have been conducted and whether the policy has previously been tabled at SMT/ Assembly Commission meetings.

At their meeting on 4 July 2024, SMT approved (subject to minor amendments to the draft Policies) that formal consultation should commence with Trade Union Side. Consultation is now complete. Trade Union Side agreed the policy versions which will be presented to SMT in October 2024.

Implementation factors

Are there any factors which could contribute to/detract from the intended aim/outcome of the policy/decision?

No

If yes, are they

Financial

• Legislative
• Other, please specify:

No option selected.

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 policies with a bearing on this policy

What are these policies and who owns them? Please list:

• Security Clearance Policy (Ushering)
• Standards of Conduct (HR)
• Discipline (HR)
• Data Protection Policy (Governance Services)

Consideration of available data/research

(This means any data or information you currently hold in relation to the policy or have gathered/generated during policy development). Evidence to inform the screening process may take many forms and should help you to decide who the policy might affect the most. It will also help ensure that your screening decision is informed by relevant data.

What evidence/information (both qualitative and quantitative) have you gathered to inform this policy?

For example, is there any evidence of higher or lower participation or uptake by different groups? Specify details for each of the Section 75 categories.

Section 75 category and details of evidence/information

Religious belief

HR data as at 1 May 2024.

Community background profile of Assembly Commission employees

Community background profile by grade

Political opinion

Currently we do not have any data on the political opinion of our staff. The ECNI has advised that data on Religious Belief can be used as a proxy for political opinion.

Racial group

Assembly Commission Section 75 Staff Survey results as at 26 March 2024.

It should be noted that a total of 195 responses were received to the survey representing 61 per cent of all permanent Assembly Commission staff.

Age

HR data as at 1 May 2024.

Age profile of Assembly Commission employees

Age profile by grade

Marital status

Assembly Commission Section 75 Staff Survey results as at 24 March 2024.

It should be noted that a total of 195 responses were received to the survey representing 61 per cent of all permanent Assembly Commission staff.

Sexual orientation

Assembly Commission Section 75 Staff Survey results as at 24 March 2024.

It should be noted that a total of 195 responses were received to the survey representing 61 per cent of all permanent Assembly Commission staff.

Men and women generally

HR data as at 1 May 2024.

Gender profile of Assembly Commission employees

Gender profile by grade

Disability

Assembly Commission Section 75 Staff Survey results as at 24 March 2024.

It should be noted that a total of 195 responses were received to the survey representing 61 per cent of all permanent Assembly Commission staff.

Type of Disability.

N.B. Percentages do not add up to 100, as some respondents have more than one disability.

Dependants

Assembly Commission Section 75 Staff Survey results as at 24 March 2024.

It should be noted that a total of 195 responses were received to the survey representing 61 per cent of all permanent Assembly Commission staff.

N.B. Percentages do not add up to 100, as some respondents have more than one caring responsibility.

Current Assessment of Impact

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? and what is the actual or likely impact on equality of opportunity for those affected by the policy. (See appendix 1 for information on levels of impact).

Specify details of the needs, experiences and priorities for each of the Section 75 categories below:

Section 75 category

Religious belief

Needs/experiences/priorities/impacts: None as Policy applies to all staff

Impact Level: None

Political opinion

Needs/experiences/priorities/impacts: None as Policy applies to all staff

Impact Level: None

Racial group

Needs/experiences/priorities/impacts: None as Policy applies to all staff

Impact Level: None

Age

Needs/experiences/priorities/impacts: None as Policy applies to all staff

Impact Level: None

Marital status

Needs/experiences/priorities/impacts: None as Policy applies to all staff

Impact Level: None

Sexual orientation

Needs/experiences/priorities/impacts: None as Policy applies to all staff

Impact Level: None

Men and women

Needs/experiences/priorities/impacts: None as Policy applies to all staff

Impact Level: None

Disability

Needs/experiences/priorities/impacts: None as Policy applies to all staff

Impact Level: None

Dependants

Needs/experiences/priorities/impacts: None as Policy applies to all staff

Impact Level: None

If you do not have enough data to tell you about potential or actual impacts, you may need to generate more data to distinguish what groups are potentially affected by your policy.

Part 2 Screening Questions

What is the likely impact on equality of opportunity for those affected by this policy, for each of the Section 75 equality categories?

Section 75 category

Religious belief

Issues: None as Policy applies to all staff

Impact Level: None

Political opinion

Issues: None as Policy applies to all staff

Impact Level: None

Racial group

Issues: None as Policy applies to all staff

Impact Level: None

Age

Issues: None as Policy applies to all staff

Impact Level: None

Marital status

Issues: None as Policy applies to all staff

Impact Level: None

Sexual orientation

Issues: None as Policy applies to all staff

Impact Level: None

Men and women generally

Issues: None as Policy applies to all staff

Impact Level: None

Disability

Issues: None as Policy applies to all staff

Impact Level: None

Dependants

Issues: None as Policy applies to all staff

Impact Level: None

Are there any actions which could be taken to reduce or mitigate any adverse impact which has been identified, or opportunities to better promote equality of opportunity for people within the section 75 categories?

Section 75 category

Religious belief

Issue: No

Impact Level: None

Political opinion

Issue: no

Impact Level: None

Racial group

Issue: no

Impact Level: None

Age

Issue: no

Impact Level: None

Marital status

Issue: no

Impact Level: None

Sexual orientation

Issue: no

Impact Level: None

Men and women generally

Issue: no

Impact Level: None

Disability

Issue: no

Impact Level: None

Dependants

Issue: no

Impact Level: None

To what extent is the policy likely to impact on good relations between people of different religious belief, political opinion or racial group?

Good relations category

Religious belief

Details of policy Impact: None

Impact Level: None

Political opinion

Details of policy Impact: None

Impact Level: None

Racial group

Details of policy Impact: None

Impact Level: None

Are there opportunities to better promote good relations between people of different religious belief, political opinion or racial group?

Section 75 category

Religious belief

No, provide reasons: No scope within the Policy

Political opinion

No, provide reasons: As above

Racial group

No, provide reasons: As above

Consultation

Tell us about who you have talked to about your proposals, either internally or externally and who you have formally or informally consulted, to help you decide if the policy needs further equality investigation?

The Safeguarding and Child Protection Policy has been developed in consultation with relevant Business Areas. The Head of Security and Usher Services has been consulted on the changes to the Security Clearance Policy. Formal consultation has been completed with Trade Union Side. Senior HR Managers discussed the equality screening aspect of the Policy.

Disability Duties

Consider whether the policy:

a) Discourages disabled people from participating in public life and fails to promote positive attitudes towards disabled people.

The policy does not discourage disabled people from participating in public life nor fail to promote positive attitudes towards disabled people.

b) Provides an opportunity to better positive attitudes towards disabled people or encourages their participation in public life.

The policy promotes best practice in how Assembly Commission staff interact with children and vulnerable adults attending Parliament Buildings, or events sponsored by the Assembly Commission in other venues.

The policy supports the promotion of a safe working environment and a culture of care in which the rights of children and vulnerable adults are protected and respected.

Additional considerations

Multiple identities

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).

Provide details of data of the impact of the policy on people with multiple identities. Specify relevant Section 75 categories concerned.

No details added.

Part 3 Screening decision

Through screening, an assessment is made of the likely impacts; either major, minor or none, of the policy on equality of opportunity and/or good relations for the relevant categories. Completion of screening should lead to one of the following three outcomes: select the appropriate outcome:

• Screened out' i.e. the likely impact is none and no further action is required.
• 'Screened out' with mitigation i.e. the likely impact is minor and measures will be taken to mitigate the impact or an alternative policy will be proposed.
• 'Screened in' for an equality impact assessment (EQIA) i.e. the likely impact is major and the policy will now be subject to an EQIA.

Outcome selected: Screened out' i.e. the likely impact is none and no further action is required.

If the decision is not to conduct an equality impact assessment, please provide details of the reasons.

There was no evidence that there were any equality impacts on any of the section 75 categories.

If the decision is not to conduct an equality impact assessment, but the policy has minor equality impacts, please provide details of the reasons for this decision and of any proposed mitigating measures or proposed alternative policy.

No details added.

If the decision is to subject the policy to an equality impact assessment, please provide details of the reasons.

No details added.

Timetabling and prioritising for EQIA

Complete this section only if your business area/directorate plans to conduct two or more EQIAs.

Factors to be considered in timetabling and prioritising policies for equality impact assessment:

No factors added.

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.

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 or No?

Neither yes or no selected

Part 4 Monitoring

Effective monitoring will help identify any future adverse impact arising from the policy which may lead the public authority to conduct an equality impact assessment, as well as help with future planning and policy development.

The ECNI recommends that where a policy has been amended or an alternative policy introduced, the public authority should monitor more broadly for adverse impact. See ECNI Monitoring Guidance for use by Public Authorities (July 2007) pages 9-10, paragraphs 2.13 - 2.20

Please detail how you will monitor the effect of the policy?

No details provided.

What data is required in the future to ensure effective monitoring of the policy?

No details provided.

Part 5 Data Protection

If applicable, has legal advice been given due consideration?

• Yes
• No or
• N/A

Selected: No

Has due consideration been given to information security in relation to this policy?

• Yes or
• No

Selected: Yes

Part 6 Approval and authorisation

Screened by: Karen Martin

Position/Job Title: Deputy Head of HR

Date: Tuesday, 08 October 2024

Approved by: Sinead McDonnell, Head of HR

The policy lead should sign and date the policy under the 'screened by' heading. It should then be countersigned by an approver. The Approver should be the senior manager responsible for the policy which would normally be a Head of Business. In instances where a screening decision concludes that an EQIA is required then the screening form should be countersigned by the Director instead of the Head of Business.

There are of course a range of issues which may fall within the scope of being novel, contentious or politically sensitive and could only be taken forward following consultation with the Northern Ireland Assembly Commission (Assembly Commission). Where policy screening highlights novel, contentious or politically sensitive issues, once approved by the Director, the screening form should be forwarded to the Clerk/Chief Executive for review, prior to proceeding to SMT and the Assembly Commission.

A copy of the completed screening form, related policy and any other relevant associated documentation should be forwarded to the Equality Manager.

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION TO INFORM THE ANNUAL PROGRESS REPORT TO THE EQUALITY COMMISSION

1. Please provide details of any measures taken to enhance the level of engagement with individuals and representative groups.

No details added.

2. In developing this policy/decision were any changes made as a result of equality issues raised during:

1. pre-consultation/engagement;
2. formal consultation;
3. the screening process; and/or
4. monitoring/research findings.

If so, please provide a brief summary including how the issue was identified, what changes were made, and what will be the expected outcomes/impacts for those affected.

No details added.

3. Does this policy/decision include any measure(s) to improve access to services including the provision of information in accessible formats? If so, please provide a short summary.

No details added.

Appendix 1 Screening Questions

Introduction

In making a decision as to whether or not there is a need to carry out an equality impact assessment, you should consider your answers to the questions above.

In addition, the screening questions above further assist you in assessing your policy and must be completed. Some of these questions require you to assess the level of impact of the proposed policy on "equality of opportunity" and "good relations". The scale used when assessing this impact is either "None", "Minor" or "Major". The following paragraphs set out what each of these terms mean.

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;

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.