This material is copyright Derek Birrell, 1994, and is included on the CAIN site by permission of Edinburgh University Press. You may not edit, adapt, or redistribute changed versions of this for other than your personal use without the express written permission of the publishers. Redistribution for commercial purposes is not permitted.

A number of social policy initiatives have been introduced in Northern Ireland as part of the government's strategy for managing the conflict. Such responses have been designed specifically to address issues pertinent to the continuing violence and instability. They tend to have been directed at the mitigation of acute social deprivation, community divisions and violence. It is important to note that the range of policy options open to government is restricted by a number of factors influencing the content of initiatives, the funding of initiatives and the delivery of initiatives.

Constraints on social policy responses

(i) The parity principle
The principle of parity has dominated the development of social policies in Northern Ireland. The basic principle was first formally agreed between the Northern Ireland and United Kingdom governments in 1938 and implemented in a series of post war financial agreements. The parity principle enables Northern Ireland to aim at the same standard of social services as the rest of the United Kingdom. Its justification is usually couched in terms of the consequences of parity of taxation, political desirability or financial necessity (Ditch, 1988). Parity of services in its simplest form means that policies are kept in uniformity with Great Britain. The clearest example of parity is the social security system which has more or less been maintained in total parity. A Health Services Agreement required health services to be of the same scale and standard of services as in Great Britain although this did not prevent administrative differences. Under the devolved system of government at Stormont the parity principle did not cover all services and significant policy differences in housing, education and employment services emerged (Birrell and Murie, 1980). Since the introduction of Direct Rule from Westminster there has been a movement towards increasing parity with Britain across a whole range of services. Most social policy legislation has brought Northern Ireland policy and government more into line with Britain. Legislation in new areas of government concern, for example consumer affairs, has been extended almost automatically to Northern Ireland. Consequently there is relatively little discretion for Northern Ireland to have very distinctive social policy initiatives. Some major policy differences do remain, for example selective secondary schooling (Connolly and Loughlin, 1991), but generally the discretion lies at the margins of policy areas.

(ii) Financial constraints
As could be expected there are financial limitations on the scope for special social policy responses. Northern Ireland's public expenditure is seen as one regional resource to be allocated by the Secretary of State in line with policy priorities. The pattern of expenditure on comparable programmes in Great Britain has an important impact on Northern Ireland (Quigley, 1987). The government has used its discretion to give priority to public expenditure on law and order and industrial development. Between 1981 and 1986 priority was also accorded to expenditure on housing but the significant reduction in the gap between housing conditions in Northern Ireland and Great Britain persuaded the government to end priority status for housing. Northern Ireland has not escaped from pressure to reduce or keep public expenditure under control. However, overall public expenditure per capita has been nearly 40 per cent higher in Northern Ireland than in Great Britain.

Table 1 Per capita expenditure

Source: Expenditure Plans and priorities, HMSO (1993) Cmd.2216


Much of this is need-driven expenditure and the largest single item is social security accounting for 31 per cent of total public expenditure. An analysis by the Northern Ireland Economic Council (1981) argued that when account was taken of different administrative arrangements, the impact of national policies and law and order, extra expenditure or special needs may be fairly low, around 7 per cent. It is also the case that social expenditure by the European Community (Union) in Northern Ireland is relatively low, around £140 million in recent years. The overall pattern of public expenditure indicates that there can be discretion for special funding and that housing, job creation and law and order are the policy areas that have benefited most.

Table 2 Public spending by function

Source: Expenditure Plans and Priorities, HMSO (1993) Cmd.2216

(iii) The administrative system
The system of local government which exists in Northern Ireland has very few responsibilities for the delivery of social policies. In 1972 local authorities lost their powers for the major social and environmental services, education, social work, housing and planning. The existing district councils remain responsible for only a limited range of minor environmental, community, leisure and regulatory services. The major social services are administered either directly by central government departments, as in the cases of social security and planning or by statutory boards or 'quangos' as in the cases of housing and education. These changes have resulted in functional specialisation, the dominance of professional expertise and political impartiality. On the other hand it has made participation by local communities and political representatives more difficult and has made the co-ordination of services more problematic. There is no local body in Northern Ireland's main cities and towns to take an overall strategic view of urban development or co-ordinate services.



Responses to acute urban deprivation

The recognition of the prevalence of acute deprivation, particularly in urban areas, has underpinned several special initiatives. It has been long accepted that Northern Ireland is the least prosperous region of the United Kingdom and has high levels of poverty, unemployment, ill-health, low income and welfare dependency. The official unemployment rate reached a peak of 19 per cent in 1986 but has now declined to 14.6 per cent. Northern Ireland has the lowest average gross household income of any UK region and apart from pensioners has a larger proportion of its population receiving almost every kind of benefit (Bradshaw, 1989). However the incidence of social deprivation is not evenly spread and has been most acute in the inner areas of Belfast. In 1976 a Belfast Area of Needs Survey (BAN, 1976) used 39 indicators of social needs and characteristics to identify two main needs syndromes, unemployment/low family income and substandard housing/poor physical environment. The most deprived wards were concentrated in the west of the city along with the inner city. An updating of this data in 1987 found little change in the geographical distribution of deprivation. Multiple deprivation was still very evident in the inner city extending westwards from the city centre. Levels of unemployment and long-term unemployment remained particularly high. However, one indicator of deprivation did show a dramatic improvement with the proportion of unfit housing falling to 7 per cent reflecting the high levels of public expenditure on housing in the'70s and'80s. In the light of this statistical information the government has launched several urban initiatives.

(i) Making Belfast work
This is a programme of extra funding for government Departments to tackle problems of unemployment, low levels of skill, poor educational achievement, poor health and poor physical environment in the disadvantaged areas of Belfast. The official objectives of the programme are to stimulate employment opportunities and develop new businesses, ensure people in the areas can compete for available employment, involve the community and the private sector and improve the environment. The overall strategy was based on the philosophy that:

the real remedy, the cure rather than the treatment for the underlying disease of deprivation will come only from fundamental change to strengthen the economic activity and potential of those who live there. [Bloomfield, 1988]

There is little doubt that the government will continue to use special initiatives to help improve opportunities for people living in deprived urban areas. Such schemes do provide additional resources and assistance for disadvantaged areas and encourage innovative projects. However these urban initiatives have been subjected to a number of criticisms. It has been suggested that they are largely compensatory, filling in for public disinvestment caused by reductions in social security payments and cuts in services (Gaffikin and Morrissey, 1990a). Another criticism is that such schemes are pushing money into deprived urban areas in order to veer support away from paramilitaries. There have been instances of 'political vetting' leading to a refusal by government to fund certain groups and allegations of government support going mainly to safer groups such as those with church connections (Rolston and Tomlinson, 1988). A more fundamental question has been raised about neighbourhood economic regeneration. It may be unrealistic to expect private sector involvement given the limited scale of private sector operations in inner city areas and the traditional high dependence on the public sector. Edwards and Deakin (1992) have questioned the whole concept of inner city regeneration through the enterprise culture.



Responses to inequalities between the communities

Inequalities between Catholics and Protestant communities have been much publicised in Northern Ireland's history. The Cameron Commission (1969) investigation had identified discrimination in housing and employment, particularly in local government, as a major factor in the outbreak of civil disturbances. Subsequently the British government was to make action against discrimination in housing and employment a major objective of its package of social reforms. The fundamental reorganisation of public sector housing administration in 1971 led to the creation of a unique structure in the United Kingdom, the Northern Ireland Housing Executive, as a single comprehensive housing authority. This policy was justified in terms of the urgent need ' to introduce fair housing allocations and end housing shortages. The Housing Executive quickly introduced a model allocation scheme based on fairness and need and the principle that resources for housing should be distributed equally throughout the community. Twenty years on the Housing Executive can claim to have taken housing out of politics and ended allegations of sectarian discrimination in housing (Brett, 1980). Thus the establishment of this body can be seen as having successful policy outcomes but there is an important caveat to note. There may never have been a major problem with discrimination on public housing. The 1969 allegations were somewhat exaggerated, the Cameron Commission had little statistical evidence and the 1971 Census shows no evidence of systematic discrimination.

In employment, however, the pattern of disadvantage has continued. The Continuous Household Survey has shown a Catholic male unemployment rate of two and a half times that of Protestant males throughout the 1980s and this has only decreased slightly. Unemployment rates are at their most acute in West and Inner Belfast with a recorded rate of 46 per cent in Catholic West Belfast

Table 3 Religion and tenure, percentage in public rented sector

Source: N.Ireland Census and Continuous Household Survey

and 35 per cent in Protestant West Belfast. Inequalities in employment have resulted in some of the most interventionist and distinctive social policies introduced into Northern Ireland. Fair Employment legislation in 1976 set out to promote equality of opportunity in employment and religious discrimination in both the public and private sector was made unlawful. A Fair Employment Agency was set up to promote equality of opportunity, examine patterns and trends in employment and secure remedies for unlawful discrimination against individuals. Continuing patterns of inequality in several industries and authorities led the Agency to admit that over 10 years real change had not been dramatic. These considerations plus external pressures from the MacBride principles campaign and the Anglo-lrish Agreement resulted in a strengthening of the measures in 1990. New legislation created two different bodies, a Fair Employment Commission (FEC) responsible for monitoring, affirmative action and contract denial and a Fair Employment Tribunal responsible for individual complaints. The new provisions required all employers with more than ten employees to make annual monitoring returns and to review recruitment, training and promotion priorities. The FEC can require affirmative action measures and goals and timetables to remedy imbalances. The legislation is committed to affirmative action rather than quotas or reverse discrimination. Despite the improvement in Catholic representation in major areas, e.g. the civil service, the unemployment differentials remain, and as Whyte (1983) notes current discrimination has only a subordinate part in explaining Catholic disadvantage. Unlike the housing example the key to the policy outcome lies in the deep structural reasons for disadvantage. Among a range of factors noted (Osborne, 1992; Smyth, 1987; Eversley, 1989) are the difficulty in job creation during an economic recession, the concentration of the Catholic population in areas with no tradition of industrial or commercial activity, the time for new staff to be promoted to senior posts, the tendency for Catholic students to take arts/humanities courses rather than science and technology and the chill factor deterring Catholics from working in certain areas. Gallagher (1991) notes the lack of agreement among researchers on the continuing significance of direct or indirect discrimination. Questions can be raised about the value of a legalistic approach to Fair Employment compared to, for example, public sector job creation in Catholic areas.

Across a range of social policies the government remains committed to ensuring that all sides of the community enjoy equality of opportunity and equality of treatment. There are some social indicators, e.g. for household income and socio-economic status, which do indicate a growing degree of equality. The difference between the personal income of the two religious groups was much less marked in 1990-91 than in 1986-87 although the percentage of Protestants with earnings over £15,000 is still significantly greater than that for Catholics.

Table 4 Religion and personal income

Source: Continuous Household Survey, Religion No. 1 (1993)



Table 5 Religion and socio-economic group

Source: Continuous Household Survey, Religion No. 1 (1993)

The proportion of Catholics in professional/managerial occupations has increased significantly between 1986-87 and 1990-91 (CHS, 1993), although Catholics are still less likely than Protestants to hold professional/ managerial or other non-manual posts and Catholics have higher representation in the semi- and unskilled manual occupational groups.



Responses to community divisions

Government policies have also developed to address community divisions although some of these have been less focussed and more problematic than in other policy areas. There are three topics worth noting: community relations, integrated education and residential segregation.

The content of community relations programmes involves the development of cross community contact and co-operation between existing community groups, voluntary bodies and schools or the encouragement of mutual respect and understanding between the communities. Some of these programmes have advanced to more focussed reconciliation and conflict resolution work. There are three main forms of statutory support. A special Central Community Relations Unit was set up by government in 1987 to co-ordinate the programmes, find community relations work and ensure government Departments look at the community relations impact of all their policies. The unit is also responsible for developing new ideas to improve community relations and reduce prejudice. The Community Relations Council is a statutory body providing support and facilities for organisations operating at the local level to promote contact between the communities. Parallel to this work is a cultural traditions programme to promote respect for local cultural diversity. The Council tries to ensure that issues of sectarianism and community relations are on the agenda of as many organisations or groups as possible. A further initiative has been the use of local district councils to improve community relations through funding for community relations officers. Despite some initial suspicion from Unionist councillors all of the 26 councils now have community relations officers and programmes. The objectives of this programme are to develop cross community contact, promote greater mutual understanding and increase respect for different cultural traditions.

Education for Mutual Understanding (EMU) is a curriculum based programme for schools which allows Catholic and Protestant schools to work together through group outings, joint work in each others' schools and residential activity. EMU operates in the context of a divided school system and a widespread recognition that segregated schooling initiates children into conflict by emphasising group differences and hostilities (Murray, 1985). One of the best known innovations in social policy in recent years has been the growth of new integrated schools attended by both Catholics and Protestants. This policy has received a strong commitment by government to the encouragement, recognition and financial support of such schools. The numbers attending integrated schools remains small (just below 2 per cent) and there are still uncertainties about the integrated sector's future size, impact and contribution to community relations (Gallagher, 1989).

While segregation in schools and employment has attracted government attention and produced social policy responses residential segregation has not. Residential segregation has increased significantly since the first population moves in Belfast and Derry in 1968-69. The reasons for increasing segregation are a combination of fear, intimidation and personal preference. The Housing Executive has accepted the inevitability of residential segregation in the public sector. Singleton (1985) concluded that the Housing Executive had effectively sorted its waiting lists into Catholics and Protestants and provided separate housing estates for the two groups. Some of the manifestations of residential segregation are dramatic, the security walls between estates at interfaces in Belfast and the almost total movement of the Protestant population from the city side of Derry across the river to the Waterside. Yet no policy responses have been forthcoming to counter growing segregation or maintain existing integrated estates.

It is not easy to evaluate the impact of these programmes on community relations. The government has suggested macro indicators relating to social integration, a reduction in violence and intimidation, political co-operation, the attitudes of communities to each other and increased levels of equality of opportunity. There are difficulties in determining what constitutes improving community relations and progress is likely to be slow given continuing violence and polarisation.



Responses to physical violence

One area of very direct policy response to violence has been rather neglected in writings about conflict and social policy: the response to violent incidents. The intensity of the bombing campaign directed against commercial properties and public buildings in towns and cities has increased in recent years with related damage to private dwellings, churches and other buildings. This has resulted in a range of responses from statutory agencies which falls into the category of emergency planning but has significant social policy aspects. Emergency responses are now required so frequently that they have almost become a matter of routine (Birrell, 1993). Emergency assistance can be divided into four categories: physical repair, financial assistance, medical assistance and social assistance.

A comprehensive co-ordinated process of physical clearing-up, repair, demolition and rebuilding is necessary and one of the more innovative policies has been the empowerment of the Housing Executive to provide first-aid repairs to all residential homes including all privately owned dwellings. A further unique feature is the payment of compensation to those who have had property damaged through violent attacks. This reflects an acceptance that it is not the victim's fault and that costs are too large for insurance companies. The Compensation Agency has paid out some £600 million and the scheme does mitigate some of the consequences of the bombing campaign. There is a parallel scheme of compensation for personal injuries. Medical care services have given priority to disaster planning and nearly every hospital has experience of activating their plan with the major Belfast hospitals regularly invoking their plans. Medical lessons learnt range from the procedure of removing all injured persons to hospital for treatment rather than incident site treatment, to medical expertise in the treatment of gunshot injuries. A major development in recent years has been in forms of social assistance. Traditional forms of assistance such as emergency accommodation have been augmented through a more proactive role by several agencies, for example mobile advice and assistance centres set up by the Social Security Agency and the provision of trauma counselling by social work agencies.




Conclusions

An examination of social policy responses to violence shows such responses as having two main objectives: firstly the mitigation of the consequences of violence, for example, the lack of industrial investment, community polarisation and physical damage; and secondly, the reduction of the level of violence, directly through community relations policies but also through policies which tackle inequalities. The government has recently introduced a new focus for all their policies, 'Targeting Social Need'. This is an initiative to focus programmes and policies more sharply on those areas and people in greatest need and to reduce community differentials which contribute to violence. It is, of course, difficult to measure the effect of social deprivation on conflict. Deprivation and perceptions of relative deprivation may be a factor in persuading people to take up violence. Research has however shown little support for this proposition. Schellenberg (1977) reported a stronger role for specifically political factors than for socio-economic deprivation. Hewitt (1981) also found that statistically grievances were not a cause of violence and nationalism was a much stronger motivating force in the Catholic population. Thompson (1987) further suggests that escalations in collective violence are not the result of increasing deprivation. On the other hand it is clear that the majority of participants in the violence came from the poorer sections of the community and from more deprived localities.

This examination of social policy responses suggests six main points.

(i) Policy responses have not usually been specifically urban related, at least until the recent urban strategies for Belfast and Londonderry emerged.

(ii) Policy responses have usually been directed and implemented by statutory bodies rather than by voluntary, community or private sectors. Some recent successful involvement by the voluntary sector may suggest that more could he done to empower local communities to overcome apathy, develop local leadership and facilitate social change.

(iii) Policy responses have tended not to diverge too far from British practice and experience and are influenced by the principle of parity.

(iv) Policy responses which are more clearly distinct and different from British practice relate very closely to the unique features of the Northern Ireland conflict, e.g., to religious beliefs or the nature of violence rather than, for example, to poverty.

(v) Although policy responses may reflect financial constraints extra public expenditure has been permitted in Northern Ireland even in direct contradiction of recent government commitments (Gaffikin and Morrissey, 1990b).

(vi) Finally there remains the question of the extent to which welfare policies and special initiatives have helped ameliorate and reduce the level of violence in Northern Ireland. While they have not stopped the violence, without such policies the violence may have been worse.

Birrell, D. and A. Murie (1980) Policy and Government in Northern Ireland: Lessons of Devolution. Dublin, Gill and Macmillan.

Birrell, W D. (1993) 'The management of civil emergencies in Northern Ireland', Journal of Contingencies and Crisis Management, 1, 2: 29-89.

Bloomfield, K. (1988) 'Making Belfast Work: A response - A strategy for relieving deprivation', Business Outlook and Economic Review, 3, 3: 21-5.

Bradshaw, J. (1989) Social Security Parity in N. Ireland. Belfast, Policy Research Institute. Brett, C. E. B. (1980) Housing a Divided Community. Dublin, Institute of Public Administration.

Cameron Commission (1969) Disturbances in Northern Ireland. Belfast, HMSO, Cmd. 532.

Connolly, M. E. A. and S. Loughlin (1990) Public Policy in Northern Ireland.. Adoption or Adaptation. Belfast, Policy Research Institute.

Continuous Household Survey (1993) PPRU Monitor: Religion No. 1/93. Belfast, HMSO.

Ditch,J. (1988) Social Policy in Northern Ireland between 1939-50. Aldershot, Avebury. Edwards, J. and N. Deakin (1992) 'Privatism and partnership in urban regeneration', Public Administration, 70, 3: 359-68.

Eversley, D. (1 989) Religion and Employment in Northern Ireland. London, Sage.

Gaffikin, F and M. Morrissey (1990a) 'Dependency, decline and development: the core of West Belfast', Policy and Politics, 18, 2: 105-17.

Gaffikin, F. and M. Morrissey (1990b) Northern Ireland.. The Thatcher Years. London, Zed Books.

Gallagher, A. M. (1989) The Majority Minority Review No. 1: Education and Religion in Northern Ireland. Coleraine, Centre for the Study of Conflict.

Gallagher, A. M. (1991) The Majority Minority Review No. 2: Employment, Unemployment and Religion in Northern Ireland. Coleraine, Centre for the Study of Conflict.

Hewitt, C. (1981) 'Catholic grievances, Catholic nationalism and violence in Northern Ireland during the civil rights period', British Journal of Sociology, 3, 2: 362-80.

Murray, D. (1985) Worlds Apart: Segregated Schools in Northern Ireland. Belfast, Appletree Press.

Northern Ireland Economic Council (1992) Public Expenditure Comparison between Northern Ireland and Great Britain. Belfast, Northern Ireland Economic Council.

Osborne, R. and R. Cormack (1991) Discrimination in Public Policy in Northern Ireland. Oxford, Clarendon Press.

PA Cambridge Consultants (1992) An Evaluation of the Belfast Action Team Initiative. Belfast, Dept. of the Environment.

Project Team Belfast (1 976) Belfast Areas of Special Need, Belfast, HMSO.

Quigley, W G. H. (1987) 'The public expenditure system in Northern Ireland', Business Outlook and Economic Review, 2, 2: 27-32.

Rolston, R. and M. Tomlinson (1988) Unemployment in West Belfast: the Obair Report. Belfast, Beyond the Pale.

Schellenberg, J.A. (1977) 'Area variations of violence in Northern Ireland', Sociological Focus, 10, 1: 69-78.

Singleton, D. (1985) 'Housing allocation policy and practice in Northern Ireland', Housing Review, 34, 1: 9-1 1.

Smith, D. J. (1987) Equality and Inequality in Northern Ireland: Part1, Employment and Unemployment. London, Policy Studies Institute.

Thompson, J. L. P. (1 987) 'Deprivation and political violence in Northern Ireland', Journal of Conflict Resolution, 33, 4: 676-699.

Treasury and Dept. of Finance (1993) Expenditure Plans and Priorities 1993-6. London, HMSO, Cmd. 2216.

Whyte, J. (1983) 'How much discrimination was there under the Unionist regime, 1921-68?' in T Gallagher and J. O'Connell, eds., Contemporary Irish Studies, Manchester, Manchester University Press.