Tax take reduction - what to cut?

[RainyDay]

Equality Authority

Perhaps because they are one of the most supercilious and unnecessary of the many, many quangos initiated by this government?

The Equality Authority's latest Annual Report landed on my desk last week. I wonder if those critical of the Authority would like to explain why some of the cases taken by the Authority last year were a waste of time, e.g.


• the Department of Education and Science to issue new Leaving Certificates to two claimants with dyslexia without the relevant notations and to make a payment of €6,000 to each claimant. The Department of Education and Science to ensure its appeal process conforms with rules of natural justice
• the Department of Education and Science to formally investigate the feasibility, with a view to its implementation, of creating and implementing an examination system which can create an individually suited accommodation which meets the needs of each particular student with disabilities, based on individual assessment. (This is under appeal)
• An order requiring a school to put in place a system facilitating the early identification of students who have disabilities or learning difficulties with the aim of directing those students to the appropriate educational services
• A child with cerebral palsy being allowed return to his original class
• A child with Down Syndrome being allowed access a summer camp
• The payment of compensation by a local authority equivalent to a new house grant
• A District Court consent order and consent finding to install wheelchair accessible toilets in Searsons Pub and the Russell Court Hotel respectively
• A change of policy from Ryanair so that wheelchair users are no longer required to waive liability for the safe carriage of their wheelchairs

 

[room305]

• the Department of Education and Science to issue new Leaving Certificates to two claimants with dyslexia without the relevant notations and to make a payment of €6,000 to each claimant. The Department of Education and Science to ensure its appeal process conforms with rules of natural justice
• the Department of Education and Science to formally investigate the feasibility, with a view to its implementation, of creating and implementing an examination system which can create an individually suited accommodation which meets the needs of each particular student with disabilities, based on individual assessment. (This is under appeal)
• An order requiring a school to put in place a system facilitating the early identification of students who have disabilities or learning difficulties with the aim of directing those students to the appropriate educational services
• A child with cerebral palsy being allowed return to his original class
• A child with Down Syndrome being allowed access a summer camp
• The payment of compensation by a local authority equivalent to a new house grant
• A District Court consent order and consent finding to install wheelchair accessible toilets in Searsons Pub and the Russell Court Hotel respectively
• A change of policy from Ryanair so that wheelchair users are no longer required to waive liability for the safe carriage of their wheelchairs

Of course all of these cases needed the representation of the Equality Authority and couldn't possibly have been resolved through any other means.

 

[ubiquitous]

There is nothing on the above list (except perhaps the Summer Camp case) that did not involve some element of neglect or dereliction of duties on the part of the State or its agencies. The Equality Authority is a waste of money precisely because it is being used as a vehicle to remedy inadequacies that would not exist were the State doing its job in the first instance. Citizens already have the various Ombudsman's offices for this purpose anyway. Its existence merely perpetuates the mentality in the public service that "if I don't fix this, someone else will come along to do it for me".

 

[Purple]

There is nothing on the above list (except perhaps the Summer Camp case) that did not involve some element of neglect or dereliction of duties on the part of the State or its agencies. The Equality Authority is a waste of money precisely because it is being used as a vehicle to remedy inadequacies that would not exist were the State doing its job in the first instance. Its existence merely perpetuates the mentality in the public service that "if I don't fix this, someone else will come along to do it for me".

The Equality Authority cannot take a case unless a member of the public has made a complaint. If they did not complain to the EA they would have to do so to a government department or state or private body. If they used a solicitor to do so the cost to the state would be far higher than the Equality Authority currently costs.
I think it is a good use of public money at it allows some very vulnerable people to exercise their rights without the worry of being saddled with huge costs. If the EA do not think the case/issue is valid they will not support it.

 

[Staples]

Its existence merely perpetuates the mentality in the public service that "if I don't fix this, someone else will come along to do it for me".

I think that's unfair. Pressures on government departments come from both sides - the imperative to keep costs to a minimum - and the need to accomodate a wide variety of considerations (equality, environmental, etc) Matters like this reach the courts because the cost implication of their acceptance can be enormous to the point that it's almost worth "gambling" on the failure of such court actions. This is generally a political decision.

The Equality Authority is valuable insofar as it forces organisations to take equality more seriously. It promotes a consideration that, in its absence, would slp through the cracks, however well intentioned.

 

[Staples]

You can't spend what you don't have. It's that simple.

Well, it's not really that simple. Borrowing is justified as long as it's managable and produces net benefits.

For example, few people wait until they have the cash price of a house before they buy one. Surely the same logic applies to governments.

 

[ubiquitous]

I think it is a good use of public money at it allows some very vulnerable people to exercise their rights without the worry of being saddled with huge costs.

Indeed. That's why there is an Office of the Ombudsman.

 

[ubiquitous]

Pressures on government departments come from both sides - the imperative to keep costs to a minimum - and the need to accomodate a wide variety of considerations (equality, environmental, etc) Matters like this reach the courts because the cost implication of their acceptance can be enormous to the point that it's almost worth "gambling" on the failure of such court actions. This is generally a political decision.

The Equality Authority is valuable insofar as it forces organisations to take equality more seriously. It promotes a consideration that, in its absence, would slp through the cracks, however well intentioned.

Fair enough, but in a situation where primary government services stand to be cut due to lack of funds, how much longer can the State keep funding bodies such as the EA whose prime role is in the secondary enforcement of standards by bodies who should be responsible and accountable for their own actions.

 

[Staples]

I think there are other aspects of state expenditure which could be cut as a priority.

Twenty Dail Committees anyone? I understand that one of our finest legislators, Jackie Healy Rae, is about to be appointed head of one of them. Should be a roaring success.

The cost of servicing these committees is disproportionate relative to their usefulness. Don't forget they confer pension rights that incur costs way beyond there lifetimes.

Compared with these, agencies such as the EA look like a bargain.

 

[RainyDay]

There is nothing on the above list (except perhaps the Summer Camp case) that did not involve some element of neglect or dereliction of duties on the part of the State or its agencies. The Equality Authority is a waste of money precisely because it is being used as a vehicle to remedy inadequacies that would not exist were the State doing its job in the first instance. Citizens already have the various Ombudsman's offices for this purpose anyway. Its existence merely perpetuates the mentality in the public service that "if I don't fix this, someone else will come along to do it for me".

Just in case there is any confusion, summer camps, Ryanair, Searsons pub, the Russell Court Hotel, Western Union and Bennigans pub are not part of the public service, so perhaps some of the civil service bashing is misdirected.

 

[ubiquitous]

Just in case there is any confusion, summer camps, Ryanair, Searsons pub, the Russell Court Hotel, Western Union and Bennigans pub are not part of the public service,

Did anyone say otherwise?

...so perhaps some of the civil service bashing is misdirected.

Not necessarily. With the possible exception of the summer camps, each of the businesses you mention above is licensed by the State to operate in their respective industry. I would have thought that it would be far better to deal with the problems you listed earlier (and to prevent their recurrence) by tweaking the respective licensing rules instead of doing so via enforcement by another State body in the form of the Equality Authority.

 

[RainyDay]

Not necessarily. With the possible exception of the summer camps, each of the businesses you mention above is licensed by the State to operate in their respective industry. I would have thought that it would be far better to deal with the problems you listed earlier (and to prevent their recurrence) by tweaking the respective licensing rules instead of doing so via enforcement by another State body in the form of the Equality Authority.

So it would be better to have Equality experts/lawyers in every single state licensing authority, rather than having one central group of experts who can work across all industries? Doesn't sound too efficient to me, given the specialised nature of the expertise involved.

Why would you want to tweak licences when the relevant legislation is already in place? How many lawyers will it take to tweak the licences? How will consumers be protected while the current non-tweaked licences are in place. Who will protect consumers from businesses that are not licenced by the State?

 

[ubiquitous]

So it would be better to have Equality experts/lawyers in every single state licensing authority, rather than having one central group of experts who can work across all industries? Doesn't sound too efficient to me, given the specialised nature of the expertise involved.

I don't see any problem with the EA's role in advising the various arms of State on equality issues, ie the role that the Dept of Justice Equality & Law Reform did before the EA was established. I do see problems with its current, extended role.

Why would you want to tweak licences when the relevant legislation is already in place? How many lawyers will it take to tweak the licences?

Wake up. Licensing rules and regulatory procedures in practically every sector are tweaked and adapted regularly, most commonly via Ministerial Order.

Who will protect consumers from businesses that are not licenced by the State?

Its a bit of a fantasy to suggest that there are any businesses out there that, if not licensed, are not subject to any form of regulation.

 

[RainyDay]

I don't see any problem with the EA's role in advising the various arms of State on equality issues, ie the role that the Dept of Justice Equality & Law Reform did before the EA was established. I do see problems with its current, extended role.


Wake up. Licensing rules and regulatory procedures in practically every sector are tweaked and adapted regularly, most commonly via Ministerial Order.

Its a bit of a fantasy to suggest that there are any businesses out there that, if not licensed, are not subject to any form of regulation.

The Equality arm of the Dept of Justice has a poor track record. The Equality arm gets no attention in the wider department, and we had the perverse situation last year when the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform was making speeches about the benefits of inequality in society, which is akin to having the Minister for Health making speeches about the benefits of smoking, drinking excessively and obesity. I wouldn't want to be relying on that Department to protect my rights. This is little reflection on the individuals in that department, btw, but reflects the views of their political masters for the last 10 years.

The benefit of having the EA as a seperate authority is the consumer focus. If it is part of the wider civil service, it will automatically fit into the conservatism of the broader service. The seperate role creates a consumer focus and a campaigning zeal, which has resulted in judgements and progresss on a whole range of issues.

The good news for you I guess is that the newly appointed Chairperson is likely to rein back on the activities that seem to get up your nose, based on her past track record. Watch out for the departure of Neil Crowley within a year or two.

In terms of unregulated businesses, who regulates the newsagents? Who regulates the carpenters? Who regulates the computer shops? Need I continue...

 

[ubiquitous]

In terms of unregulated businesses, who regulates the newsagents? Who regulates the carpenters? Who regulates the computer shops?

All are subject to employment law, consumer law and a host of other laws and regulations.

 

[Purple]

The good news for you I guess is that the newly appointed Chairperson is likely to rein back on the activities that seem to get up your nose, based on her past track record. Watch out for the departure of Neil Crowley within a year or two...

I never liked Niel Crowley. I think he is one of the reasons that many people don't like the EA. I, for one, will be glad to see him go.

 

[ubiquitous]

we had the perverse situation last year when the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform was making speeches about the benefits of inequality in society,

Seeing as you raised the issue of McDowell's comments on inequality, I think that it is worthwhile seeing the remarks in their context, as set out in this Irish Times article, freely available at the following link:

[broken link removed]

McDowell says inequality an incentive in the economy

Patsy McGarry, Religious Affairs Correspondent

The Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, Mr McDowell, has described the Equality Authority as "a ginger group" and said inequality is an incentive in the Irish economy.

The Equality Authority was a "ginger group as well as a statutory body", he said in an interview with the Irish Catholic .

He totally opposed a suggestion from the chief executive of the Equality Authority, Mr Niall Crowley, that a press council would help ensure the media drive an equality-based agenda.

"A dynamic liberal economy like ours," the Minister said, "demands flexibility and inequality in some respects to function." It was such inequality "which provides incentives".

"Driven to a complete extreme, the current rights culture and equality notion would create a feudal society. A society so ordered, static, and where the Government tries to order everything by law, it would become as atrophied as a feudal society.

"The order is imposed from top down and people have to fit into this order, infused by an imposed morality." He did not believe in "the great planned society", Mr McDowell said.

On the Equality Authority's action against Portmarnock Golf Club, for banning women members, he said he did not believe "it was the intention of the Oireachtas at the time of passing equality legislation to outlaw completely single gender or otherwise discriminatory clubs having access to drink licences".

The Equality Authority took a case against Portmarnock Golf Club in Dublin District Court last November, on the basis that the club's men-only policy was discriminatory under the terms of the Equal Status Act 2000.

Portmarnock maintained the club was private and had the power of exclusion, and was not contravening the Act. Last February the court found in the Equality Authority's favour.

Mr McDowell told the Irish Catholic , that "if the Irish Countrywomen's Association facility in Termonfeckin had a drink licence it would not give me a sleepless night".

Speaking to The Irish Times last night, Mr Crowley said Mr McDowell's comments amounted to "soundbites from a bigger position", but "opened up the possibility of a very significant and profound debate on equality in Irish society".

Equality was "not a soundbite issue" but should "be addressed from a thought-out basis", Mr Crowley said.

In the same interview, Mr McDowell said he was "deeply sceptical of State-controlled syllabuses" in schools, and that, when it came to religion in schools, he did not believe it was "an entitlement of the State to impose a syllabus or curriculum".
© 2004 The Irish Times

 

[RainyDay]

I never liked Niel Crowley. I think he is one of the reasons that many people don't like the EA. I, for one, will be glad to see him go.

Care to expand why?

Seeing as you raised the issue of McDowell's comments on inequality, I think that it is worthwhile seeing the remarks in their context, as set out in this Irish Times article, freely available at the following link:

[broken link removed]

Yep, it is worthwhile seeing the statements full. They are of course a complete perversion of the valuable work of the EA in taking a rights-based approach to Equality matters. McDowell & his colleagues on the right would of course be far happier for those most in need in society to be dependent on charity rather than rights. [Just look at the obscenity of 'People in Need' all over RTE this week with those great celebs doing it for 'charidee'. For the record, People in Need has raised €35m over eight years. Margaret Heffernan who sits on the board of PIN has personal wealth of €605m in 2006. She could do far more for People in Need by giving her staff an extra 20c an hour, but what's the chances of that happening?].

 

[ubiquitous]

They are of course a complete perversion of the valuable work of the EA in taking a rights-based approach to Equality matters.

That is an opinion that some might agree with. ...and some might disagree with. There is a strong case for the rights-based approach to Equality matters. There is equally a reasonable argument against this approach being taken too far. Its hardly a sin to express this latter view? Both sides of the debate have merit.

McDowell & his colleagues on the right would of course be far happier for those most in need in society to be dependent on charity rather than rights.

I don't know about this. It certainly wasn't charity that improved the living standards of the vast majority of working people in the past 10 years or so.

[Just look at the obscenity of 'People in Need' all over RTE this week with those great celebs doing it for 'charidee'.

Can't disagree with you there.

 

[Purple]

Care to expand why?

The Porkmarnock Golf Club action, taking schools to court because they didn’t follow correct procedure when suspending pupils that were violent and disruptive. That sort of think undermines the other valuable work that they carry out.

Yep, it is worthwhile seeing the statements full. They are of course a complete perversion of the valuable work of the EA in taking a rights-based approach to Equality matters. McDowell & his colleagues on the right would of course be far happier for those most in need in society to be dependent on charity rather than rights. [Just look at the obscenity of 'People in Need' all over RTE this week with those great celebs doing it for 'charidee'. For the record, People in Need has raised €35m over eight years. Margaret Heffernan who sits on the board of PIN has personal wealth of €605m in 2006. She could do far more for People in Need by giving her staff an extra 20c an hour, but what's the chances of that happening?].

I think the way you have linked the former ministers comments with underpaying staff and those on the right (whatever that means) who wish to remove our social safety net is spurious.
I have never heard Mr McDowell, or any other PD politician, suggest or implied that they would be “far happier for those most in need in society to be dependent on charity rather than rights”. I think this comment is unfair.