# Niall Crowley's resignation from Equality Authority



## putsch (12 Dec 2008)

Does anyone know what the true story is on this? I know the budget was cut and the organisation was fingered for decentralisation to Roscrea.

Crowley always seemed to me to be in a bit of a bubble - made himself an easy target for the cuts but nonetheless the cuts seemed savage at best.


----------



## mathepac (12 Dec 2008)

To me, it sounds a bit like someone had a word with Biffo, "Who will rid us of this troublesome priest?", resulting in a savage 43% cut in Crowley's budget. As a man of principle, he did the decent thing in resigning, rather than continue to hold down a pensionable job at the head of a toothless organisation.

Crowley in his time cut lumps out of some sacred cows and made them eat humble pie, fighting the good fight and winning against banks, car-hire firms, unions, public service and so on.

Its sad to see him going and sadder to be left with the impression that his departure was engineered.


----------



## ubiquitous (13 Dec 2008)

I was glad to see him resign. Over the years, he seemed to use his position as head of the Equality Authority as an instrument for a personal crusade rather than something useful. The EA was initially a good idea but Crowley dragged it into disrepute by some of the ridiculous decisions he made.

The fact that he resigned in a huff rather than accept sharp cuts in the EA budget does not bode well for the willingness of quango bosses to accept such cuts. God help us if every budget cut is now to be turned into a political football.


----------



## NorthDrum (13 Dec 2008)

Apparantly over 50% of the Equality Authority cases were against the government run organisations. Is it really a surprise that the govt cut the funding on something that highlights one of the many inadequacies of their inept concept of public services.

Incidentally heard the tail end of the Joe Duffy show (complain about him I know, I know) where a lady mentioned that the govt wasted 8million getting all sorts of experts from around the world to proove some case regarding their childrens exam (didnt get the full details). Sounds like there are people in government using their positions to use the countries funds for their own political will.


----------



## Purple (13 Dec 2008)

mathepac said:


> To me, it sounds a bit like someone had a word with Biffo, "Who will rid us of this troublesome priest?", resulting in a savage 43% cut in Crowley's budget. As a man of principle, he did the decent thing in resigning, rather than continue to hold down a pensionable job at the head of a toothless organisation.


I agree with this bit and while I accept that he is a man of principle I also agree with Ubiquitous that he seemed to have an agenda. I don't know the man at all but from hearing him speak he did sound very sanctimonious.

That said it is strange that the Equality Authority, the only body of its kind, gets hit with a massive cut and other bodies which overlap all over the place get tiny cuts.


----------



## mathepac (13 Dec 2008)

Purple said:


> ... I don't know the man at all but from hearing him speak he did sound very sanctimonious...



Ditto, but against a background of talking heads who at times sounded and behaved a lot worse than sanctimonious e.g. incompetent, untruthful, untrustworthy, I felt he had a passion for and a belief in what he was doing.

As ubiquitous said, a crusader granted, personal, I can't say and he certainly made himself and his organisation targets, but it was refreshing to see someone who seemed to believe there was value in his work.

He made mistakes but given the newness of the role and the remit, there was no roadmap and pioneers do sometimes get lost or become casualties.


----------



## Complainer (13 Dec 2008)

The huge issue is indeed the way that the EA has been completely muzzled, rather than what happened/happens to Niall Crowley. While I wouldn't agree with everything the EA has done, they were hugely effective in their own field. Liveline yesterday had a series of callers nothing how the authority had supported them in taking Equality cases. In particular, the parent of a dyslexic child who had taken a case against Dept Education noted that the Dept had spent €8m in defending the case, which I guess would cover the entire EA budget for a year. It was also interesting to note the unusual and pointed reference to 'senior civil servants' in Crowley's resignation letter, which would suggest that politicians are being led by the senior execs on this issue. It is also worth nothing that the Chairperson Angela Kerins seems to make something of a habit of [broken link removed]. To misquote Oscar Wilde,_ to lose one Director _may be regarded  as a misfortune; to _lose_ two looks like carelessness. The arguement about budget cuts holds zero water, given the single-digit cuts that applied to all other similar agencies in the Justice family. Crowley was got, plain and simple.

Crowley is undoubtedly a man of principle. His depature leaves the rest of the board exposed. If they believed the organisation can do its job with a 43% reduction, they should have come up with this proposal themselves. If they don't, they should resign.


----------



## Green (13 Dec 2008)

ubiquitous said:


> I was glad to see him resign. Over the years, he seemed to use his position as head of the Equality Authority as an instrument for a personal crusade rather than something useful. The EA was initially a good idea but Crowley dragged it into disrepute by some of the ridiculous decisions he made.
> 
> The fact that he *resigned in a huff rather than accept sharp cuts in the EA budget does not bode well for the willingness of quango bosses to accept such cuts*. God help us if every budget cut is now to be turned into a political football.


 
Which ridiculous decisions did he make? I find your second quote quite strange, the guy resigned because he felt not run the organisation because of the cuts and decentralisation. So here we have a guy who feels he can't give the level of service the people deserve and he gets slagged off! What does this decision to cut the budget say about the commitment of FF/Greens to equality issues? Its another example of FF not looking down the line at decisions they make, cue decentralisation, Tribiunals...and this...If FF didnt want Crowley why did they reappoint him in the last two years?


----------



## Green (13 Dec 2008)

Complainer said:


> The huge issue is indeed the way that the EA has been completely muzzled, rather than what happened/happens to Niall Crowley. While I wouldn't agree with everything the EA has done, they were hugely effective in their own field.
> 
> It is also worth nothing that the Chairperson Angela Kerins seems to make something of a habit of [broken link removed].


 

I agree with your comments that the EA were effective but Angela Kerins (Ex FF National Executive) will stand over the cuts. Interesting to see who will take over?


----------



## ubiquitous (14 Dec 2008)

YOBR said:


> Which ridiculous decisions did he make?


Here's one

[broken link removed]


> Friday, November 02, 2007 :
> 
> Toy show rapped for ‘gender stereotypes’
> 
> ...





> I find your second quote quite strange, the guy resigned because he felt not run the organisation because of the cuts and decentralisation. So here we have a guy who feels he can't give the level of service the people deserve and he gets slagged off!


So if Roddy Molloy's successor at Fás says that they can't afford cuts either, you'll take him at his word? 



> What does this decision to cut the budget say about the commitment of FF/Greens to equality issues?



Hopefully that they want the State's equality policies dictated by common sense and not by outdated 1980's-style leftwing principles.


----------



## Complainer (14 Dec 2008)

ubiquitous said:


> Here's one
> 
> [broken link removed]
> 
> ...



Funnily enough, I was thinking about that Late Late issue when I was writing my 'don't agree with everything they've done' post. In all fairness, that wasn't a case they actively supported, it was a press release. And indeed, it mirrors the views of some AAM posters, so I don't think it is quite fair to position it an extreme way-out-there-ultra-PC issue.

Please don't fall for the spin that this was really a budget issue. Crowley & colleagues presented a plan to continue to operate the EA with a 35% budget cut last week, and this plan was rejected by the Minister/mandarins at the Dept Justice. The EA budget is a drop in the ocean in the overall Dept Justice budget. They could save that money without breaking sweat if they wanted to. This wasn't about money. This was about getting rid of Crowley.

Wait to see him being replaced by some nice tame civil servant from oooh just possibly the Dept Justice in a few months time.


----------



## ubiquitous (14 Dec 2008)

Complainer said:


> And indeed, it mirrors the views of some AAM posters, so I don't think it is quite fair to position it an extreme way-out-there-ultra-PC issue.


Just because someone on AAM supported it, didn't mean it wasn't a ridiculous issue for the EA to campaign on.


----------



## Complainer (14 Dec 2008)

ubiquitous said:


> Just because someone on AAM supported it, didn't mean it wasn't a ridiculous issue for the EA to campaign on.


I note and respect your own opinion that this was ridiculous. I would suggest that you note that not everyone else in the country shares your opinion.


----------



## Green (14 Dec 2008)

ubiquitous said:


> Here's one
> 
> [broken link removed]
> 
> ...


 
That was not a decision, that was a comment he made...looking at their website of the EA I would support many of the decisions made by the Equality Tribunal particular in terms of protecting employees from discrimination. The fact is that the EA was a sucessful organisation, working to investigate and deliberate on breaches of the Equality legislation. Obviously it was too sucessful for FF........It is not possible to compare cuts in EA with Fas...The problem is that people just don't know what they want from semi state bodies...if they are unsucessful at certain aspects they gets slagged off...if they are sucessful like the EA they get slagged off..........


----------



## diarmuidc (15 Dec 2008)

mathepac said:


> resulting in a savage 43% cut in Crowley's budget.


I know there's more to the story than just budget cuts, but isn't this what the public and the media are howling for? Cut the "quangos"? (I hate that word)


----------



## Green (15 Dec 2008)

diarmuidc said:


> I know there's more to the story than just budget cuts, but isn't this what the public and the media are howling for? Cut the "quangos"? (I hate that word)


 
Yes, there are calls for cuts in public expenditure but should we not carefully examine where we want the cuts or do we want to return to the days when women had to give up their jobs becuse they were pregnant? I would argue that we need to cut back but should carefully consider where we should make those cuts...


----------



## ubiquitous (15 Dec 2008)

YOBR said:


> That was not a decision, that was a comment he made........




Not exactly. The fact is that someone in the EA decided to engage their researchers in an investigation of the alleged "gender stereotyping" on the part of the Late Late Show. To portray this as anything other than a policy decision is disingenuous, in my opinion.



YOBR said:


> The fact is that the EA was a sucessful organisation, working to investigate and deliberate on breaches of the Equality legislation.



Indeed it was. The point is, though: can the State afford this sort of service? 



YOBR said:


> should we not carefully examine where we want the cuts or do we want to return to the days when women had to give up their jobs becuse they were pregnant?



With respect, this is scaremongering of the lowest order, and you know it.


----------



## ubiquitous (15 Dec 2008)

Complainer said:


> I note and respect your own opinion that this was ridiculous. I would suggest that you note that not everyone else in the country shares your opinion.



Why would I expect otherwise?


----------



## Green (15 Dec 2008)

ubiquitous said:


> Not exactly. The fact is that someone in the EA decided to engage their researchers in an investigation of the alleged "gender stereotyping" on the part of the Late Late Show. To portray this as anything other than a policy decision is disingenuous, in my opinion.
> 
> Indeed it was. The point is, though: can the State afford this sort of service?
> 
> With respect, this is scaremongering of the lowest order, and you know it.


 
Are the EA not entitled to comment on issues which they feel are within there remit? In relation to the point as to whether the State can afford this type of service we have to look beyond the Late Late Show and look at the actual decisions made by the Equality Tribunal see http://www.equality.ie. Also, my last point is correct as we need to decide what issues are important to us in this country. With a cut of 43% in its budget, the EA is never going to be able to handle its caseload so there will be no effective deterrent against employers who choose to ignore equality legislation.


----------



## ubiquitous (15 Dec 2008)

YOBR said:


> Are the EA not entitled to comment on issues which they feel are within there remit?



Of course they are. But that brings us back to my opening comment: "Over the years, (Crowley) seemed to use his position as head of the Equality Authority as an instrument for a personal crusade rather than something useful. The EA was initially a good idea but Crowley dragged it into disrepute by some of the ridiculous decisions he made."



YOBR said:


> there will be no effective deterrent against employers who choose to ignore equality legislation.



That's not correct. Equality legislation still stands even if the EA implodes or is abolished. Anyone who wants to take a case against their employer or anyone else still has a range of avenues open to them.


----------



## Green (15 Dec 2008)

ubiquitous said:


> Of course they are. But that brings us back to my opening comment: "Over the years, (Crowley) seemed to use his position as head of the Equality Authority as an instrument for a personal crusade rather than something useful. The EA was initially a good idea but Crowley dragged it into disrepute by some of the *ridiculous decisions* he made."
> 
> That's not correct. Equality legislation still stands even if the EA implodes or is abolished. Anyone who wants to take a case against their employer or anyone else still has a range of avenues open to them.


 
You have only mentioned one decision...and are fixating on Niall Crowley's media persona whereas I was basing my comments on those decisions which are actual breaches of the legislation which had been investigated. The EA gave legal and other advice in formal and informal settings, there capacity to do this will be greatly reduced due to the budgetary cutbacks. Its is a huge difference for someone to go to the High Court using their own resources than to have a case pursued on their behalf by the EA.


----------



## ubiquitous (15 Dec 2008)

YOBR said:


> The EA gave legal and other advice in formal and informal settings, there capacity to do this will be greatly reduced due to the budgetary cutbacks.



There is already a multiplicity of agencies providing similar advice and assistance - Citizens Information is only one. There is no reason why one of these bodies can take responsibility for advising people as to their equality entitlements etc.



> Its is a huge difference for someone to go to the High Court using their own resources than to have a case pursued on their behalf by the EA.


Yes, but in most cases where people have to take on the State (eg HSE, Revenue etc) in the higher Courts, they have to do it off their own bat. There is no State agency to hold their hand. Why otherwise in this case?


----------



## Green (15 Dec 2008)

ubiquitous said:


> There is already a multiplicity of agencies providing similar advice and assistance - Citizens Information is only one. There is no reason why one of these bodies can take responsibility for advising people as to their equality entitlements etc.
> 
> 
> Yes, but in most cases where people have to take on the State (eg HSE, Revenue etc) in the higher Courts, they have to do it off their own bat. There is no State agency to hold their hand. Why otherwise in this case?


 
Citizens Information cannot provide the advice that was given by the EA, they could advise what the legislation said but that is it. They do not monitor case law or provide any avenue I am not aware of any other agencies providing similar advice/services to EA. The Ombudsman and Revenue Appeals Office offer avenues to those who have/or wish to pursue a case against the Revenue/HSE. 

You still have not provided any further examples of the "ridiculous decisons" you mentioned.


----------



## ubiquitous (15 Dec 2008)

YOBR said:


> Citizens Information cannot provide the advice that was given by the EA, they could advise what the legislation said but that is it. They do not monitor case law or provide any avenue I am not aware of any other agencies providing similar advice/services to EA. The Ombudsman and Revenue Appeals Office offer avenues to those who have/or wish to pursue a case against the Revenue/HSE.
> 
> You still have not provided any further examples of the "ridiculous decisons" you mentioned.



Well, here's another one. When do you want me to stop? 

http://www.equality.ie/index.asp?locID=135&docID=726


> Study Highlights Significant Gender Inequalities in Domestic Sphere
> 
> * Men spend more time on paid work than unpaid work (housework and caring). On average men spend 4 hours 40 minutes on paid work per day and just under 2 hours on unpaid work per day.
> * Women spend more time on unpaid work than paid work. On average women spend just over 5 hours per day on housework and caring and just over 2 hours per day on paid work.
> ...



Anyway, don't take my word for it. Here's what Liam Fay had to say in the Sunday Times.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/ireland/article5337516.ece



> But, unfortunately for the equality cause, Crowley left the authority vulnerable to attack by an unforgiving minister through his hubris, apparent empire-building and often cavalier attitude to taxpayers’ money. Like most quangos, the Equality Authority became engorged during the boom years, its voracious appetite for public cash appearing to grow with feeding.
> 
> On its establishment in 1997, the authority’s annual budget was €378,000. Before restraints were introduced, this figure had bloated to €5.9m. Its staff numbers have grown from single digits in 1997 to more than 50 today.
> 
> ...


----------



## ubiquitous (15 Dec 2008)

YOBR said:


> The Ombudsman and Revenue Appeals Office offer avenues to those who have/or wish to pursue a case against the Revenue/HSE.



What's to stop the Ombudsman handling equality cases?


----------



## Green (15 Dec 2008)

ubiquitous said:


> Well, here's another one. When do you want me to stop?
> 
> http://www.equality.ie/index.asp?locID=135&docID=726
> 
> ...


 
Liam Fay's article is rubbish, there are very few facts and again, like your own points contain no spotlight on the actual results/decisons given by the EA.


----------



## Green (15 Dec 2008)

ubiquitous said:


> What's to stop the Ombudsman handling equality cases?


 
Nothing once they have officials who have the aprropriate background and training. You see, if Dermot Ahern wanted to save money he could have suggested this but he didnt he wanted to stop the EA. Although the real story behind this is now emerging....

[broken link removed]


----------



## ubiquitous (15 Dec 2008)

YOBR said:


> Liam Fay's article is rubbish, there are very few facts and again, like your own points contain no spotlight on the actual results/decisons given by the EA.



The main facts to emerge from Fay's article are that the EA's budget had ballooned in recent years and it was spending large sums of money on dubious campaigns.


----------



## Green (15 Dec 2008)

ubiquitous said:


> The main facts to emerge from Fay's article are that the EA's budget had ballooned in recent years and it was spending large sums of money on dubious campaigns.


 
The EA is a semi state body under the control of the Dept. of Justice. Every year that body enters into the annual Estimates process with its parent Department. Any increase its received was with the approval of the Dept/Minister of Justice based on its strategic plan which also would have been approved by the Minister. (see link to legislation below).

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1998/en/act/pub/0021/sec0040.html#zza21y1998s40

If the Minister and/or his officals didn't like the direction of the EA, all, they had to do is not approve its Strategic Plan.


----------



## ubiquitous (15 Dec 2008)

YOBR said:


> The EA is a semi state body under the control of the Dept. of Justice. Every year that body enters into the annual Estimates process with its parent Department. Any increase its received was with the approval of the Dept/Minister of Justice based on its strategic plan which also would have been approved by the Minister. (see link to legislation below).



Not exactly a cast-iron guarantee of value for money for the Exchequer 



YOBR said:


> If the Minister and/or his officals didn't like the direction of the EA, all, they had to do is not approve its Strategic Plan.



Or, horror of horrors, cut its Budget? (which is what it did).


----------



## Green (15 Dec 2008)

ubiquitous said:


> Not exactly a cast-iron guarantee of value for money for the Exchequer
> 
> Or, horror of horrors, cut its Budget? (which is what it did).


 
That is a planning process, there are other process's which are meant to oversee value for money. Is there a cast iron guarantee of value for money with any body? There is no suggestion or indeed evidence that the EA was not value for money. It seems ridiculous to me for the Min. Justice to approve a Strategic Plan for 3 years and then cut the budget by 43%. It is obvious that this cut had nothing to do with budgets, and cutting the budget without informing about the rationale is just a cowardly way to operate..


----------



## Complainer (15 Dec 2008)

ubiquitous said:


> Why would I expect otherwise?


I've no idea, but you seem to expect public bodies to plan their policies and activities around your personal likes and dislikes, rather than (dare I suggest) the views of professionals who spend their entire working lives and in many cases their entire career in that particular sector. Just because you reckon that something is 'ridiculous' does not automatically mean you are right, and they are wrong.


ubiquitous said:


> There is already a multiplicity of agencies providing similar advice and assistance - Citizens Information is only one. There is no reason why one of these bodies can take responsibility for advising people as to their equality entitlements etc.


Equality law and practice is an extremely complex area. Suggesting that the functions of the EA are taken over by a body that provides general advice such as the Citizens Information Centres is a bit like saying we don't need accountants because that girl there on the checkout can do the adding up. It doesn't work.



ubiquitous said:


> Yes, but in most cases where people have to take on the State (eg HSE, Revenue etc) in the higher Courts, they have to do it off their own bat. There is no State agency to hold their hand. Why otherwise in this case?



The hint is in the name - Equality. Where people are taking these cases, they are taking them from a position of inequality. Provision of a basic level of support and legal advice (for a small number of carefully selected cases) attempts to address this inequality.



ubiquitous said:


> What's to stop the Ombudsman handling equality cases?


The Ombudsman deals only with public bodies, and Equality law applies equality to public and private service providers.


ubiquitous said:


> Anyway, don't take my word for it. Here's what Liam Fay had to say in the Sunday Times.
> 
> http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/ireland/article5337516.ece


It is fascinating to see how quickly and easily Liam has lost the revolutionary zeal of his youth to suit his new paymasters at News International. Please let's not kid ourselves that this anything close to independent comment or (god forbid) analysis.


ubiquitous said:


> The main facts to emerge from Fay's article are that the EA's budget had ballooned in recent years and it was spending large sums of money on dubious campaigns.


I guess Liam is somewhat embarrassed today now that the real rationale for nobbling the EA/Crowley has become clear.

[broken link removed]


----------



## ubiquitous (15 Dec 2008)

Complainer said:


> I've no idea, but you seem to expect public bodies to plan their policies and activities around your personal likes and dislikes,



Where did I say that? I did say that about Crowley (as subsequently has Liam Fay) but I most certainly did not generalise beyond this.



Complainer said:


> Just because you reckon that something is 'ridiculous' does not automatically mean you are right, and they are wrong.


How many times do you feel the need to repeat this red herring?



Complainer said:


> The hint is in the name - Equality. Where people are taking these cases, they are taking them from a position of inequality. Provision of a basic level of support and legal advice (for a small number of carefully selected cases) attempts to address this inequality.


Do you think that when ordinary citizens found themselves having to take on the likes of the HSE and the Revenue in the High & Supreme Courts thar they are doing so from a position of anything but inequality? Where is the State agency to help them and to take their cases for them?



Complainer said:


> The Ombudsman deals only with public bodies, and Equality law applies equality to public and private service providers.


Indeed but a large proportion of EA cases were against public bodies. 



Complainer said:


> It is fascinating to see how quickly and easily Liam has lost the revolutionary zeal of his youth to suit his new paymasters at News International. Please let's not kid ourselves that this anything close to independent comment or (god forbid) analysis.


Just because you don't like what he says.


Complainer said:


> I guess Liam is somewhat embarrassed today now that the real rationale for nobbling the EA/Crowley has become clear.


I sincerely doubt it. I also think your conspiracy theory lacks credibility.


----------



## ubiquitous (15 Dec 2008)

YOBR said:


> It seems ridiculous to me for the Min. Justice to approve a Strategic Plan for 3 years and then cut the budget by 43%.



So every State body and agency that has a business plan should be immune from cuts? Does this include Fás?


----------



## Complainer (15 Dec 2008)

ubiquitous said:


> Where did I say that? I did say that about Crowley (as subsequently has Liam Fay) but I most certainly did not generalise beyond this.


On this thread, where you stated that "Just because someone on AAM supported it, didn't mean it wasn't a ridiculous issue for the EA to campaign on". You may think it ridiculous, but clearly others don't. 



ubiquitous said:


> Do you think that when ordinary citizens found themselves having to take on the likes of the HSE and the Revenue in the High & Supreme Courts thar they are doing so from a position of anything but inequality? Where is the State agency to help them and to take their cases for them?


Here you go.


ubiquitous said:


> Indeed but a large proportion of EA cases were against public bodies.


Less than half of the new cases in 2007 were for Govt depts/state agencies;
Clubs 5
Education 13
Financial & Business Services 13
Government Departments & State Agencies 33
Health 7
Other Services 4
Transport, Storage & Communication 3
Wholesale & Retail 2
Total 80


ubiquitous said:


> I sincerely doubt it. I also think your conspiracy theory lacks credibility.


Let's revisit this in a month or so. This one is going to run for a little while yet.


----------



## ubiquitous (15 Dec 2008)

Complainer said:


> On this thread, where you stated that "Just because someone on AAM supported it, didn't mean it wasn't a ridiculous issue for the EA to campaign on". You may think it ridiculous, but clearly others don't.


you said this already today. Have you forgotten already?


> Here you go.



Does the Ombudsman's office finance High Court cases against Revenue, HSE etc? If they do, its news to me.


Complainer said:


> Less than half of the new cases in 2007 were for Govt depts/state agencies;
> Clubs 5
> Education 13
> Financial & Business Services 13
> ...



Were *all *the education & health cases against the small minority of private operators in either field? I doubt it. If you re-examine your figures, I think you will end up at well over half.


Complainer said:


> This one is going to run for a little while yet.


We'll see. Do you know something the rest of us don't?


----------



## Complainer (15 Dec 2008)

ubiquitous said:


> Does the Ombudsman's office finance High Court cases against Revenue, HSE etc? If they do, its news to me.


Why would they need to, if they can issue a binding ruling against a complaint through the normal process?


ubiquitous said:


> Were *all *the education & health cases against the small minority of private operators in either field? I doubt it. If you re-examine your figures, I think you will end up at well over half.


Perhaps you didn't realise that most Irish schools are privately owned, whether by a religious body or (like the former CBS schools) by an independent trust. They aren't private in the sense of charging fees, but they are privately operated. Similarly, many of our hospitals are operated by private, independent bodies too.

But perhaps rather than quibbling over whether its more or less than half, you might recognise that there is a significant raft of Equality cases arising in the private sector, where the Ombudsman has no role.


ubiquitous said:


> We'll see. Do you know something the rest of us don't?


Well, I think I understand Equality issues for a start.


----------



## ubiquitous (15 Dec 2008)

Complainer said:


> Why would they need to, if they can issue a binding ruling against a complaint through the normal process?



Well, like it or not, people do find themselves taking High Court cases against bodies like the Dept of Education, the Revenue & the HSE.


----------



## Complainer (15 Dec 2008)

ubiquitous said:


> Well, like it or not, people do find themselves taking High Court cases against bodies like the Dept of Education, the Revenue & the HSE.



Indeed they do, and the Dept Ed in particular seem to have taken a particularly vindictive approach to pursuit of costs against the losers of such cases, even though that were clearly taken in good faith. All the more reason to have a well-resourced and well-led EA in place to keep manners on such organisations on Equality issues, I'd have thought.

Or is there some other point that you're making about the EA here that I'm missing?


----------



## ubiquitous (16 Dec 2008)

Complainer said:


> Indeed they do, and the Dept Ed in particular seem to have taken a particularly vindictive approach to pursuit of costs against the losers of such cases, even though that were clearly taken in good faith. All the more reason to have a well-resourced and well-led EA in place to keep manners on such organisations on Equality issues, I'd have thought.



But why then isn't there a similar apparatus to "keep manners on such organisations" in relation to matters like ensuring autistic children get educated properly, HSE waiting lists are dealt with etc?




Complainer said:


> Or is there some other point that you're making about the EA here that I'm missing?


Now that you mention it, yes there is. 

Why did the EA need to employ all of *58* members of staff at the end of 2007?  (source EA annual report 2007. http://www.equality.ie/getFile.asp?FC_ID=456&docID=732)

What did they all do all day? 

Were they all essential?


----------



## CMCR (16 Dec 2008)

YOBR said:


> Citizens Information cannot provide the advice that was given by the EA, they could advise what the legislation said but that is it. They do not monitor case law or provide any avenue


 
Just to clarify, this information is not true.


----------



## Green (16 Dec 2008)

CMCR said:


> Just to clarify, this information is not true.


 
Do you want to tell us what the correct position is then?


----------



## Green (16 Dec 2008)

ubiquitous said:


> So every State body and agency that has a business plan should be immune from cuts? Does this include Fás?


 
That is not what I am saying. A strategic plan is not a business plan.


----------



## ubiquitous (16 Dec 2008)

YOBR said:


> That is not what I am saying. A strategic plan is not a business plan.



Okay then, so every State body and agency that has a strategic plan should be immune from cuts?

Does this include Fás?


----------



## CMCR (16 Dec 2008)

It is not true therefore to broadly state that Citizens Information 'cannot provide the advice given by the EA'.  They do, and often go further than this. 

Citizens Information provide advice and information to everyone on their rights and entitlements and in addition, provide a range of other services.  

These services include the [broken link removed], the [broken link removed], outreach in the community, visits to patients in hospitals and nursing homes, liaison with other agencies and they also accompany people to and acting on behalf of clients with various agencies - for example, the social welfare appeals process, and so on.

Citizens Information also publishes [broken link removed] (on a variety of topics regarding rights and entitlements) on an annual basis which helps facilitate to provide user-friendly information, in accessible formats.  These publications are also an alternative to those who do not have access to their online information, or who are unable to visit a centre or who would prefer to read this information for themselves. 

The organisation also has a [broken link removed] - which includes making submissions and highlighting anomalies on a variety of social policy topics.  In order to this of course, the organisation looks at current procedures, current legislation, case-law, precedent and so on.  Court decisions are also examined in the context of providing accurate information for print and online services to inform people of their rights.  

It is also therefore not true to say that they 'do not monitor case-law'.  Being cognisant of current developments in legislation and in the Courts is key to providing a quality information service. 

I have reason in the past on a number of occasions to contact the Equality Authority and found often they were unable to give any more than the basic information on rights. 

I do not have any association with Citizens Information - FYI.

CMCR.


----------



## Green (16 Dec 2008)

YOBR said:


> The EA is a semi state body under the control of the Dept. of Justice. Every year that body enters into the annual Estimates process with its parent Department. Any increase its received was with the approval of the Dept/Minister of Justice based on its strategic plan which also would have been approved by the Minister. (see link to legislation below).
> 
> http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1998/en/act/pub/0021/sec0040.html#zza21y1998s40
> 
> If the Minister and/or his officals didn't like the direction of the EA, all, they had to do is not approve its Strategic Plan.


 


YOBR said:


> That is a planning process, there are other process's which are meant to oversee value for money. Is there a cast iron guarantee of value for money with any body? There is no suggestion or indeed evidence that the EA was not value for money. It seems ridiculous to me for the Min. Justice to approve a Strategic Plan for 3 years and then cut the budget by 43%. It is obvious that this cut had nothing to do with budgets, and cutting the budget without informing about the rationale is just a cowardly way to operate..


 


ubiquitous said:


> Okay then, so every State body and agency that has a strategic plan should be immune from cuts?
> 
> Does this include Fás?


 
This is getting boring, I have already answered your question on two occassions. If a Minister/Department does not like what an agency is doing they can change or not approve their Strategic Plan.


----------



## Green (16 Dec 2008)

CMCR said:


> Citizens Information provide advice and information to everyone on their rights and entitlements and in addition, provide a range of other services.
> 
> CMCR.


 
Fine I accept that they can give information but cannot take a case on an individuals behalf to the Equality Tribunal. also, in my experience an organisation like Citziens Informations would get certain information from the agency in question.


----------



## ubiquitous (16 Dec 2008)

YOBR said:


> This is getting boring, I have already answered your question on two occassions. If a Minister/Department does not like what an agency is doing they can change or not approve their Strategic Plan.



So you do believe then that Fás, HSE and all other State or semi-state bodies with extant Strategic Plans should be immune from cutbacks until their current Strategic Plans expire. 

If only private-sector firms could afford that luxury


----------



## Green (16 Dec 2008)

ubiquitous said:


> So you do believe then that Fás, HSE and all other State or semi-state bodies with extant Strategic Plans should be immune from cutbacks until their current Strategic Plans expire.
> 
> If only private-sector firms could afford that luxury


 
No! If a Minister does not like the work/or direction of agency he/she should alter their Strategic Plan until he/she does. This would negate the need to come along later as in te case of the EA with a large budget cutback.


----------



## ubiquitous (16 Dec 2008)

YOBR said:


> No! If a Minister does not like the work/or direction of agency he/she should alter their Strategic Plan until he/she does. This would negate the need to come along later as in te case of the EA with a large budget cutback.



But what happens if the public finances deteriorate in the meantime and the State hasn't enough funds to commit to previous promises?


----------



## Green (16 Dec 2008)

ubiquitous said:


> But what happens if the public finances deteriorate in the meantime and the State hasn't enough funds to commit to previous promises?


 
What happens in general and what happened in the specific case of the EA are two different things. 

This was an orchestrated attempt to shaft the work of the EA and not simply a reaction to the budgetary situation even if Justice tried to spin it that way.


----------



## Purple (16 Dec 2008)

YOBR said:


> This was an orchestrated attempt to shaft the work of the EA and not simply a reaction to the budgetary situation even if Justice tried to spin it that way.


 Why do you say that?


----------



## Green (16 Dec 2008)

Purple said:


> Why do you say that?


 
(i) For the reaons I have out lined in this thread, (ii) what I have read elsewhere in print and online, and (iii) the cut to the EA's budget at 43% were in stark contrast to the 2 per cent cut in the Disability Authority's budget, the 1 per cent cut in the Legal Aid Board's funds, and the 9 per cent cut in the Data Protection Commissioner's funds. All of these agencies were under the remit of the Dept. of Justice.


----------



## TarfHead (16 Dec 2008)

YOBR said:


> This is getting boring ..


 
I reached that position with this thread yesterday


----------



## Green (16 Dec 2008)

TarfHead said:


> I reached that position with this thread yesterday


 
Why did you come back to read it today so?


----------



## Complainer (16 Dec 2008)

ubiquitous said:


> But why then isn't there a similar apparatus to "keep manners on such organisations" in relation to matters like ensuring autistic children get educated properly, HSE waiting lists are dealt with etc?



Just in case anyone missed my response above, the Ombudsman does indeed get involved in such cases. If the complainant feels the need to take legal action, the Legal Aid Board may provide support, though this is means-tested. For the remainder, I really don't know enough about these issues to comment on the necessity or otherwise of such support.  But I'm a little confused as to why you're highlighting this point here - Are you suggesting that part of the rationale for the savage cut on the EA was to provide such a service?



ubiquitous said:


> Now that you mention it, yes there is.
> 
> Why did the EA need to employ all of *58* members of staff at the end of 2007?  (source EA annual report 2007. http://www.equality.ie/getFile.asp?FC_ID=456&docID=732)
> 
> ...


I've no idea. I don't really know all that much about what the EA does or how they do it. I'd have thought that those who have concerns might like to get answers to these questions BEFORE they attack the EA, rather than after.


----------



## TarfHead (16 Dec 2008)

YOBR said:


> Why did you come back to read it today so?



.. in the same way that a car crash grabs attention


----------

