Is Merging the NDA and Equality Authority raising questions for Angela Kerins?

Simon McGarr’s post raised the issue of state agency rationalisation. It is an issue we may well not care much for at the moment, as we’re ‘too busy’ with the recession. Yet we should be concerned that some the agencies being tied together and taken back into departments are those ones with a nasty habit of rocking the boat. Agencies who might discuss the uncomfortable issues of inequality, rights and disabilities and government contravention of national and international conventions on the rights of many citizens.

Those agencies represent areas where the government and legislators agreed with best practice and fairness and guaranteeing the independence of the actions of the agencies. Indeed the Equality Tribunal was established as an imparital and quasi-judicial body with legally binding judgements on cases concerning the Equal Status Act and the Employment Equality Act. The Irish Human Rights Commission is included in the Good Friday Agreement and is a statutory body whose powers and mandate are outlined in the Human Rights Commission Act 2000.

The Government wants cuts and those cuts are to come from the proposed merger of the National Disability Authority, the Irish Human Rights Commission, the Equality Tribunal and the Data Protection Commissioners with the Equality Authority.

Yesterday’s story on Angela Kerins (CEO of Rehab Group/ Chair of the NDA/ Chair of the Equality Authority) makes me slightly uncomfortable about the politics which is in operation in the management and proposed merger of the agencies.

The chairwoman of the National Disability Authority (NDA), Angela Kerins, is also chief executive of Rehab, one of the largest disability service providers in the State. The authority last month awarded a €200,000 contract to Rehab Enterprises - a division of Rehab - for support and advice in relation to its “excellence through accessibility” awards.

Rehab is a major service provider in disability and rehabilitation in Ireland and the UK. Both the NDA and Rehab have issued statements explaining the mechanisms involving decision making where Ms. Kerin’s interests could come into conflict. What consideration has been given to the fact that Rehab Group holds contracts and service level agreements funded by the state to provide many services for people with disabilities and others requiring rehabilitation services including home care, education, day services and housing supports?

Their vast enterprise services include recycling projects and running An Siopa, the shop in Leinster House.

I for one would be interested to know if; in the tender mentioned in Carl O’Brien’s story if Rehab Group are doing the work of the NDA for them, (one of the departments of the NDA is a Centre for Excellence in Universal Design) and if they are then why is that? Are they the experts on these projects? Can we be ultimately sure there are no conflicts of interest are at play here, especially in terms of further contracts of advice and consultancy that many agencies covered by the Disability Act which Rehab Group may apply for in the future - after recommending and advising on strategies that are required in their work for the NDA.

Ms. Kerins is also a board member of the Broadcasting Commission of Ireland (another ministerial appointment), a member of Comreg’s Consumer Advisory Panel and a member of the Department of Foreign Affairs NGO committee on Human Rights. She has also served as a member of the National Executive of the Irish Business Employers Confederation. Much busier than Celia Larkin!

Back to the mergers for a minute - It is worth reflecting on how the responses of two of the agencies affected by the proposed merger be independently anchored and guided by the same person. (Those responses are due back to the Dept of Justice, Equality and Law Reform are due by the middle of September.)

There are many issues which are not being addressed in the drip of information regarding the moves of the Dept of Justice Equality and Law Reform and the Department of Finance, that need answering, like the conflicts of interest, the influence of department heads, and most importantly the challenge of independence that was supposedly guaranteed to institutions to speak for those whom government couldn’t or wouldn’t