Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent) | Oireachtas source

Some of the points I wanted to raise have been identified. Certainly the question of a cost-benefit analysis is very important as is clarity around the cost. In a recent parliamentary question, the Minister for Social Protection, Deputy Varadkar, confirmed there has not been a cost-benefit analysis, but I am also interested in a risk analysis. When I read Ms Mangan's presentation, I saw some of the reassurances but it seems unclear how those reassurances can be made. She spoke about people going to the same place and being looked after by the same people. She was speaking of the CIS and the MABS restructuring, on which we have received submissions.

As I understand, of the 2,800 staff in the CIS, 1,900 are volunteers. If we are looking to restructure the delivery of those services, it is very hard to understand how there would not be a severe risk in respect of the board of MABS but perhaps more crucially in respect of the volunteers at the front line of the Citizens Information Service around the country. What is the risk in terms of loss if we are looking at 1,900 volunteers? Potentially, that could be disruptive to those seeking support. It would be very useful to get a breakdown on who is delivering those services.

I refer to the rationale for this proposed restructuring. We heard about governance and questions have been asked about that. In her presentation, Ms Mangan mentioned that it had become increasingly challenging in recent years due to staff reductions to meet the needs of these companies. She also explicitly mentioned the concerns in terms of compliance with the employment control framework levels. Is this a matter of staffing? Could we have clarity on what the staffing levels were in 2009 when MABS was originally amalgamated? What are the staffing levels today and what is the employment control framework? We have lifted the recruitment embargo so if this is a matter of staffing and staffing resources, it might be like using a sledgehammer to break a nut to seek to restructure all these companies if the key problem is simply one of staffing supports at the central level. It would be good to clarify that, so that we do not put it in as a rationale for something which might be much more easily fixed and addressed without such radical costs.

Ms Mangan spoke a little about the consultation process and very real concerns have been raised about it. It was mentioned that CIB had a majority on those various groups which the process moved through. Perhaps she could comment on that and on whether it has affected the outcome. She mentioned meeting and consulting people but the key point for us is agreement. Has there been agreement from either CIS or MABS? It seems that there has not been agreement to these proposals and models.

Ms Mangan mentioned what was agreed between that company and the CIB. If concerns have been raised, maybe she could clarify them. We have had some indication that due to confidentiality arrangements around these processes, there may have been difficulties in those who were taking part, for example, on behalf of MABS or CIS, in these processes engaging in their own consultation on the ground with their members and clients. What was the consultation on the ground? Was there further consultation with staff, volunteers and service users feeding into that? That is crucial.

On governance, I would respectfully disagree with one point which Ms Mangan made where she suggested that the persons using the service do not care about its governance. Perhaps they do. Currently, in the cases of both MABS and CIS, we have a situation where service users maybe on the board because there is voluntary and community representation on those local boards and the same could be the case with some of the volunteer staff. It is quite deeply ingrained in terms of 25 years of MABS and 40 years of the community services.

I have two very explicit questions. It does not seem to me that there is agreement. What will happen to services that do not agree? That is very important. The county based option was discussed as a model. It seems to have been in place for 20 years or so with the community information services. The county based model would be one other way of amalgamating them and would perhaps be less drastic than reducing the number from 98 to 16. Why was the county based model rejected?