Mr. Tomás Lally:

I thank the Chairman.

CIS started out in the 1970s with local groups of volunteers who came together in their areas to establish and provide an information service.

In each local area, a voluntary committee came together and rosters were set up for volunteers to be available when people came seeking help. Some of the early trailblazers around the country were people like Kitty Howley in Castlebar, Lily O’Doherty in Clondalkin, Moira Byrne and Valerie Keegan in Bray, Charlie O’Toole in Tallaght, Tom Fitzgerald in Tipperary; the list goes on. These pioneering volunteers identified the supports that citizens needed long before there were any strategies or consultants like Pathfinder or money available to develop services. They funded their services with flag days and church gate collections. That is how it started.

In 1999 local voluntary committees came together at county level with representatives from statutory bodies and other community voluntary groups. They put together a plan for the development of citizen information services across the counties. They submitted these plans to the National Social Services Board, NSSB, a predecessor of Comhairle and what is now the Citizens Information Board. At a board meeting of the NSSB, those plans were approved and county-wide services were established. Each local committee had a representative on that new county-wide company and, in effect, it was a county-wide restructuring that happened at the turn of the century. We should be clear that citizen information services are distinctly local and to say they are national is simply incorrect. To do so is not to understand the history and evolution of citizen information services in the country.

The National Development Managers Network recently commissioned a report on citizens information services in Ireland titled Making an Impact: The Public Value of Citizens Information Services in Ireland. We have submitted a copy to the committee and the report provides many facts and figures about services, including detailed case studies. It shows how our services are making a difference every single day for citizens in this country. It also references how our services have been supporting the development of citizen information and advice models across the European Union. I will mention one figure to the committee, which might be the most important figure we could mention in the course of this morning. An average of 2,300 citizens will make contact with their local citizen information services today, with over 1,800 calling in person. If the committee wishes, we would welcome the opportunity later to take it through the report in some detail.

I will briefly turn to restructuring and how we got here. In 2014, Pathfinder Consultants were engaged by CIB to do a feasibility study. It was to "demonstrate the need or otherwise for greater integration of the management and organisational structures supporting services with the objective of achieving better outcomes for citizens. Pathfinder did not demonstrate anything with empirical evidence and it is very poor in that regard. It ended up with a recommendation after 60 pages, stating:

Our preferred option ... is to consolidate the boards as much as possible as close as to a single point of authority for each of MABS and CIS. [....] The closer the structure can get to the 'single board' scenario, the closer the stakeholders get to service delivery and the closer the service gets to stakeholders.

Who are the stakeholders being spoken about? It is very clearly the funder as the sentence makes absolutely no sense if it is the citizen. In that case, it would read "The closer the citizen gets to service delivery and the closer the service gets to the citizen", which makes absolutely no sense. The key stakeholder envisaged here is clearly the funder, not the citizen or taxpayer.

I have spoken a little about the background of the Citizens Information Service through the years and how the needs of the citizen have dictated the evolution of that service. I will speak a little about the narrative of the Citizens Information Board and how it has changed quite recently. A respectful and dynamic narrative was historically in existence between CIB and services over many decades. CIB provided significant support to services, particularly in the area of information technology support, training and service promotion. We have had robust exchanges down the years with CIB and we have not always agreed but there always was a sense that we respected each other enough to base claims on solid evidence. We did not base any claims on appeals to an authority. We were dealing with people who clearly understood what it is to fund a service that occupies the privileged space between the State and the citizen. That is how it used to be. Sadly, that narrative has changed.

In the CIB annual report of 2015, the chair of CIB, Ms Ita Mangan, in her chairperson's report states:

Our distinctive structure – a network of independent services, deeply embedded in local communities, funded and supported by a statutory agency – gives us a unique strength. Without the close relationship each service has with its local community, we could not deliver on our remit – providing information, advice, advocacy and budgeting services, when and where they are needed.

When we come to the 2015 annual report, there is no mention of a "network of independent services" in either the chairperson’s report or the chief executive officer's overview. In the overview of 2015 from the chief executive officer, Angela Black characterises the relationship between CIB and the services as follows: "We are continuing to develop our services through the companies that deliver them." That is a dramatic change in narrative and CISs are now seen as instruments of delivery and means to an end. There is no longer any sense of a unique strength from a network of independent services deeply embedded in local communities.

At a joint committee meeting two weeks ago there was much talk about governance and accountability. The Comptroller and Auditor General was mentioned on more than one occasion. At this stage I point the committee to two documents we have submitted which demonstrate very clearly how CISs are micro-governed. These are the Financial Controls and Reporting Requirements for Citizens Information Services in receipt of a Citizens Information Board Operational Grant and the service agreement that citizens information services sign with CIB. Both are very detailed documents spelling out clearly the responsibilities and requirements on citizens information services which access funding. The service agreement not only goes through the conditions on which funding is allocated but also mentions funding being withdrawn. At section 7.2, it states that funding can be withdrawn without cause. How governance can be an issue with these exacting controls and agreements in place is absolutely puzzling. If services are not following the rules or there is a variation in services provided, CIB must act. The National Development Managers Network is not aware of any citizens information service across this country being sanctioned by the Citizens Information Board for breaches of service level agreements or financial controls.

At the previous joint committee meeting, reference was made to underperforming services. "Poor services" was the quote. There was no reference to whom CIB was referring. In 2014 and 2015, all CIS and Money Advice & Budgeting Service, MABS, company services went through an independent evaluation and all services received all services received quality awards to Gold Star Service Excellence standard. There was an intensive process that services went through to get these and we were evaluated under headings like "customer-friendly policies", "learning from customers", and "delivering customer service excellence". Why were the underperforming, poor services not rooted out during the Gold Star Service Excellence process? Why does the CIB not withhold funding and enforce service level agreements or financial controls if there are so many problems? I suggest there are no problems as indicated.

I will turn briefly to the proposed regional model for MABS and CISs. It is important to note that the stated rationale for restructuring in the CIB strategic plan for 2015 to 2018 has three elements. They are to "better serve the citizen", improve "the delivery of consistent high-quality services" and "to maximise effective use of resources". How does the proposed structure perform under these criteria? Will a regionalised CIB-controlled structure better serve the citizen? The citizen is a key stakeholder but the citizen has not been properly consulted.

No evidence exists that citizens are dissatisfied with the service currently provided and, crucially, no evidence has been provided that a regionalised service with an extra tier of regional managers will better serve the citizen.

The Citizens Information Board, CIB, has confirmed that the proposed regional boards will not have directors representing community and voluntary organisations. Regional boards will be remote, inaccessible and unaccountable to the areas they serve. That is hardly serving the citizen better. The additional costs of the regionalised structure are being spent on a tier of regional managers, not on front-line service delivery personnel. How will that benefit the citizen? Citizen information services, CISs, in working in the space between the citizen and the State, have a social policy remit and use that to highlight issues of concern regarding the operation of Government schemes and services. Restructuring will close that space and pull services closer to Government and away from the citizen.

The second rationale is that a regionalised CIB controlled structure will improve the delivery of consistent high quality services. No evidence has been provided to support that. The Pathfinder study merely states the funder’s hunch, which is that "CIB feels that a central authority is a logical development in the evolution of the services that helps assure consistent quality". Where is the evidence? As I said already, it is important, in terms of consistent high quality service, to remember that all services have got their Gold Star Service Excellence Awards.

On the regional structure maximising the effective use of resources, it should be pointed out that no cost-benefit analysis has as yet been seen for this regionalised structure. Restructuring, dismantling existing companies, setting up new ones, recruiting regional managers and transferring existing staff to new boards is estimated to cost in the region of €500,000. The additional cost of restructuring, if CIB intends to engage 16 regional managers, will be in the region of €75,000 per manager when salary, employer PRSI, pension, travel and subsistence costs are factored in. That will come to €1.2 million, unless they decide that there will be managers' roles within the existing service that will be lost and therefore that will achieve some savings. We have not got clarity on that; we do not know. It is not clear how much the CIB appointed regional boards will cost. No detail has been made available. No figures have been given to compare the current cost of voluntary boards with the new CIB appointed boards.

There are currently 1,089 volunteers in the CIS network who have a right of participation on boards. Those volunteers will not be represented on the new boards. Effectively, volunteers are being disenfranchised in this new model and they may well vote with their feet. We know from some of our colleagues that volunteers are somewhat disillusioned with this entire process and have voted with their feet already. In recent weeks, some development managers and other senior staff have already started to move on. We are losing good people. The workforce is demotivated and there is a lot of fear. The workforce is demoralised because of a process that was not open and transparent and about which there was no real dialogue.

Some comment has been made about the cost of audited accounts for 93 companies. If the CIB believes money can be saved on audits and accounts, there is nothing stopping it from tendering for an accountancy or an audit firm to carry out audits for the 93 companies and perhaps achieve savings that way. Given the similarity between companies, I expect substantial savings could be achieved by having a tendering process for that.

On the position of the citizens information services, it is important we consider the situation in the United Kingdom. In the UK, money advice and citizen advice services are provided alongside each other, and it is important to note that local models are retained in the UK. I reference the Citizens Advice Annual Report and Accounts 2015/2016, which state:

Citizens Advice is a national charity with 307 local Citizens Advice members which are all individual charities in their own right. Together we make up the Citizens Advice service.

Another publication, Making the Case: The value to society of the Citizens Advice service, which was published in the UK in April 2014, states:

We act as one service, with one vision, yet we are also rooted in each and every community across England and Wales. Our bureaux are staffed by local people who are passionate about their community and sensitive to local needs.

If we were to integrate MABS and CIS services, what would that achieve? It would reduce the number of voluntary boards from 93, which has been described as unwieldy, down to approximately 30. It would ensure that the services were still community-based. It would be far more cost-effective. A total of €1.2 million would not be required for an additional tier of regional managers, and it would achieve annual savings on accountancy and audit fees of approximately €126,000.

From the outset, the push to regionalisation has been driven from the top by the CIB. There has been no dialogue, even though dialogue has been sought by services. At best, issues highlighted by the network have been noted, parked and subsequently ignored. Representatives were sought from representative bodies to serve on a restructuring sub-committee set up by the CIB at the beginning of this year, and as a condition of their participation, they were requested to accept a confidentiality agreement which prevented them from discussions with the membership they were supposed to be representing. Where dialogue is thwarted, goodwill disappears. Goodwill is based on respect, trust, common understanding, relationships and how we treat each other. In the end, a regionalised, restructured service may look very good on paper but that is the only place it will look good.

I want to refer to some of the comments made by CIB representatives at the last joint committee meeting. The chair of the CIB, Ita Mangan, stated that the CIB was "only changing the back room", suggesting that management and structural changes will have no impact on the front line. However, this restructuring is not about a behind the scenes change. What happens in Castlebar citizens information centre, CIC, will be decided by the Citizens Information Board in Dublin, which will have total control over the board, the chair and the regional manager it has appointed in perhaps Galway. The CIB will have appointed all of those. To describe that as a back room change is a ridiculous analogy, but what is most concerning about that is the misleading impression it creates.

The CIB stated also that there was no dissent on the restructuring sub-committee. The committee was set up by the CIB with six CIB members, comprising three staff and three board members from the CIB, and four CIS-MABS representatives. The CIS and the MABS representatives were gagged with confidentiality on joining the group. They could not report back to or represent anyone.

The CIS stated here two weeks ago that there will be no changes during the lifetime of the restructuring programme, which ends at the end of 2018. The reality is that all bets are off after that. What will the service look like on 1 January 2019? That is the key question.

Governance, accountability and value for money were the three reasons given by the chair of CIB at the previous joint committee meeting for the dismantling of local services. Governance and accountability are red herrings. We have referenced documents and the exacting demands that are made on citizens information services through service agreements and financial controls. We could go through those in detail if the members wish.

It has not been demonstrated by CIB how the proposed regional model will better serve the citizen, improve the delivery of consistent high quality services or be a more effective use of resources. In fact, this model will cost. It will take community representation out of services and services out of communities. It will position them closer to Government. Perhaps this is part of the promised new narrative for rural areas. It should be remembered that €1.2 million will be spent on regional managers, not on front-line service delivery.

The key stakeholder, the citizen, deserves access to our services in an independent space where issues are listened to and addressed and can be fed into the formation of social policy, a space that connects Government, public services and citizens, where face-to-face interaction is welcomed and not simply tolerated - an empathic supportive space.

We are providing evidence here today of financial controls and governance compliance. We are not aware that the Comptroller and Auditor General has any issues with citizen information services. We are asking the Minister, who has the power under the Citizens Information Act of 2007, to issue a directive to the Citizens Information Board to halt this proposed regionalisation. Let sense prevail. Let the established bodies and CIB embark on an open, meaningful, constructive dialogue about this issue. We have a responsibility to the citizen. We need to get this right, build on what exists already, look closely at what works very efficiently in the UK and move towards integration of services at county level, with an acknowledgement that services in larger population areas like Dublin, Cork and Kildare will need to be looked at slightly differently. It is not too late.