Mr. Michael McGuane:

I thank the Chairman and committee members for their invitation to address the committee. I am the chair of the National Association of Citizens Information Services. I am joined by our project manager, Joe Rynn. We welcome the opportunity to bring forward our views on the proposed restructuring of Citizens Information services. We are at a major watershed moment in citizens information in Ireland, and the decision to restructure the model of service delivery will without doubt have a serious impact, for good or ill, on our future. A citizens information service is one of the hallmarks of a modern democratic society, as are, for example, Free Legal Advice Centres, the various ombudsman offices, etc. Such services are conspicuously absent from less democratic regimes, and with good reason. Citizens Information Services seek in some measure to empower ordinary people to vindicate their rights and entitlements. We in some way help to redress the enormous power imbalances that exist in our society between, on the one hand, the State and its various agencies and, on the other, those on the margins.

The National Association of Citizens Information Services is the national representative body of Citizens Information Services and was established in November 2006. The main objectives of our association are to represent the collective views of the local Citizens Information Services nationally and to inform policy and strategic planning in respect of those services with a view to benefiting the individuals and communities serviced by Citizens Information Services, promoting social inclusion and tackling disadvantage. This is based on the legislation. The association has the important role of representing all the local stakeholders involved in service delivery. We represent the views of our members, that is, the 42 services. The members are made up of three strands, as we call them: the board members of the CIS companies, which provide their support and expertise on a voluntary basis; the employees of the services, including the development managers, information officers, administrators and others; and, equally importantly, the 1,100 volunteers whom we represent and who deliver front-line services to our customers and clients.

Since restructuring was first proposed by the Citizens Information Board, the national association has sought to engage constructively with the Citizens Information Board. Our primary objective has at all times been the protection and enhancement of the services we deliver. However, in our view, the Citizens Information Board has not at any time made a compelling case for the need for change in order to improve services. Since their inception, the Citizens Information Services have operated on a communitarian basis, funded by the State rather than constituting a centralised service provided by the State, and this is the crucial distinction. A structure that will maintain the community ethos of the Citizens Information Services is required. The proposal to regionalise and centralise the service will fundamentally change our ethos.

We have consistently expressed the view that structural changes will not by themselves lead to improved outcomes for the service and that incorrect structural changes have the potential to damage the service and weaken the public's confidence in it. As public representatives, the committee members do not need me to remind them of the consequences of similar approaches in the health services, local government and elsewhere in recent years. We question the efficiency gains, if any, to be achieved from this restructuring and are very concerned about the potential implications of the proposed regional model.

NACIS accepts and supports the proposition that there is scope to deliver greater efficiency and effectiveness in how we do our business. However, unless all the other key components, including systems of governance, management and staffing, fit-for-purpose IT systems and tools, and effective policies and procedures, are addressed in an integrated and systematic way, we will not deliver a better service. Structural changes will not make any difference in this regard. Most fundamentally, developing proposals for change should start at the front line, where services are delivered, and work up from there, rather than a top-down approach whereby the impact on service users is the last thing taken into consideration.

NACIS has offered a clear viewpoint to the Citizens Information Board on our preferred model for service delivery. This was contained in our submissions towards the development of the Pathfinder report, to which Mr. Lally has referred. More recently, in the NACIS presentation to the Citizens Information Board, we outlined our concerns over the restructuring and our preference for a county or community-based model. We also highlighted the potential for integration of service delivery between the Money Advice & Budgeting Service, MABS, and CISs as a means of strengthening governance arrangements and generating greater efficiencies while maintaining the communitarian ethos. While the CIB may claim it has engaged in a consultative process, the view of our membership is that no meaningful engagement has taken place and that the views of those who best understand the realities and challenges of service delivery have not been taken on board.

A key strength and resource CIS has is the central role of its volunteers. Like MABS, the CIS boards are voluntary and board members give freely of their time to serve on our local boards. Uniquely, CISs also include volunteers who deliver front-line service, reception, information and, in a small number of cases, advocacy services to the public, with over 1,100 volunteers working in these areas. It is interesting to note that very few Citizens Information Services have paid reception staff as most of our reception is done by volunteers. Some Citizens Information Centres take on people on CE schemes. This model is unique and only available within the Citizens Information Services, where citizens work to support and assist their fellow citizens to access their rights and entitlements. This has been our ethos, as Mr. Lally said, since day one. It is estimated that 66% of our service to the public is delivered by volunteers.

The proposed regional model has potential negative impacts for all the key stakeholders. There is a real concern, to which Mr. Lally has already referred because it has started already, that volunteers will become disengaged from the Citizens Information Service. They will be denied the right to board representation, and local leadership of their service will disappear. Without such strong local leadership and direct connection to the community, it is likely to be more difficult to encourage and engage volunteers into the future. This will present a significant cost for the CIB to manage. Services will either be curtailed or staff will be required to replace the loss of the voluntary input at front-line service delivery. As well as direct financial impacts, the intangible asset of active citizenship and the communitarian approach, which has been our thing, could be lost forever.

As referred to earlier, local Citizens Information Services are currently managed by a voluntary board of directors with the support of a paid development manager. A key strength of the local boards is the strong organic connection to the local community, including local civil society representatives such as the Society of St. Vincent de Paul, Threshold and other relevant local agencies. It is worth reminding ourselves, before we cut the local link, that the services grew organically from the communities which they serve. In the context of modern governance requirements, NACIS accepts the need to strengthen systems of governance to enhance oversight, transparency, accountability for public funds, etc., but this can be achieved without throwing away the experience and expertise that exists within the network.

Regarding employees, while NACIS does not play any formal role in the management of human resource and industrial relations issues, we are acutely aware of the concerns and uncertainties among our valued employees and managers.

In particular, it is concerned about the impact these changes will have on the morale and motivation of its development managers and staff.

As indicated, I am presenting our initial response, as determined by our national executive, to the restructuring proposals. We will be consulting further with our members in the very near future. However, we have some additional observations to make at this time.

As Mr. Lally has already mentioned, we have grave concerns over the lifetime of the restructuring programme. I refer to the phrase in the document. Clarity is required on the timeline in the context of commitments to no changes to service locations and terms and conditions of employment of our managers and staff.

We are very concerned about board selection. NACIS has strong concerns regarding the proposed composition, purpose and scope of the new boards, in addition to the proposed recruitment process, which is similar to the Public Appointments Service process. This approach has the potential to discourage serving Citizens Information Board, CIB, board members from going forward. There is a real need for continuity between existing boards and whatever new structures are put in place. This needs to be recognised in the creation of any new structure and specific provision must be made to ensure existing boards continue to be represented. The new boards must act as a guarantor of independence of the service, ensuring that the communitarian ethos of the service is maintained. This has been a basic principle of the service since its inception over 40 years ago.

With regard to staff, there is a need for a clear plan or structure to be published. Our staff, including development managers, information staff and volunteers working in the current services, are not clear on their future roles, and there is an imminent risk of losing vital local expertise if a clear plan is not set out. Staff are unclear as to how the new regional structures will operate. In fact, they know nothing about this because it is a closely guarded secret. The lack of clarity is generating significant worry and uncertainty. There is nothing more damaging to a voluntary or community-type organisation than uncertainty about the future and this needs to be addressed urgently.

Mr. Lally has already referred to recent resignations. These were just down the road in Dún Laoghaire, which is a service substantially run by volunteers. Long-serving members are so disillusioned by what is going on that they have opted out. That is worrying. With regard to stakeholders, the lack of a reference in the document to volunteers and service users in any meaningful way is very disappointing, as is the absence of a reference to our organisation, NACIS.

On communications, NACIS has highlighted the need for the Citizens Information Board to maintain strong communication and engagement with the representative bodies. Much mention has been made of consultation but the CIB must begin to demonstrate engagement in meaningful consultation. This includes accepting and responding positively to recommendations from NACIS and the other representative organisations but equally, where our recommendations are not accepted, the CIB board must provide explanations and reasons for its decision. That is normal in any democracy. We are not saying everything we say should be accepted but we should at least be given reasons for decisions.

NACIS recommends that the Citizens Information Service board establish a forum that includes representatives of the CIB and the representative groups, such as NACIS and MABS groups, to meet on an annual basis. This will provide an important forum for the CIB board to meet and hear from the services directly.

Having said all that, it is important to say that we acknowledge and appreciate the support, leadership and training provided by the board and executive of CIB over the years. Mr. Lally has already referred to this. Without them, we would not be here at all. Our wish is to work with them constructively on delivering our common objective of having a better service. All of us are committed to this.

NACIS has outlined in previous written submissions its preferred model to support consolidation within the network. Any realignment or consolidation will need to include careful consideration of potential implications and whether a direct change will improve the service for the citizen. Any restructuring proposal must not undermine or weaken one of the key founding principles legislated for in the creation of the CIB, which was "to promote greater accessibility, co-ordination and public awareness of social services and of information, advice and advocacy services provided in relation to such services whether by a statutory body or a voluntary body". The need to ensure accessibility to services locally is a fundamental principle that the citizens information services have worked to achieve and, indeed, have done. This is demonstrated through our strong outreach supports around the counties in which we operate and active involvement of citizens on a voluntary basis in service delivery.

Citizens information services are currently provided using a model of service delivery appropriate for service users by advocating frequently on their behalf, against the State and its agencies. While supported by the State through CIB, independence is both guaranteed and evidenced by the local boards of management. The proposed regional model, based not on local leadership but on a CIB-selected and CIB-led board of management, will offer a more centralised approach, with its independence compromised from the outset. We are very concerned that this structure and method of appointment constitutes a State-delivered service that would not be appropriate or in the best interest of the citizen. The degree of control implicit in the proposed model is more akin to what is required for an agency that needs to be controlled by the State. It is not an appropriate model on which to base the type of service provided by our members. The CIS is Government-funded, but it cannot be perceived to be Government-run.

Our primary concern is with the quality and accessibility of the services we deliver, while retaining the trust and confidence of those who use them. The area or county community-based model represents the right balance between retaining the local dimension and delivering consistent standards of governance, management and efficiency. The reliance on volunteer input and active citizenship is a unique feature that needs to be protected and sustained. We want to engage constructively on implementation, provided that consultation is meaningful. We thank members for their attention and will welcome any questions they may have for us.