Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent) | Oireachtas source

I thank the witnesses for their clear presentations which contained valuable points for the committee. I have much to discuss but my time is limited so I will try to deal with a few key questions, to which any of the witnesses may respond.

What we heard about the consultation is interesting, as it is a core starting point. What we heard is striking, especially in the presentation from NACIS. I am concerned about the confidentiality issue. Was there an adequate facility for Mr. Lally to be able to consult on the ground? The confidentiality concern would appear to go against discussion and also consultation with the public and service users. We hear consistently about the shortfalls in consultation, so that should be examined. I am also interested in the previous restructuring we heard about, the county-wide restructuring, which appeared to operate in a completely different way. Perhaps both speakers will outline what was different about that restructuring. In the first place, it appears to have been successful. The witnesses talked about it starting at the front line and Mr. Lally mentioned people coming together to submit proposals. Perhaps the witnesses would comment on how the county-wide restructuring ensured local representation, moved from the bottom up rather than from the top down and what should be learned from that.

Also, it appears that the CIS already underwent a restructuring in that process. Mr. Lally mentioned the idea of the county model, with or without MABS, being something that should be examined. What are the thoughts of NACIS on that? Perhaps, Chairman, we might refer back to MABS, seeking its views on that model. It seems to be emerging quite strongly as the preferred model, so it might be one to be considered. Was it given adequate consideration as a model? I note that the extension of MABS and CIS was not one of the models discussed in the Pathfinder Consulting report. I also note with some concern, as my colleague did, that the funder model, or a type of franchise funder model, was identified in the Pathfinder Consulting report as one which would be damaging to services. We must be aware of that danger given that it was identified by Pathfinder Consulting as something that would potentially lead to a deterioration in services.

There has not been a cost-benefit analysis of the proposed eight and eight model that has been put forward. There have been other cost-benefit analyses and I look forward to them being shared with the speakers and to hearing their comments on those models, including the county model.

A core point comes across strongly in this report and from all the speakers. It also comes across in the correspondence we have received from individual citizens information services. It is the advocacy role. To be clear, it is not the National Advocacy Service, which is a service for particular individuals and supports. I refer to the general advocacy role or the democracy role. NACIS put it as the role of at times being in a position of having to advocate against Departments or against the State to champion the citizen. Perhaps the witness would clarify that component, which is not simply a delivery of factual information downwards, because that is part of the core of the work and it came across very strongly. That is an area that could be in jeopardy because, as the witness said, the perception of independence is crucial in that.

Regarding the volunteers, we heard from MABS about its concern in respect of voluntary board members, their ongoing engagement and the costs. Perhaps Mr. Lally could elaborate on some of the costs. I accept that they are rough costs, but there is the potential danger of the loss of almost 1,100 front-line staff. We have front-line volunteers. I am aware that the volunteers are not just volunteers who are in place. There is an extraordinary quality of volunteer within our citizens information services, as many of us have experienced. I have experienced in the NGO sector and in political life how people rely on not just the volunteers but also the quality of the volunteers. Perhaps the witnesses could discuss that question of engagement.

I have also been a member of advisory groups myself and I know that they are different from boards. As I am very aware of that, I seek clarification on the question of the potential disengagement of volunteers. I agree with the concerns expressed regarding no changes during the lifetime of restructuring. What are the potential impact costs and consequences of this model if it is pushed ahead, particularly if it is pushed in an unwilling context?