Mr. Tomás Lally:

I will deal first with the point on what has been suggested by us. I reckon we are in agreement with the National Association of Citizens Information Services. Our position is the county model, with or without integration with MABS. There is no divergence with MABS. MABS presented a clear view on the matter at the previous meeting. The view was that there should be no change and that nothing is broken so there is no need to fix it. That is our sense as well in terms of governance and so on. However, savings could be made. We have put the idea forward as a possibility but we are not convinced that anything is wrong with the current model that would force us to go down the integration route. Good relationships exist throughout the country between MABS and the citizens information services. Many managers of citizens information services, me included, are on the boards of MABS companies. Good working relationships have developed over several years.

Deputy Collins asked who has instructed the Citizens Information Board and where all of this has come from. These are important questions. If it has come all the way from the Department of Social Protection, then it introduces another important question that needs to be asked. Is the Department of Social Protection the correct Department to fund and guarantee the independence of citizens information services? The Office of the Ombudsman is not funded by the Department of Social Protection. This introduces a far bigger question. The National Association of Citizens Information Services may be able to clarify this and where it is coming from.

Reference was made to the consultation with service users and the Pathfinder report. The Pathfinder report contains details of consultation with 37 service users. The report was not part of our submission but there is no problem in submitting the material to the joint committee, if needs be. The Pathfinder document refers to how the consultants sought the points of view of service users and how 37 service users of citizens information services were asked what was important to them as users of the service. The respondents went through access, empathy, accuracy, assurance of confidentiality and independence, which is an interesting point. These were important to service users, as was having professional premises etc. The Pathfinder consultation concluded that service users did not have any well-formed or consistent views on the importance of structures, such as whether there should be a local board or a national oversight structure to deliver the service. Of course, service users were not asked what would suit best, whether it be a local board, a regional board or a national board. They were not asked the question. The Pathfinder consultants came to the conclusion that they could find no significant structural impediments to delivering the service on an individual basis. We can forward the report to the committee. It was not in our original submission. That was the main point on consultation with service users.