Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent) | Oireachtas source

I do not want to go over the same ground. I would simply note that it is not a matter of the committee simply disagreeing with the decision of the Citizens Information Board. It is that we raised concerns about the public interest, including the concern that an appropriate cost-benefit analysis had not been done. I will only touch on the two other issues because Ms Mangan has raised them. They are the questions of good governance and improvement in services. It seems that the only area where any potential improvement in services is being posited is if there is a freeing up of local managers to carry out more front-line work. I will come back to the question of whether that improvement in services might have been agreed in others but that is a very narrow proposal in terms of improving services. In terms of governance, the beginning of this cost-benefit analysis stated that concerns were raised by internal sources such as the Department of Social Protection, which, again, seemed to be a major influencer, and the Comptroller and Auditor General that this is a highly inefficient structure that does not optimise the use of available resources. We did request and were provided with documentation and I thank the Citizens Information Board for sharing documentation with us. We saw nothing from the Comptroller and Auditor General that suggests that office had a concern with the existing structure. It was very clear that anything we saw from the Comptroller and Auditor General related to the under-resourcing of internal compliance at the Citizens Information Board. That seemed to be reinforced by the comment in Ms Mangan's introduction to this new document where she spoke about difficulties coming to the fore as the number of staff in the Citizens Information Board reduced in recent years. It seems that it was the issue of internal capacity that was being flagged by the Comptroller and Auditor General.

Even though the terms were no-change, something nobody has looked into, there is a little bit of moving around. The report's cost benefit analysis talks about no-change but then throws in a hypothetical compliance unit that would cost €433,000 as something that could be done. This is no-change plus a compliance unit. When one says there is to be no-change, and then adds in a change, one is actually talking about an alternative. It is described in a couple of places as an alternative. Let us put the €433,000 compliance unit as an alternative. It is mentioned in the beginning of the report in respect of the costs but disappears in terms of the benefits. It really should have been followed through if it is an alternative. It should have been followed through as an alternative to which the restructuring should be compared, throughout this full document. Let us keep that €433,000 compliance unit figure in mind.

I want to dive in to the figures. I do not believe we have a problem with the language. I do not believe that we are intimidated by the economics. We have a concern around the fact that the logics in place here are flawed and inconsistent, and a real concern with the fact that the figures double up and sometimes do not add up. I shall not going to spend time on the key point at the beginning but I might come back in later on the wider question of accountability, which I believe is crucial. I shall dive in to the figures. The section on costs shows a figure for set-up costs of €1.94 million. Within that there is some talk-----