Edward Timmins (Wicklow, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I ask everyone to turn off all mobile phones and devices or put them on silent.

I wish to explain some limitations to parliamentary privilege and the practice of the Houses as regards references witnesses may make to other persons in their evidence. Witnesses are protected by absolute privilege in respect of the presentation they make to the committee. This means they have an absolute defence against any defamation action for anything they say at the meeting. However, witnesses are expected not to abuse this privilege and it is my duty as Chair to ensure that this privilege is not abused. Therefore, if witnesses' statements are potentially defamatory in relation to an identifiable person or entity, they will be directed to discontinue their remarks. It is imperative they comply with any such direction.

I advise members of the constitutional requirement that they must be physically present within the confines of the Leinster House complex to participate in public meetings. In this regard, I ask any member partaking via MS Teams that prior to making their contribution to the meeting, they confirm they are on the grounds of the Leinster House campus. Members are reminded of the long-standing parliamentary practice that they should not criticise or make charges against any person or entity by name or in such a way as to make him, her or it identifiable or otherwise engage in speech that might be regarded as damaging to the good name of the person or entity. Therefore, if their statements are potentially defamatory in relation to an identifiable person or entity, I will direct them to discontinue their remarks. It is imperative they comply with any such direction.

Today's engagement is on addressing the sustainable funding of voluntary bodies contracted by the State to deliver essential services. I welcome a number of witnesses from the Save Our Services coalition of voluntary bodies: Mr. John Gallagher, public affairs adviser at The Wheel; Ms Elaine Teague, CEO of Disability Federation of Ireland; Mr. David Carroll, Dublin Homeless Network; and Ms Marian Quinn, Coalition of Tusla Funded Grantees. The committee welcomes the opportunity to engage with them. I thank them for being here today.

I now invite Mr. Gallagher to make a short presentation for the group, followed by Ms Teague who will make her opening statement.

Mr. John Gallagher:

I thank the Chair and the committee for inviting us to present today. The Coalition of Service Delivery Organisations is a recently established body combining all the organisations involved in delivering services to the State under contracted arrangements. While many of the members may have come across individual members of the coalition before, whether it is in disability, housing, homelessness or mental health, this is the first time this broad coalition, which represents about 40,000 people in the sector working in delivering services, has presented to an Oireachtas committee. It highlights many of the concerns we have about the need for a cross-governmental and cross-departmental approach to address many of the ongoing issues around sustainability. That is the basis on which we are here today. I hope the committee finds it interesting and informative.

Ms Elaine Teague:

I thank the committee for the opportunity to present today. I am the CEO of the Disability Federation of Ireland. As Mr. Gallagher outlined, we are here to represent a coalition of service providers working in health and social care in Ireland on behalf of the State. We sent in our submission with some facts and figures. I will speak to a couple of those points in this opening address.

Collectively, on behalf of the State, we deliver a significant portion of front-line health and social care services in Ireland. Our message here today is straightforward: while we provide these essential services, without sustainable funding, all these organisations are at risk. We are seeing growing pressures across the health and social care system. Not a day goes by without hearing about long waiting lists, people who need support and communities under pressure. We suggest today that we are at a tipping point in that some organisations may not survive the current crisis.

Our sector has a long history of working in partnership with the State, but partnership only works well when funding reflects the real cost of service delivery and, right now, that is not the case. A clear example of this is the recently implemented pension auto-enrolment scheme, which we all fully support. However, we have not been provided with any additional funding to cover the cost of that scheme. Our organisations cannot increase income in order to absorb these new costs, nor do we want to reduce services to pay the costs of pension auto-enrolment. That leaves organisations with very few options. Already, we see organisations delaying recruitment, reducing staff hours and scaling back services. That means that for people in our communities, there are longer waiting times.

It is important to note that while we have pay-related costs, we also have non-pay related costs and inflationary costs that form another part of the picture. Organisations are facing significant inflation costs, driving up the cost of fuel, heating, lighting and food. We have high costs in rent, insurance, cybersecurity and governance requirements. These all add to the financial pressures that organisations are under. It is not sustainable for organisations to continue to deliver high-quality services and supports in these circumstances.

However, it is important to note there has been progress. Last year, the Workplace Relations Commission, WRC, made a pay agreement with our sector which was a very positive step forward. An additional €600 million of funding for disability services in budget 2026 is very welcome, but there are questions about how that funding was allocated, where it was delivered and what outcomes it achieved.

Our group is interested in moving forward from the position we are in now. There is a need for a different approach to funding. We know what good looks like. We know that we need an approach that reflects the immediate response to the crisis of sustainability issues, an approach that will address medium-term responses and commitments and some long-term thinking. There are examples of what works well outlined in our written submission. Homeless services have shown improved relationships and funding approaches and how they can deliver sustainable and stabilised service delivery. My colleague, Mr. Carroll, will speak to that reform agenda and the outcomes for homeless services.

We also have structures like the Department of Health dialogue forum, which supports better partnerships between the State and the sector.

Where other jurisdictions are concerned, the Scottish model has demonstrated success when multi-annual funding is in place. Therefore, the issue is not a lack of solutions; it is a lack of consistent application. We ask today that as members consider budget 2027, we move from short-term thinking and responses to medium-term investment and long-term thinking.

We need targeted short-term funding to include funding for pension auto-enrolment and for non-pay cost pressures under the umbrella of inflation. We also need sustainable measures through medium-term investments and that specifically relates to multi-annual funding and the full cost of service delivery. In the longer term, we need to plan for the future needs of our communities. We are aware that we have an ageing population, that people have increased support needs and that there are additional complexities in our communities, so we need to enable long-term planning to ensure we can respond to those needs.

In addition to short-, medium- and long-term planning, we are also requesting additional transparency measures, including clear reporting on what budget allocation has been made, what it aims to deliver and who is going to be positively impacted.

This committee has a critical role because budget oversight is not just about tracking spending; it is also about ensuring funding delivers real outcomes for people in their communities. At present, our organisations are being asked to deliver essential services without the financial conditions to sustain them. We are suggesting that a whole-of-government approach is required to address these issues. The consequences of not addressing them are clear: services will reduce and people will lose out. We are ready to work with our colleagues in government to try to get this right. We thank members for making time available today to have this engagement and, perhaps, progress this agenda.

Edward Timmins (Wicklow, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank Ms Teague. I will start with Deputy Nash.

Gerald Nash (Louth, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the witnesses very much for appearing before us today and accepting our invitation. This is an issue that I can safely say all committee members are concerned about. These are issues that we encounter every day in our constituencies and in our day-to-day work on the ground. For some time now it has been clear to me, and I am sure my colleagues, that a radically different approach is required to the funding of what is a very critical sector. Dare I say it, a lot of tokenistic views have been expressed on the sector over the years. We can all recall how challenging it was to resolve the pay issue and the associated dispute last year. It had been rolling on for a number of years. We can recall the difficulties in addressing it and its significance to Departments that fund services, and indeed to individual Ministers.

Let me start my questioning with that in mind. The Workplace Relations Commission, WRC, agreement was reached last year. It can often take time to ensure its recommendations are actioned and that the agreements reached are implemented in full. Is it the case now that all agencies have received the funding from the line Departments and that this funding is making its way to the staff who are expecting to see the pay increases agreed at the WRC with their unions?

Mr. David Carroll:

I will talk about that. Each of us here has been part of the WRC process and we have to say it has been a landmark event concerning where we are within the voluntary and community sector. For the first time, there has been Government recognition that it has a role regarding the terms and conditions of workers. There is ongoing analysis and a data-gathering exercise to gauge the difference between ourselves and the public service.

On the drawing down of the funds, there have been different experiences with different Departments, and that probably comes to the nub of some of the issues we encounter as a set of organisations. Take Depaul as an example. We have relationships with around six CHOs nationally, 12 local authorities, the Department of justice and the Probation Service. Each of these has a different approach to how the money is drawn down and the mechanisms by which we engage with it. With regard to our big concern, uniformity has to be achieved across Departments. There is great frustration among the workforce and our union colleagues around the speed at which some of the payments have been made. They seem to be making their way through. The last payment was due on 1 April. As I have said, the experience varies.

Our big focus now is getting the mechanisms correct as we go forward. We would want to talk in terms of the public service awards, for instance, and what happens in that regard. The mechanisms are key, as is uniformity across Departments.

Gerald Nash (Louth, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I could not agree more. The point made about the requirement for additional funding so employers can honour their legal obligations regarding the pension auto-enrolment scheme is an important one. This is an example of how responsibility needs to be taken on by a single Department to drive this.

I anticipated that pension auto-enrolment was going to be challenged in respect of the community and voluntary sector, for reasons the witnesses know more about than I do. I proactively engaged with organisations in my constituency and questioned individual Departments and Ministers about their capacity to provide a form of funding, or increased funding, to allow pension auto-enrolment to be covered. It was intriguing but probably not surprising that the responses of Departments varied. The Department of public expenditure and reform should be taking on full responsibility for these kinds of matters. There will naturally be a relationship between public sector pay talks and the expectations of the voluntary bodies' staff in terms of their situation.

There was an established link in terms of pay rises for civil and public servants prior to the economic crash. While that link has not been re-established, we now have an ad hoc scenario where you may find yourself having to go back to the WRC from time to time. There is common cause, more often than not, with trade union colleagues. The witnesses are on the same side as them on this, even though they are employers, in the sense that they must point out what needs to happen and that there needs to be a better way of doing this, and more predictability.

This brings me to the next point. I have seen, and the witnesses will know only too well as service providers, senior leaders in significant organisations that provide significant services and significant employers, that there is a real challenge in the voluntary sector at present in retaining skilled staff. The witnesses' bodies are competing against the HSE, Tusla, other public service organisations and the Civil Service to attract and retain high-quality staff. Can the witnesses speak to me for a moment about that and their uncertainty in this space?

Ms Marian Quinn:

I thank the Deputy. I will speak to that. The Deputy is absolutely right that there is a genuine challenge in recruiting and retaining staff. We lose many of our staff to the statutory sector, to the HSE and Tusla, as the Deputy said. One of the reasons is that in the statutory sector people are better paid, have more security and have access to pensions, ongoing training and so on.

Early-career staff who may be seeking to take out their first mortgage are unable to do so if the organisation they are working for gets year-to-year funding. The lack of multi-annual funding is a significant issue for us. When the community and voluntary sector does recruit staff, they tend to stay for quite some time.

The other issue that arises is that we spend a lot of time inducting people and skilling them up early in their careers and then, when they have that experience, they leave. We would like to think we are infiltrating the statutory system in some way by doing that but there is a big investment for organisations when they have a high turnover because induction and getting people to deliver at a high-quality level is very time-consuming.

We agree that it is a significant issue.

Gerald Nash (Louth, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Multi-annual budgeting and multi-annual planning are key here and the system more generally has woken up to that. If we look at how we do longer term financial and economic planning in the country, that is the method through which we are doing it. The infrastructural plans and national development plan operate on a multi-annual basis to provide certainty to contractors and so on. One imagines the same kind of certainty ought to be applied to the voluntary sector, which is delivering critical services and trying to retain staff. The State often heavily depends on it for high-quality services for vulnerable people, especially in the context of Ms Quinn's organisation. We cannot overstate how important multi-annual funding is.

This is a diverse sector. A housing body will require different kinds of funding and there will be a cocktail of funding from lots of different sources, compared with a mental health charity or whatever the case might be. Have the witnesses a more general idea, in respect of the multi-annual budgeting, of where they see the sector going in two or three years? In three years' time, what will be the financial ask and what is the ask from the State? From a global perspective, what quantum of money is required to operate the kinds of services they need to offer? That includes services they are offering today, anticipating where they will be going in the coming three years in terms of demand, recruitment and retention of staff and so on. Do they have a figure in mind for how much better funded the sector more generally should be? If they have a figure in mind, will they inform the committee?

Ms Elaine Teague:

I will take this and thank the Deputy for the question. We do not have a figure in mind but we have a process in mind to come up with a figure. At the moment you get an allocation and you work within that allocation as best you can. Sometimes you are overspent. More often than not you are overspent. Engagement with the sector now to plan for between two and four years’ time would give us a good process to figure out the final ask. We know 80% of our costs are staff related and approximately 20% are related to non-pay costs. We know there is an absolute increase in governance requirements. We know that cybersecurity is expensive. We know that IT and AI offer great opportunities but we cannot invest in those because we do not have a budget to allow that. The sector would ask for a process of engagement on future needs so we can agree the priority areas. We know there will be more asks than there is funding, and we are prepared to cut our cloth to match but it has to be based on a discussion with all of the sectors. At the moment we have a divide and conquer arrangement where each of us is funded separately. You might get a bit of funding from a couple of Departments. It is interesting to think as a sector that we might have engagement with multiple Departments where we all contribute to that discussion. The Deputy referred earlier that conversations might be led by the Department of public expenditure or an organisation that seeks information in a way that is balanced and fair, and then we come up with some agreed position on it. However, we cannot project forward because right now we are trying to keep the doors open and the lights on, so it is hard to anticipate what the costs will look like in the future. The opportunity to do that would be most welcome.

Mr. John Gallagher:

One of the issues on funding is that a number of service delivery organisations are not funded under the current WRC process. Mr. Carroll alluded to all the sources of income he receives. For instance, we have a situation where Cuan-funded organisations receive their money from the Department of justice, which also funds probation activity, projects and contracts but will not apply the WRC agreement. We have similar issues in the Departments of education and community and rural development. When saying how much money we need for the future it is important that every contracted service from the State be covered by future agreements.

Gerald Nash (Louth, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

That is a good point.

Ms Marian Quinn:

Getting that figure is exactly what the data collection process is about. We know at the moment that over 60% of the grantees that have staff whose salaries are funded by Government have returned the quite complex form that we have been asked to complete. The analysis of that document and how that informs future decisions will be critical. That will have all the information in it.

Cian O'Callaghan (Dublin Bay North, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Cuirim fáilte roimh na finnéithe chuig an gcoiste. Ceapaim gur cheart buiséid ilbhliantúla a mheas. I thank the witnesses for attending and I thank those representatives of the organisations who are in the Public Gallery. I acknowledge the important work that is done throughout the sector. It is also important to acknowledge that the State has often not treated the sector well and has asked it to do so much while not properly meeting the needs of the sector. This discussion is about how that can be done from a budgetary point of view. The previous point discussed was about people working in the sector who are not covered by the WRC agreements. Is the solution that future WRC agreements apply to everyone in the sector? Could it be addressed through sectoral pay agreements for everyone working in the sector? For example, in my constituency there is a home care worker who is working for a not-for-profit that is not anywhere near the HSE rates and is paid just above minimum wage. What is the best way for that to be approached? Having people on lower than the going rate is deeply unfair to them and to the sector. It causes issues with retention. Is there one way that needs to be addressed, or what is the best way to address that?

Ms Elaine Teague:

I will take that from a home care provision perspective because that is the example provided. We have this unusual situation where there is a flat amount per hour paid by the State for the provision of home supports and that amount is not enough to cover anybody who earns more than minimum wage. That is challenging because it is a race to the bottom for many workers, who can only be employed at minimum wage to keep the costs below what the State will fund. That home care authorisation scheme is in older persons’ services right now. There are plans to introduce it into disability services and that is alarming for many organisations in the context of how to approach it. If you are in that authorisation scheme you are explicitly excluded from the WRC arrangement. You could have staff in one organisation included in the WRC and staff who are not included in the WRC. That creates more anomalies in the sector. There is not a simple answer to any of those complex questions. However, to include all staff in the sector in future WRC arrangements seems the fairest way of making sure that all ships rise and that we do not have competition within the sector for particular roles in particular areas that are better paid than other roles. We need to make sure that all roles start at a point and then increase over time in line with the WRC and with colleagues from other parts of the sector.

Cian O'Callaghan (Dublin Bay North, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Do the witnesses have any sense of how we got to a situation where not everyone was covered by the WRC agreement?

Mr. David Carroll:

A disadvantage was that we only covered sections 10, 39 and 56. Those were the terms of the agreement. Although there was a recommendation that other funders be brought in, statutory funders read the letter of the law. The future of this is bringing it under the Department of public expenditure and reform and having that uniform approach. As Ms Teague said, the KOSI exercise is a good opportunity to get that figure benchmarked across the sector. We are eager for that to happen to avoid the movement and, more importantly, the exit of our workers into the statutory sector because they want to stay with us. They really want to stay with us. We need uniformity from a high-level strategic perspective and a determination that each of the Departments follow a specific mechanism against a benchmarked set of terms and conditions.

Cian O'Callaghan (Dublin Bay North, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Can the witnesses talk us through the earlier point about how the allocation lands? Do they know what sort of allocation they will be getting? Can they explain in lay terms what the process, or lack of process, is?

Ms Marian Quinn:

We probably all have different experiences, to go back to the lack of consistency. In essence, we would all get an annual service level agreement. There would be a meeting with the local commissioner, but there is no negotiation or discussion. You are told what your budget allocation is. For the last number of years, it has been the previous year’s amount, albeit that in the last two years we have had the WRC uplift. You are asked to sign the service level agreement, and if there are elements that you are uncomfortable with, there is no discussion, negotiation or refinement of the content of the service level agreement.

The coalition of Tusla grantees that I represent has been through a very lengthy process with Tusla to revise the service level agreement. It felt very inequitable because the not-for-profit had a lot of the responsibility and a lot of the reporting requirements. We have a very good relationship with our funders, and we have been able to make some important revisions. However, the vast majority of organisations feel that we sign something that we know we cannot deliver on.

Cian O'Callaghan (Dublin Bay North, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

With regard to changing and emerging needs, the organisations are on the ground and providing the services. What ability do they have to input into that with the funding allocation they are getting? They are seeing that on the ground all of the time, and they have all of that experience. In any sector, things are changing and emerging over time, but particularly in the kind of work that these organisations are doing.

Mr. David Carroll:

In the paper, we make the point that there has definitely been an improvement by the Department of housing. There was a review of section 10 funding, which has resulted in a revised approach to the funding lines. Part of that is a negotiated process with both the local authority and the HSE to see what the changing trends are on the ground as part of the SLA process. We find that officials are usually responsive in making changes, for instance, in the budget lines on staffing, if we find there is additional complexity in any particular area.

The National Homeless Action Committee conducted a session this morning on the prevention strategy and agenda. There is definitely a constructive dialogue taking place between ourselves, the local authorities and the HSE. Where the weakness comes in a little is because the local authorities are a little bit further on than the HSE at the moment in their ability to be flexible, although additional funding streams have come in from the HSE. The safe injecting facility in Dublin city centre and the establishment of the Dublin Simon treatment and rehabilitation unit are examples where responsive strategies are occurring.

We would want a greater degree of flexibility and the ability in-year to be able to take shocks. Our organisation is an example of that this year. Throughout our services, we have a bill of €750,000 for heat and light. We need intervention and dialogue, but also a commitment from central government that the funding stream will be looked at. We are not part of the fuel package that the Government has landed, and there is an absolute need for that to occur now in order for us to be able to cover the raft of services, which include day services and community services. It is part of a wider picture concerning our ability to be flexible around the SLA in-year, as well as having that strategic overview of how funding needs to change on an ongoing basis.

Mr. John Gallagher:

Mr. Carroll has pointed out good developments with the Department of housing. Equally, with Tusla, there is a liaison group looking at the issues between the employers and Tusla itself. In addition, we have a good relationship with the HSE, particularly in the running of the data gathering process, which is currently ongoing.

The difficulty is that they remain siloed discussions. One Department does not know the moves or changes that are happening in another. It is obvious that people are very busy in Departments, so we need to have some mechanism to co-ordinate that and bring them together. That can really only be done by the intervention of, for instance, Department of public expenditure and reform, which has overall oversight of spending strategies and approaches. It could also possibly be facilitated by the Minister, Deputy Calleary, who is the overall Minister in charge of the broad community and voluntary sector, or it could be facilitated through the well-being framework that is run through the Taoiseach's office. They are all mechanisms that could be used to co-ordinate the Government approach.

The programme for Government has numerous references to ending silos, to cross-departmental developments and to the Taoiseach's office working with the Tánaiste's office to ensure that Departments do not work at odds with each other. The difficulties in our sector are a prime example of where silo thinking and siloed funding cause as many difficulties as they solve. That would be a prime emphasis. There is a need for a central intervention, whether by the Department of public expenditure and reform or otherwise, to ensure co-ordination in the future on spending strategies.

Cian O'Callaghan (Dublin Bay North, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

That is a helpful point. The key ask here is not that the funding line Department changes, and it should remain as it is, but that in the reforms and practices around it, there would be one central place to interact with, be it through the Department of public expenditure and reform, the Department of the Taoiseach and the well-being strategy, or the Minister, Deputy Calleary. One of those would take responsibility, and the organisations could engage with that. Is it fair to say that the organisations have a bit of ad hoc engagement through various Departments at the moment, but none of it is taking shape, and that includes the ask for multi-annual budgeting and related asks? It is all ad hoc and sporadic. That leaves the sector in a difficult place because it does not have a direct line to a central part of the national Government that can help to work on these issues with the organisations and sort them out. Is that a fair summary?

Mr. David Carroll:

We are all striving for the better use of public money. Efficiency is at the heart of our own values. Our organisation has to do approximately 50 SLA processes per year with State funders. There has to be a better way, for example, a single unified process with the SLA contractual agreement, but also the opportunity provided by the reformation and revision of IT systems and where that is going. We have a perfect opportunity to use technology, particularly with the introduction of AI, to get this right, whether that is led by the Department of public expenditure and reform or the Department of the Taoiseach. That overall core modelling of the contractual arrangement, and how that is filtered and administered through each Department, would be of incredible benefit from an efficiency point of view, but also regarding how services are delivered on the ground. Given the link between criminal justice, health and homelessness, they can be one and the same issue at times. Again, that uniformity of approach can translate into how different elements of the services are delivered within particular geographical areas and for particular client groups.

Cian O'Callaghan (Dublin Bay North, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I have a final question. I thank Mr. Carroll. He made the points very strongly and the case for this very well but what kind of engagement has he had on this outside of this committee? I ask that just so we have an understanding in terms of where this is at or what work we need to do to try to push this forward.

Mr. John Gallagher:

Each of the individual organisations has very strong contacts with its own line Department and agencies. In one aspect, that is where a lot of the detail lies. The question was asked about how much money was needed to solve our problems. That is where most of it is argued out and discussed. In terms of our overall approach, we have been in touch with the Taoiseach's office. We are a newish coalition. It has arisen out of an understanding emerging among us all that there is a need for a whole-of-government approach. Traditionally, health-type services would have been funded, managed and controlled by the line Department and agencies - the Department of Health, the HSE, etc. It has become clear to all on our side that that is not enough. There needs to be a co-ordinated approach. That is what we are now developing and will be expanding.

Cian O'Callaghan (Dublin Bay North, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank Mr. Gallagher.

Edward Timmins (Wicklow, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Does Deputy Moynihan want to come back in?

Aindrias Moynihan (Cork North-West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I have one or two very quick questions. I was watching the meeting in my office. I understand the witnesses are representing the various voluntary groups, whether they are the likes of housing bodies, youth services or health services. I am very conscious that recently, between auto-enrolment, the minimum wage and a number of different measures, a lot of pressure has come on employers' payrolls to meet the needs of staff. I expect it would be similar with the various groups. I dealt with one organisation that was very worried it would end up having to curtail services to fill the gap. I am just trying to get a handle on how the payroll demands have been met across the sector. For example, have the housing bodies increased rents or have services been curtailed? What has happened and have there been gaps? It is hugely important that a pension is there for employees and that the contributions are made through the auto-enrolment process. How have the different organisations fulfilled their commitments in that regard?

Ms Marian Quinn:

The answer is all of the above. A lot of organisations have been delivering services without the State fully funding those services. Having to supplement the State income is not new. However, in recent years, not only have we had legal requirements in terms of auto-enrolment and the minimum wage, but we have had all the cost pressures that everybody is trying to manage - the cost-of-living increases, inflationary costs and so on. Lots of us have reduced service delivery. That is always the last resort. None of us ever wants to do that. Some people do fundraising. Members of our coalition provide children's residential services. They do bucket-shaking to pay the bill for children who are in the care of the State because their income is inadequate to enable them to pay their bills.

Aindrias Moynihan (Cork North-West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I understand that a lot of the groups are not 100% payroll anyway and that there is a large element of fundraising. Could Ms Quinn give an indication of the spread of it and whether there was additional fundraising by half of them or a reduction of services in some sectors? Could she give a kind of spread of how it impacted the different organisations?

Ms Marian Quinn:

I am not sure whether any-----

Aindrias Moynihan (Cork North-West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Has a survey been done on it or are there any numbers that would give a measure of it?

Ms Marian Quinn:

I am not sure any of us are in a position to do that, but that is certainly information that is being captured in the data collection process that was part of the WRC agreement. The other piece of the fundraising is that people seek funding from other sources as well, whether those be corporate or philanthropic. We all do everything we can to ensure that the last thing we do is reduce services for vulnerable populations.

I do not know if my colleagues want to add anything.

Ms Elaine Teague:

I might just add from a disability perspective that there are very limited opportunities for generating additional income. The idea of reverting to the charity model of fundraising for services is really one that people use as a last resort, but they do use it. We have examples of organisations that have delayed recruitment of key posts for three, five or six months in order to generate some savings to make the payments that are required. We have got people who are reducing contracts. If somebody who has a full-time role leaves, they are replaced with a half-time role, which generates a little bit of a saving. That all ultimately impacts on service delivery in terms of waiting list increases and increased demand for services.

The opportunity to generate additional income is quite limited. The State should fund what it costs people to deliver services. When it does not, that leaves organisations spending their expertise, time and resources trying to work out how they are going to make payroll this month, next month or whatever. The State has stepped in on occasion when organisations say they are going to be unable to meet the demand but that is on a case-by-case basis. It is based on relationships, not on a system-wide approach to addressing the additional costs.

We welcome pension auto-enrolment for everybody. Everybody should have access to a pension, but the additional costs are very significant for organisations. While they were not addressed in 2026, there is an opportunity for them to be addressed in budget 2027 and retrospectively applied to 2026 so that organisations can recoup some of them.

Aindrias Moynihan (Cork North-West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

To be clear, I am not advocating that the witnesses do it one way or another. I am trying to get an understanding of how the various organisations responded. Could they forward any data they have to the committee for consideration? That is the only question I wanted to ask.

Mr. John Gallagher:

If the State contracts an organisation to deliver a service, it should provide the funding for the service to be sustainably delivered. The WRC process has greatly helped to deliver improved pay for our sector relative to people employed by the State, but there is still a substantial issue with non-pay costs. That needs to be addressed.

The other point in terms of fundraising is that many voluntary bodies fundraise to innovate or to deliver services that are either out of contract with the State or that they wish to develop anyway. For instance, one of the best known is the Irish Cancer Society, which runs a night nurse service for families who have a member with cancer. That is almost entirely funded from fundraising by the Irish Cancer Society itself. It is not a State contract.

One of the big values of our sector is that in addition to delivering contracted services, there is a level of innovation, commitment and a mission-driven approach that means people will be available at weekends or at night in a way that the State services are not. Some State-operated services might run from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. The drug and alcohol groups around the country have a big role in supporting families who have crisis situations developing at night or weekends. I do not think the solution is for the sector to go out and raise more money with buckets or whatever. There is a role for that and it is very important to assist innovation. The core point is that the State should not somehow expect the sector to fly on one wing because it is not sustainably funding the sector's activities.

Aindrias Moynihan (Cork North-West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

My question is about what has happened, not about advocating that the organisations take one approach or another.

Mr. John Gallagher:

Okay.

Aindrias Moynihan (Cork North-West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am talking about gathering information to assess what has happened on the ground and how the issue has been approached.

I just wanted there to be absolute clarity on that.

Richard Boyd Barrett (Dún Laoghaire, People Before Profit Alliance)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank everyone very much. I apologise that I was not here, but I had to speak in the Dáil. I have read their submissions to the committee, however.

I apologise if I am going over ground that has already been covered. To confirm, the main issue is that the Government is trying to get on the cheap the services the representative organisations provide and it is not giving them the full funding required to actually run their services, pay their staff and have all the non-pay elements covered, and that is endangering them. Is it endangering the sustainability of the services? what are the potential impacts of that? Maybe the witnesses want to say a few words. Is it putting them on a collision course with their own workers as well? I am aware, for example, of the Northside Home Care Services issue at the moment. I do not know if it is are under the umbrella of the representative organisations or not.

Mr. John Gallagher:

No.

Richard Boyd Barrett (Dún Laoghaire, People Before Profit Alliance)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

They are not. However, it seems to be somewhat related in that there are people who did not get parity with section 39 organisations. They find themselves in a dispute and it has got very bad. They are providing an essential service. I certainly support them. If organisations are providing services for the health system and for our society as a whole, they should be provided with the same sort of money and the workers who work in their sector should be provided with the same pay and conditions as everybody else who works for the health service. Is that essentially what it comes down to?

Mr. David Carroll:

I am happy to speak to this. We have to come at this from the historical relationship of the NGO sector and the charity sector with the State, which is that many charities were set up from the fundraising model. What has happened now is that we have, over the last 20 or 30 years, professionalised ourselves. We have robust quality standards in place and provide excellent and efficient services. The State has not caught up with that, however. Many of the contracts that we have with, for instance, the HSE date back 15 or 16 years. That is one of the contexts in terms of us catching up. The Deputy is right that it is inevitable, with the cost-of-living crisis and inability of employers not to be able to keep pace with the public service, that there can be conflict between us. However, we were absolutely delighted 18 months ago that strike was averted. From our perspective, the role of the unions within the WRC has been hugely constructive in working alongside us, as employers, to get to a place. Our next step around this is pay parity. Where we have a very key focus is the next public service pay awards because there was a commitment in the last WRC agreement that, for those of us with contracts, there would be the development of a mechanism by which the NGO sector would keep pace with the public service. That is one piece.

We mentioned the data gathering exercise that was being conducted at the moment, which was set up to evaluate what the difference was between our employees' terms and conditions and equivalent posts within the statutory service. We think there is roughly a 20% difference between our workers who are doing equivalent work and the State's workers. We have spoken a lot today about the bleeding of workers into statutory services when they want to stay in the NGO sector. That is the historical context of what has got us to this place. What we are saying now is let us reconstitute this relationship with the State. Let us name it. Let us get into an equitable contractual situation that recognises the value we bring on the ground, which is critical at this point in time.

Richard Boyd Barrett (Dún Laoghaire, People Before Profit Alliance)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Now that I think about it, my area is quite badly hit by this. Most of the mental health services in my area are delivered by voluntary organisations whereas that would not always be the case elsewhere. In different areas, people might be employed directly by the HSE and, therefore, the pay and conditions would be more favourable. It is, therefore, harder to recruit people into things like child and adolescent mental health services, CAMHS, in areas where they are mostly delivered through the voluntary sector. It creates huge inequalities and imbalances in terms of the ability of services to recruit people in particular areas. Is that a general pattern?

Ms Elaine Teague:

I would say it is a general pattern where we are in competition for expert workers. Everybody wants to have the best expert worker. He who pays more gets the expert worker. It is, therefore, sometimes to the detriment of the voluntary provider that these expert workers migrate over. There is another challenge for our sector in terms of the HSE being provider, commissioner, funder and overseer. Sometimes, that creates another inequity in terms of who a person might choose to go and work for. The level of scrutiny that providers in some sectors may experience is very intense and they have to report on every single incident, event and timeline whereas if someone goes to work for the HSE, there may be a more generic reporting arrangement that can be easier to manage, particularly in terms of when we are working with vulnerable children or adults who may have a distressing situation they are trying to manage.

Richard Boyd Barrett (Dún Laoghaire, People Before Profit Alliance)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I read the witnesses' statement, but is the call really on the Government? What is the ask in terms of parity in pay and conditions? I presume that everybody wants recognition of the importance of the role the representative organisations play and how they are equivalent to all those that are provided by statutory agencies. What is the Government saying in response to them? Is it saying "Yes", "No" or something else?

Ms Marian Quinn:

I think there is a growing recognition across government that people took their eye of the ball. I do not think there was a conscious effort to get the services cheaply. It was simply neglect. Our costs were not really being looked at with any great scrutiny. The relationship has begun to change as we have become more professionalised and because for a lot of us, the work is becoming much more complex. The service users we are working with have much more complicated and deeply rooted needs that we are understanding better. In my area, the Tusla coalition has a very good working relationship with both Tusla and the Department of children. For about two years now, we have had a working group that is looking at sustainable funding. What would it look like if all of the services the State has asked us to provide on its behalf were fully funded? That would include our staff getting pay increments and increases in line with pay awards. That process is ongoing. That is not being replicated across all Departments. There are some similar processes, but not all Departments are engaging with the community and voluntary sector in that way. One of the themes in what we have been talking about this afternoon is the lack of consistency. There is really good practice and there are really good developments happening in pockets, but nobody is capturing all of that to-----

Richard Boyd Barrett (Dún Laoghaire, People Before Profit Alliance)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Is Ms Quinn naming names Department-wise?

Ms Marian Quinn:

I would not dream of doing that, no. I could not possibly. The Department of children is doing really good work. The HSE dialogue forum has proven to be really effective. Mr. Carroll talked about some really important developments in the housing and homeless sector. However, those processes could be captured so that they could be replicated because everybody would benefit from that.

Richard Boyd Barrett (Dún Laoghaire, People Before Profit Alliance)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Okay. Some Departments are not engaging.

Do the witnesses have cost estimates for what it would be? Basically, are the witnesses saying it is 20%?

Mr. David Carroll:

We are hoping that this data gathering exercise, which I think has a 67% return rate from the 1,000 organisations, will provide that figure for us in terms of what the cost will be to get a pay parity equivalence.

We made the point earlier that robust oversight of the delivery of that report is very important, as is its findings ending up before the Houses.

Richard Boyd Barrett (Dún Laoghaire, People Before Profit Alliance)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I would like to hear from the witnesses on whether they think it is a good idea, but my favourite option would be for all of the organisations to be integrated properly into the health service. Is that something the witnesses would want to see? I am sorry, I did not mean into the health service because they are not just health providers. I meant statutory bodies, Departments and so on. Is that something they would seek or would it be a good idea?

Ms Elaine Teague:

The value of the sector is we have grown up independent of the State, so we have a role in holding the State to account. That is a very important role that we play, but we are also values-driven in terms of being rooted in communities, making best decisions for communities and our connections across communities. We have lots of intersectionality and challenges that impact on homelessness, children, mental health and drug abuse. When you separate us into Departments, that potentially silos our organisations further.

We provide services and have connections in communities. We are able to respond to community needs and reach out across our sector partners to deliver good services to people. The concerns about the State are that it is often slower and bureaucratic, people will fall between the gaps and communities will be further disabled from being able to support themselves. If you take out all the supports and put them into a central place, you run the risk of losing the ability to be innovative and responsive, to understand community need and to deliver really high-quality services in communities.

Mr. David Carroll:

On the issue of innovation, if you look at core examples, such as the safer injection facility, I do not think that would have happened without the involvement of the NGO sector. Taking Depaul as an example, we have set up a national and cross-Border mental health intervention for people in homelessness. That whole aspect of innovation is something underpinned by our values. Not that people within the HSE or elsewhere do not have values, but that does drive much of what we do from a social justice perspective.

Edward Timmins (Wicklow, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the witnesses for that. I have a few questions. I welcome that they are here and that they are becoming an umbrella organisation because I am sure they all experience the same problems. It is good that they have a co-ordinated approach. That will work well for everyone.

I have just a few points. I have met some of the witnesses' organisations at a more granular level. The submission says that for-profit organisations can have a higher unit cost. Can the witnesses provide evidence of this? I have met with some of the groups and they have told me that they have expertise and stable staff whereas the Government is outsourcing things like urgent housing need or whatever, and that they would be able to provide that service because they have the expertise and would be able to provide it more cost-efficiently. The budgets of these outside for-profit bodies are growing while some of the witnesses' organisations, such as Sunbeam - I forget, as there were a few I was in contact with - have a budget that is stable and not allowed to expand. Have the groups provided evidence to the State saying what it costs them to provide X amount of service to cover Y amount of people and that the State would actually save money by growing the groups rather than forking out money to for-profit organisations?

Ms Marian Quinn:

I thank the Leas-Chathaoirleach for that question. It was very interesting question, given the recent "RTÉ Investigates" programme, which was focused on the provision of a service by private providers for highly vulnerable children and young people.

We do not have access to information on how much funding those private providers get for the various services they provide across the sector. We know from the "RTÉ Investigates" programme that they were getting €750,000 per child per annum for the special emergency arrangements featured in that programme. However, we do not have access to that kind of information.

What we can say is that we know that we provide a very high-quality service. Our funders are very clear that we are well governed and well managed and that we provide a high level of documentation. We are now tracking outcomes as an integral part of what we do. We believe that we provide better value for money, and maybe something similar to the kind of data collection exercise we are required to do and are keen to participate in could happen for private providers. That might be a very useful piece of information to gather.

For some of the reasons Ms Teague just talked about, such as the fact that we are community based and mission driven, we are very clear that not only do we provide high-quality value for money, but we also achieve better outcomes. Children and young people, people with disabilities and people in homeless services have better outcomes when they work with organisations like ours because we are mission driven and community based. We are also increasingly committed to using evidence-informed practice.

Edward Timmins (Wicklow, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I urge the witnesses to use the information that they clearly have - I do not doubt the validity of what they are saying - and provide it to the State, not only vis-á-vis the for-profit organisations, but also the statutory bodies that I will not say the witnesses' organisations are competing with, but are in the same space and often providing similar services.

Long-term funding was mentioned. I am always raising that here with the Minister for public expenditure and reform in terms of long-term funding certainty for any capital projects as well the witnesses' organisations. Ms Teague said that the organisations were concerned with keeping the doors open. I get that. It does not seem correct that they are still getting the same budgets. The budgets should be adjusted for inflation, not to mention the one-off issues. Do the organisations do three-year projections on cost, for example, what their overheads and payroll are going to look like?

Ms Elaine Teague:

I am here representing the Disability Federation of Ireland. Could I say with confidence that every member of ours does that? No, but a large portion of service providers are able to project forward and understand needs into the future. The challenge is we often do not have anybody to have that conversation with across the table because our HSE partners or funding Departments are thinking about the emergencies here today, tomorrow and next week.

We have data. For example, we know of the children who are in special schools today who are going to need a specialist disability service in five, six or seven years' time, but we do not start planning for those children until they are ready to leave school, in which case we are then playing catch-up in terms of buildings, making adaptions, recruiting the right staff and getting the right supports around those young people.

We are able to plan and we know what those needs are going to be going into the future, but we are not able to have conversations about those funding needs because it is a year-on-year budget arrangement.

Edward Timmins (Wicklow, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Do the witnesses' organisations put those plans and a budget in a spreadsheet so as to start thinking on paper and doing that exercise looking forward?

Ms Elaine Teague:

We absolutely do that.

Edward Timmins (Wicklow, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

When costs go up - the organisations' energy costs having now gone up, for example - I assume that their funding is not adjusted throughout the year. They are given so many million of euro to make do with, regardless of what happens. Do some of the witnesses' organisations ever run out of money? I know of cases where they have had to desperately look for money, but have they ever run out of money and have any of them had to close down? Do the witnesses know of any today that they can say are at risk of closing? The proof is in the pudding, so have any actually closed down?

Ms Marian Quinn:

Since governance is very good and most of us have a voluntary board of management that takes its responsibilities very carefully and seriously, very few of us run into deficit.

I am aware, however, of lots of organisations that have closed their doors because they know that they cannot afford to keep running. A number of early years services, for example, have closed because they simply cannot continue to provide any kind of quality service, given the increases in minimum wage and staff costs, alongside the other cost-of-living and ancillary costs. Organisations have closed but people are vigilant in their management of that process.

Edward Timmins (Wicklow, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Are there areas of waste where costs could be reduced? One of the witnesses said they are constantly looking at ways of being more efficient and saving costs. Is it fair to say that the voluntary bodies deal with that all the time?

Mr. David Carroll:

There are always ways, for instance, bulk contracting. Through the Irish Council for Social Housing, ICSH, there is a bulk approach to insurance costs.

Edward Timmins (Wicklow, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

There is also scale.

Mr. David Carroll:

Yes. It is that collective approach. We would encourage the development of an innovation fund. At the moment, if organisations want to look at this in a deeper way, and look at efficiencies and at their futures, there is a cost associated with that. We encourage an innovation fund that allows us to work towards more efficiencies. A good example of responsible governance and shepherding of organisations is the relationship with the Society of St. Vincent de Paul. It is a sister organisation that was a major provider of homeless services. The society made a decision four years ago to hand their services over to us. That is a good major example of core efficiencies because the society no longer had to put money into central office costs and backroom costs. As a result, 120 staff and six services were transferred to us. That is a really good example of where good practice can exist, but such an exercise depends on legal costs, the transfer of undertakings and the transfer of capital. It would be good to have help from the State in that whole area.

Edward Timmins (Wicklow, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The aim would be to avoid duplication.

Mr. David Carroll:

Yes. There is an appetite for that.

Mr. John Gallagher:

There is an awareness in the sector about the need to always progress. The last decade has seen a big professionalisation of activity in our sector. There has also been a very dramatic increase in various costs, such as insurance, governance, heating and lighting. All of those put a strain on operations.

The Vice Chair mentioned waste. I do not think that there is waste but there are always opportunities to work smarter and better. In the past, we have seen the State support initiatives in credit unions, housing associations and, before that, the trade unions to assist in all the various mergers, developments and co-ordinations. We would certainly be open to a discussion with the Government or the State on how we might move towards a more effective delivery of services as we approach 2030 and beyond.

Edward Timmins (Wicklow, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

There has been waste or inefficiencies by the State. There is that risk in all organisations be they private, public or not-for-profit. We can ever take our eye off the ball.

Outputs were mentioned. This committee talks a lot about money, but it not just about money. It is about money matching outputs. You can throw all the money you like at issues but if outputs are not increased, what is point? l regularly raise that issue at this committee, with the Department of public expenditure and with the Taoiseach. Ms Teague mentioned that outputs are measured, such as the number of children going through the services or whatever. It is such a broad church, but is it something that is looked at all the time?

Ms Elaine Teague:

Lots of people look at outcomes for the people they support. What we do not have is a standardised way of measuring that. It is like comparing apples and oranges in some cases.

Edward Timmins (Wicklow, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Some of it is so complex.

Ms Elaine Teague:

It is so complex. We do not have a nationally agreed set of outcomes that State-funded organisations are working towards. Disability services have a set of outcomes that we work towards. Children's services and homeless services have a set of outcomes. Some of those outcomes are numbers based, such as how many people got a service. The challenge for us is to analyse how good the service was and whether it resulted in an improved life for the person for whom it should improve. That is much harder to measure. Unless we start measuring it, we will not know whether State investment has resulted in better lives.

Edward Timmins (Wicklow, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Organisations must ask themselves the questions.

Ms Elaine Teague:

Absolutely, yes.

Edward Timmins (Wicklow, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Earlier engagement with the Department of public expenditure was alluded to, which is at the nub of the issue. How does that work? What is that experience? Do organisations just deal with parts of various Government organisations, such as the HSE, the Department of housing, etc.? Is it very disparate and fragmented?

Mr. John Gallagher:

One of our ambitions is to work closer.

Edward Timmins (Wicklow, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

There all these different conversations going on at the same time.

Mr. John Gallagher:

Yes. One of the our ambitions, and one of the reasons the group was formed, was to co-ordinate our work more centrally with Government. The Department of public expenditure is a key part of Government strategy and planning. We have engaged with that Department. Before the last budget we had a meeting with the Minister for public expenditure.

We are evolving those discussions. At the WRC, for instance, the Department of public expenditure was very much involved but at a remove from discussions. Our view is that the Department should take on a more active role in supporting a more efficient and sustainable delivery of services. Individual Departments often have goodwill to provide funding but must fight it out for moneys with competing Departments, not just in our area but anywhere, whereas with transport services, for example, there can be a very clear line that money is needed for metro north or whatever. Our area deals with a multiplicity of Departments. Therefore, it is even more important that the Department of public expenditure should now step in and take a more active role in supporting moving forward for everybody.

Edward Timmins (Wicklow, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I like the idea suggested, I think, by Ms Quinn, about not wanting to get incorporated into statutory bodies. I like the idea of granular organisations whereby there are little organisations at the coalface in towns and villages around Ireland and therefore have local knowledge. That works well. I would hate to see any loss of that into a bigger bureaucracy. My experience of these organisations is that they are comprised of committed and dedicated people who work locally on the ground. It would be great to retain that model. As has been said, I agree with adopting a professional approach, and having KPIs, etc., but keeping things granular.

I will mention something off-topic to Ms Teague. The increased labour participation by people with disabilities is an issue that is mentioned a lot, on which we are fairly weak in this country. Ireland, at 34%, has the lowest participation rate in Europe. We are losing out on a number of funds, and people's well-being, etc. Does Ms Teague have any thoughts on how we should increase the level of participation?

Ms Elaine Teague:

The issue of disability employment is very complex for lots of reasons. One is that sometimes people are caught in the trap of needing social welfare benefits and supports. Therefore, access to employment can only be if they do not lose their benefits and supports. There has been good work with the Department of Social Protection on having no cliff edges whereby if people took up a position, they would not lose some of those supplementary benefits.

We have lots of very good schemes in terms of reasonable employment schemes and funding for reasonable accommodation for disabled people. However, what we have not really cracked is what opportunities disabled people can take up, where they are not seen as low-level opportunities. Good decent work that has good decent pay is what we always call for around that.

We have to start to improve how we see disabled people as leaders in organisations and how we see opportunities for disabled people to be employed and support those opportunities, and then celebrate those good news stories.

We definitely have examples of people who have five or six hours a week of employment so that they can retain their benefits. What would it take for them to have a full-time job? How could we increase that participation if that is what the person wants to do? We also have a very significant workforce of people who have a disability, are not in the trap of benefits, have full-time jobs, do not receive disability allowance and do not have a medical card or access to free travel. Those people often fly under the radar. I would love to see us spotlight some individuals who have a disability and have a full-time job, and are very successful in that job. They are not necessarily people who are in specialist services receiving a disability service. They are perhaps people who are living good lives in their own communities with their peers, neighbours, friends, family and network. Sometimes, we do not celebrate enough our disabled leadership within the workforce.

Edward Timmins (Wicklow, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Do housing bodies come under the Dublin Homeless Network's umbrella?

Mr. David Carroll:

Homeless organisations do, but not the approved housing bodies.

Edward Timmins (Wicklow, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The approved housing bodies do not. I was going to ask for some comments on that, but it is a story for another day. Does Deputy Boyd Barrett wish to come back in?

Richard Boyd Barrett (Dún Laoghaire, People Before Profit Alliance)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

To summarise, the Save Our Services coalition wants the committee to ask for a recognition in the budget of the costs they have to bear to ensure the quality and sustainability of the services they provide and the proper treatment of their employees. It wants us to press the Department of public expenditure and reform on that. Is that correct?

Mr. David Carroll:

It is about the employees but also the associated costs. We have not talked an awful lot about capital today, including buildings and their upkeep. Throughout our communities, we have day centres, residential units and community centres and we do not have a proper funding mechanism. The Department of housing has set up a homeless capital fund which will help us going forward. It is not only about the issues we have with terms and conditions, but also the wider finances that we need to be able to run our services effectively.

Richard Boyd Barrett (Dún Laoghaire, People Before Profit Alliance)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Is Save Our Services pooling that ask? To have 1,000 organisations interacting with the Government would be a lot.

Mr. David Carroll:

We are providing critical services. However, there is an absolute need for us to continuously look at how efficient we are and how we deliver our services. This is in parallel with the fact that if a number of key organisations were to collapse tomorrow, there would be major challenges for the State. We have a cost-of-living crisis. There is a short-term issue, which the House is aware of, occurring for all of society. There is a longer term strategic perspective in terms of what the future relationship between the State and the NGO sector will be, what that contractual arrangement will look like and what the sector needs to do in order to take cognisance of the need to provide services efficiently on behalf of the State.

Richard Boyd Barrett (Dún Laoghaire, People Before Profit Alliance)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am sure the witnesses made this point but presumably, if the coalition does not get what it needs in terms of proper funding and resourcing from the Government, the service users for whom the sector provides services and who are suffering, and will continue to suffer, the consequences are often very vulnerable people who can least afford not to have those services. That is part of the reason we will all be on the May Day demonstration on Friday. It is vulnerable sections of our society and people-----

Mr. David Carroll:

We could tell the Deputy everyday stories about the critical nature of this. Our organisation alone had 800 mental health interventions in the first quarter of this year. Last week, in a temporary accommodation project, we took a young man down who was about to hang himself. We are working on a day-to-day basis administering naloxone to cease overdose. In our sector alone, amazing work is being done in the children and youth sector. We play an incredible role in maintaining the cohesiveness of the State in the face of the most difficult and challenging situations. We need to be supported equitably to deliver that.

Edward Timmins (Wicklow, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the witnesses for attending today's meeting.