Willie O'Dea (Limerick City, Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

I will listen very carefully to the Leas-Cheann Comhairle, as always.

The conventional wisdom is that if something is not broken, one should not fix it. That wisdom seems to have been turned on its head for this particular proposal that we discuss tonight. The advice in this case seems to be that if it is not broken, fix it and fix it good. The proposal, in short, is to abolish all MABS and Citizens Information companies throughout the country and replace them in each case with eight regional boards. The theory is that this will give rise to savings in administration, etc., and that that money will be redirected back into front-line services. It is a lovely theory, but unfortunately the facts do not bear it out.

I have consulted widely on this matter with the staff of the relevant agencies, volunteers, without whom the agencies could not operate, and, most importantly, perhaps, the end users - the people who depend on the services. To say their reaction is aghast is a huge understatement. They are horrified by this proposal and they cannot believe such a proposal is being put forward, particularly in view of how successful both organisations have been in dealing with the people that depend on them. I have had representations from all over the country. I could spend several hours reading them out. One representation I received from the Citizens Information centre in Kildare stated this was a completely destructive and over the top proposal and was akin to demolishing one's house and rebuilding again on a different site, when all that might be needed were some minor repairs.

The common tenet among all of the people who contacted me is that they admit that there are some problems. There is no service that cannot be improved. They are willing to change and embrace change, including structural change, provided that the restructure is part of a wider strategy to address identifiable problems. They insist, rightly, that such restructuring must remain community-based and independent, while also taking into account factors such as geography, demography and socioeconomic factors. They have put forward the idea of a county model. They are even prepared to accept the idea of aligning both organisations with a view perhaps to ultimate amalgamation. Therefore, there is no lack of appetite for change among those organisations.

The problem is that the proposed change is all about structure and nothing else. The chief executive officer of the CIB which is driving this change admitted as much. In a speech to the National Association of Citizens Information Services, NACIS, Ms Angela Black stated the focus was on structure and how a national structure was best configured. It is all about structure. The problem is that not one ounce or iota of evidence has been put forward to explain how this structural change alone will obtain a better outcome for those who depend on the services, whose interests we should be mainly concerned with in this House. However, there is copious anecdotal evidence from the volunteers, the service users and the staff that the contrary is the case. Both services grew organically from the communities they serve. That is their great strength. Since they started, both services have operated on a communitarian basis, funded by the State rather than as a centralised service provided by it. The proposal to regionalise and centralise the services will fundamentally change this ethos. The services are Government-funded but they cannot be, nor can they be perceived to be, Government-run.

The staff who co-operate the services have had little or no consultation about this change. It is a change of huge magnitude but there has been a total lack of consultation. One would think that for services like these, consultation should start with the front-line people providing the services rather than in this top-down approach where the interests of the service users are the last to be considered. It is interesting to note that the United Kingdom which has been providing this type of service for longer than we have has enthusiastically embraced the structure and type of system that we are now trying to jettison. Not only has it embraced it, it has made a virtue of it. For example, the report of the UK Citizens Advice Bureau services of 2014 stated: "Our bureaux are staffed by local people who are passionate about their community and sensitive to local needs." Notice how the thread of "local" runs right throughout. It will be impossible to sustain this model if local ownership and autonomy are weakened. It will mean that the service will look less like a local community-based organisation and more like a regional bureaucracy. The current community-based structures provide a service that the users see as independent of the Government. That is what brings people through the doors. Without this, there is a real possibility that they will lose confidence and trust in the services provided.

The local MABS companies throughout the country are run by voluntary boards comprised of volunteers from the locality. The Citizens Information services throughout the country depend on volunteer professionals to come in and give people advice. Voluntarism is central to the ethos of MABS. Without volunteers, the Citizens Information system as we know it could not survive. Scant attention has been taken of the fact both in the Pathfinder report and in these proposals, which derive from the Pathfinder report, of the role of volunteers. For example, there seems to be no realisation that while volunteers will readily sign up for a local service, they will be much less inclined to do so for a service which is remote from them and is based or headquartered in another part of the country.

The Citizens Information Board tells us that the new system is going to cost less. It tells us that eight regional bureaucracies suitably staffed, etc., will cost less than the present system. We are supposed to accept that. Why? It is because the Citizens Information Board tells us so. It has not produced one single figure. No cost-benefit analysis has been made. No single figure has been produced to support that contention. On the other hand, the MABS submission to the social protection committee produced detailed figures that convinced me beyond any shadow of a doubt that instead of costing less, the new structures will actually cost more. The National Development Managers Network made a very detailed submission to the social protection committee.

The group has gone through the costings line by line and has demonstrated that the new system will be more expensive than the current system. The group has expressed serious concerns about the fact that incorrect information and figures were presented to the Citizens Information Board when it made the decision in favour of a regional structure. That is a serious accusation indeed. If this is going to cost more, does it mean taxpayers are going to have to pay out more for a service that everyone at the coal-face believes will be less effective? If taxpayers are not going to be called upon to pay more money, will the service be further diluted?

As I have said, no one has explained how structural change by itself will improve delivery of services to the end user. However, the entire emphasis is on structure. I continue to ask myself why. I referred to the speech by Ms Black on 12 March. She said she had no interest nor did she imagine the Government had any interest in change for change's sake. I accept that. I do not expect that the Department of Social Protection or senior people appointed by the Department to positions such as that held by Ms Black are interested in change for change's sake. However, there is a rationale for the change. It has nothing to do with the value of the services to end users. As the character in "Hamlet" said, "Though this be madness, yet there is method in it." The method in this particular madness, the purpose of the change, is designed to make it far easier for management to control these services and effectively turn them into arms of the Department of Social Protection. It is a back-door method of seizing total control of both services. The Citizens Information Board will select the boards of the eight regional companies. It will also select the chairpersons. These companies will effectively become the shadow employers. Responsibility will transfer to the Government.

The impression has been created that the people who are working in these services and the volunteers who support them are hide-bound conservative people who are unwilling to change. Nothing could be further from the truth. The Citizens Information centres have been in existence for more than 40 years. MABS offices have been in existence for more than 20 years. Let us consider the changes in society and all the challenges that have been thrown up in all that time. These organisations have responded well and enthusiastically, to the point that when they were independently tested in 2015, each organisation was given a gold star for performance.

The motto of the King's Inns is "nolumus mutari" which means "we are unwilling to be changed". Certainly that does not apply to the Citizens Information centres or to MABS offices. Let us consider the work that MABS offices and the Citizens Information organisations are doing now. It is altogether different to what they were doing ten years ago, to the point that it is barely recognisable. They are willing to change, and change includes structural change. However, they want change that will deliver a better result for the end users, not some change amounting to bureaucratic blind man's bluff that will lead the services God knows where. That is what we are asking for and that is what I am asking the House to support.

The Joint Committee on Social protection has discussed this issue at length. Scant regard has been taken of our observations and views. I am asking the House to express its opinion on this proposed change. While I do not want to anticipate the outcome of the vote, I want people to think carefully about the value of these services to the community. I want people to think about what is proposed and about what the volunteers and end users think of how these changes are going to affect them.

There is an old saying in my part of the country that one cannot make a silk purse out of a sow's ear. Unfortunately, the reverse seems to be the case. Apparently, one can make a sow's ear out of a silk purse and this is a classic example of it.

See this speech in context