Denise Mitchell (Dublin Bay North, Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

I welcome the opportunity to speak to the motion. We all know the great work and vital service provided by MABS and the CIS. Sinn Féin's aim is to ensure the quality service that they currently provide will not be put at risk. MABS and the CIS made presentations to this House in February and questions were raised about the changes being recommended. These questions remain. The proposal is to regionalise the management, adding an extra layer of management. It is also believed the new regional boards will have no directors representing local communities and will be more remote. Why, therefore, are we having these major structural changes to the whole management of the service?

The CIB stated at a presentation to the social protection committee that the only way to reduce costs would be to reduce the number of companies. How is this backed up? What clear analysis has been conducted by the Department of the current model? Where is the evidence for the need for such large-scale change? The Pathfinder feasibility study states CIB "feels" a central authority is a logical development. It "feels" it is, so, in the absence of any evidence for change, we rely on a "feel" for change.

There were statements made to the committee by the CIB, Citizens Information Board, on the problems with governance and compliance under the current model and that the boards do not have the capacity to deal with them. Again, where is the evidence to support these claims? The CIB’s strategic plan states it will revise the structures of the Citizens Information service and MABS, Money Advice and Budgeting Service, to better serve the citizen. How can this be the case if we are dissolving local boards and breaking the link between local communities and MABS? The end result is that these proposals presented by the CIB have been exposed as a concept that involve a lot more questions than answers. They are more vague than clear and not evidence based or do not involve an effective input from stakeholders. The bodies which know the service best and manage the office completely disagree with the changes proposed.

Two crucial representative groups have given their views to the Oireachtas social protection committee. The National Association of Citizen Information Services stated structural changes would not by themselves lead to an improved outcome for service users. The National Development Managers Network stated, as regards value for money, that it was clear that the proposed restructuring would be costly.

At the centre of all this is the user of the service. How is the user affected and how will the service be improved by the proposed changes at management level? We must consider the customer first and then be conscious of cost. What is the cost against the current model considering the many volunteers who underpin the service? We all know the important amenity this provides at local level for many people, as well as the many volunteers who commit so much to their local community. This model works, with no clear evidence to say otherwise. Questions, more than answers, remain. If the changes do not make sense, what is the agenda in providing for this centralised governance?

See this speech in context