Willie Penrose (Longford-Westmeath, Labour) | Oireachtas source

I am glad to have the opportunity to contribute on behalf of the Labour Party to this important debate on the motion. I made a contribution on this matter in a Topical Issue debate I initiated on 7 February. In that debate I outlined my own outright opposition and that of the Labour Party to the proposals emanating from the combination of the departmental and Citizens Information Board's plans which were intent on effectively abolishing MABS and the Citizens Information service as we know them and replacing them with eight regional companies for each agency, 16 in total. Undoubtedly, this will be a costly exercise. We have never been furnished with the cost or it has not been determined which would be the first port of call in any reorganisation.

Regionalisation means the removal of the services and the organisations from the communities they serve, while accelerating a continued rush to centralisation. I know of the excellent work being carried out by MABS and the Citizens Information service in the Longford-Westmeath constituency. Like many Members, I have availed of their services on behalf of constituents. As for the intention to relegate voluntary board members to be part of an advisory group, how does the Minister expect volunteers to become part of a toothless body with no or diminished powers? It will not happen and volunteers will just disappear. It sounds like a conscience solving exercise, or more correctly, a box-ticking exercise for the Citizens Information Board.

There is scope for consultation on ways to achieve efficiencies. If there are better ways to address difficulties or problems identified, although we are still in the dark about them, MABS and the Citizens Information service have consistently demonstrated that they are always open to listen and effect change for the betterment of the services. However, that process has never been utilised in this case. If the system of this important service is not broken, why are we in such a rush to fix it? We have 51 MABS companies providing a nationwide free, independent and confidential service. We have all utilised it and ensured our constituents can get confidential advice provided locally by volunteers. The key to its operation is local community involvement, operating efficiently and effectively at the coalface, dealing with individuals and families who come with the full spectrum of problems and difficulties, especially mortgage arrears issues.

In 2009 responsibility for supporting MABS was transferred from the Department of Social Protection to the Citizens Information Board. At the time, unequivocal assurances were given that the MABS structure would remain independent and that there would be no impact on existing structures. It would continue to have its own voluntary boards of management providing crucial local services. Some eight years ago assurances were given that there would be no change in the status of the independent MABS and Citizens Information service companies, voluntary boards of management or the employment status of the employees who provided local services. What has changed? It is difficult to accept the reason advanced for the restructuring of centres as being the difficulty in managing boards, be they 51 or 93 in number, that they are too diffuse and that significant governance issues can arise. Where is the substance underpinning the supposed governance issues and shortcomings? Have they been identified in a definitive way? Have they been related to the affected parties?

MABS companies resolutely reject any inference by the Citizens Information Board that there are issues pertaining to management, governance or administrative shortcomings in any of their services. From tonight, let us apply the brakes. Let us go back to the drawing board with the proposals, put to bed the issues and put them into cold storage.

I ask the Minister to comment in the House on the following issues: the call for the immediate cessation of the process initiated by the Citizens Information Board to set up regional structures; maintaining local involvement of the management of the services as we move forward; carrying out a truly independent cost-benefit analysis of the services provided by MABS with opportunities for all of the key stakeholders to have an input in a genuine fashion into same; carrying out an independent risk analysis, again with opportunities afforded to all relevant stakeholders to make submissions to same; and dealing with how this will impact at local level. These various processes should be completed within a reasonable time limit and following their completion, the Minister should come back to this House and discuss the outcomes of these processes with a view to promulgating an informed way forward. It has been suggested to me by personnel within MABS that the Citizens Information Board has indicated that it is unable to manage the situation. There is an alternative. MABS National Development CLG, which provides most of the training and support for local MABS boards and their staff, is well placed to take on the responsibility with the transfer of some staff to the CIB which was allocated to it when it assumed responsibility for MABS in 2009.

We have been assured here on a number of occasions that these changes would have no effect on the provision of front-line services and the Minister stated that again this evening. On what basis can such assurances be given when MABS is regionalised with the creation of eight independent companies which will be employers, as well as deliverers of services? The question arises: how will the budgets for these local companies compare with the current local budgets and who will be the effective decision makers? The essential point is what is the cost of these new structures? I have heard some colleagues say that they will be more €1 million. What will the management costs be as against the current costs? What will the expenditure ratio be between the front-line delivery staff and the management costs and expenses that will undoubtedly be incurred?

How will the volunteers, who come from a wide variety of backgrounds from State, semi-State and voluntary organisations, fit into the regional structure, which is effectively another quango? The issue is that these volunteers give of their time at local level free, are fully acquainted and familiar with the issues that need to be addressed and understand at first hand the vulnerabilities of the clientele with whom they are dealing. This proposal will eliminate at the stroke of a pen the bottom up philosophy of MABS and the Citizens Information service and, on the contrary, impose the top dog "we know best" ethos.

In recent weeks, we have had the launch of the Government initiative to deal with the stubborn mortgage arrears difficulties, the Abhaile scheme. MABS is at the centre of that policy initiative via the gateway to debt advice and now is the time that we need a highly responsive and flexible approach which will help people with their interactions with the courts.

MABS has helped with the implementation of a wide range of Government initiatives, including debt relief notices, mortgage advice in terms of arrears and other mentoring services. MABS is at the forefront of dealing with the enormous personal debt crisis. Now is not the time to emasculate a service that was never more needed to help service users address their problems. No one has explained how these proposed structural changes will have any positive benefits. One can effect change but the consultation should be the foundation of any of these proposals. That is the way forward.

See this speech in context