Gino Kenny (Dublin Mid West, People Before Profit Alliance) | Oireachtas source

I will quote extensively from what the Minister said to reiterate what he said recently about MABS and CIS. He stated:

... there will be no job losses, no closure of services, no change to service delivery locations and no change to the terms and conditions of serving staff during the lifetime of the restructuring programme. There will be no disruption to CIB and MABS services for those who use them.

He went on to say:

The decision comes after a lengthy and extensive analysis of options and detailed consultation period with all stakeholders on the need for a streamlined governance model. The decision taken will simply reduce the number of individual local CIS and MABS companies boards from 93 to 16. A new regional board structure will be put in place which will comprise eight CIS boards and eight MABS boards.

When I hear a Fine Gael Minister say there will be no cuts to services and that we are simply streamlining the governance model, I get very nervous. I have seen how streamlining services has impacted on citizens in the place where I live since the start of the recession and we are still trying to pick up the pieces. For many of the constituents hit by the recession, negative equity, the threat of eviction or homelessness, and especially the decisions made by the Department of Social Protection in terms of its private arms such as JobPath, both MABS and the CIS have proven literally to be life-savers. I have dealt with countless constituents who found the advice and, more importantly, the advocacy of these services to be their best hope in the past seven to eight years of austerity. Therefore, anything which impacts on them is a massive issue for the most vulnerable and poorest in society.

The point has been made, but perhaps the Minister does not understand it, that if the local boards which provide the service are altered, changed or streamlined, it will change the type of service that is provided. It will undermine the voluntary and local participation in the service. This service grew up organically in the communities that it serves because people need help accessing State services to get their entitlements. Crucially, it will undermine the vital advocacy role that the service provides.

The Minister told us that no changes are envisaged in this programme but already we find that what were permanent and full-time staff contracts are increasingly becoming short and fixed term contracts for eight months to two years.

I also point out that the CIS, in a report it commissioned, refers to the need to keep the Department of Social Protection satisfied and the fact that the Department sees the present structure as unwieldy. Is it the Minister and his Department that are pushing these proposed changes?

I remind the House that for many vulnerable people on the receiving end of decisions by the State and its institutions, these services are their only lifeline. Their present structure has given many vulnerable people a voice and an advocate in dealing with appeals of the Minister's Department - for example, finding out what they might be entitled to in certain circumstances. This is not just about providing information for online services, but is also an excellent way of keeping people up to date. I fear that in all the talk of streamlining and governance, the key advocacy role of these services will be diluted and, ironically, this will have a massive impact on those who need them most, such as those facing evictions and those on the receiving end of decisions of the Minister's Department.

There are more than 1,000 volunteers who work in these services and whose contribution is now in danger of being ignored and downgraded in these proposed changes. This cannot be allowed to happen. The proposed regionalisation of the service will not improve it. It will not deal with the issues that confront staff and service users or the crying need for those services. We need to fund and value services properly. These changes cannot proceed. The community and volunteers who rely on and provide these services must be consulted and involved in the changes.

See this speech in context