Joan Collins (Dublin South Central, Independent) | Oireachtas source

I support the Fianna Fáil motion and, if accepted, the Sinn Féin amendment to the motion because they represent two important points.

I am a member of the social protection committee. I have not attended all the meetings regarding MABS, the CIS and the CIB but I was at one of the meetings and have been reading all the information coming in from all the different groups, including MABS Dublin 10 and 20, the CIS in south Kildare, the National Association of Citizen Information Centres and Services, the development management networks, every one of which has said quite clearly that there has been no real consultation on or examination of the options among the staff of those organisations. This is crucial because the Minister made the point, "The decision taken by the statutory board of the CIB on 15 February comes after years of consultation and examination of options." However, the staff, including voluntary staff, were not involved in this. They do not know what is going on.

I remind the Minister that in 2009, when MABS was transferred from the Department of Social Protection to the Citizens Information Board, assurances in writing were given that this would have no effect on the existing MABS structures: "[This notice is to inform you that] the Minister for Social and Family Affairs has signed a Commencement Order to give effect from 13 July 2009 to Part 4 of the Social Welfare (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2008 which extends the functions of Citizen Information Board to include the provision of the Money Advice & Budgeting Service." The assurance continues:

The MABS will be a separate distinct service within the Citizens Information Board. There will be no change in the status of independent MABS companies with voluntary boards of management nor in the employment status of their employees that provide the local services.

That was the commitment given, with statutory aspects to it, to those working and volunteering in MABS and the Minister must stand over that commitment which the then Minister for Social and Family Affairs gave in 2009.

I have also had contact from the Unite union to the effect that it has repeatedly tried to have a meeting with the CIB to represent its staff but has not had any such meeting. We know that the CIB has stated there will be no changes to the locations of services during the lifetime of the restructuring programme and no change to the terms and conditions of existing staff during the lifetime of the restructuring programme. However, the question people are asking is what will happen after the restructuring programme and how it will impact on the services and staffing levels. In a way, I am glad the Minister has come clear tonight and made a few points about the problems he saw in this regard. He said:

The board is [...] concerned about a number of operational inconsistencies that exist. One of the most obvious to service users is the lack of standard opening times across services. Another is staff workload inconsistencies that persist across the network, [etc.]

However, MABS and the CIS will sit down, if there are problems in certain areas, and sort them out, as they have done in the past 20 or 30 years. They have no problem being adaptable. If the board came to them and told them it thought there were certain problems in certain areas and asked them to sort them out, they would have absolutely no problem doing so, and they have made that quite clear at the committee meetings.

One of the last points I wish to make concerns money. This just makes a pig's ear of the whole thing. We know it will cost approximately €1 million to wind down. It will probably cost more than €2 million to restructure those very structures the Minister proposes to unwind. It makes no sense whatsoever.

The joint committee has received representations from all jof these groups. I have listened to them and questioned why the board is continuing on this road.

They all knew that the report of the committee would be brought to the Minister in order that we could discuss with him where we saw problems and how to fix them. On 15 February, however, the board decided to implement this plan. Why did it jump ahead of the committee's report after all the years of negotiation and consultation? The Minister is using that as an excuse not to intervene but he should ask why that happened. It could have at least waited for a week or two after we gave the report and made some sort of decision. There might then have been time and a breathing space to discuss the areas where there are problems.

See this speech in context