John Curran (Dublin Mid West, Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

The Bill before the House sets out to remove MABS from the remit of the CIB and return it to the remit of the Department of Employment Affairs and Social Protection. Deputy Brady was correct when he said that the Bill was initiated in December 2017. We probably need to examine the lottery system that applies to Bills to ensure they come before the House in a timely fashion. Having said that, we must deal with the Bill that is in front of us. We must admit that it is somewhat out of date, given that the restructuring of MABS has been completed. While there are flaws in the Bill for that reason, Deputies will have an opportunity to propose amendments on Committee Stage. We will, therefore, support the Bill on Second Stage.

I disagree with the Minister insofar as I think it is too early to say what the impact of the restructuring process has been. We will support this Bill to signify that we continue to be opposed to the manner in which the restructuring process was undertaken, to highlight the Government's blatant disregard for those who expressed reservations about this process and to reflect the majority view of this House when it called for the process to be halted. There was a great deal of debate about this project. It was a futile effort because it was going to be railroaded through at all costs. The Minister has said that this process has been successful, but employees of MABS and others who are involved with MABS jumping up and down and talking about its success. That is simply not happening.

When my party colleague, Deputy O'Dea, brought a motion to the House in March 2017 regarding the restructuring of MABS, he called on the Minister of the day to halt the restructuring process. I mention this to indicate that the changes that were made were not introduced without significant opposition. Deputy O'Dea's motion was passed by a significant majority in the House. As Deputy Brady mentioned, the Joint Committee on Employment Affairs and Social Protection had an extensive range of interviews and meetings with people involved in the CIB, MABS and various other organisations. With the exception of the representatives of the CIB, everyone to whom we spoke was opposed to the restructuring. It is important for the Minister to note that the CIB and the members of the committee who were in favour of this approach failed to convince us of the rationale behind the restructuring process. They failed in every regard when they tried to explain a real rationale to us. They covered themselves by saying it was not about a cost saving. I recall that well. They knew that no cost saving would emerge. They spoke about the complexity of managing 93 companies and the need to reduce that number to 16. When it was suggested that they might save some money in the process, they said it was not a cost-saving exercise.

It is worth remembering that the Money Advice and Budgeting Service, MABS, was an initiative developed by Brendan Roche in Cork in the Lough Credit Union in the late 1980s when he became aware of difficulties people had in meeting their debt, difficulties with illegal moneylenders and other related matters. He established a small group of people and together they offered help and support to those who were affected by debt. The project was successful and it was adopted on a pilot basis. The 1992 budget provided IR£250,000 - that was the scale of the figures back in those days - for the establishment of five MABS pilot projects around the country. Since then the number of MABS has grown to 51. Between 1992 and 2009 MABS was funded directly by the Department of Social and Family Affairs and then there was a changeover when it came under the Citizens Information Board, CIB.

I mention that because the ethos of the organisation was to take a community-based, bottom-up approach. The restructuring has turned that upside down. That is the point the Citizens Information Board completely missed in all the discussions, namely, that the community-based, volunteer-led organisation that had been created in that form was being radically changed. Those involved did not explain what they was doing but it transpired these individual companies would now act to do and deliver programmes without an input into the process; they would deliver Citizens Information Board-led programmes rather than responding to community-based needs which was their original remit. That was a significant point.

Having sat at the committee and listened to witness after witness in terms of the whole restructuring process, and this was at different levels throughout the organisation, nobody explained and no rationale for given as to the benefits that would accrue. By the time it was all over, I felt frustrated, annoyed and what really needed restructuring was the manner in which the Citizens Information Board did its business. I thought it was an appalling process.

By the way Minister, I did not receive the anonymous emails Deputy Brady received but during the restructuring process people were very concerned not only about their employment but that what they were doing was not valued or recognised. Certainly across the Citizens Information Board services volunteers felt the work they had been doing for years was not recognised. It caused much anger and upset in many communities.

I clearly understand that the Bill is flawed. The Minister has clearly put on the record she will require a money message for it and she has set out the grounds for that. She will use a blocking mechanism to stop this Bill from progressing. That is what she is saying. She and the Government have done that with respect to this issue every step of the way. It was debated and the committee came to a conclusion but the Minister ignored it. This House debated it and nowhere along the way was there an effort to accommodate the views of the majority of people in this House or the majority of people involved in providing the services. The only people who were satisfied at the end of this process were the board of the CIB and the officials in her Department but that process missed what community organisations were about and there was a sense of loss and frustration among the volunteers.

I know this Bill will not go any further and that the money message will kick in. The Minister said the service is excellent but time will tell. We believe the jury is still out on how it will function over the longer period. We do not see the savings. The Minister mentioned increased efficiencies and so forth. Many of the efficiencies could have been introduced under the old structure. We could have had one set of accountants, one set of auditors, doing the accounts of all 90 companies. There were other ways to introduce those efficiencies but they were not significantly examined. One model was kept in mind the whole way through the process and it was railroaded through. It is pity we have come to the point where this Bill had to be introduced tonight to revisit an issue that has been spoken about in the House and in committee and on which no progress has been made because that model was railroaded through.

See this speech in context