John Brady (Wicklow, Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

I could say I am surprised by the initial response from the Minister for Employment Affairs and Social Protection who is no longer in the Chamber. However, I am not. That type of stick one's head in the sand approach has been adopted from day one.

The Taoiseach, Deputy Varadkar, was in the Minister's position when this issue first arose. He did not want to deal with it. He did not want to engage with the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Social Protection. We brought a whole raft of witnesses in to the committee and produced a brilliant report which received cross-party support. We sent that report to the Minister who failed to engage or to express any views on it. He stuck his head in the sand and allowed the tearing apart of the MABS structures to proceed. There was a debate on the issue in the Dáil and a motion was passed. It was the will of the House that the process be stopped. That was also the main finding of the report. This was all ignored.

I am therefore not surprised that the Minister's Government, knowing that it will be defeated on this legislation, is again pulling the money message procedure out of its back pocket. That does not surprise me but it does disappoint me because not only has the Minister not taken on board the views of the Members of this House and of the Oireachtas joint committee, she has not taken on the views of the people who matter, the people who have worked on the front line since MABS was set up in 1992. She has not taken on board their concerns. The evidence I have been given shows that there has been a reduction in the standard of service being provided to people. People are experiencing lengthy delays when waiting to be seen. One person who actually works within the service says that there has been a massive brain drain and that people have walked away. This person says there has been:

Loss of knowledge, talent and skills of qualified professional staff in the organisation. As noted, many staff qualified as AMA’s and Al’s. Others were solicitors, barristers, accountants, etc. Many have since left the organisation either early retired or moved on to other organisations.

This was a direct result of what has taken place. There have been negative consequences to the restructuring process. The Minister has said that the legislation is deeply flawed. I find that insulting, although not to me personally because I did not draft it. This legislation was drafted by the Office of the Parliamentary Legal Advisers. If the Minister is having a go at the people employed by the Houses to draft legislation, it is a serious error on her part. I certainly do not believe this legislation is deeply flawed. I am not precious about it. If the Minister thinks there are flaws within the legislation I will happily accept constructive amendments on Committee Stage in order to strengthen the Bill and to put meat on the bones, so to speak. I will absolutely do that. The Minister should not, however, hide behind the nonsensical argument that this legislation is deeply flawed.

I spoke about the anonymous correspondence I received. It would be worthwhile to put some of it on record as it shows what people who actually work within the service feel:

Anonymity and Fear

Apologies for being anonymous but some colleagues who were previously very vocal about the absurdity of the restructure plan are being targeted. There is a general feeling that we are NOT allowed to talk to media or anyone else about what has and is going on.

What was / is the purpose of the restructure?Well not for the benefit of all stakeholders nor primarily the public (the old vision, mission, etc) which we are supposed to serve!

From the very first commissioned study (by contractors!) in 2014 it was very clear that not all stakeholders were being considered. Over the last two years it is abundantly clear that the only stakeholders represented are CIB and the many expensive consultants contracted at regular intervals for lots of projects.

No valid reasoning/evidence was ever provided for the need to restructure. Derogatory comments had been made such as ‘there is a horrendous lack of governance...’ One possible example being constantly repeated as such evidence. But it made no sense because ...This was against a background of much increased governance and controls

These are the words of a person on the front line regarding the impact this restructure is having. These are the views I take on board and the views to which the Minister and her predecessor have not listened. That is an absolute shame.

In her opening comments the Minister unfortunately attacked me for quoting someone on the front line who talks about the toxic organisation that is the Citizens Information Board. She tried to muddy the waters and to suggest that I was making a direct attack on everyone involved in the citizens' information services. That is completely disingenuous of the Minister. I know from dealing with people, as does everyone in this House, that the work done by the staff of the citizens' information services is phenomenal. There is a distinct difference between the Citizens Information Board and the citizens' information services, which it funds. A person who works on the front line categorises that board as a toxic environment. To suggest that is an attack on all staff in the citzens' information services is absolutely pitiful. To use that to try to take away from what this legislation seeks to do is very sad.

The Minister also says that this Bill is 19 months too late and that, had it come before her at that time, she would have looked at it or taken it on board. Neither she nor the Government would have. I have outlined all the reasons why. The Minister who was in charge at that time would not even engage with the committee. He outlined all the reasons he could not intervene and hid behind advice from the Attorney General, even though previous Ministers had intervened to stop the exact same thing happening in the past. So many false arguments have been put forward and that is pitiful.

My sole objective in all of this is ensuring that the phenomenal work carried out by MABS over many years is allowed to continue into the future. The evidence shows that this restructuring has cost a fortune. The Minister said in a reply to a parliamentary question of mine that it has only cost in the region of €660,000. The actual figure is closer to €2 million. As a result of this, not only have we seen the brain drain described by one worker on the front line, but a reduction in services. That is my sole motivation in bringing forward this legislation. I want to ensure that MABS is allowed to continue doing the phenomenal work it has done in the past.

The Government is going to be defeated on this. There is cross-party support for this Bill. Unfortunately the Government will again hide behind a money message. That is no surprise. There are now 55 Opposition Bills being held up by the money message procedure. That is a disgrace. If the Minister is serious about MABS, about protecting people, and about providing service to people who need it, she will allow this Bill to move on to Committee Stage. We can then bring in expert witnesses, tease things out, and make amendments to strengthen the legislation to ensure that MABS can go forward on the strongest possible footing.

See this speech in context