Willie O'Dea (Limerick City, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move:

That Dáil Éireann:

accepts:- the vitally important work undertaken by the Citizens Information services, CIS, and the Money Advice and Budgeting Service, MABS, offices across the country in providing information, advice and also helping citizens to manage and overcome debt; and

- the significant role these services have had in recent years assisting families with distressed mortgages;

recognises:

- that MABS and CIS offices are an intrinsic part of, and deeply embedded in, local communities which depend on them greatly;

a that voluntarism is a central component of the MABS and CIS services and ethos;

- the genuine and growing concern about the manner in which the restructuring of MABS and CIS is being undertaken and the potential negative implications of the proposed regional model;

- that the restructuring process is disenfranchising volunteers which is counterproductive;

- the growing concern about the proposed changes to local boards and the implications for members and services; and

- that those directly affected by this restructuring process believe that it is taking place without any meaningful dialogue; andcalls on the Minister for Social Protection to:- immediately utilise the power he has under the Citizens Information Act 2007 to issue a directive to halt this proposed regionalisation;

- conduct a cost-benefit analysis of the restructuring process and the proposed regional model;

- heed the concerns of those who have voiced their strong reservations about the restructuring process and to ensure that all stakeholders involved are consulted and allowed to engage in meaningful constructive dialogue to secure an outcome that is agreeable to all; and

- ensure that any restructuring process does not result in the downgrading of the quality, effectiveness and accessibility of services to citizens.

I seek the permission of the Leas-Cheann Comhairle to share my time with Deputies Marc MacSharry, John Curran, Eamon Scanlon and John McGuinness.

Pat Gallagher (Donegal, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I call for self-discipline. I am not going to interrupt the Deputy.

Willie O'Dea (Limerick City, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I will listen very carefully to the Leas-Cheann Comhairle, as always.

The conventional wisdom is that if something is not broken, one should not fix it. That wisdom seems to have been turned on its head for this particular proposal that we discuss tonight. The advice in this case seems to be that if it is not broken, fix it and fix it good. The proposal, in short, is to abolish all MABS and Citizens Information companies throughout the country and replace them in each case with eight regional boards. The theory is that this will give rise to savings in administration, etc., and that that money will be redirected back into front-line services. It is a lovely theory, but unfortunately the facts do not bear it out.

I have consulted widely on this matter with the staff of the relevant agencies, volunteers, without whom the agencies could not operate, and, most importantly, perhaps, the end users - the people who depend on the services. To say their reaction is aghast is a huge understatement. They are horrified by this proposal and they cannot believe such a proposal is being put forward, particularly in view of how successful both organisations have been in dealing with the people that depend on them. I have had representations from all over the country. I could spend several hours reading them out. One representation I received from the Citizens Information centre in Kildare stated this was a completely destructive and over the top proposal and was akin to demolishing one's house and rebuilding again on a different site, when all that might be needed were some minor repairs.

The common tenet among all of the people who contacted me is that they admit that there are some problems. There is no service that cannot be improved. They are willing to change and embrace change, including structural change, provided that the restructure is part of a wider strategy to address identifiable problems. They insist, rightly, that such restructuring must remain community-based and independent, while also taking into account factors such as geography, demography and socioeconomic factors. They have put forward the idea of a county model. They are even prepared to accept the idea of aligning both organisations with a view perhaps to ultimate amalgamation. Therefore, there is no lack of appetite for change among those organisations.

The problem is that the proposed change is all about structure and nothing else. The chief executive officer of the CIB which is driving this change admitted as much. In a speech to the National Association of Citizens Information Services, NACIS, Ms Angela Black stated the focus was on structure and how a national structure was best configured. It is all about structure. The problem is that not one ounce or iota of evidence has been put forward to explain how this structural change alone will obtain a better outcome for those who depend on the services, whose interests we should be mainly concerned with in this House. However, there is copious anecdotal evidence from the volunteers, the service users and the staff that the contrary is the case. Both services grew organically from the communities they serve. That is their great strength. Since they started, both services have operated on a communitarian basis, funded by the State rather than as a centralised service provided by it. The proposal to regionalise and centralise the services will fundamentally change this ethos. The services are Government-funded but they cannot be, nor can they be perceived to be, Government-run.

The staff who co-operate the services have had little or no consultation about this change. It is a change of huge magnitude but there has been a total lack of consultation. One would think that for services like these, consultation should start with the front-line people providing the services rather than in this top-down approach where the interests of the service users are the last to be considered. It is interesting to note that the United Kingdom which has been providing this type of service for longer than we have has enthusiastically embraced the structure and type of system that we are now trying to jettison. Not only has it embraced it, it has made a virtue of it. For example, the report of the UK Citizens Advice Bureau services of 2014 stated: "Our bureaux are staffed by local people who are passionate about their community and sensitive to local needs." Notice how the thread of "local" runs right throughout. It will be impossible to sustain this model if local ownership and autonomy are weakened. It will mean that the service will look less like a local community-based organisation and more like a regional bureaucracy. The current community-based structures provide a service that the users see as independent of the Government. That is what brings people through the doors. Without this, there is a real possibility that they will lose confidence and trust in the services provided.

The local MABS companies throughout the country are run by voluntary boards comprised of volunteers from the locality. The Citizens Information services throughout the country depend on volunteer professionals to come in and give people advice. Voluntarism is central to the ethos of MABS. Without volunteers, the Citizens Information system as we know it could not survive. Scant attention has been taken of the fact both in the Pathfinder report and in these proposals, which derive from the Pathfinder report, of the role of volunteers. For example, there seems to be no realisation that while volunteers will readily sign up for a local service, they will be much less inclined to do so for a service which is remote from them and is based or headquartered in another part of the country.

The Citizens Information Board tells us that the new system is going to cost less. It tells us that eight regional bureaucracies suitably staffed, etc., will cost less than the present system. We are supposed to accept that. Why? It is because the Citizens Information Board tells us so. It has not produced one single figure. No cost-benefit analysis has been made. No single figure has been produced to support that contention. On the other hand, the MABS submission to the social protection committee produced detailed figures that convinced me beyond any shadow of a doubt that instead of costing less, the new structures will actually cost more. The National Development Managers Network made a very detailed submission to the social protection committee.

The group has gone through the costings line by line and has demonstrated that the new system will be more expensive than the current system. The group has expressed serious concerns about the fact that incorrect information and figures were presented to the Citizens Information Board when it made the decision in favour of a regional structure. That is a serious accusation indeed. If this is going to cost more, does it mean taxpayers are going to have to pay out more for a service that everyone at the coal-face believes will be less effective? If taxpayers are not going to be called upon to pay more money, will the service be further diluted?

As I have said, no one has explained how structural change by itself will improve delivery of services to the end user. However, the entire emphasis is on structure. I continue to ask myself why. I referred to the speech by Ms Black on 12 March. She said she had no interest nor did she imagine the Government had any interest in change for change's sake. I accept that. I do not expect that the Department of Social Protection or senior people appointed by the Department to positions such as that held by Ms Black are interested in change for change's sake. However, there is a rationale for the change. It has nothing to do with the value of the services to end users. As the character in "Hamlet" said, "Though this be madness, yet there is method in it." The method in this particular madness, the purpose of the change, is designed to make it far easier for management to control these services and effectively turn them into arms of the Department of Social Protection. It is a back-door method of seizing total control of both services. The Citizens Information Board will select the boards of the eight regional companies. It will also select the chairpersons. These companies will effectively become the shadow employers. Responsibility will transfer to the Government.

The impression has been created that the people who are working in these services and the volunteers who support them are hide-bound conservative people who are unwilling to change. Nothing could be further from the truth. The Citizens Information centres have been in existence for more than 40 years. MABS offices have been in existence for more than 20 years. Let us consider the changes in society and all the challenges that have been thrown up in all that time. These organisations have responded well and enthusiastically, to the point that when they were independently tested in 2015, each organisation was given a gold star for performance.

The motto of the King's Inns is "nolumus mutari" which means "we are unwilling to be changed". Certainly that does not apply to the Citizens Information centres or to MABS offices. Let us consider the work that MABS offices and the Citizens Information organisations are doing now. It is altogether different to what they were doing ten years ago, to the point that it is barely recognisable. They are willing to change, and change includes structural change. However, they want change that will deliver a better result for the end users, not some change amounting to bureaucratic blind man's bluff that will lead the services God knows where. That is what we are asking for and that is what I am asking the House to support.

The Joint Committee on Social protection has discussed this issue at length. Scant regard has been taken of our observations and views. I am asking the House to express its opinion on this proposed change. While I do not want to anticipate the outcome of the vote, I want people to think carefully about the value of these services to the community. I want people to think about what is proposed and about what the volunteers and end users think of how these changes are going to affect them.

There is an old saying in my part of the country that one cannot make a silk purse out of a sow's ear. Unfortunately, the reverse seems to be the case. Apparently, one can make a sow's ear out of a silk purse and this is a classic example of it.

Seán Ó Fearghaíl (Kildare South, Ceann Comhairle)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The next speakers are Deputies Marc MacSharry, John Curran and Frank O'Rourke.

Marc MacSharry (Sligo-Leitrim, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank Deputy Willie O'Dea for sharing time with me. In the 2014 annual report of the Citizens Information Board, the chairperson, Ita Mangan, stated:

Without the close relationship each service has with its local community, we could not deliver on our remit – providing information, advice, advocacy and budgeting services, when and where they are needed. In turn, local services benefit from being part of a nationwide service with a national reputation that provides vital central supports.

One year later, in the 2015 annual report, it seems the entire narrative had changed when it came to the ownership of services. Companies are referred to as instruments of delivery and as means to an end. There is no longer any sense of a unique strength from a network of independent services deeply embedded in local communities.

Deputy Willie O'Dea has outlined clearly why this is a ridiculous idea. We have not done a cost benefit analysis. We have not done an impact analysis with regard to local communities. Frankly, it is part of an unannounced, unwritten but very much in-practice and in-train policy of centralisation that the Minister and his colleagues are trumpeting and practising on an ongoing basis. The removal of the local input and ownership of these organisations is simply ridiculous.

At this point, we are centralising so much. We are bringing so much back to the centre. Economics seems to be driving everything. The cost of everything seems to be driving the focus of Government policy instead of the value to the citizen. This value is ultimately what Government policy should be about.

The centralisation in my region of the Department of Social Protection is an example. Presumably, the reason is to boost the public relations aspect of the work of the Minister. One example relates to 31 positions from the Department of Social Protection in Sligo. This is probably the most successful of the decentralised offices dating back to the 1980s. Some 31 positions in the information section were moved back to Dublin. Last week, we learned that the PAYE section of Revenue, also based in that part of the country, is going to move east to Dundalk. A total of 19 new positions will be created there. We know there is a threat to the regional veterinary laboratories throughout the country. This represents more centralisation as they will be brought to County Kildare in the greater Dublin area. That is good news for these locations, but the moves are not in the interest of balanced regional development. Ulster Bank has done something similar, although I grant that we have no control of that. Moreover, a report is circulating suggesting the Minister will do the same with 200 post offices.

The Minister, his colleagues and the Taoiseach are going around the country in a weekly parade of photo calls and empty announcements. In practice, what they are implementing is the shutting down of the cultural and societal fabric of the nation. The Minister is closing everything down. That is simply unacceptable.

We are all consumed with worry and uncertainty over a hard border with Brexit. I put it to the Minister that the virtual border he has created outside Dublin in respect of rural and regional Ireland is exemplified in the stupidity of what the Minister is doing with MABS.

John Curran (Dublin Mid West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank Deputy Marc MacSharry for giving me the opportunity to contribute.

Marc MacSharry (Sligo-Leitrim, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

That was good.

John Curran (Dublin Mid West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

As the Minister is aware, this issue is before the Joint Committee on Social Protection. We have had an opportunity to meet representatives of the Citizens Information Board, the Money Advice and Budgeting Service, the National Development Managers Network of MABS and the National Association of Citizens Information Services. We have examined the analysis and the rationale for a restructuring programme and why it might be required. The Citizens Information Board clearly put forward issues relating to governance, cost effectiveness and so forth. We have listened to what those at the front line have brought to the table.

I do not believe the rationale for restructuring was adequately made. Moreover, the services that are to be restructured did not receive real and meaningful consultation. The people on the front line in the local organisations take the view that while there was a consultation process, it was not real or meaningful. Most of the organisations were excluded in real terms from that process.

Another major concern I have, apart from the views of the witnesses we met, relates to the considerable amount of correspondence sent to the committee. Whether the correspondence was from a MABS company or a local Citizens Information service organisation, it expressed concern about one strategic point, namely, the services were going to lose local volunteers.

The ethos and background to these companies derives from being local. They are locally run, organised and structured. That ethos is being removed. The functionality and future vibrancy will be challenged without these volunteers. I have no wish to delay the Minister, because others have to contribute. However, I call on the Minister to do one thing. He should suspend the restructuring until we go back to the drawing board. Anything else would only have negative outcome rather than the outcome everyone is trying to achieve.

Frank O'Rourke (Kildare North, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I welcome the opportunity to speak on the issue of the regionalisation of MABS and the Citizens Information service, CIS. Like my colleagues, I believe this is the wrong thing to do. There is no one here opposed to reform or achieving efficiencies in various areas, Departments or sectors. That is to be welcomed, providing it gives a better end result to the service users in the community. Regionalising these services will actually move them further away from those who need to access them the most. That is a mistake. In my constituency of Kildare North, there is one MABS office and two CIS offices serving a population of just over 100,000. I would advocate increasing the services and bringing in additional supports to help the people who need help the most. As we all know, a lot of people, both families and individuals, are suffering financial pressure and strain, whether in terms of restructuring mortgage repayments with banks or local authorities or dealing with rent increases by local authorities. Those people need to be able to access the services of MABS which can put forward their case and support them in an independent process. That is why it is so important that the services are available to them. We should be increasing the services in local areas, not removing them and making them more difficult for people to access. Community welfare offices were amalgamated in my constituency and that has not worked for the people on the ground. I ask the Minister to rethink this and not to regionalise the services.

John McGuinness (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I join my colleagues in asking that any decision on this be suspended until such time as a proper review is undertaken. Both organisations have changed considerably over the years to meet the demands of their clients. They have made a significant contribution to their own communities based on the fact they have knowledge and they have the confidence and trust of the people they serve. If it is not broken, do not fix it. We seem to have a habit in this place of identifying something that is working and then attempting to restructure it in a way that takes away the very essence of what it means to people. I compliment the volunteers who have been central to these organisations because without them, the services could not function as they do. The Minister is wrong to attempt to do anything with these organisations.

Leo Varadkar (Dublin West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 2:

To delete all words after “Dáil Éireann” and substitute the following:wholeheartedly commends the important work undertaken by the Citizens Information Board, CIB, together with its network of delivery partner services, including the Citizens Information service, CIS, and the Money Advice and Budgeting Service, MABS, in fulfilling its statutory remit to provide information, advice, iincluding money advice and budgeting advice, and advocacy services on a wide range of public and social services for citizens across the country;

notes:

- the decision taken by the statutory board of the CIB, on 15 February 2017, to restructure the governance arrangements from ninety three individual local service company boards to a new 16 company board model, to bring the CIS and MABS better into line with modern public service governance guidelines and requirements;

and

- the CIB’s key assurance that 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;

recognises that the decision taken by the statutory board of the CIB is for improved governance reasons due to the significant State funding involved and will in no way reduce access to, or the range of, services available to citizens;

acknowledges that the restructured model is necessary to assist the CIB in its compliance with the Code of Practice for the Governance of State Bodies and the implementation of recommendations from the Office of the Comptroller and Auditor General;

agrees that the decision taken by the statutory board of the CIB is in keeping with successive strategic plans of the board, including the current strategic plan for the period 2015 to 2018, which in accordance with governing legislative provisions was submitted to, and approved by, the Minister for Social Protection, and subsequently noted by Government and laid before the Houses of the Oireachtas in January 2016;

further recognises the work carried out by the employed staff of MABS and the employees and many volunteers who work in the CIS countrywide;

acknowledges the input of the volunteer boards of the CIS and MABS companies to date and notes that those with the necessary skills and expertise can remain involved by putting themselves forward for consideration as members of the new regional boards;

welcomes the undertaking of the CIB to conduct a full cost-benefit analysis of the 16 regional company model;

further acknowledges the CIB’s commitment to ongoing consultation through the establishment of a restructuring implementation group comprising members of the board of the CIB and representatives of the local network of the CIS, MABS and CIB staff members;

further welcomes the intention of the CIB to engage in constructive, structured dialogue with the relevant representative bodies in the context of moving to the new restructured governance arrangements; and

further notes that the Attorney General has advised that the Minister for Social Protection does not have power to instruct the CIB in its day to day operations and, specifically, does not have the power to order a reversal of a decision such as the restructuring of its governance arrangements.

I am pleased to have the opportunity to discuss the restructuring plans of the Citizens Information Board, CIB. I record my acknowledgement of the invaluable work carried out by the employees and volunteers working in the ClS and MABS offices all around Ireland. There has been some concern in recent weeks that the restructuring plans of the CIB will in some way quench the spirit of these locally provided services. Let me assure the House that the CIB has no plans to reduce or limit the service offered by the CIS and MABS now or at a future date. The CIB does not intend to close any service delivery locations or reduce the numbers of staff who, on a daily basis deal, with the information or money and debt advice needs of people right across the country. In fact, nothing could be further from the truth. Rather, the CIB has an ambitious strategic vision for the development and promotion of the CIS and MABS, the enhancement and extension of service offerings and an increased focus on front-line delivery.

As there appears to be much confusion about the intentions of the CIB, I want to explain the context within which the decision to restructure the governance arrangements of CIS and MABS was taken by the board. It was not a Government decision. At present, each of the 93 individual companies is responsible for the provision of the services of either the CIS or MABS within their local areas. The CIB's efforts to have modern service needs assessed and met in a timely, flexible and effective way is often hampered by the unwieldy governance structure of 93 individual companies. Implementing a more efficient, streamlined model means there will be 16 rather than 93 touch points for the CIB with nationwide services; eight for CIS services and eight for MABS. The board believes this will result in faster, more responsive two-way communications to and from the CIB as it tries to respond to service delivery needs or gaps. The modernised structure will assist the CIB to gather data and information more efficiently from services and to facilitate more effective dissemination of information and updates. It must be remembered that all CIS and MABS offices country wide are entirely funded by the Exchequer. A more streamlined service delivery model will assist the CIB in the fulfilment of its statutory obligations, its compliance with the code of practice for governance of State bodies and its implementation of recommendations from the Office of the Comptroller and Auditor General.

According to the board, as of the 31 December 2016, there are 496 permanent staff, 225 scheme participants and 1,079 part-time volunteers involved in providing direct services to the public across the network of 93 services. The 93 service delivery companies have an average of 9.2 people serving on each board across the network. If one examines the MABS company structure more closely, it is difficult to understand why there is a need for 450 board members to cover 51 MABS companies, with an approximate staff compliment of 250. That is more than two board members for each staff member. In addition, many board members have been on a board for decades and this is no longer considered best governance practice. However, it is widely recognised, especially in local communities, that the input of local voluntary company board members who are in tune with the needs of the local people has been helpful in the development of services to date. In recognition of the ethos of local community involvement, the CIB intends to set up local advisory groups where members of local communities can continue to contribute their expertise and help, to guide the development and changing service offering of the CIS and MABS. the CIB has also assured me that serving board members will be entitled to put themselves forward for selection as members of the new 16 regional boards.

What does this mean for service users? A reduced number of boards will improve the ability of board members to appropriately discharge their duties as directors and to implement performance management and quality assurance. Additionally, companies organised on a regional basis will allow for the development of specialist expertise and knowledge which could be shared across a region. Similarly, it will be easier for a regional company to respond as a unit to significant events, for example, by providing additional advisers in an area in response to flooding. When new Government initiatives are announced, there can be immediate dialogue with the 16 companies to agree how best to implement them, leading to an improved response rate for service users than the current procedure where all 93 boards have to consider their response at their next board meeting. This can lead to sporadic delayed implementation of service improvements. The board is also concerned about a number of operational inconsistencies. 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, as local service managers have no opportunity to distribute work more fairly, particularly in services where only a few staff are employed. Caseloads that can be managed on a shared regional basis will empower managers to resolve these issues, provide better customer service and reduce service waiting times where they exist. The board is keen to achieve greater consistency in the quality and speed of service delivery. This is difficult under the current structure as all 93 companies operate independently.

The decision taken by the statutory board of the CIB on 15 February comes after years of consultation and examination of options. I welcome the board's commitment to continue to engage in constructive dialogue with stakeholders to move to the new restructured governance arrangements. The next step is the establishment of a restructuring implementation group to examine all aspects of implementing the new 16 board model. This work will include a cost benefit analysis involving examination of the establishment costs of any new structure and the potential for future savings from the reduction in the administrative burden associated with 93 individual local companies. While cost is not the driver, and it is acknowledged that some set up costs will be incurred, there are likely to be some efficiencies gained in the medium term from moving to a reduced 16 company model.

In the motion there is a call on me, as Minister for Social Protection, to invoke the power under section 9 of the Citizens Information Act 2007 to direct the board to halt its implementation of the Government's restructuring plan. Even if I were minded to direct the board to set aside its decision of 15 February 2017, I clarify for the House that I have no such power. For the avoidance of doubt, this has been confirmed by the Office of the Attorney General.

The CIB, as a statutory body, has the authority to make decisions on its day-to-day operational activities as it sees fit, and it would not be lawful or appropriate for me, as Minister, to intervene in such a decision already taken by the board. I am confident the membership of the board has made an important decision that it believes is in the best interest of the citizens of the State, whom it serves. I therefore urge Deputies to support the amendment I have submitted and accept the assurances therein.

John Brady (Wicklow, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am sharing my time with Deputies Denise Mitchell and Eoin Ó Broin.

The single biggest question to be asked here tonight is why restructuring is being proposed in the first place. What are the intentions of the Department of Social Protection and the CIB as regards these plans? It is ridiculous that neither MABS nor the CIS has been given any explanation whatsoever as to the rationale for the planned restructuring. Reasons such as governance, accountability and value for money have been cited by the CIB but it seems incapable of going any further than that. Can the Minister for Social Protection, Deputy Leo Varadkar, clarify, therefore, what the issues are in respect of governance, accountability and value for money? These are questions that must be answered, at the very least. They are the questions that the Minister must answer.

MABS and the CIS provide a first-class and unique service. Everyone in the House would agree with that. With so much red tape and bureaucracy across the board, the CIS provides valuable information for people on a range of issues. MABS deals with some of the most vulnerable people in our communities on a daily basis, including those struggling to pay debts and those in mortgage distress. We know that support and assistance provided by MABS have been the difference between a family's home being repossessed and its being protected. We see this excellent work being replicated in schemes such as Abhaile, which has been rolled out.

The way in which these decisions have been made and the way in which MABS and the CIS have been informed have been totally underhand. While the CIB has stated lengthy and extensive consultation took place, MABS and the CIS beg to differ. There was no engagement with those on the front line of MABS or the CIS. Those best placed to understand the realities and challenges of service delivery have been ignored in the decision-making process. The entire process undertaken by the CIB and the Department in the restructuring plans raises real concerns over the real intention behind these changes.

In February, when plans to regionalise MABS offices became apparent, Sinn Féin facilitated MABS to come here and brief all Oireachtas Members on its concerns. On the back of this meeting, I requested that the Joint Committee on Social Protection invite stakeholders in to discuss and examine these plans. The committee report on this will be produced next week. I hope the Minister will accept an invitation to appear before the committee with this report in mind. Unfortunately, it has to be said Fianna Fáil saw this issue as a political opportunity and hence we see this motion before us tonight. Having said that, what is important first and foremost is the protection of the services as they are.

On consulting MABS on the motion last week, I submitted an amendment to remove the call for a cost-benefit analysis of the restructuring process. Given the voluntary nature of the services of MABS and the CIS as they are, I do not regard a cost-benefit analysis as being necessary. MABS has also said this. MABS itself has carried out a cost-benefit analysis. It has found it will cost €1 million to wind down the current services and that a new regionalised model will cost between €2.2 and €2.3 million, which represents considerable and unnecessary use of taxpayers' money.

Our amendment calls on the Minister to ensure the existing model, whereby independent management of the service is drawn from the local community and voluntary sector, is maintained. We cannot allow the community aspect of both MABS and the CIS to be lost. This will be the case if the restructuring goes ahead. Instead of 93 voluntary companies based in their communities, we will see eight regional companies that will be far removed from the communities they serve. There is nothing positive or beneficial to the citizen in this case.

Central to the work of MABS and the CIS are the volunteers who selflessly give their time to provide help and advice to others. The importance of this cannot be stressed enough. How, therefore, does the CIB propose to attract and retain unpaid boards for regional structures? Has the cost of the loss of volunteers been considered in all this? We have already seen volunteers walking away, disillusioned over the lack of any consultation with them and fearful for the structure of the services as they are. Both MABS and the CIS have stated volunteers are walking away. As mentioned at a hearing of the social protection committee, volunteers are walking away in Dún Laoghaire. Local involvement will be lost. The entire ethos on which MABS is built, which has made it so successful to date, will be lost.

When the Minister could be considering fixing the many issues affecting his Department, including those associated with child poverty, youth unemployment, lone parents, job activation schemes or any number of others, he is instead focusing on fixing something that is not broken in the first place. With the CIB, the Minister has failed to demonstrate with actual evidence the existence of a problem, the solution to which he believes is regionalisation. The Minister can do what was done by the late Séamus Brennan back in 2007, that is, issue a directive to the CIB, halt the regionalisation and do so in the best interest of the most vulnerable in society, which he claims time and again to have at the core of everything he does. I ask the Minister to do this without hesitation.

Denise Mitchell (Dublin Bay North, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I welcome the opportunity to speak to the motion. We all know the great work and vital service provided by MABS and the CIS. Sinn Féin's aim is to ensure the quality service that they currently provide will not be put at risk. MABS and the CIS made presentations to this House in February and questions were raised about the changes being recommended. These questions remain. The proposal is to regionalise the management, adding an extra layer of management. It is also believed the new regional boards will have no directors representing local communities and will be more remote. Why, therefore, are we having these major structural changes to the whole management of the service?

The CIB stated at a presentation to the social protection committee that the only way to reduce costs would be to reduce the number of companies. How is this backed up? What clear analysis has been conducted by the Department of the current model? Where is the evidence for the need for such large-scale change? The Pathfinder feasibility study states CIB "feels" a central authority is a logical development. It "feels" it is, so, in the absence of any evidence for change, we rely on a "feel" for change.

There were statements made to the committee by the CIB, Citizens Information Board, on the problems with governance and compliance under the current model and that the boards do not have the capacity to deal with them. Again, where is the evidence to support these claims? The CIB’s strategic plan states it will revise the structures of the Citizens Information service and MABS, Money Advice and Budgeting Service, to better serve the citizen. How can this be the case if we are dissolving local boards and breaking the link between local communities and MABS? The end result is that these proposals presented by the CIB have been exposed as a concept that involve a lot more questions than answers. They are more vague than clear and not evidence based or do not involve an effective input from stakeholders. The bodies which know the service best and manage the office completely disagree with the changes proposed.

Two crucial representative groups have given their views to the Oireachtas social protection committee. The National Association of Citizen Information Services stated structural changes would not by themselves lead to an improved outcome for service users. The National Development Managers Network stated, as regards value for money, that it was clear that the proposed restructuring would be costly.

At the centre of all this is the user of the service. How is the user affected and how will the service be improved by the proposed changes at management level? We must consider the customer first and then be conscious of cost. What is the cost against the current model considering the many volunteers who underpin the service? We all know the important amenity this provides at local level for many people, as well as the many volunteers who commit so much to their local community. This model works, with no clear evidence to say otherwise. Questions, more than answers, remain. If the changes do not make sense, what is the agenda in providing for this centralised governance?

Eoin Ó Broin (Dublin Mid West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

As a constituency politician - I am sure this is shared by all Members - I make regular referrals to both the Citizens Information service and MABS. My experience has been that they provide exceptionally high quality services which are rooted in the community and, crucially and relevant to this debate, managed very well by the community. One concern about this proposal, a matter which concerns me about a range of Government decisions in recent years, is that when it comes to local, grassroots, community-driven services such as these, there is a drive towards an excessive level of centralisation. We saw this in the undermining of the independence of the community development programmes and, more recently, the cuts in funding for the local training initiatives in independent community centres. We also saw it in the centralisation of funding through the social inclusion and community activation programme under the auspices of local authorities. Somewhere in government, whether at Civil Service or ministerial level, there seems to be a lack of trust of local people taking decisions to manage services in the best interests of local communities. Not only is there a lack of trust, but there is also a desire in central government to control to the greatest possible extent these services, despite the fact that all Members in support of Fianna Fáil's motion have said people believe the services are provided adequately.

I listened carefully to the reasons the Minister outlined for the course of action he is taking, one of which is that he believes there are far too many board members. This seems to completely miss the point of what is valuable about locally managed decision-making in services such as these. The large number of board members is precisely what is unique and valuable about this type of enterprise, something we should be supporting, not seeking to undermine. The Minister said that to recognise the community ethos was changing, it was necessary to change the status of board members, the decision-makers, to advisers. That is not a recognition of their status but an undermining of it and relegating them to a secondary role, despite the fact that on many occasions they best understand the needs of local communities.

The Minister also said having a reduced number of board members would improve their ability to appropriately discharge their duties as directors and implement performance management and quality assurance systems. While that is all nice managerial jargon, nowhere, either in his contribution or other documentation, has he justified that claim. He made a series of claims about how regionalisation would allow the Citizens Information service and MABS to better respond, whether to emergencies or better consistency of service provision, etc, when there are already networks to do this through the managers’ networks. I am sure the managers’ networks would be open to enhancing and further improving that role.

The Minister's final point was that he did not have the legal power to interfere in the day-to-day management of the Citizens Information Board. This reform is not about day-to-day management but a profound restructuring of these two vital sets of community services. I do not believe - neither does the Minister - that they would proceed with this without the express consent of the Minister. That is why I am supporting the motion and the amendment.

Willie Penrose (Longford-Westmeath, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | 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.

Michael Fitzmaurice (Roscommon-Galway, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I congratulate Deputy Willie O'Dea on bringing froward the motion. The only problem with motions that have been brought forward in the Dáil in recent years, and on which we have voted, is that, sadly, nothing seems to happen on foot of them. I hope this one will be different, but I have my fears about it.

MABS provides a local service in the towns in which they are located around the country. A price could not be put on the value of the services they provide for local people, be it for a person who is experiencing a small degree or a large degree of financial difficulty. Deputies, regardless of whether they are a member of a party, are contacted by people who are in danger of losing their homes and they liaise with MABS and the bank. The engagement is at local level. People have faith in the system that is in place and that is why they go to MABS in large numbers. When 25,000 to 30,000 people are in danger of losing their homes, it is not a great time to tinker with the system and try to restructure it. I always say that if something is not broken, why try to fix it?

The Minister should bear in mind that people who are involved in MABS are not against anything. They are willing to sit down, engage in consultation and work with anybody. That needs to be done. To be blunt, the brakes need to be put on in the Minister's Department straightaway. We need to go back to basics and look at where the Minister is going on this issue. He should have consultation on it and work with people because there is a terrible fear, and it might be worthwhile being clear about this. We are a mighty country for putting in more new structures that cost a great deal of additional money, and we seem to love doing that, when something is going fairly well. In every county and, in some cases, in a few places in a county, there are people in MABS offices who are helping people day in, day out.

I remember at the time of the Government talks, and the Minister should recall this, when we discussed all the people who were in trouble with their mortgages and trying to bring in legislation to stop vulture funds or banks taking houses from under people through having a type of one-stop-shop scenario. MABS was one of the bodies spoken about in that regard and it would be central to all of that. Others were mentioned but MABS was one of them.

I heard the Minister for Justice and Equality talk about the Abhaile scheme some weeks ago. There is no harm done yet. The Minister should stall this by an extra month, or two or three. That would not do any harm, because he needs to get it right. I ask him not to go down this road of what was a brain wave of someone in the Department that will cost us more money in the coming years.

Gino Kenny (Dublin Mid West, People Before Profit Alliance)
Link to this: Individually | In context | 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.

Maureen O'Sullivan (Dublin Central, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

If a restructuring were in the best interests of all concerned, that is, those working in the service and the citizens who avail of the service, the proposal would not have led to the disquiet and consternation it has led to. I do not think this is just because people want to maintain the status quo. The proposal to restructure is considered flawed because it is not evidence-based. What is evidence-based is the way in which the structure has worked for many years.

The Citizens Information centres have their genesis in a real spirit of volunteerism, of which we saw so much in Ireland in the past. They involve people coming together with the skill or an expertise to help their community, whether it be filling in forms for grants and payments, linking people with service providers or helping them with entitlements. This is part of the very strong role people in organisations have played in a voluntary way for many years. We know how these acts of neighbourliness and solidarity developed into Citizens Information services and Citizens Information centres. At the core of the work is the citizen, with paid staff and staff from Government schemes such as community employment, but still with a very strong emphasis on volunteers working in the centres and on the boards.

Then there was the report entitled Making an Impact: The Public Value of Citizens Information Services in Ireland, which very much highlighted the value of the work and the service being provided. We know today the additional range of services being provided. There are referrals from the Department of Social Protection, work with the new communities, help with appeals to decisions and landlord-tenant issues and so on. There has been a call for the Citizens Information services to take on the planning area as well, which has not happened yet.

The National Development Managers Network, having consulted its members, has come to the conclusion that the optimum model to serve the citizen is to preserve the county model, with or without some integration with MABS. I heard some of the issues the Minister referred to regarding the restructuring but they can all be addressed without this drastic restructuring. There seems to be a movement away from local community and independence, so there is a change in the narrative. The three reasons the Minister gave for restructuring were governance, accountability and value for money. The proposed restructuring will be very costly, which would knock value for money on the head, and governance and accountability have not been lacking in the current structure. The casualty will be the independence of the service. The National Development Managers Network is prepared to discuss and engage on the matter and I hope that is what will come out of this debate because there is no evidence that citizens are dissatisfied with the current service.

A major concern I have, because of my long time spent in voluntary work, is that the proposed regional boards will not have directors representing the community and the voluntary sector. I have heard the argument about considering MABS. It was initially set up to examine money laundering, and this work has expanded considerably to take on mortgage arrears. However, the Citizens Information services are a very different matter because they have been providing a safe, independent third space. If they become just an extended arm of the statutory apparatus, something of immense value will be lost, and what will be lost is an independent agency and its citizen-provided, citizen-directed, independent, impartial service.

I acknowledge Fianna Fáil for proposing this debate and also acknowledge the staff and volunteers at all the centres who have been, as one of them put it, trusted intermediaries between citizen and State and they have been independently evaluated.

Joan Collins (Dublin South Central, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | 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.

Mattie McGrath (Tipperary, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I acknowledge the work of Deputy Willie O'Dea in bringing forward this motion which reflects the enormous concerns among the volunteer staff in MABS and the Citizens Information centres around the country. People would have been adrift in the past few years but for MABS. I recently asked the Minister in a parliamentary question to outline the plan to centralise the operations of the MABS and the CICs. The first line of the Minister's reply states: "[It] is important to note that the Citizens Information Board, CIB, assures me that 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. Most importantly, there will be no disruption to CIS and MABS services for those who use them". This is the kind of language that has proved over time to be misleading. What does the Minister mean when he says, "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"? This is the problem. The Minister has been told several times tonight if it is not broke do not fix it. Where is the cost benefit analysis of the valuable service they give? Why is there so much centralisation of everything? We spent years trying to decentralise things.

I want a value for money audit carried out of the extreme value and lifeline support given by MABS and the CICs. There has been attack after attack, first on the community welfare officers, now post offices and this area, and local government. What have the Minister and Fine Gael got against the people outside the Pale? The attacks are relentless. As the Minister of State from the Department of Arts, Heritage, Regional, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs, Deputy Seán Kyne, is sitting beside the Minister for Social Protection I have to say I cannot imagine what it is like on the islands. The Minister should withdraw his draconian amendment because it is ridiculous and support Deputy Willie O'Dea’s motion.

Danny Healy-Rae (Kerry, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I too thank Deputy Willie O'Dea for giving us the opportunity to talk on this very important matter this evening. People with mortgage and financial problems relied on MABS. The local offices provided really valuable help and service to vulnerable people at pivotal times in their lives. The same is true of the Citizens Information centres, dealing with all the new rules and regulations for social welfare payments. They always gave prompt and accurate information to vulnerable people. How does the Minister expect that reducing the number of centres or companies from 93 to 16 will provide a service to people in rural areas? I say without fear of contradiction if this happens the rural areas will be worst affected. Reconfiguration of services means reduction of service. No one ever complained about the service from MABS or the CICs.

Mattie McGrath (Tipperary, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Hear, hear.

Danny Healy-Rae (Kerry, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

These vital services were invaluable to poor people who badly needed help and advice. What is the Minister trying to do, keep people in the dark and not let them know what they are entitled to? Shame on him if that is what he is doing. That is what it looks like to me.

Michael Healy-Rae (Kerry, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank Fianna Fáil and, in particular, Deputy Willie O'Dea. I compliment the great work that the staff in MABS and the CICs do because the service they provide to the public is second to none, especially in the past few years when people have been very badly affected by the recession. In some cases if it was not for the service provided by MABS they would not have been able to cope. I completely disagree with the decision by the CIB, to regionalise the structure to deliver the CIS, in MABS. This would impact directly on how the service is delivered locally. Local voluntary boards, made up of representatives from key agencies, will be dissolved which will significantly reduce the ability to meet the needs of the community they serve. The Kerry CIS board will be dissolved and there is no guarantee of proportional representation at regional level. Kerry will potentially be swallowed by Cork as there is only one CIS in Kerry and four in Cork. The proposed change will undermine the independence, strong community ethos and voluntary nature of the service. The CIS services I have been in contact with appreciate that some sort of rationalisation is required and have presented alternative proposals but these have not been taken on board. This approach included a county model which is the preferred option for the CIS. I am glad to support the motion.

Michael Collins (Cork South West, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I also thank Deputy Willie O'Dea for bringing forward this vital motion. The CIS and MABS play a significant role in the communities in which they are situated. I am aware of this not only in a personal and political capacity but also as a former voluntary member of the board of management in our local CIS in west Cork.

The proposal by the CIB to abolish the 93 CIS and MABS boards and replace them with 16 regional boards will be detrimental to the local services, not alone in rural Ireland but also in large urban areas. CICs started with local groups of volunteers establishing an information service in the 1970s. They and MABS are distinctly local services, delivered locally. Volunteers play a huge role and are the backbone of the service. This proposal appears to totally underestimate the contribution of the local volunteers and to change the ethos of the CIS and MABS. There are 1,089 volunteers in the CIS network and over 500 in MABS who have a right of participation on boards. These volunteers will not be represented or allowed participate in new regionalised boards. Volunteers are effectively being disenfranchised in this model. Is the Minister actively trying to end volunteerism in this service? Are we going down the road that the last Government under Fine Gael went with the Leader companies? That was very like this situation, wipe out the volunteer and make a complete mess as it did with the Leader programme. Today there are huge concerns that the introduction of a new layer of regional management will create a new layer of bureaucracy and hamper the ability of the service to respond in an efficient and flexible manner to local needs as they present.

The West Cork CIS is an example of one of the 42 CIS entities. It provides a top class information, advice and advocacy service to the people of west Cork. In addition, staff deliver information talks all over west Cork throughout the year in response to requests from community and voluntary groups. For West Cork CIS and most CIS entities this proposed restructuring will result in their having much less autonomy and remove community ownership and active citizenship. I am sure the Minister is aware of the saying, "If it ain't broke don't fix it". There could be no more appropriate saying in this instance. MABS and the CIS must be maintained in our communities and constituencies. They must not become another victim of regionalisation at an additional cost to the taxpayer.

Michael Healy-Rae (Kerry, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The previous Tánaiste and Minister for Social Protection in her infinite wisdom thought of removing the one representative from County Kerry from the CIB. It was a totally unfair decision but because she had such a majority she decided to pick on me and take me out. It was totally wrong and completely politically biased.

Seán Ó Fearghaíl (Kildare South, Ceann Comhairle)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I think the Deputy is taking a little licence.

Michael Healy-Rae (Kerry, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We have the time. I have 11 seconds left to attack her. She was wrong, unfair and used her political influence.

Mattie McGrath (Tipperary, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It was anti-rural.

Michael Healy-Rae (Kerry, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

She called a vote one night to remove me, a respectable member of the board who did nothing wrong. I only did my work. I condemn her in her absence.

Seán Ó Fearghaíl (Kildare South, Ceann Comhairle)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Deputy is taking advantage of my gentle nature.

Michael Healy-Rae (Kerry, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I used no time.

Dara Calleary (Mayo, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Minister is leaving the Chamber but I listened to his remarks carefully. My only diagnosis is that he does not get it. He does not get the nature of the MABS or the Citizens Information service, CIS. MABS started in The Lough in Cork, a small urban community. The CIS owes its roots to Muintir na Tíre in Tipperary, a rural community and Deputy Jackie Cahill's county. Both services provide invaluable trust-led services from staff whose interest in their cases is phenomenal and second to none. The views of those staff on this issue are being completely ignored. The board, which the Minister has spoken of, has completely disregarded the views of the staff who deliver the services and who have built that level of trust.

In my case, the staff are the sounding board for dealing with common clients, either of MABS or the Citizens Information service. We share a lot of clients, no matter what party we are from, because we trust each other. MABS is trusted to provide locally-based mortgage arrears figures and to provide budgeting advice depending on local circumstances. It is trusted to provide a locally-based response in the event of a major closure in a community. It can do that because it understands the locality.

This is a major change. It will take the local away from the boards. It will tell board members who have given service, mostly unpaid, that they can become members of an advisory board but that a regional board will take over, yet there will be no change in the ethos of the organisation. Surely, the Minister of State at the Department of Arts, Heritage, Regional, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs, Deputy Seán Kyne, as a regional Deputy, gets it. As a person from Galway, he knows that somebody from Galway will not represent the views of a person from County Mayo.

It is not broken beyond repair. It can be fixed. Deputy Jackie Collins spoke about the service issues to which the Minister referred. They can be synchronised, in consultation with the staff.

The Government needs to go back to basics, pull back from this step and stand up for people in rural Ireland for once. Members of the Government should cop on to themselves and listen to the views of the House once and for all.

Shane Cassells (Meath West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I welcome the opportunity to speak to the motion. Three weeks ago, Angela Black and members of the Citizens Information Board, CIB, and MABS appeared before the Joint Committee on Public Petitions. Very few parliamentarians turned up that day, although Deputy Denise Mitchell was one of the few. The quality of the service we discussed was acknowledged by us all as second to none. That praise goes to the local people on the boards who spread the word of the availability of the services, how the sensitive nature of people's queries are handled and how the companies are managed in a professional manner tailored to the needs of local people. The passion of those who volunteer with the CIB goes to the very heart of the success of these boards. There are over 1,000 people in the CIS network who have the right to participate on local boards. In the proposed model, they will not be represented on the new regional boards. These regional boards will be remote and inaccessible.

The Minister for Social Protection, Deputy Leo Varadkar, said there should be no fear that the restructuring would quench the spirit of the CIB and there would be no reduction of services. That misses the point. The very spirit that the Minister praised is fuelled by those local board members in the first place. They are the diesel in the tank. The local connection of those who volunteer to ensure that these boards function is what makes them effective and successful companies in the first place. The work of local board members has been a lot more than "helpful", as the Minister described it. It has been critical.

In my home town of Navan, the CIB and MABS offices hold a dominant position at the top of the main street. The work of the board members makes them the successful service that they are. The key is not the shiny building but the knowledge of the locals who operate the boards. Like our political clinics and the services offered on the ground, it is the local board members who know the heartbeat of their towns best. When it comes to the decisions of what is best for Navan CIB or Navan MABS, I trust the people involved.

Eamon Scanlon (Sligo-Leitrim, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am very concerned about the potential implications of restructuring the Money Advice and Budgeting Service and the Citizens Information service from local companies into a regional model. I am particularly concerned about the lack of dialogue and clarity surrounding the restructuring process.

It reminds me of community welfare officers who were taken out of the local community where a service was being provided locally to people. Some of my constituents have to make a 50 mile round trip to meet a community welfare officer. These people are single parents, young mothers looking after young children. A taxi for their journey could cost €50. That is not what the community welfare officer is about. I see similarities with these proposals.

There are 51 MABS companies and 42 Citizens Information services. They are managed at county level by voluntary boards of directors with strong links to the communities that they serve. People confide daily in the CIS and MABS and put their faith in the independence of the services throughout the country. They visit with queries about their rights as employees, as tenants, as social welfare recipients, as carers or as people with disabilities. These services provide a vital lifeline for many who find themselves unemployed, in mortgage arrears or overwhelmed by debt. There is not a Member of this House who has not met a constituent who had difficulties with debt and got a good service from MABS.

The CIS and MABS are two of the few services where people are welcome to talk face to face with a representative. Other services and organisations are distancing themselves from the people they serve. An example of this is last week's announcement from Ulster Bank that it is to close 22 branches in this country. This is disenfranchising members of our community who are not Internet-savvy and people with literacy problems where there is no one available to help with filling out forms.

Dismantling this county-by-county governance system to move services into eight regions would be wrong. It would be a retrograde step. Rural Ireland has already had many services taken into large urban centres. That is very wrong. The proposed model to regionalise services is not an appropriate one. There is nothing fundamentally wrong with the current structure, although improvements can always be achieved through open and honest dialogue. The restructuring process will change the service from a bottom-up service to a top-down one. It will lose the local nature of the service and the experience of the local boards. The most urgent need in services is staffing, not governance.

We call on the Minister for Social Protection to immediately issue a directive to abandon these proposals. These vital services must be maintained in the community. They must not become victims of regionalisation and an additional cost to the taxpayer.

Mary Butler (Waterford, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am very happy to support the motion moved by my colleague, Deputy willie O'Dea. I reiterate that significant and essential work that is carried out by MABS and the Citizens Information service.

Voluntarism is at the core of the services that MABS and the CIS provide. They are embedded at grassroots level within communities. The three citizens information centres in County Waterford play a major role in supporting people by offering advice on their statutory entitlements. There are currently 48 volunteers in the city and a further 15 in the Dungarvan area. These, together with six part-time staff, one manager and 16 new volunteers currently in recruitment, are the driving force behind this organisation. It is regrettable that the Minister has left the Chamber because I wanted to point out to him that in 2016 these 63 volunteers and six part-time staff dealt with 13,699 people to offer advice, information and advocacy. They dealt with 21,038 queries. This was made possible by those 63 voluntary staff.

I am troubled by the very real concerns that have been voiced by the staff and volunteers, many of whom I have spoken to in the past few weeks. They are worried about how the restructuring will affect their involvement. They do not want to become another statistic. There is a danger that what is proposed will fragment the whole organisation under a regional chairman appointed by the Minister. The current community-based model works. Why does the Minister need to change it?

Niall Collins (Limerick County, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I wish to acknowledge the valuable input of the MABS and the Citizens Information centre staff and volunteers in Limerick and Charleville who provide services in my constituency.

It is very important that we remind ourselves during a debate like this of the regrettable agenda that the Minister of State, Deputy Seán Kyne's party in government has been pursuing for a number of years. It is hollowing out the core of communities, be they rural or urban.

The list, which is not exclusive, includes small schools, Garda stations, banks, credit unions, GP outreach services, public health clinics, Bus Éireann rural transport services, the regional veterinary laboratories, post offices and the Leader companies. All those services in both rural and urban communities are being hollowed out and centralised in larger towns and cities. That is an agenda which has people very worried. It would be very foolish of the Minister to proceed with the agenda he is proposing in terms of the citizens information centres and MABS because people are worried. They have lived through the experience in terms of the list I have just outlined to the Minister of State. They are fearful. Why take services away from people and centralise them in big towns in cities? It does not make sense. I appeal to the Minister, on behalf of my constituents in County Limerick, to reverse his decision, pause for reflection and do the right thing.

Seán Kyne (Galway West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank Deputies for their contributions. I listened with interest to the points raised both here in the Chamber and earlier in the office. The debate shows the esteem in which the Citizens Information Board, CIB, and its service delivery partners, the Citizens Information service, CIS, and the Money Advice and Budgeting Service, MABS, are held by all sides, rightly so.

Earlier, the Deputies heard the Minister for Social Protection, Deputy Leo Varadkar, set out in detail the context within which the decision to restructure the governance arrangements for service delivery partners was taken by the board of the CIB. As there is a danger with a debate like this that the important points can be overlooked, I will reiterate what the Minister said in his earlier statement. He said that the changes are being made at company board level only; the changes are required to improve the existing governance structure; the changes are necessary to assist the CIB in the fulfilment of its statutory obligations, its compliance with the code of practice for the governance of State bodies and its implementation of recommendations from the Office of the Comptroller and Auditor General; and that the changes will bring CIS and MABS organisations more into line with modern public service governance guidelines and requirements where significant State funding is involved.

There have been many references to the provision of local services by local people. It is suggested there will be a loss of independence and impartiality within a more consolidated model. There is no foundation whatsoever to such claims. Front-line services will continue to operate as they do currently, meeting the needs of those who seek information, advice and advocacy, regardless of the changes implemented at board level. It is also worth mentioning that the board of the CIB is not made up of faceless bureaucrats but rather comprises people who represent vulnerable people and groups, who have a sense of community ethos and who represent people with disabilities, mental health problems, victims of abuse and those with advocacy needs. The board also has representation from the CIS and MABS.

Based on their employment and professional backgrounds, it is obvious that these people work with the most vulnerable in our society and hold the citizen at the centre of their focus. It is therefore unthinkable that such people would introduce a measure that would be detrimental to the services provided by the CIS and MABS or that would negatively impact on the people who depend on those services. On the contrary, it is for those same reasons that the board of the CIB wants, more than anything, to improve the effectiveness and efficiencies of the CIS and MABS services by redirecting resources away from unnecessary company administration and back towards front-line service delivery for users.

There has been much mention of the role of community-based volunteers involved in the development of the CIS and MABS. That said, it is critical to remember that these services are paid for exclusively by the State. Every aspect, activity and initiative is Exchequer funded. This House, and its various committees, have made it abundantly clear that publicly funded bodies are held to the highest possible standards in their discharge of public moneys and require such bodies to comply with best practice as set out in the code of practice for the governance of State bodies. The members of the board of the CIB take those obligations very seriously.

That is the context within which the board of CIB made its decision to undertake this restructuring. The board is convinced, after a lengthy deliberative process, that this restructuring will facilitate its executive in fulfilling its governance and accountability obligations and at the same time will provide an opportunity to reduce the administrative burden on individual CIS and MABS companies. That, in turn, should allow employees and volunteers to refocus on front-line delivery, ensuring consistent quality of provision and enhancing and extending services over time.

I remind Deputies that the board of the CIB has assured the Minister that on foot of this decision there will be no job losses. MABS and CIS employees will transfer to the newly established companies. There will be no closure of any services or no change to the location of services. There will be no change to the terms and conditions of serving staff during the lifetime of the restructuring project, and, most importantly, there will be no disruption to CIS and MABS services for those who use them.

The CIB’s aim is simply to improve the governance arrangements by implementing a reduced structure of 16 regional companies to replace the current unwieldy 93 company structure for the sound reasons that the Deputies have heard.

Seán Ó Fearghaíl (Kildare South, Ceann Comhairle)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Deputy Jackie Cahill is sharing time with two or three of his colleagues.

Jackie Cahill (Tipperary, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Having listened to the Minister of State's contribution, it baffles me how this Government has such a disconnect with both urban and rural communities. There are many issues in the Department of Social Protection that need improvement, rationalisation and greater efficiency. These two companies are not in that group.

During the recent recession, MABS and the CIS played a huge part in helping people who had fallen on hard times, including people in mortgage arrears. I refer to the local influence and knowledge those companies can bring to bear in helping local people. Regionalisation has not worked in a number of spheres. Why try to change these organisations that are working so well in their local communities? The voluntary aspect is core to these two organisations. Could that survive regionalisation? It is very difficult to understand how the Government can see that working. This is a bottom-up service that is working and the proposal is to make it a top-down structure. Unfortunately, our experience of that kind of rationalisation is not good.

The Minister has the power to stop this regionalisation. The volunteers in these organisations are convinced that it will hamper the services they provide for local communities. In my county of Tipperary I see the significant service provided by these two organisations. I got a huge number of calls over the weekend from volunteer workers in MABS and the CIS who believe this rationalisation will damage the service they provide. It is irrational to proceed with this rationalisation when all the people working in the service believe it will hinder the services they provide to their communities.

The Minister heard strong arguments being made from the Opposition benches. I plead with the Government to listen to the communities at both urban and rural level and not to implement these proposals.

Margaret Murphy O'Mahony (Cork South West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am acutely aware of the incredibly important work that the CIS and MABS do. The fantastic individuals in both organisations provide invaluable information, advice and a lifeline to people to manage and overcome their debts. It is not just a helping hand. It is a real, genuine lifesaving service, much more than we will ever know. As some of my colleagues have said previously, I also recognise that there is room for improvement in terms of efficiency and effectiveness and I am not opposed to change and reform when it makes sense. However, the restructuring plan with regard to MABS and the CIS does not make sense.

MABS and the CIS are part of the local community. They are located in towns the length and breadth of the country for a reason. They are deeply rooted in every community where they are present. In my constituency of Cork South-West I personally know people who have accessed the services of MABS in Dumanway and Citizens Information in Bantry.

To regionalise these services would be simply outrageous. The Minister has the power under the Citizens Information Act of 2007 to issue a directive to cease this proposed regionalisation immediately. It would be an honourable thing to do as so many have voiced concerns. People have not done so to be difficult. They have done so because they want a clear understanding of and contribution to what is happening. It is essential that all stakeholders are provided an opportunity to engage.

The Minister for Social Protection, Deputy Leo Varadkar, stated previously that during the restructuring programme - I stress during the restructuring programme - there will be no change to services or delivery locations and no job losses. However, in dropping from 93 individual companies to 16, there is absolutely no way that huge changes will not happen. The Minister should be focusing on protecting people and their lives.

People throughout the country have suffered immensely.

This and the previous Government have done some terrible things to the people, but this is one of the worst.

Michael Moynihan (Cork North West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I compliment Deputy Willie O'Dea on tabling the motion which offers us a timely opportunity to reflect on what MABS and the Citizens Information service do. MABS has provided a fantastic service during the years, but since the economic crash of 2008, with the other agencies available to help people through financial difficulties, it has served many people who in normal circumstances would never interface with it. The organisations have provided invaluable support throughout the country.

A number of very telling and important points have been made by Deputies on all sides of the House, but I want to focus on two points. The Minister mentioned job losses. I sincerely hope that what the Government is proposing to do is not about job losses or amalgamation for the sake of it. There are many services about which we could talk, but this service is stretched to the limit in trying to help people. The community welfare officer was the safety net underneath all social welfare payments. If there genuinely was a huge financial difficulty or a crisis within a family, one could always revert to the community welfare officer to help them, but the role of the community welfare officer has been depleted somewhat and the service has been transferred from the old health boards and the HSE to the Department of Social Protection.

MABS advisers are taking on almost impossible files involving house repossession and the provision of business and financial advice for people in their own homes. They are going through the figures and offering people professional services for which they could not dream of paying on the open market and advising them on how best to put their finances in order. All public representatives, regardless of whether they represent rural or urban Ireland, interface with the organisations in question on a daily and weekly basis. Our offices might deal with them on an hourly basis and they are providing a significant service.

If the Department thinks this is a good idea - Deputy Willie O'Dea made the point that it was akin to knocking down and rebuilding a house in another place for the sake of change - it is not good policy. I met a number of MABS staff in the past couple of days. They are dealing with cases involving house repossessions. This Dáil and all local authorities have been trying to get to grips with the enormous housing crisis. MABS staff have some fantastic ideas. For example, rather than repossessing houses, their ideas involve making sure they can work through a State-led system to try to incentivise people to remain in their homes. The ideas are coming from the ground up. Deputy Jackie Cahill said MABS was a ground-up rather than a top-down organisation. MABS has been in place for a long time, done excellent work and contributed greatly to the betterment of society, in urban and rural Ireland. This, therefore, is bad policy and a retrograde step. It should not be done just for the sake of achieving job losses or efficiencies. The people about whom we are talking are really needed on the ground in every community the length and breadth of the country. We should be enhancing the services available.

Willie O'Dea (Limerick City, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It will not take me more than five seconds to respond to what I have heard. The fact is we have not received answers or logical explanations. Members will have heard of the wonderful character the Wizard of Oz. The Wizard of Ozone has left the House. We intend to push the motion to a vote. Deputy Michael Fitzmaurice was right when he said there had been times when the Government had lost votes on motions in this House and nothing had happened. I do not want to anticipate the outcome of the vote, but I hope we will win it when it takes place next week. I am sure the Citizens Information Board comprises estimable individuals and that it is a very important organisation, but if we win the vote, we will take it very badly if evidence emerges that the board is to flout the declared will of the people's parliament. That is something we will not accept. I want the Minister of State to take that message back to his colleague.

Seán Kyne (Galway West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

As well as the Attorney General's advice that the Minister does not have the power to instruct the Citizens Information Board.

Willie O'Dea (Limerick City, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

That is absolute rubbish.

Seán Ó Fearghaíl (Kildare South, Ceann Comhairle)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Let us not get into that matter.

Seán Ó Fearghaíl (Kildare South, Ceann Comhairle)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

In accordance with Standing Order 70(2), the division is postponed until the weekly division time on Thursday, 30 March 2017.