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

49. To ask the Minister for Employment Affairs and Social Protection if all members of the Citizens Information Board unanimously signed off on the cost-benefit analysis report on the restructuring of MABS and the CIS; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [46918/17]

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

53. To ask the Minister for Employment Affairs and Social Protection if she has been furnished with a copy of the cost-benefit analysis prepared for the Citizens Information Board by a company (details supplied); if her attention has been drawn to the fact that there are concerns relating to same being expressed by the board which has resulted in the board not endorsing same; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [46922/17]

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

My question is self-explanatory. Did the Citizens Information Board unanimously sign off on the cost-benefit analysis of the restructuring of the Money Advice and Budgeting Service, MABS, and the Citizens Information service, CIS?

I want to know if the Citizens Information Board unanimously signed off on the cost-benefit analysis on the restructuring of MABS and CIS.

Regina Doherty (Meath East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I apologise for being late to the House. I am not usually caught on the hop, but I was today.

I propose to take Questions Nos. 49 and 53 together.

The Citizens Information Board, CIB, is a statutory body, established by the Oireachtas. In addition to its own statutory responsibilities on information and advocacy, it has statutory responsibility for the countrywide networks of Citizens Information Services, CIS, and Money Advice and Budgeting Service, MABS.

In February this year the board of CIB decided to change its governance from 93 individual service delivery companies to an eight region model, each with its own CIS and MABS regional company.

Also in February, the Citizens Information Board appeared before the Joint Oireachtas Committee on Social Protection regarding its planned restructuring of CIS and MABS. The committee recommended a cost benefit analysis on the new regional board model be carried out. Following a procurement exercise, the Citizens Information Board commissioned independent economic consultants to provide a cost benefit analysis. Its report was submitted to the committee on 21 September. I was also provided with the report and am pleased to note its findings indicate strong support for the implementation of the board's decision in February.

I understand the report was circulated to the board of CIB for information in advance of its last meeting on 20 September. It is also my understanding that the minutes of that meeting have not yet been approved by the board and so have not yet been published.

The report was prepared in response to the CIB's undertaking to the committee on social protection that it would have a cost benefit analysis carried out on the final governance arrangement model. The was written by economic consultants. Its purpose was to analyse the matter and deliver findings and recommendations. It is an analytical report and as such does not require approval or sign-off by the board of CIB.

I am not aware that the board of CIB has concerns about the report. If any individual member of the board has any objection to its findings, that is a matter for the board of CIB.

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

I thank the Minister for her response.

My recollection is that when we discussed this matter with the Minister at the committee, she confirmed that the board had signed off on the report. I am open to correction, but the information available to me is that when the final report was produced, the consultants had not engaged with anyone other than the executive of the board. It is also my information that the board refused to approve the analysis by the consultants and requested that that should be made clear when the report was being circulated. That was not done. Will the Minister comment on that?

I accept that when I raised the matter at the committee, the Minister had been informed that the board had signed-off on the report. It is a serious issue if members of the board other than the executive are not happy with the report and asked that their dissent be recorded when the report was circulated. At a minimum it warrants consideration by the committee and the CIB. The Minister will be aware that so far the CIB has refused to come before the committee to discuss the matter.

Alan Farrell (Dublin Fingal, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I will allow the Minister to respond and then Deputy O'Dea before Deputy Willie Penrose, so that the Deputy may catch his breath.

Regina Doherty (Meath East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

If I told Deputy O'Dea at the committee on social protection that the board had signed off on the report, I jumped the gun since the board's minutes have not been signed off until its next meeting. It was not with a view to misleading the Deputy. I have no doubt that the minutes will be adopted at the next meeting, although I do not wish to pre-empt that.

There is a clear issue in so far as I recognise the independent statutory nature of this body. It is not my business or place to question how the board does its business over and above the budget that is given to the board through my Department annually. What it sought to do last year was improve its governance and that is what it has done. The cost benefit analysis in the report that both the Deputy and I have read says to the fullest extent that these moves will improve governance. If nothing else, that should instill confidence in us as elected members that this body will be run to the highest standards. If people on the board disagree, they must make that known at the board meeting and where that will be discussed. It is not my place or that of the Deputy to tell the board how to conduct its business either at the board or in rearranging the governance of a body that must be held to the highest standards. I do not know what else I can say except that I recognise that it is a statutory body that is established by the will of this House, and it is only to this House that it is responsible. The CIB is trying to improve its governance, rather than the opposite, and that is to be welcomed.

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

I thank the Acting Chairman. I did not realise that Priority Questions could be grouped and I was at a meeting of the committee on agriculture earlier.

Section 2 of the report discusses the rationale for the study. It states that the Citizens Information Board had been requested by the Department of Social Protection and the Comptroller and Auditor General to undertake this work. Did the Minister or any officials from her Department issue a directive to CIB, because that would be totally at variance with what she said? The Minister said she was unable to intervene as the CIB was an independent body, yet according to section 2 she or rather her officials were involved. We are not surprised by this. According to page 6 of the report, the consultants have not undertaken a sufficient study of CIB and its activities from which to draw definitive conclusions on the efficiency of its network. Was that not the very essence of their task? I suggest that they could not do it because they never spoke to a single stakeholder on the ground. They spoke to all the top boys from whom the idea originated. This is nothing more than the application of we-know-best, top-down policy and telling people to sit down like little boys and do what they are told.

It is clear that substantial additional funding will be required to implement the proposed restructuring. That is clearly at variance with the excuse used for setting up the new structure in the first place. The set up costs will be about €2 million and will grow. There will be ongoing costs, which have been totally underestimated.

Will the Minister ask the board where it will find all the savings? Virtually none of the board claims even a penny of expenses. Did the consultants misunderstand when they said that an additional €14.97 million will be achieved in additional output as a result of the restructuring over eight years. There is a laugh on page 25 of the report where it says the release of 770 volunteers will free them up to volunteer elsewhere in the economy resulting in the additional value to the economy of €4.9 million. On the contrary, their expertise will be lost to MABS and the whole thing will implode.

The Minister says that she does not have power but if I were her, I would call in the head honchos who are acting like little dictators in trying to implement a policy that does not have the support of one Member of the Oireachtas and very few people to whom it provides a service.

Alan Farrell (Dublin Fingal, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I will vary the supplementaries to be fair to everyone.

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

The Minister says it is not our business to interfere with how the board does its business but I disagree. It is very much our business. We are talking about two organisations which have done and continue to do great work for a section of the public. If that organisation is to be undermined or interfered with or if its capacity to help the type of people it helps is to be undermined or reduced, it is our job to protect what it is doing on behalf of so many hundreds of thousands of people.

The Minister mentioned the cost-benefit analysis. It was conducted purely as a result of the joint committee on social protection having demanded it unanimously, including members of the Minister's party. We were presented with a scenario where widespread change was going ahead without even a cost-benefit analysis, so we looked for one and as a result it was produced. I have read it, as have the other Members here, and I find it seriously flawed.

When we discussed this last in the House, the Minister said she was precluded by the advice of the Attorney General from interfering in any way despite what the report says.

The report itself states quite clearly that the Minister interfered. If that legislation were to be changed, would she be of the same opinion? Would she feel disposed to intervene if she could and if the barrier of the advice of the Attorney General was removed?

Regina Doherty (Meath East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I want to put it clearly on the record of this House that the roles and services of MABS and the Citizens Information Board, CIB, in all of the towns and villages the length and breadth of this country are not going to be diminished. They are going to be exactly as state of the art as they have always been. The changes in governance will have no impact on the services of the CIB and MABS, which the men and women of our country rely on, which they have relied on for years and which they will continue to rely on. Let us be clear about that first of all.

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

Nobody agrees with that apart from paid consultants.

Regina Doherty (Meath East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The CIB did not seek to prepare a full cost-benefit analysis because it was on the basis of the benefits of the changes, as outlined in the Pathfinder report, that they were made. That report went as far back as 2014. That was together with the estimated costs which had been compiled on the various options which were put before it. Let us put this on the record. The cost-benefit analysis has now been completed. It indicates a socioeconomic benefit to cost ratio of 6.6:1. This bears out the view that the restructuring is not only necessary, but vital and cost-effective. The net public expenditure is estimated to be €4.1 million compared to net benefits of €18.9 million over an eight-year period. Although cost is not the driver, it is clearly going to save money. I also have to put on the record of the House that the cost-benefit analysis which was sought by the joint committee and delivered by the CIB and MABS, and which has been published on the CIB website, includes all the set-up costs, professional fees and the cost of the recruitment and salaries of the 16 regional operators who are to be appointed. The analysis very clearly suggests that this change of governance will enhance the role of the CIB and MABS in our community and will do nothing else.