Joint Committee on Social Protection debate -
Thursday, 9 Mar 2017

Money Advice and Budgeting Service Restructuring: Discussion (Resumed)

Chairman

From the National Development Managers Network, I welcome Mr. Tomás Lally, development manager, Mayo Citizens Information Service; Ms Orla Barry, development manager, Sligo Citizens Information Service; and Sinéad Conefrey, development manager, Leitrim Citizens Information Service. From the National Association of Citizens Information Services, I welcome Mr. Michael McGuane, chairperson, and Mr. Joe Rynn, project manager. I will invite both bodies to make their opening statements. Members will then be invited to address their questions to them. I remind members to confine their initial round of questions to five minutes. They will have an opportunity to ask supplementary questions.

By virtue of section 17(2)(l) of the Defamation Act 2009, witnesses are protected by absolute privilege in respect of their evidence to the committee. However, if they are directed by it to cease giving evidence on a particular matter and continue to do so, they are entitled thereafter only to qualified privilege in respect of their evidence. They are directed that only evidence connected with the subject matter of these proceedings is to be given and asked to respect the parliamentary practice to the effect that, where possible, they should not criticise or make charges against any person or an entity by name or in such a way as to make him, her or it identifiable. The opening statements submitted to the committee will be published on its website after the meeting.

Members are reminded of the long-standing parliamentary practice to the effect that they should not comment on, criticise or make charges against a person outside the Houses or an official, either by name or in such a way as to make him or her identifiable.

I remind members and delegates to turn off their mobile phones or switch them to flight mode as they cause interference not just with the proceedings of the meeting but also with the sound system.

I invite Mr. Lally to make his opening statement.

Mr. Tomás Lally

I thank the joint committee for giving me the opportunity to make a presentation. I am the development manager at citizens information services, CIS, in County Mayo. I am here in my capacity as chairperson of the National Development Managers Network, NDMN, a national group which represents the views of development managers. Development managers are responsible for the management of citizens information services across the country. I am joined by my colleagues, Ms Orla Barry, development manager in Sligo, and Ms Sinead Conefrey, development manager in County Leitrim, who are also members of the executive of the NDMN. We are here as concerned managers, representing a network of development managers, and to add our contribution to the review of the Money Advice and Budgeting Service, MABS, and CIS. We are aware that the committee has requested details of any cost-benefit analysis from the Citizens Information Board, CIB. Is it possible for us to have sight of those documents because we would like to have an opportunity to make some informed comment on them?

Chairman

If the delegations talk to the clerk to the committee after the meeting, she can look after the making available of the documents.

Mr. Tomás Lally

I thank the Chairman.

CIS started out in the 1970s with local groups of volunteers who came together in their areas to establish and provide an information service.

In each local area, a voluntary committee came together and rosters were set up for volunteers to be available when people came seeking help. Some of the early trailblazers around the country were people like Kitty Howley in Castlebar, Lily O’Doherty in Clondalkin, Moira Byrne and Valerie Keegan in Bray, Charlie O’Toole in Tallaght, Tom Fitzgerald in Tipperary; the list goes on. These pioneering volunteers identified the supports that citizens needed long before there were any strategies or consultants like Pathfinder or money available to develop services. They funded their services with flag days and church gate collections. That is how it started.

In 1999 local voluntary committees came together at county level with representatives from statutory bodies and other community voluntary groups. They put together a plan for the development of citizen information services across the counties. They submitted these plans to the National Social Services Board, NSSB, a predecessor of Comhairle and what is now the Citizens Information Board. At a board meeting of the NSSB, those plans were approved and county-wide services were established. Each local committee had a representative on that new county-wide company and, in effect, it was a county-wide restructuring that happened at the turn of the century. We should be clear that citizen information services are distinctly local and to say they are national is simply incorrect. To do so is not to understand the history and evolution of citizen information services in the country.

The National Development Managers Network recently commissioned a report on citizens information services in Ireland titled Making an Impact: The Public Value of Citizens Information Services in Ireland. We have submitted a copy to the committee and the report provides many facts and figures about services, including detailed case studies. It shows how our services are making a difference every single day for citizens in this country. It also references how our services have been supporting the development of citizen information and advice models across the European Union. I will mention one figure to the committee, which might be the most important figure we could mention in the course of this morning. An average of 2,300 citizens will make contact with their local citizen information services today, with over 1,800 calling in person. If the committee wishes, we would welcome the opportunity later to take it through the report in some detail.

I will briefly turn to restructuring and how we got here. In 2014, Pathfinder Consultants were engaged by CIB to do a feasibility study. It was to "demonstrate the need or otherwise for greater integration of the management and organisational structures supporting services with the objective of achieving better outcomes for citizens. Pathfinder did not demonstrate anything with empirical evidence and it is very poor in that regard. It ended up with a recommendation after 60 pages, stating:

Our preferred option ... is to consolidate the boards as much as possible as close as to a single point of authority for each of MABS and CIS. [….] The closer the structure can get to the 'single board' scenario, the closer the stakeholders get to service delivery and the closer the service gets to stakeholders.

Who are the stakeholders being spoken about? It is very clearly the funder as the sentence makes absolutely no sense if it is the citizen. In that case, it would read "The closer the citizen gets to service delivery and the closer the service gets to the citizen", which makes absolutely no sense. The key stakeholder envisaged here is clearly the funder, not the citizen or taxpayer.

I have spoken a little about the background of the citizens information service through the years and how the needs of the citizen have dictated the evolution of that service. I will speak a little about the narrative of the Citizens Information Board and how it has changed quite recently. A respectful and dynamic narrative was historically in existence between CIB and services over many decades. CIB provided significant support to services, particularly in the area of information technology support, training and service promotion. We have had robust exchanges down the years with CIB and we have not always agreed but there always was a sense that we respected each other enough to base claims on solid evidence. We did not base any claims on appeals to an authority. We were dealing with people who clearly understood what it is to fund a service that occupies the privileged space between the State and the citizen. That is how it used to be. Sadly, that narrative has changed.

In the CIB annual report of 2015, the chair of CIB, Ms Ita Mangan, in her chairperson's report states:

Our distinctive structure – a network of independent services, deeply embedded in local communities, funded and supported by a statutory agency – gives us a unique strength. 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.

When we come to the 2015 annual report, there is no mention of a "network of independent services" in either the chairperson’s report or the chief executive officer's overview. In the overview of 2015 from the chief executive officer, Angela Black characterises the relationship between CIB and the services as follows: "We are continuing to develop our services through the companies that deliver them." That is a dramatic change in narrative and CISs are now seen as instruments of delivery and 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.

At a joint committee meeting two weeks ago there was much talk about governance and accountability. The Comptroller and Auditor General was mentioned on more than one occasion. At this stage I point the committee to two documents we have submitted which demonstrate very clearly how CISs are micro-governed. These are the Financial Controls and Reporting Requirements for Citizens Information Services in receipt of a Citizens Information Board Operational Grant and the service agreement that citizens information services sign with CIB. Both are very detailed documents spelling out clearly the responsibilities and requirements on citizens information services which access funding. The service agreement not only goes through the conditions on which funding is allocated but also mentions funding being withdrawn. At section 7.2, it states that funding can be withdrawn without cause. How governance can be an issue with these exacting controls and agreements in place is absolutely puzzling. If services are not following the rules or there is a variation in services provided, CIB must act. The National Development Managers Network is not aware of any citizens information service across this country being sanctioned by the Citizens Information Board for breaches of service level agreements or financial controls.

At the previous joint committee meeting, reference was made to underperforming services. "Poor services" was the quote. There was no reference to whom CIB was referring. In 2014 and 2015, all CIS and Money Advice & Budgeting Service, MABS, company services went through an independent evaluation and all services received quality awards to Gold Star Service Excellence standard. There was an intensive process that services went through to get these and we were evaluated under headings like "customer-friendly policies", "learning from customers", and "delivering customer service excellence". Why were the underperforming, poor services not rooted out during the Gold Star Service Excellence process? Why does the CIB not withhold funding and enforce service level agreements or financial controls if there are so many problems? I suggest there are no problems as indicated.

I will turn briefly to the proposed regional model for MABS and CISs. It is important to note that the stated rationale for restructuring in the CIB strategic plan for 2015 to 2018 has three elements. They are to "better serve the citizen", improve "the delivery of consistent high-quality services" and "to maximise effective use of resources". How does the proposed structure perform under these criteria? Will a regionalised CIB-controlled structure better serve the citizen? The citizen is a key stakeholder but the citizen has not been properly consulted.

No evidence exists that citizens are dissatisfied with the service currently provided and, crucially, no evidence has been provided that a regionalised service with an extra tier of regional managers will better serve the citizen.

The Citizens Information Board, CIB, has confirmed that the proposed regional boards will not have directors representing community and voluntary organisations. Regional boards will be remote, inaccessible and unaccountable to the areas they serve. That is hardly serving the citizen better. The additional costs of the regionalised structure are being spent on a tier of regional managers, not on front-line service delivery personnel. How will that benefit the citizen? Citizen information services, CISs, in working in the space between the citizen and the State, have a social policy remit and use that to highlight issues of concern regarding the operation of Government schemes and services. Restructuring will close that space and pull services closer to Government and away from the citizen.

The second rationale is that a regionalised CIB controlled structure will improve the delivery of consistent high quality services. No evidence has been provided to support that. The Pathfinder study merely states the funder’s hunch, which is that "CIB feels that a central authority is a logical development in the evolution of the services that helps assure consistent quality". Where is the evidence? As I said already, it is important, in terms of consistent high quality service, to remember that all services have got their Gold Star Service Excellence Awards.

On the regional structure maximising the effective use of resources, it should be pointed out that no cost-benefit analysis has as yet been seen for this regionalised structure. Restructuring, dismantling existing companies, setting up new ones, recruiting regional managers and transferring existing staff to new boards is estimated to cost in the region of €500,000. The additional cost of restructuring, if CIB intends to engage 16 regional managers, will be in the region of €75,000 per manager when salary, employer PRSI, pension, travel and subsistence costs are factored in. That will come to €1.2 million, unless they decide that there will be managers' roles within the existing service that will be lost and therefore that will achieve some savings. We have not got clarity on that; we do not know. It is not clear how much the CIB appointed regional boards will cost. No detail has been made available. No figures have been given to compare the current cost of voluntary boards with the new CIB appointed boards.

There are currently 1,089 volunteers in the CIS network who have a right of participation on boards. Those volunteers will not be represented on the new boards. Effectively, volunteers are being disenfranchised in this new model and they may well vote with their feet. We know from some of our colleagues that volunteers are somewhat disillusioned with this entire process and have voted with their feet already. In recent weeks, some development managers and other senior staff have already started to move on. We are losing good people. The workforce is demotivated and there is a lot of fear. The workforce is demoralised because of a process that was not open and transparent and about which there was no real dialogue.

Some comment has been made about the cost of audited accounts for 93 companies. If the CIB believes money can be saved on audits and accounts, there is nothing stopping it from tendering for an accountancy or an audit firm to carry out audits for the 93 companies and perhaps achieve savings that way. Given the similarity between companies, I expect substantial savings could be achieved by having a tendering process for that.

On the position of the citizens information services, it is important we consider the situation in the United Kingdom. In the UK, money advice and citizen advice services are provided alongside each other, and it is important to note that local models are retained in the UK. I reference the Citizens Advice Annual Report and Accounts 2015/2016, which state:

Citizens Advice is a national charity with 307 local Citizens Advice members which are all individual charities in their own right. Together we make up the Citizens Advice service.

Another publication, Making the Case: The value to society of the Citizens Advice service, which was published in the UK in April 2014, states:

We act as one service, with one vision, yet we are also rooted in each and every community across England and Wales. Our bureaux are staffed by local people who are passionate about their community and sensitive to local needs.

If we were to integrate MABS and CIS services, what would that achieve? It would reduce the number of voluntary boards from 93, which has been described as unwieldy, down to approximately 30. It would ensure that the services were still community-based. It would be far more cost-effective. A total of €1.2 million would not be required for an additional tier of regional managers, and it would achieve annual savings on accountancy and audit fees of approximately €126,000.

From the outset, the push to regionalisation has been driven from the top by the CIB. There has been no dialogue, even though dialogue has been sought by services. At best, issues highlighted by the network have been noted, parked and subsequently ignored. Representatives were sought from representative bodies to serve on a restructuring sub-committee set up by the CIB at the beginning of this year, and as a condition of their participation, they were requested to accept a confidentiality agreement which prevented them from discussions with the membership they were supposed to be representing. Where dialogue is thwarted, goodwill disappears. Goodwill is based on respect, trust, common understanding, relationships and how we treat each other. In the end, a regionalised, restructured service may look very good on paper but that is the only place it will look good.

I want to refer to some of the comments made by CIB representatives at the last joint committee meeting. The chair of the CIB, Ita Mangan, stated that the CIB was "only changing the back room", suggesting that management and structural changes will have no impact on the front line. However, this restructuring is not about a behind the scenes change. What happens in Castlebar citizens information centre, CIC, will be decided by the Citizens Information Board in Dublin, which will have total control over the board, the chair and the regional manager it has appointed in perhaps Galway. The CIB will have appointed all of those. To describe that as a back room change is a ridiculous analogy, but what is most concerning about that is the misleading impression it creates.

The CIB stated also that there was no dissent on the restructuring sub-committee. The committee was set up by the CIB with six CIB members, comprising three staff and three board members from the CIB, and four CIS-MABS representatives. The CIS and the MABS representatives were gagged with confidentiality on joining the group. They could not report back to or represent anyone.

The CIS stated here two weeks ago that there will be no changes during the lifetime of the restructuring programme, which ends at the end of 2018. The reality is that all bets are off after that. What will the service look like on 1 January 2019? That is the key question.

Governance, accountability and value for money were the three reasons given by the chair of CIB at the previous joint committee meeting for the dismantling of local services. Governance and accountability are red herrings. We have referenced documents and the exacting demands that are made on citizens information services through service agreements and financial controls. We could go through those in detail if the members wish.

It has not been demonstrated by CIB how the proposed regional model will better serve the citizen, improve the delivery of consistent high quality services or be a more effective use of resources. In fact, this model will cost. It will take community representation out of services and services out of communities. It will position them closer to Government. Perhaps this is part of the promised new narrative for rural areas. It should be remembered that €1.2 million will be spent on regional managers, not on front-line service delivery.

The key stakeholder, the citizen, deserves access to our services in an independent space where issues are listened to and addressed and can be fed into the formation of social policy, a space that connects Government, public services and citizens, where face-to-face interaction is welcomed and not simply tolerated - an empathic supportive space.

We are providing evidence here today of financial controls and governance compliance. We are not aware that the Comptroller and Auditor General has any issues with citizen information services. We are asking the Minister, who has the power under the Citizens Information Act of 2007, to issue a directive to the Citizens Information Board to halt this proposed regionalisation. Let sense prevail. Let the established bodies and CIB embark on an open, meaningful, constructive dialogue about this issue. We have a responsibility to the citizen. We need to get this right, build on what exists already, look closely at what works very efficiently in the UK and move towards integration of services at county level, with an acknowledgement that services in larger population areas like Dublin, Cork and Kildare will need to be looked at slightly differently. It is not too late.

Chairman

I thank Mr. Lally for his opening statement. I now invite Mr. McGuane to make an opening statement on behalf of the National Association of Citizens Information Services.

Mr. Michael McGuane

I thank the Chairman and committee members for their invitation to address the committee. I am the chair of the National Association of Citizens Information Services, NACIS. I am joined by our project manager, Joe Rynn. We welcome the opportunity to bring forward our views on the proposed restructuring of Citizens Information services. We are at a major watershed moment in citizens information in Ireland, and the decision to restructure the model of service delivery will without doubt have a serious impact, for good or ill, on our future. A citizens information service is one of the hallmarks of a modern democratic society, as are, for example, Free Legal Advice Centres, the various ombudsman offices, etc. Such services are conspicuously absent from less democratic regimes, and with good reason. Citizens information services seek in some measure to empower ordinary people to vindicate their rights and entitlements. We in some way help to redress the enormous power imbalances that exist in our society between, on the one hand, the State and its various agencies and, on the other, those on the margins.

NACIS is the national representative body of citizens information services and was established in November 2006. The main objectives of our association are to represent the collective views of the local citizens information services nationally and to inform policy and strategic planning in respect of those services with a view to benefiting the individuals and communities serviced by citizens information services, promoting social inclusion and tackling disadvantage. This is based on the legislation. The association has the important role of representing all the local stakeholders involved in service delivery. We represent the views of our members, that is, the 42 services. The members are made up of three strands, as we call them: the board members of the CIS companies, which provide their support and expertise on a voluntary basis; the employees of the services, including the development managers, information officers, administrators and others; and, equally importantly, the 1,100 volunteers whom we represent and who deliver front-line services to our customers and clients.

Since restructuring was first proposed by the Citizens Information Board, the national association has sought to engage constructively with the Citizens Information Board. Our primary objective has at all times been the protection and enhancement of the services we deliver. However, in our view, the Citizens Information Board has not at any time made a compelling case for the need for change in order to improve services. Since their inception, the citizens information services have operated on a communitarian basis, funded by the State rather than constituting a centralised service provided by the State, and this is the crucial distinction. A structure that will maintain the community ethos of the citizens information services is required. The proposal to regionalise and centralise the service will fundamentally change our ethos.

We have consistently expressed the view that structural changes will not by themselves lead to improved outcomes for the service and that incorrect structural changes have the potential to damage the service and weaken the public's confidence in it. As public representatives, the committee members do not need me to remind them of the consequences of similar approaches in the health services, local government and elsewhere in recent years. We question the efficiency gains, if any, to be achieved from this restructuring and are very concerned about the potential implications of the proposed regional model.

NACIS accepts and supports the proposition that there is scope to deliver greater efficiency and effectiveness in how we do our business. However, unless all the other key components, including systems of governance, management and staffing, fit-for-purpose IT systems and tools, and effective policies and procedures, are addressed in an integrated and systematic way, we will not deliver a better service. Structural changes will not make any difference in this regard. Most fundamentally, developing proposals for change should start at the front line, where services are delivered, and work up from there, rather than a top-down approach whereby the impact on service users is the last thing taken into consideration.

NACIS has offered a clear viewpoint to the Citizens Information Board on our preferred model for service delivery. This was contained in our submissions towards the development of the Pathfinder report, to which Mr. Lally has referred. More recently, in the NACIS presentation to the Citizens Information Board, we outlined our concerns over the restructuring and our preference for a county or community-based model. We also highlighted the potential for integration of service delivery between the Money Advice & Budgeting Service, MABS, and CISs as a means of strengthening governance arrangements and generating greater efficiencies while maintaining the communitarian ethos. While the CIB may claim it has engaged in a consultative process, the view of our membership is that no meaningful engagement has taken place and that the views of those who best understand the realities and challenges of service delivery have not been taken on board.

A key strength and resource CIS has is the central role of its volunteers. Like MABS, the CIS boards are voluntary and board members give freely of their time to serve on our local boards. Uniquely, CISs also include volunteers who deliver front-line service, reception, information and, in a small number of cases, advocacy services to the public, with over 1,100 volunteers working in these areas. It is interesting to note that very few citizens information services have paid reception staff as most of our reception is done by volunteers. Some citizens information centres take on people on CE schemes. This model is unique and only available within the citizens information services, where citizens work to support and assist their fellow citizens to access their rights and entitlements. This has been our ethos, as Mr. Lally said, since day one. It is estimated that 66% of our service to the public is delivered by volunteers.

The proposed regional model has potential negative impacts for all the key stakeholders. There is a real concern, to which Mr. Lally has already referred because it has started already, that volunteers will become disengaged from the citizens information service. They will be denied the right to board representation, and local leadership of their service will disappear. Without such strong local leadership and direct connection to the community, it is likely to be more difficult to encourage and engage volunteers into the future. This will present a significant cost for the CIB to manage. Services will either be curtailed or staff will be required to replace the loss of the voluntary input at front-line service delivery. As well as direct financial impacts, the intangible asset of active citizenship and the communitarian approach, which has been our thing, could be lost forever.

As referred to earlier, local citizens information services are currently managed by a voluntary board of directors with the support of a paid development manager. A key strength of the local boards is the strong organic connection to the local community, including local civil society representatives such as the Society of St. Vincent de Paul, Threshold and other relevant local agencies. It is worth reminding ourselves, before we cut the local link, that the services grew organically from the communities which they serve. In the context of modern governance requirements, NACIS accepts the need to strengthen systems of governance to enhance oversight, transparency, accountability for public funds, etc., but this can be achieved without throwing away the experience and expertise that exists within the network.

Regarding employees, while NACIS does not play any formal role in the management of human resource and industrial relations issues, we are acutely aware of the concerns and uncertainties among our valued employees and managers.

In particular, it is concerned about the impact these changes will have on the morale and motivation of its development managers and staff.

As indicated, I am presenting our initial response, as determined by our national executive, to the restructuring proposals. We will be consulting further with our members in the very near future. However, we have some additional observations to make at this time.

As Mr. Lally has already mentioned, we have grave concerns over the lifetime of the restructuring programme. I refer to the phrase in the document. Clarity is required on the timeline in the context of commitments to no changes to service locations and terms and conditions of employment of our managers and staff.

We are very concerned about board selection. NACIS has strong concerns regarding the proposed composition, purpose and scope of the new boards, in addition to the proposed recruitment process, which is similar to the Public Appointments Service process. This approach has the potential to discourage serving Citizens Information Board, CIB, board members from going forward. There is a real need for continuity between existing boards and whatever new structures are put in place. This needs to be recognised in the creation of any new structure and specific provision must be made to ensure existing boards continue to be represented. The new boards must act as a guarantor of independence of the service, ensuring that the communitarian ethos of the service is maintained. This has been a basic principle of the service since its inception over 40 years ago.

With regard to staff, there is a need for a clear plan or structure to be published. Our staff, including development managers, information staff and volunteers working in the current services, are not clear on their future roles, and there is an imminent risk of losing vital local expertise if a clear plan is not set out. Staff are unclear as to how the new regional structures will operate. In fact, they know nothing about this because it is a closely guarded secret. The lack of clarity is generating significant worry and uncertainty. There is nothing more damaging to a voluntary or community-type organisation than uncertainty about the future and this needs to be addressed urgently.

Mr. Lally has already referred to recent resignations. These were just down the road in Dún Laoghaire, which is a service substantially run by volunteers. Long-serving members are so disillusioned by what is going on that they have opted out. That is worrying. With regard to stakeholders, the lack of a reference in the document to volunteers and service users in any meaningful way is very disappointing, as is the absence of a reference to our organisation, NACIS.

On communications, NACIS has highlighted the need for the Citizens Information Board to maintain strong communication and engagement with the representative bodies. Much mention has been made of consultation but the CIB must begin to demonstrate engagement in meaningful consultation. This includes accepting and responding positively to recommendations from NACIS and the other representative organisations but equally, where our recommendations are not accepted, the CIB board must provide explanations and reasons for its decision. That is normal in any democracy. We are not saying everything we say should be accepted but we should at least be given reasons for decisions.

NACIS recommends that the CIB establish a forum that includes representatives of the CIB and the representative groups, such as NACIS and MABS groups, to meet on an annual basis. This will provide an important forum for the CIB to meet and hear from the services directly.

Having said all that, it is important to say that we acknowledge and appreciate the support, leadership and training provided by the board and executive of CIB over the years. Mr. Lally has already referred to this. Without them, we would not be here at all. Our wish is to work with them constructively on delivering our common objective of having a better service. All of us are committed to this.

NACIS has outlined in previous written submissions its preferred model to support consolidation within the network. Any realignment or consolidation will need to include careful consideration of potential implications and whether a direct change will improve the service for the citizen. Any restructuring proposal must not undermine or weaken one of the key founding principles legislated for in the creation of the CIB, which was "to promote greater accessibility, co-ordination and public awareness of social services and of information, advice and advocacy services provided in relation to such services whether by a statutory body or a voluntary body". The need to ensure accessibility to services locally is a fundamental principle that the citizens information services have worked to achieve and, indeed, have done. This is demonstrated through our strong outreach supports around the counties in which we operate and active involvement of citizens on a voluntary basis in service delivery.

Citizens information services are currently provided using a model of service delivery appropriate for service users by advocating frequently on their behalf, against the State and its agencies. While supported by the State through CIB, independence is both guaranteed and evidenced by the local boards of management. The proposed regional model, based not on local leadership but on a CIB-selected and CIB-led board of management, will offer a more centralised approach, with its independence compromised from the outset. We are very concerned that this structure and method of appointment constitutes a State-delivered service that would not be appropriate or in the best interest of the citizen. The degree of control implicit in the proposed model is more akin to what is required for an agency that needs to be controlled by the State. It is not an appropriate model on which to base the type of service provided by our members. The CIS is Government-funded, but it cannot be perceived to be Government-run.

Our primary concern is with the quality and accessibility of the services we deliver, while retaining the trust and confidence of those who use them. The area or county community-based model represents the right balance between retaining the local dimension and delivering consistent standards of governance, management and efficiency. The reliance on volunteer input and active citizenship is a unique feature that needs to be protected and sustained. We want to engage constructively on implementation, provided that consultation is meaningful. We thank members for their attention and will welcome any questions they may have for us.

Chairman

I thank Mr. McGuane for his opening statement. In private session before the witnesses arrived, the committee agreed that it would meet to deal with this. Mr. Lally has asked for some documents. The clerk will make them available to him. It is important to note that any information the delegates do not have with them today, or further comments they might like to make, should be submitted to the committee, but in a timely fashion because we will be moving ahead with this in a short number of weeks. If the delegates wish to comment on anything that emerges in respect of which they do not have answers today or on the documents they are seeking, they should do so as quickly as possible.

Deputy John Brady

I thank both groups for their attendance. This is a topic we are taking very seriously and we are trying to deal with it as quickly as we can. I commend CIS on its work. I see at first hand how busy the offices are in Wicklow, the constituency I represent. The delegates alluded to the fact that over 2,300 people will make contact with CIS today and every other day and that over 1,800 people will make direct contact by walking into the offices. The work is essential. I commend everyone involved, particularly all the volunteers. I become concerned when I hear volunteers are walking away from the organisation because of uncertainty with regard to restructuring and regionalisation, including in Dún Laoghaire.

Obviously, as Mr. Lally said, there will be a serious impact. He mentioned that it is critical to empower the citizen. That is one of the primary roles and functions. One must question why the CIB has not engaged in a meaningful consultation process with the witnesses or with the public. Other regulatory bodies undertake consultations which are open to the public to give its response. That critical part of the consultation process is missing and I am concerned about that. Mr. Lally made the point that the process has not been open or transparent, and that is coming across to me and other people. It is alarming. He also states that CIB has not made a compelling case at any time for the need for change. Why is it moving ahead with this? A question was asked about seeing the cost-benefit analysis. It is clear from the previous contributions that have been made to the committee that no cost-benefit analysis has been carried out with regard to these changes.

Perhaps Mr. Rynn or Mr. McGuane will respond to my questions. I spoke about stakeholders and the need for CIB to engage with them. Was any reason provided to the witnesses at any point for their organisations not being seen as key stakeholders in a consultation? As they said, the citizens do not appear to be seen as stakeholders. Do they know who the key stakeholders were in this? The witness said the organisation sought to engage with the CIB. How was that undertaken and what was the reason for it being refused? Mr. McGuane also referred to governance. The previous presentation from the CIB mentioned statutory obligations that the current structure may not reach. I note it was mentioned that the Comptroller and Auditor General has no issues. The CIB spoke about a compliance statement required from the Comptroller and Auditor General and, in respect of governance, it spoke of the principles required, such as clarity of governance, value for money and fairness. Does Mr. McGuane believe the present structure would fail these obligations, given that he stated the Comptroller and Auditor General has no cause for concern?

I have a few other points for Mr. Lally. He referred to franchising. When I hear the word "franchising" it sets off alarm bells because there is the potential for privatisation in the future. Does he believe there is an intention to have a form of privatisation or a contracted system in the future? I have real concerns about that. On some of the other points, I am probably over time-----

Chairman

You are over time and I must be fair to other colleagues. I will come back to you later. I call Senator Higgins.

Senator Alice-Mary Higgins

I thank the witnesses for their clear presentations which contained valuable points for the committee. I have much to discuss but my time is limited so I will try to deal with a few key questions, to which any of the witnesses may respond.

What we heard about the consultation is interesting, as it is a core starting point. What we heard is striking, especially in the presentation from NACIS. I am concerned about the confidentiality issue. Was there an adequate facility for Mr. Lally to be able to consult on the ground? The confidentiality concern would appear to go against discussion and also consultation with the public and service users. We hear consistently about the shortfalls in consultation, so that should be examined. I am also interested in the previous restructuring we heard about, the county-wide restructuring, which appeared to operate in a completely different way. Perhaps both speakers will outline what was different about that restructuring. In the first place, it appears to have been successful. The witnesses talked about it starting at the front line and Mr. Lally mentioned people coming together to submit proposals. Perhaps the witnesses would comment on how the county-wide restructuring ensured local representation, moved from the bottom up rather than from the top down and what should be learned from that.

Also, it appears that the CIS already underwent a restructuring in that process. Mr. Lally mentioned the idea of the county model, with or without MABS, being something that should be examined. What are the thoughts of NACIS on that? Perhaps, Chairman, we might refer back to MABS, seeking its views on that model. It seems to be emerging quite strongly as the preferred model, so it might be one to be considered. Was it given adequate consideration as a model? I note that the extension of MABS and CIS was not one of the models discussed in the Pathfinder Consulting report. I also note with some concern, as my colleague did, that the funder model, or a type of franchise funder model, was identified in the Pathfinder Consulting report as one which would be damaging to services. We must be aware of that danger given that it was identified by Pathfinder Consulting as something that would potentially lead to a deterioration in services.

There has not been a cost-benefit analysis of the proposed eight and eight model that has been put forward. There have been other cost-benefit analyses and I look forward to them being shared with the speakers and to hearing their comments on those models, including the county model.

A core point comes across strongly in this report and from all the speakers. It also comes across in the correspondence we have received from individual citizens information services. It is the advocacy role. To be clear, it is not the National Advocacy Service, which is a service for particular individuals and supports. I refer to the general advocacy role or the democracy role. NACIS put it as the role of at times being in a position of having to advocate against Departments or against the State to champion the citizen. Perhaps the witness would clarify that component, which is not simply a delivery of factual information downwards, because that is part of the core of the work and it came across very strongly. That is an area that could be in jeopardy because, as the witness said, the perception of independence is crucial in that.

Regarding the volunteers, we heard from MABS about its concern in respect of voluntary board members, their ongoing engagement and the costs. Perhaps Mr. Lally could elaborate on some of the costs. I accept that they are rough costs, but there is the potential danger of the loss of almost 1,100 front-line staff. We have front-line volunteers. I am aware that the volunteers are not just volunteers who are in place. There is an extraordinary quality of volunteer within our citizens information services, as many of us have experienced. I have experienced in the NGO sector and in political life how people rely on not just the volunteers but also the quality of the volunteers. Perhaps the witnesses could discuss that question of engagement.

I have also been a member of advisory groups myself and I know that they are different from boards. As I am very aware of that, I seek clarification on the question of the potential disengagement of volunteers. I agree with the concerns expressed regarding no changes during the lifetime of restructuring. What are the potential impact costs and consequences of this model if it is pushed ahead, particularly if it is pushed in an unwilling context?

Deputy Michael Collins

I welcome the witnesses to our meeting. I could be seen to have a slight conflict of interest here because I served on the west Cork citizens information board a number of years ago. I do not really understand where all of this is coming from and I fully agree with many of the sentiments expressed earlier.

In terms of the service in Cork, in 2015 there were 10,834 callers and 18,635 queries, while the figures for 2016 were 10,878 and 18,295 respectively. The figures for this year are already up by 10% on last year. The service is driven locally, by a local board. I was on the board as a community voluntary member. In a different life, the now European Commissioner, Mr. Phil Hogan, decided to rid boards of local volunteers. It is a nice, clever way of having a more dictatorial role over what is going on and it looks like that is what is happening here too.

The witnesses said that no cost benefit analysis has been conducted. Who has instructed the Citizens Information Board, CIB? Representatives from CIB were before us earlier but unfortunately I was not aware of what is going on; otherwise I would have asked those questions of them. Is it a ministerial decision? Is it coming straight from the top? Is the Minister, Deputy Varadkar, turning out to be Mr. Hogan's replacement in life? If so, he needs to come before the people and discuss this because citizens information boards are providing a fabulous service in west Cork and throughout the country. If the Government starts to weaken or water down the service, as has been done with the Leader groups, it will only lead to further erosion of local services, especially in rural Ireland, where we are finding it difficult to survive as it is. Will we be left in a situation where CIB handpicks the boards and there will be no local input? That would be a scandalous decision and it must be resisted by us, as Members of the Oireachtas.

I believe we will lose the independence of the service and that is probably the plan. The aim is to lose the local input. As I said earlier, there were 18,295 queries to the citizens information office in west Cork last year. That office has three full-time, three part-time and five scheme workers and the rest of the workers are volunteers. There are 20 volunteers working there and I can assure everyone that those volunteers would not be there were it not for the local board working and communicating with them and encouraging them to come and help out. A lot of questions need to be asked. The witnesses before us have highlighted the situation for us and this committee must now take it from here. We must determine if we can stop this from happening. Perhaps the witnesses could give us some advice as to the role we could play in that regard.

Deputy Danny Healy-Rae

The witnesses before us today have outlined exactly the concerns that I have, as a public representative in a rural area. Is this a direct attempt to prevent poor people from getting information about their entitlements? Is that what this is about? Is that what the Government is about? I can see, and am not afraid to say it, that the CIB would not be doing what it is doing without ministerial approval. As Deputy Michael Collins has said, this is similar to what was done to the Leader programmes and the rural development organisations by the former Minister, Mr. Phil Hogan. Is this another savage attack on rural Ireland? I am afraid it is just that.

The CIB representatives described the service provided by MABS as ranging from extremely good, to average, to quite poor. Never once, in my role as an elected public representative in Kerry - both as a councillor and a Deputy - have I heard a complaint about MABS. All I have heard is people expressing gratitude for the information that MABS provided. As everyone is well aware, most of the people who provide information in the citizens information offices are volunteers. If we are going to reduce the number of citizens information offices, we will make the service regional rather than local. In rural Ireland, we know all about regional restructuring. When we hear the term restructuring, whether applied to the ambulance service or to any other service, we know that it will actually mean a reduction in services. We will move from having a service with which we were quite happy to a reduction in that service. The witnesses have already confirmed this to be the case. Why is this happening? Will it be a State-driven service that will only tell people what it likes because it might not suit the Department that would be paying out the money? That is what I am afraid of. Great work was being done by the CIS boards at a local level but the CIB is going to take them over and deprive the people of the service they were getting. The service is going to be dismantled.

In 2017, the CIB is to receive €54 million, of which €15 million is to be given to the CIS groups and €24 million to MABS. How much of the budget is going to be kept by the CIB in 2018? It is shameful, what is happening. As elected representatives, Deputy Michael Collins and I will do everything we can to highlight this shameful situation. What will happen to people in rural areas if they lose this great service, which is mostly volunteer-driven? What will be the role of volunteers in the future if the CIB gets its way? This is a very serious matter and will be treated as such.

Deputy Joe Carey

I thank both groups for their clear presentations. There was an awful lot of overlap with our meeting of two weeks ago. A lot of the points made by both groups today were also made two weeks ago to this committee. I am concerned about the level of consultation and also about what is viewed as consultation. It appears that the points raised in the so-called dialogue were not taken on board. The role of the volunteer is key, as the last two speakers have stressed. I must compliment the citizens information service in County Clare. It is run very well and the service provided is wonderful. I have regular engagement with it.

We must consider the impact this will have on the service user. We must also consider the issue of volunteers leaving the service, as Mr. McGuane said earlier.

What level or type of fall-away in volunteers are the services experiencing? Is the phenomenon of people walking away from the services widespread, even at this early stage prior to implementation of the proposal?

We need to try to address the whole issue. Is there some way to bring all stakeholders together to try to have proper meaningful dialogue? Has this been proposed by the groups before the committee today? Many groups are involved. Surely, the groups could come together to try to convince the Citizens Information Board to consider the matter. There is so much opposition from the groups before the committee today and so many points have been made and remade that surely the whole question needs to be revisited. I call on Mr. McGuane and Mr. Lally to address some of these points.

Chairman

I will give the deputations an opportunity to answer some of the questions. One thing struck me when Mr. Lally was speaking. His comments brought home the unique nature of the services. Mr. Lally referred to Lily O'Doherty in Clondalkin. It is as if the citizens information services have developed in the context of the surrounding services and in the context of interaction with constituency offices of Deputies, the Society of St. Vincent de Paul and so on. They have developed around the network of other services and those involved knew who to engage with and so on. Local knowledge was crucial. If we did not have such local knowledge, I am unsure whether the services would have been as effective. Mr. Lally referred to Lily O'Doherty and how she would go about her work, who she knew and how she knew where to go. All such local knowledge cannot easily be transferred. That is what makes the services unique.

I have no wish to go over the points made but I want to make a general observation. Some general points arise and I want to recap on comments Mr. Lally made. At the end of his contribution he referred to moving towards integration of services at county level and that it was not too late.

Mr. McGuane referred to how we have highlighted the potential for integration of service delivery between the citizens information services and MABS as a means of strengthening governance arrangements and generating greater efficiencies while maintaining the community ethos. As general comment, I see this manifested in three blocks one of which is the current restructuring proposal, as proposed by the Citizens Information Board. There is another side to the coin. It came across clearly last week from MABS representatives. MABS representatives maintain things are working well and wonder about the need for any change. Mr. McGuane indicated that perhaps there should be a merging of MABS and the Citizens Information Board organisations on a county-wide basis. Three themes have emerged from the discussions: the current restructuring proposal by the Citizens Information Board, the do-nothing option - some people have indicated they are happy with the service, and the possible merging of citizens information services and MABS on a county-wide basis.

Have the representatives from the citizens information services developed proposals for closer working arrangements with MABS? Have any discussions along these lines taken place? Do the representatives clearly see a need for restructuring? Is it feasible to leave the status quo? The presentations this morning referred to the need for some new model. This view has not always come from MABS and MABS representatives have not always said the same. I say as much because these are emerging themes rather than specific points. The representatives might wish to comment on them.

The witnesses can take the answers in any order they wish. Mr. Lally opened the discussion. Does he want to take the questions relevant to him? Ms Barry or Ms Conefrey may wish to contribute as well and we will go on from there.

Mr. Tomás Lally

I will deal first with the point on what has been suggested by us. I reckon we are in agreement with the National Association of Citizens Information Services. Our position is the county model, with or without integration with MABS. There is no divergence with MABS. MABS presented a clear view on the matter at the previous meeting. The view was that there should be no change and that nothing is broken so there is no need to fix it. That is our sense as well in terms of governance and so on. However, savings could be made. We have put the idea forward as a possibility but we are not convinced that anything is wrong with the current model that would force us to go down the integration route. Good relationships exist throughout the country between MABS and the citizens information services. Many managers of citizens information services, me included, are on the boards of MABS companies. Good working relationships have developed over several years.

Deputy Collins asked who has instructed the Citizens Information Board and where all of this has come from. These are important questions. If it has come all the way from the Department of Social Protection, then it introduces another important question that needs to be asked. Is the Department of Social Protection the correct Department to fund and guarantee the independence of citizens information services? The Office of the Ombudsman is not funded by the Department of Social Protection. This introduces a far bigger question. The National Association of Citizens Information Services may be able to clarify this and where it is coming from.

Reference was made to the consultation with service users and the Pathfinder report. The Pathfinder report contains details of consultation with 37 service users. The report was not part of our submission but there is no problem in submitting the material to the joint committee, if needs be. The Pathfinder document refers to how the consultants sought the points of view of service users and how 37 service users of citizens information services were asked what was important to them as users of the service. The respondents went through access, empathy, accuracy, assurance of confidentiality and independence, which is an interesting point. These were important to service users, as was having professional premises etc. The Pathfinder consultation concluded that service users did not have any well-formed or consistent views on the importance of structures, such as whether there should be a local board or a national oversight structure to deliver the service. Of course, service users were not asked what would suit best, whether it be a local board, a regional board or a national board. They were not asked the question. The Pathfinder consultants came to the conclusion that they could find no significant structural impediments to delivering the service on an individual basis. We can forward the report to the committee. It was not in our original submission. That was the main point on consultation with service users.

Chairman

Members should note that we have the Pathfinder report on the document database.

Senator Alice-Mary Higgins

I wish to make a suggestion. I know NACIS made a submission to the Pathfinder consultants. The Pathfinder report is only a summary of the submissions. Perhaps the original submissions could be examined.

Mr. Tomás Lally

Deputy Brady asked another question about franchising and whether it represented a threat. The Pathfinder report examined franchising as one of the options. As Senator Higgins has pointed out, it is clear that the county model was not costed or examined in the Pathfinder report. A no-change model was examined. Presumably, it is adequate but it is not costed as such or looked at in terms of a model. Therefore, franchising would seem to be on the table. It was put forward as a possible model for restructuring. Our submission referenced that perhaps after regionalisation it could be the second play in a couple of years' time and that services will be franchised eventually. We have already seen job activation services from the Department franchised through Seetec and Turas Nua. There is nothing to indicate that perhaps the same would happen with citizens information services down the road.

Ms Sinéad Conefrey

Senator Higgins referred to a core point on advocacy. She mentioned NAS. I wish to clarify that NAS is the national advocacy service. Initially, the service began as a disability advocacy programme. Under the programme, a disability advocate was placed in the citizens information services. The programme operated from within the citizens information services with a steering group in place. Then it was moved to a regional structure and local advisory groups were put in place.

This is now the National Advocacy Service for People with Disabilities.

Senator Higgins linked the role of advocacy with democracy. The citizens information service provides an advocacy service to clients whereby we empower them to seek their rights and entitlements. In many cases this involves a social welfare appeal where we are going before the very people who fund our service. It is an extensive and detailed part of the work that goes on within the services and it is important to recognise that there is a link there. Very often, we are going against our funders in terms of appealing decisions that have been made. We also assist in cost savings, however, by stepping in before it comes to an appeal by way of reviewing decisions and submitting detailed documentation and evidence. It is very much an evidence-based approach to providing an advocacy service.

The Making an Impact report, which was submitted to members, details the work that goes on within the services. It is an evidence-based report that details the works and goings on of the citizens information service, including the voluntary boards and the volunteers who are performing various roles within the service such as reception, information and so on. The report takes the reader through real-life scenarios. It is important to mention that there is an international dimension to the citizens information service, which is also detailed in Making an Impact. We can come back to that if we have time. I am conscious that there are a lot of questions today.

Ms Orla Barry

I will come in on the issue of the volunteers. Everyone has spoken about the impact on volunteers of this potential restructuring. Following on from the MABS presentation, Citizens Information is unique in that we have three strands in our service, namely, paid core staff, community employment, CE, scheme workers who provide information, and volunteers. We have volunteer board members giving up their free time, energy and expertise. We also have volunteers who come into our service on a daily basis to give front-line information to service users. The minimum requirement for these volunteers is to give seven hours a week. The expectation is that these volunteers would be trained up in the extensive information that is available through the Citizens Information website and to provide professional information to a client.

On the impact of this restructuring on volunteers, it is my view that people volunteer for a local service. There is a buy-in. They may have had contact with MABS, the Society of St. Vincent de Paul, the local Deputy or whatever, and they feel that they want to give something back to their local service. That is going to be lost if it is run on a regional basis. We spoke already about people voting with their feet and moving on. We cannot assess that impact at the moment as there is a huge vacuum of information, and that is the concern. We really do not know how our own jobs are going to be, how the volunteer boards are going to be or what is going to happen. We cannot give members definitive answers to those questions. However, people are currently volunteering in a local service because they feel they can give something back to their locality. There is a demand there. Members have heard figures about how much the service is used and respected in all sorts of places. I believe that will be lost. We do not know how to capture that. It is something we will need to address in the future.

Mr. Tomás Lally

Senator Higgins asked me a specific question about the previous county-wide restructuring. From my experience in Mayo, when I became the manager of Mayo Citizens Information Service we had four local committees in Ballina, Castlebar, Claremorris and Belmullet. The four committees came together with members from other local and statutory groups, such as the Department of Social Protection, and put together a plan to integrate the services throughout the county. I was appointed in April 2000 to work with this newly-constituted board that had representatives from all the local committees. That was key. Each committee was represented on the county-wide board so they had a say in what was going to happen. There was buy-in and there was a process as well. There was an initial stage when services might have felt that they were happy doing their own little thing or whatever. But it was clearly seen, through dialogue and an open process, that this was going to be of benefit to the community and to the county-wide area of Mayo. By having open discussion and making sure that resources were being spread properly through the area, people began to see that it was for the good of their services. It made sense because it was the same as the local authority area of Mayo; we were dealing with Mayo County Council - so there was a link-in with service providers at that level. It made sense. The county model seemed to be the correct level at which to integrate.

Deputy Brady also asked if the present structure would fail governance requirements. We have submitted documents to the committee; perhaps we need to go through them, perhaps not. I referenced the service level agreement, which is very exact. There are exacting demands being placed on citizens information services, not only in terms of the service but also of the financial controls. I do not know if the committee wants to go through the detail on that.

Chairman

We have the documents.

Mr. Tomás Lally

It is very detailed. It would be very difficult to start hiding money or doing anything like that. It is all accounted for and above board.

Deputy Carey asked about the potential for dialogue. As chair of the development managers network I would say we are very much open to dialogue. We want dialogue. Our focus here is really the citizen. That is what started up the first citizens information services - to serve the citizens' needs. That is why we are here this morning. Our role is to advocate on behalf of the citizen. We are not here to preserve our own jobs or whatever. We are here to argue for the citizens and say what we believe is in their best interests. The service is working. Maybe there are areas in which we can improve, there always are. We are certainly open to and welcome dialogue but not to the sort of consultation we have got, in which our opinions are noted and then ignored while the juggernaut goes on regardless.

Mr. Joe Rynn

I will not reiterate the points my colleagues have already made. In terms of the point which Senator Higgins and Deputy Brady referenced, consultation is meaningful when it involves taking our points on board, engaging with us and possibly reaching agreement. We are in a process here whereby things are more or less being imposed. We are not at an agreement stage. Engagement and consultation is about agreeing on a common plan and course of action with members. We do not have agreement on where we are going and we need that for us to engage with and implement a plan.

Members also discussed the issue of volunteers, which has been mentioned briefly by my other colleagues. From our perspective, the remoteness of the board will have a real risk in terms of engagement with volunteers, as we have highlighted in our submission. Large-scale regional structures do not have the same presence in or connection to local communities. That loss will be evident very quickly and will most likely have a detrimental effect on how volunteers engage with services. We are very concerned about that.

It is the same thing with the boards. They have been built up through local input. We are looking at a very different structure now, very much a top-down regional model. The boards were organic and grew from local communities. People understood their areas and had a very strong understanding of county needs. Every county has different requirements; the Deputies know that themselves from their own work. Large regional structures do not have that input. We would be concerned that the dynamic of the regional boards will be lost within the new boards. We have also highlighted that in our submission.

Chairman

There is time for one or two direct and brief questions.

Senator Alice-Mary Higgins

Pathfinder has been mentioned extensively. I note that the Pathfinder report said the current structures are working well in respect of exercising control of legal and financial compliance.

The Pathfinder report also states that the structures that support core processes and local boards are established and work well. The report also states that the staff resources centrally of the Citizens Information Board, CIB, have been reduced. We have heard that the number of staff has been reduced from 92 to 74. The only palpable change in a system that seemed to be working is that there has been a reduction of staff at central level. The approach appears to be one of using a sledgehammer to crack a nut given that we have seen a reduction of almost 20 staff at central level. There are many other issues identified in Pathfinder report but one issue is that the increased focus on compliance with so many companies is proving to be an unsustainable burden, given the number of boards and reduction in staff. The key point is the reduction of the CIB's staff resources. I would like the witnesses to comment on that aspect.

I also wish to comment on the advocacy element, which was a point that was raised by NACIS. It raised the interesting question of democracy. I am referring to the question of social inclusion as a core mandate of this service. What is interesting about the boards as they are currently constituted is that we are looking at a modelling of social inclusion. It is not that they simply deliver a service to people that helps them to do something, rather it is a modelling of social inclusion to an effect. Reference was made to volunteers but I would like one of the witnesses to elaborate specifically on the question of social inclusion and the democratic component for a volunteer in not only delivering a service, but being part of a board.

Deputy Niamh Smyth

I do not have a question but I have been listening to the debate in my office and I feel very strongly about this issue. In my constituency of Cavan-Monaghan, we have a fabulous citizen advice centre. The model used includes the provision of a mobile office to local libraries and so on, which is very important. As public representatives, we rely on that very much and I was delighted to hear Mr. Tomás Lally say he was here to represent the citizens, as are we. It is very important, but what is being proposed will have a very detrimental effect on the services.

Chairman

I have nothing further to add but I want to clarify a point. Reference was made to a number of documents, and the committee has full access to them. Senator Higgins made a point regarding the witnesses' submission to the Pathfinder report. That is a document we do not have sight of and they might like to make it available to the committee.

If the witnesses wish to respond to the other documents they have requested from us, it is important that they do so in a timely way to ensure that it can be part of the discussion. Reference was made to the service level agreement. We have sight of it. I do not want the witnesses to think that because they have not spelled out what is in the document, the committee is not aware of it. We have those documents and we have the full picture from that point of view. If the witnesses' answers were not as complete as they would have wished, that is not an issue because we have those documents. Who would like to respond to Senator Higgins's questions?

Mr. Michael McGuane

I will make a couple of points in reply. Local democracy is a very important ingredient in any democracy. Some people are of the view that there has been an erosion of local democracy - "democratic deficit" is the phrase that is used. Much of the thinking behind all of this restructuring took place a number of years ago during the recession when the fashion in public administration seemed to be to centralise and rationalise everything towards the centre. As we were walking up to Leinster House today, we saw cranes everywhere and it is obvious things are beginning to change again. People even in Senator Higgins's profession are questioning now the wisdom of doing away with the local town councils. It sounded like a good idea at the time but people are beginning to have second thoughts about it.

It is very important to empower local communities because the energy that generates inspires volunteerism. My colleague made a very good point that when we talk about volunteers, we are talking about highly trained people. They are not just people who ramble in off the side of the road, sit down and start giving their opinions. Those people have spent a lot of time attending training sessions, a point Ms Barry has made clear.

Chairman

That concludes today's meeting. I thank our guests from the National Association of Citizens Information Services and the National Development Managers Network for attending and for their presentations. As I said at the outset, they will be published on the website as well as their direct responses to the questions. I reiterate that this committee will follow up on this issue so they should forward to us as quickly as possible the relevant documentation the witnesses believe we should have. The committee is adjourned until Tuesday, 28 March 2017, and the meeting that day will be held in private session only.

The joint committee adjourned at 11.55 a.m. until 10 a.m. on Thursday, 4 May 2017.