Skip to main content
Normal View

Citizens Information Services

Dáil Éireann Debate, Tuesday - 24 October 2017

Tuesday, 24 October 2017

Questions (393)

Mick Barry

Question:

393. Deputy Mick Barry asked the Minister for Employment Affairs and Social Protection if her attention has been drawn to the statement of the former Secretary General of her Department addressing the Committee of Public Accounts on 28 May 2015 to the effect that changes to the future corporate governance arrangements for Citizens Information Services and MABS had not at that stage been considered by the Citizens Information Board, CIB; if she can reconcile this with her own recent statement in Dáil Éireann on 11 July 2017 (details supplied) that the board had decided the matter in November 2014; if she will report on whether her Department was consulted by the CIB on the corporate governance model for Citizens Information Services and MABS; if so, if she will publish her Department's contribution to the discussion; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [44795/17]

View answer

Written answers

As the Deputy is aware, the Citizens Information Board (CIB) is the statutory body responsible for providing information, advice (including money and budgeting advice service) and advocacy services on a wide range of public and social services. CIB delivers on this remit through a network of delivery partners, which includes 42 local Citizens Information Services (CIS) and 51 local Money Advice and Budgeting Services (MABS). In 2017, CIB is set to receive State funding of €54 million, of which €15 million is allocated to CIS services, and €24 million is allocated to the network of MABS services.

Successive CIB Strategic Plans have over the past number of years set out the need and intention of the Board to change structures and processes to enable more efficient use of resources, which are entirely publicly funded.

There is no inconsistency or conflict between information provided in the House by me and to the Committee of Public Accounts by the former Secretary General of the Department. The decision by the Board of CIB to restructure its delivery partners was done in three phases. The first phase was when the Board decided in late 2014 that change was needed in the structure of delivery partner companies. It did not, at that time, decide on the precise new structure. Rather, it agreed that a Design Group be tasked with presenting options on new organisational models for its consideration. When the former Secretary General met with the Committee of Public Accounts in May 2015, she advised it that the streamlining of governance arrangements was firmly on the agenda of the Board of CIB; that work was underway on identifying a new governance model; that options were identified in the Pathfinder report; and that more work needed to be done before a decision on the new structure would be made by the Board. The second phase was when the Board of CIB decided in October 2016, following the work of the Design Group, to proceed to restructure its governance arrangements on a regional model basis. Finally, the third phase was in February of this year when the Board decided that the regional company model should comprise 16 companies across eight regions, comprising eight CIS companies and eight MABS companies.

My Department was informed of incremental progression of the CIB process at relevant stages, but did not participate in the Board’s deliberative process of selecting its preferred corporate governance model for CIS and MABS networks.

As a statutory body, the Board has the sole right to make decisions on its day to day operations as it sees fit. The decision taken by the Board of CIB comes after a lengthy period of consultation and detailed consideration of options and views put forward at all stages.

The membership of the Board of CIB, which comprises experienced and competent individuals representative of a broad spectrum of interests and which includes representatives of the Citizens Information Service and Money Advice and Budgeting Service, has made this decision in the best interests of the citizens, whom the Board serves.

I hope this clarifies the matter for the Deputy.

Top
Share