HC Deb 22 April 1983 vol 41 cc576-82

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Lang.]

2.33 pm
Mr. Tom McNally (Stockport, South)

When I told people over the past few days that I had secured this Adjournment debate, their response was, "Surely the Government have shot your fox. The Minister has changed his mind. There is to be a radical reassessment of the Government's attitude towards the citizens advice bureaux movement in general and to the national body in particular." But no such assurances have come from the Minister's lips.

One of my reasons for introducing the debate is to obtain from the Minister some substance for the rumours. When he made his famous, or infamous, statement 10 days ago, he left the House and the country with headlines such as, Advice Centres To Go On Trial That uncertainty and element of kangaroo court judgment of the bureaux have evoked anger and, in terms of the Minister's actions, perplexity, because the House was left entrely dissatisfied.

The Minister invited so many spectres to his feast of innuendo about the citizens advice bureaux movement that I make no apology for asking him again, 10 days later, to present a considered view and policy. In the papers and gossip were innuendoes about financial mismanagement, political bias and general inefficiency.

I warn the Minister that bland assurances of his confidence, love and admiration of the citizens advice bureaux movement will not do. In view of the reports and inferences during this unhappy episode, we need more than words today. There must be a recognition—1 think it has been evident elsewhere on the Government Front Bench — that the Government get a very good deal indeed from the CAB services.

I shall not weary the House with statistics. Suffice to say that there are 914 bureaux which attract 12,500 volunteers, and it is calculated that the voluntary contribution they make is worth £23 million to the country. Every hon. Member who works in his constituency recognises the immense data bank that the national bureau operates. If the Government tried to operate a similar system, it is estimated that it would cost £50 million. Those of us who had the benefit of seeing that operation could not but be impressed with its efficiency and relevance to many of our fellow citzens.

I have spoken of the massive voluntary effort that goes into the movement. Only 20 per cent. of bureaux have full-time organisers, and most of the bureaux exist on an annual budget of about £10,000. In 1974–75, they attracted about 1.8 million inquiries; last year 5 million; arid it is expected that there will be an increase this year of a further 12 per cent. In Stockport that means an increase from 13,000 to 17,000 or 18,000.

I hope the Minister realises the value for money that the Government are getting. I hope he also realises, if he tries again to trot out the story of the extra grants the Government have given to the movement in recent years, that the CAB movement has had to absorb the cancellation of the Government grant to the consumer advice centres of about £4 million.

We are talking of a voluntary movement which operates at the sharp end of the work we do in Parliament. It looks at housing and social legislation and the effects of unemployment, and then it must answer to the individual who comes in for help. I therefore want from the Minister a response which takes into account that increased work load, but I want something more. The Government's decision to put the advice bureaux movement on a short leash—of six months in terms of the money available—has many implications in terms of planning, staff morale and how the movement uses its money.

The Minister knows how the grant is spent: 30 per cent. goes on the bureaux, 55 per cent. on the support services and only 15 per cent. on administration. I am confident in saying that the Minister knows that because he has representatives on the key bodies of the movement and they give him that information. He must therefore say why such a draconian short leash has been placed on the movement. He knows that it is not just a question of ministerial responsibility. If public money is used, we want Ministers to ensure that it is not abused. Equally, however, he knows that if a Minister takes specific action of this kind, the general feeling is that there is no smoke without fire.

I ask the Minister today to remove any doubts as to the financial probity of the administration of the national body. He can do that quite simply by restoring the annual grant immediately. That is the least that he can do. If he cannot do that today, whatever he says in press briefings or in other places, he will continue to have trouble in the House. That is a fair and friendly warning to him.

The Minister must also realise that the citizens advice bureaux movement is basically a local movement, so the innuendo, gossip and tittle-tattle that has occurred requires ministerial guidance. I ask him to send out a circular—if his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment has to do it for him, so be it—about the citizens advice bureaux, calling the attention of local authorities to his confidence in the movement and his hope that they will continue to support it and look sympathetically on its present campaign that every bureau should have at least one full-time organiser.

It is amazing that a service that would probably cost about £70 million if the Government tried to administer it is provided by the movement for about £6 million and that 80 per cent. of the bureaux operate without a full-time officer. On local authorities and finance, I hope that the Minister has pondered carefully in the 10 days since the mauling that he received from hon. Members in all parts of the House.

On efficiency, as the Minister well knows, the national association and the bureaux welcome an examination of their efficiency, but they and the House must know quickly who is to carry out the inquiry, what the terms of reference and the time scale will be and to whom it will report. As I have stressed many times, this affects 12,500 volunteers and hundreds of thousands of people who want confidence in the citizens advice bureaux movement. The Minister cannot allow doubts as to its efficiency and impartiality to continue beyond today. If there is to be an inquiry, he must tell us how it will be conducted If the service is examined properly, I sincerely hope that the inquiry will be entitled to recommend increases for the movement as well as commenting on possible improvements in efficiency.

Much press interest has been attracted by the suggestions of political bias. It is a fact of our public life that the kind of person likely to volunteer to serve with a citizens advice bureau is almost equally likely to turn up as a justice of the peace, the organiser of a junior football team or an active member of a political party or action group. It is nonsense to start looking for hobgoblins and generating fears because an active voluntary member of a citizens advice bureau turns out in his or her free time also to be active in some other aspect of public life. We all know of justices of the peace who run football clubs, are chairmen of local party associations, and so on. As I have seen in my postbag and from travelling round the country, the Government's attitude has made people ask themselves whether they can remain active in their local Conservative associations and give their best to citizens advice bureaux. We should get that problem nailed and out of the way. It is not good enough that there should be a smear of political subversion.

The CAB movement goes to extraordinary lengths to maintain its impartiality. The Minister must realise that CABs have a second role which has been encouraged by successive Governments. It is: To exercise a responsible influence on the development of social policies and services, both locally and nationally. People who work in CABs are likely to explain whether the Government's legislation is not working or is working unfairly at the sharp end. The Minister must recognise that, when his colleagues frame their legislation, they depend on an amazing feedback system which CABs provide. He should know that it is not politically motivated.

Behind the argument about financing, efficiency, motivation and the virtues of volunteers, there is another fear which Mr. Ian Waller described accurately in last week's Sunday Telegraph. He said: I am inclined to acquit Dr. Vaughan of personal bigotry but his attitude seems to me to reflect a streak of it apparent in some circles in the Government and the Conservative Party today—that anyone not dedicated to it (and even to the true faith of Thatcherism within it) is suspect. It is a disturbing trend, alien to the traditions of British politics and Tuesday's reaction showed the Commons' distaste for it. Quite so. Those who detect some of the Prime Minister's fingerprints in this action will have the satisfaction of knowing that those fingers have been burnt by hon. Members on both sides of the House. Nevertheless, there remains the suspicion that the Prime Minister's approach to government is a perversion of Churchillian rhetoric—malice in defeat and revenge in victory. If nothing else, the House's reaction to what the Minister has done has told voluntary and independent bodies that we shall defend their independence.

I hope that the Minister will underline that and that other Ministers will learn the same lesson. From that point, we can build. After this shabby episode is put behind us, we should aim for a citizens advice movement that is well funded, well briefed and perceived by the Government to be truly neutral and objective.

Mr. John Fraser (Norwood)

rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bernard Weatherill)

Order. It is normally the convention that the Minister has his full time in which to reply.

2.48 pm
The Minister for Consumer Affairs (Dr. Gerard Vaughan)

I have followed the speech of the hon.

Member for Stockport, South (Mr. McNally) closely. He has made several points clearly. I congratulate him on that and agree with what he said at the end of his speech.

I welcome the debate as it gives me an opportunity to voice yet again the Government's strong support for the CAB service and to deal with the misunderstandings that have arisen recently. The hon. Gentleman asked for a recognition of a good service. I am glad to give that. The Government have consistently said that they admire the CABs. We respect and value the work that they do. Together with NACAB, they carry out an important national and local job. As I have said before, they provide a fine example of volunteers from all walks of life working with professionals for the good of the community. We respect, admire and support that. There can be no question about that. I put this first in my reply because it is so important, and it was not very widely reported after my statement the other day.

As I said in my statement to the House, the bureaux, with their huge number of volunteers, are managed and funded locally by the local authorities. The Government support is through our grant to the national association —the central body. One measure of that support has been the rapid increase under this Government in the size of grant from £1.85 million in 1979–80 to £6.04 million in 1983–84. I say publicly that that is surely a measure of the confidence that we have in the movement. It reflects our considered view that the citizens advice bureaux provide an essential and a highly cost-effective service of general and consumer advice at a time when it is desperately needed.

The origin of the recent controversy is both interesting and important. It came in an article in The Sunday Times. Unfortunately, if appeared without any contact with me and was incorrect. First, it misunderstood the grant position. There has been no cut and there has been, in my view, no question of a cut. Second, it suggested that my actions were because of political activities by the chairman of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament. That is totally incorrect.

My actions have in no way been influenced by Mrs. Ruddock and I welcome the opportunity to repudiate publicly any suggestion that I have impugned or intended to impugn her conduct in connection with the performance of her duties at the Reading CAB. I accept that there are no grounds for suggesting that her CAB behaviour is open to criticism. I say that for the second time very clearly and publicly, because it is important.

Even allowing for inflation, the increase in the grant has been substantial, and it is surely my responsibility to ensure that the contributions from taxpayers are used as effectively as possible. It was partly with that in mind that I recently commissioned the National Consumer Council report on advice services generally.

The question of Government funding is of fundamental importance. The current annual grant allocation to NACAB of up to £6.04 million is higher than for the previous year. As the House knows, I judged it right to authorise the spending of up to half that amount for the first six months, and during that time to examine the allocation of the funds in the planned review. It is not a cut, and I wish to make that perfectly clear. Nor, as I have assured NACAB, is there any question of disrupting the planning and funding of central support services for local bureaux in the year as a whole.

My prime concern is with the allocation and the general use of the money. I have a clear duty to satisfy myself that the most effective possible use is being made of the substantial public funds involved. NACAB itself accepts that and has said so.

It has been suggested that the current controversy could undermine the confidence of some local authorities in the CAB service and reduce its commitment to bureaux funding. That would be highly regrettable, and I welcome the remarks of the hon. Gentleman on that subject. I shall look at his suggestion about a circular.

I make it absolutely clear that the devotion of the 10,000 volunteers who work in the bureaux is beyond question. They have our complete backing and I expect local authorities to continue to give them full support.

Let me turn now to the other aspect that I will not disguise for a moment has concerned me—assertions of attitudes which, if true, call into question the organisation's commitment to impartiality. This concern is not new. I thought it right to mention the existence of these complaints to the chairman and to seek her unequivocal assurance that they were unfounded and that impartiality was essential in the service. I was glad to see the resolution of the association's national council, adopted last month, which reaffirms the politically impartial nature of the CAB service and undertakes to investigate thoroughly and diligently any alleged breach of this principle. Moreover, NACAB has recently reviewed and consolidated the guidelines on impartiality for the use of all bureaux. These make the position very clear, and I have been assured by Lady Ricketts that any breach of them will be effectively investigated.

My concern all along has been for the principles followed by the service on this question of political impartiality; and I have seen the task of dealing with any suggestions of failure in individual cases to measure up to the association's own rules as a matter for it to resolve and not for me. This has informed my attitude from the beginning.

I come now to the way forward. Both NACAB and I are agreed that there should be an early and independent review. This was foreshadowed in my statement to the House the other day. The review will have two purposes: first, to ensure that within the funds available the national association is able to give the best possible service and support to local CABs; and, second, to ensure that the money available is spent in the most effective way. I am anxious that it should be completed as soon as possible. I am consulting the officers of the association on the terms of reference and composition of the team, and I assure the House that I shall make an announcement shortly. I see the urgency now of getting on with this, and in no way do I want to increase anxieties and uncertainties by delaying it. I shall of course take into account many of the useful points made by the hon. Gentleman in the debate.

In the meantime, I must ensure that sufficient funding is available, and I have discussed this again with NACAB. I have no wish to create unnecessary problems or to interrupt the good work on such matters as training which is financed by the Government's grant aid. I am aware of the difficulties that could arise from this, and the bureaux will tell hon. Members who inquire that I have given them an assurance of my concern about this and the urgency of knowing where we stand.

I hope that what I have said today will have gone a little way towards keeping this matter in its proper perspective and a fairly long way towards clearing up some of the misunderstandings, because misunderstandings there have been.

Mr. McNally

Is the hon. Gentleman saying that he has nothing to say about funding, because I warn him that if that is his last word on funding he is in for a tremendous row? Wherever it is said—in press briefings or in any other circumstances—the House wants to know how he intends to fund the CAB movement past his six months' deadline. He has only two minutes in which to do it.

Dr. Vaughan

I accept the hon. Gentleman's warning. I have made it clear—I hope that he will do the same—that there is no question of a cut. I have also made it clear that we have determined the annual grant of £6.04 million —again there is no question of a cut—but that I am discussing the best use of those funds. The early part of the year does not require the full amount already allocated, so I suggest to those who are misled into great anxiety on this matter that this need not be as controversial a matter as they believe. I am fully aware of the urgency of letting people know where they stand. The hon. Gentleman does not need to tell me that.

Surely it is right that I pay tribute to the invaluable work of the citizens advice bureaux wherever and whenever I can. That is most important because of the nature of their work and the way in which they carry it out. Surely it is right to see a clear difference between voluntary work in local bureaux, paid for locally, and the central work by NACAB, which is paid for by the Government. It must be right to review those central funds from time to time, and it is also right that, when people express concern to me, I should seek reassurance from NACAB.

It would be a tragedy if loyal supporters and workers of the movement were to become alienated by the allegations, all the more so if that has happened because of any misunderstandings. I appeal to everyone to guard against that danger. What the citizens advice bureaux offer is, in my view — I know that it is shared by hon. Members—too precious to allow it to be devalued in this way.

Mr. McNally

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. When an hon. Member asks a question and the ministerial response is unsatisfactory, there is a formula whereby he stands up and says that, because of the nature of the reply, he will ask for an Adjournment debate. When an hon. Member has already obtained an Adjournment debate and receives a totally unsatisfactory reply, with the Minister flannelling and avoiding the real issue, how can he go further?

Mr. Deputy Speaker

The hon. Gentleman knows that that is not a point of order. The Minister is responsible for his speech. The hon. Gentleman has been here long enough, and is ingenious enough, to know that there are other ways of raising such matters.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at two minutes past Three o'clock.