Oral Answers to Questions

---

[back to previous text]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Barry Gardiner): The right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) has been far too generous in the criticisms that he has levelled at my Department and the Government. I have listened to all that he has said. He has gone through in considerable detail and with great accuracy many of the things that have taken place in the Department in the past three years since his colleague, Reg Empey—the then DETI Minister—initiated the proposals that resulted in the Bristol university report.

The right hon. Gentleman started his speech by saying that there is nothing intrinsically wrong with debt. That is absolutely right. However, the report highlighted the fact that 12,500 households had three or more indebtedness commitments and that, on average, the advice service’s clients owed more than £9,000 to six different creditors. The report also estimated that only one in seven, or 1,800, of the 12,500 households that needed assistance through debt counselling were receiving it. I find it staggering that given that that was identified at the latest by August 2003, I should be standing in this Committee almost two years later having to account for why so little has been done.

The right hon. Gentleman asked about the lead responsibility between the Departments. There was a certain amount of to-ing and fro-ing between them, but I do not need in any way to minimise that because I do not believe that it was the essential problem. It was perfectly open to either Department—certainly to DETI—to take a lead in the matter, to get on with it after the report was produced, and to push through the sorts of counselling service that the Bristol report mentions. Let me turn to it for a moment. It says that, in its estimation,

“To meet the needs of all those in multiple debt in Northern Ireland would require around 125 full-time money advisers. Clearly not all people in multiple debt will seek advice from a money advice service and some would be better served by the self-help approach. A more realistic estimate, therefore, is that around 60-65 full-time money advisers would be needed, giving a current shortfall of around 50.”

That was in 2003.

It beggars belief that, in the full knowledge that six out of seven households needed that service, and that a report commissioned by the Department at a cost of £10,000 had stated that 50 extra full-time advisers were needed, it took this long to put through the provision and to reach the current position, which is that at the end of last month—just a few days ago—the letters of agreement were issued and accepted. The posts, not all that are needed, but those that are to be created, can now be advertised.

The right hon. Gentleman was good enough to concede at the end of his remarks that his advice had come from a partial source, so it might be partial. I say the following in no way in mitigation of the way in
 
Column Number: 51
 
which the Department has responded to such a serious situation, but there was originally a certain difficulty between CAB and Advice NI in their preparedness to undertake a joint debt advice delivery service. Later, there were difficulties in guaranteeing both the geographical coverage, which one of those organisations, CAB, is well able to provide, and the ability to reach the most disadvantaged in the community. It was important for the Government, and my Department, to ensure that both types of cover were provided, so that the debt service could be accessed by those who needed it most. In no way does that mitigate the behaviour and the inactivity in the Department.

The right hon. Gentleman also mentioned the latest issue of reprofiling. I am sure that he is aware that there was a discussion the other day between the chief executive of the CAB and the permanent secretary at DETI. I do not know, but I believe that it was initiated by the right hon. Gentleman because of the cessation of funding to one of the debt counselling workers at Banbridge. He and I both know that one of the features of life in Northern Ireland that gives rise to great problems is the fact that so much of the funding of important services is temporary. It is done through Peace funding and other sorts of funding for two or three years, and then it disappears. Therefore, it is difficult to put in place the core funding that is needed. Rather than berate the Department for the offer to reprofile the funding that had been allocated, we should bear in mind that it was in the spirit of flexibility and trying to help that it said it would be possible for the CAB to reprofile the funds in the way suggested, in order to ensure that an advice worker was able to remain in post in Banbridge.

Mr. Trimble: To reinforce my earlier point—my source of information is up to date as of 5 o’clock on Monday night—as of that time the CAB was still very unhappy and did not think that the offer made to them at the meeting earlier that week really met its needs. Will the Minister ask his Department to reconsider the matter and speak to the CAB again about it?

Mr. Gardiner: I shall happily take on board the right hon. Gentleman’s request and urge the Department to look at the need. He will be aware that in his own constituency, a debt advice worker is still in place in Craigavon and the recommendations of the Bristol report were fairly specific as to where the bulk of the advice posts should go: Craigavon, Newry, Omagh, Belfast and Derry in particular. I will take on board his remarks and ask that the Department brings me up to date with the latest discussions that have taken place.

[Mr. Peter Pike in the Chair]

The right hon. Gentleman asked another question, which he asked because it goes to the heart of good governance and to the heart of the question of direct rule versus the devolved Assembly: when did I, as Minister, become aware of the matter? The answer is that I became aware of it last week when he tabled the debate and when I read the draft speech that was
 
Column Number: 52
 
prepared for me, which I had been unwilling to use. Although it repeats much of the chronicles of disaster that he has adumbrated to the Committee this afternoon, I fear that it goes little further.

I would like to pick out some things from the speech that I shall address specifically. We are now in a position where the arrangements in place will fund 12 debt advice posts—not the 50 needed to meet the shortfall—eight of which are new. Again, that goes to the heart of the issue of short-term funding, where absolutely essential posts are constantly falling out of the core funding of the organisation. Four of those front-line posts are ones which would otherwise come to an end, but which will continue now because of the funding provided.

Perhaps this is the most significant feature of what the Government are doing: the arrangements will provide two new regional support posts. One of the issues that the right hon. Gentleman will recall was identified in the Bristol report was a systematic lack of training. Because of the over-stretched nature of the service, debt advisers’ time was constantly taken up with providing advice. They were not able to receive training or even to communicate with each other and share best practice and other information. They often felt very isolated and very focused on providing advice and casework. Providing those two regional training support posts to provide specialist training and to integrate money advice within the wider advice structures will be a positive feature of the way ahead.

Both Departments agree that the specification outlined in the key debt advice outputs and outcomes will be delivered through the pilot project. The specification also requires that there should be a collaborative approach.

6.49 pm

Sitting suspended for a Division in the House.

7.4 pm

On resuming—

Mr. Gardiner: I was about to turn to the question that the right hon. Gentleman raised about the telephone line service. It is another instance of the advice providers not being able to agree on who was best placed to deliver the debt line service, but I give him an assurance that the Department will revisit the issue during the pilot—probably later on this year—and that we will certainly then consider a public tender to ensure that the service is put forward.

The right hon. Gentleman rightly voiced his concern that the £250,000 of funding originally allocated to the debt counselling service in 2004–05 was surrendered by my Department. I can tell him only that his concern was, I am sure, no greater than mine. I was furious when I found that that was indeed the case—that the money had been lost through inactivity.

Of course, it was right that at that stage in the financial year, with the Department unable to spend moneys, they should be returned to the balance for reallocation in accordance with the procedures of the Northern Ireland block. I make no bones about that,
 
Column Number: 53
 
but it is completely unacceptable that it should have been as a result of inactivity that £0.25 million was lost to people who desperately need the service. As I have said, what was done was in line with prudent financial management and good corporate governance, but that does not diminish the disappointment and anger that I am sure the right hon. Gentleman and I share.

I am pleased to say that the full allocation of £400,000 remains for 2005–06 and that a similar budget is envisaged for 2006–07 and 2007–08. I emphasise that that is the biggest single injection of funding that there has ever been into debt counselling in Northern Ireland. In that respect, what the right hon. Gentleman and his colleague initiated all those years ago is at last bearing fruit. It is just a great shame that along the way some of the fruit has been culled prematurely.

I assure the right hon. Gentleman that I believe we should focus clearly on the issues that were raised so long ago, which are now beginning to work through
 
Column Number: 54
 
into debt counselling services and advice centres across Northern Ireland. We should pay close attention to the recommendations in the report prepared by Bristol university, which were insistent about the need for an infrastructure that can go some way towards tackling the level of indebtedness in the population.

I do not know whether 50 is still the appropriate number for new posts that are needed. That seems quite a lot to me, but I am convinced that we need to ensure that there is a comprehensive service—geographically and in relation to demography and disadvantage—that will properly deal with the concerns that the right hon. Gentleman has raised.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at eight minutes past Seven o’clock.

      

                                                                                    

---

Prepared 9 March 2005