THE March 15 Citizen informs us that the reduction in local taxpayers' subsidy to Signposts, Homeless Action and three other groups is still raging fiercely.

It would help Citizen readers to judge who's right in this dispute if we could get honest and full answers to the following questions about the five organisations whose money has been cut.

What percentage of their funds goes to poor people in real need and what percentage is spent on manager salaries, administration and office decoration?

Are several groups providing advice/services which could be delivered more effectively and at less cost by a single organisation?

Do any of the five groups have unintended negative side-effects, causing problems to people living near their premises?

Do the managers of these groups have effective policies to prevent or solve the problems their activities may cause?

Do the managers of the five groups seek to build links with local people in the areas they operate - other than their clients?

What overall effect does Signposts, Homeless Action have on attempts by local people and the council to revive the poor areas of our district and solve the many problems? Specifically, we need to know whether these groups activities help or hinder the revival of Morecambe as a family holiday resort, the fight against crime, violence and drug abuse, the renewal of local neighbourhoods, attempts to provide full employment, job security and decent pay for those who work.

Finally, are the group's managers willing to change their approach in response to the honest, genuine concerns of local people and their representatives on the council?

An open public discussion of these issues is needed. The small minority of rough sleepers locally should get help but councillors shouldn't give a blank cheque to any group, however well intentioned, without thorough investigation of the that group's performance in the real world.

Labour Man Morecambe