HL Deb 20 March 1997 vol 579 cc1120-5

69 Clause 103, page 43, line 1, leave out ("the prescribed fee") and insert ("any fee that is payable in relation to the application under regulations made by the Secretary of State").

Baroness Blatch

My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 69. I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 70, 73, 74, 75, 80 and 81.

These amendments replace the provisions for free checks for volunteers which were passed by noble Lords during consideration of this Bill in Committee and provide instead a statutory power which will allow the Secretary of State to exempt certain groups, such as volunteers, from paying any fee.

During previous consideration of this Bill, both here and in another place, we have paid tribute to the enormous amount of good work that is done by volunteers in this country. I would like to do so again today. They selflessly give up their own time to help others and are a credit to their communities. This Government have a long-standing commitment to the voluntary sector which was encapsulated in the Make a Difference commitment. That commitment remains. Despite that commitment, the Government believe that the amendments passed by your Lordships' House for all checks to be provided free for all volunteers went too far.

During discussion of this issue, both within Parliament and outside, there has been much difference of opinion about what free checks for volunteers would actually cost. Many noble Lords have themselves given examples of the high costs which voluntary organisations believe they, or their volunteers, would have to meet. If free checks were to be provided that money would need to be found.

It is difficult to be precise, but available information suggests that between 8 million and 20 million people in this country act as volunteers. If we assume that checks were restricted to new volunteers, and that only those eligible for the higher level of checks—that is to say, enhanced criminal record certificates—were included, the minimum sum likely to be needed would be about £10 million a year.

Although we remain of the view that the provision of free checks for volunteers, or any other group, presents substantial difficulties, the Government recognise that there is a need to be flexible. We do not want entirely to rule out the prospect of free checks, should it prove possible to provide them to deserving groups at some point in the future. This is why we have amended the Bill so as to provide for a power which would allow certain groups, such as volunteers, to be exempted from paying fees for criminal record checks should it be possible at some time in the future.

I fully acknowledge that this is an important and sensitive issue, but I believe that the Government's approach is a sensible one. It balances our very real commitment to the voluntary sector with the realities of keeping down public expenditure.

I know that the noble Lord, Lord Weatherill, felt particularly strongly and led the fray, as it were, on this issue. I have no doubt that he will wish to respond to the Government's power to extend the possibility of free checks to categories of volunteers. I beg to move.

Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 69.—(Baroness Blatch.)

Lord Weatherill

My Lords, I am naturally sorry that my amendment, which was supported by the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, has failed and has been overturned in another place. I toyed with the idea of submitting a manuscript amendment this afternoon in same terms as that introduced yesterday in the other place by the right honourable gentleman the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed. It failed to find favour by 38 votes to 267. It would therefore be a waste of your Lordships' time if I were to do that today.

I must accept that the Government and the Minister have given a crumb of comfort to volunteering organisations, in essence, by saying that free checks on volunteers and other classes will be introduced when resources become available and that the matter will be kept under review. During many years in the other place, and fewer years here, I have heard those comfortable words on many occasions. I fear that in practice they do not add up to much.

In the meantime, volunteers will have to pay for themselves or, alternatively, the organisations to which they belong will have to pay. I shall not recount all the figures, but as I am so heavily involved with the Scouts and with St. John Ambulance, I must say that they estimate the cost to be in the region of £450,000. They do not believe that the volunteers who support them will pay for themselves.

There are many other organizations which are concerned with old and young people. It will not surprise your Lordships to hear that I am actively involved with Help the Aged—people of my age certainly should help the aged—and with Abbeyfields, the National Trust and the Prince's Trust. All those organisations will be affected.

As the Minister correctly said, there are approximately 8 million to 20 million volunteers in this country on whom we greatly depend. I am the first to agree that those who work with vulnerable people, whether they be young or old, should be properly screened, especially after the tragedy at Dunblane. But did not Lord Cullen state in his report that the costs should be kept within the limits of what organisations can pay? Have not the Government, in their commendable bid to encourage volunteering, introduced the Make a Difference campaign? My concern is that this clause of the Police Bill may well make a difference, but, sadly, an adverse difference. That would be a very great shame.

Lord Swinfen

My Lords, I support the noble Lord, Lord Weatherill. I am sure that the House will agree that he has reached the age of sagacity and has a much better mind than those as young as myself.

I declare an interest because I work for a charity which employs volunteers. I should have liked the Commons not to have rejected the amendment accepted by this House and so ably moved by the noble Lord, Lord Weatherill. I am sure that those who insure voluntary organisations and charities will insist that these checks are carried out, sometimes to enormous cost to charities or to smaller cost to masses of individuals.

The trustees of such organisations will have a legal duty to those who are looked after by the charities and voluntary organisations to have the checks undertaken. The officers of those organisations, for their own protection, will want to see that the checks are carried out. I believe that if something happens to a vulnerable person, no matter of what age, the nearest relation may well be advised to sue the charity, particularly where the check has not been undertaken. Therefore, I fear that there will be considerable cost to all charities as a result of this provision.

As the noble Lord, Lord Weatherill, said, Lord Cullen in his report advised, particularly when dealing with cases of children, that the costs should be kept to the minimum for charities and that government funds should be provided to assist. Perhaps in reply my noble friend the Minister can give a ray of hope that the organisations dealing with children, or even certain groups of children, will in the foreseeable future have the costs reduced or abolished entirely.

6.15 p.m.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey

My Lords, noble Lords have been dignified in defeat. It is not a happy situation. The spirit behind the amendments which were carried by the House was that they are of great importance. At the same time, we must recognise their cost implications. I do not wish to appear too responsible; occasionally I enjoy being irresponsible about money, but perhaps this is not one of those occasions.

The balance will have to be struck in due course between the range of certificates which are provided by Part V and the problems which have been addressed by noble Lords in the amendments which we carried. The problem is that the charities to which they refer are covered by what are now Clauses 104 and 105. They are covered by the criminal records certificates rather than by the more general criminal conviction certificate in Clause 103. If there is a possibility of providing extra resources for Clauses 104 and 105, perhaps by delaying the implementation of Clause 103, that might go part of the way to solving the problem.

I note that in the letter which the Home Secretary wrote to the noble Lord, Lord Weatherill—the noble Lord has been kind enough to show it to me—he confirms that there is the possibility of providing free checks through an order-making power, which is provided for in an amendment. I recognise that it would be highly desirable when resources permit to use that order-making power. However, these are difficult areas. None of us knows the true cost. For example, none of us knows how many volunteers work for several organisations and therefore would require only a single certificate. Like the noble Lords, I do not believe that it is realistic to seek to overturn the amendment, but there must be great regret over the additional burdens which will be put on the voluntary movement.

Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank

My Lords, I welcome the half conversion of the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, to the merits of the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Weatherill. I understand that when the amendment was proposed the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, was properly concerned about the consequences in terms of costs. I fully understand that and make no criticism. He reminds me that he supported the amendment at that time. I am glad that he did so, despite the reservations that I knew he had about the burden which might fall on the Treasury. The amendment made by your Lordships' House was most worthwhile and, like the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, I am sorry that it has been rejected.

Will the Minister remind your Lordships, because I have forgotten, of the intention with regard to the implementation of the separate parts of Part V? That was referred to by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh. I am not clear whether the Government have committed themselves to early implementation of the provisions in relation to criminal conviction certificates or whether that is to be phased in. That was referred to at the early stages of our debate, but I now cannot recall precisely what was said.

I agree that it is difficult to calculate what will be the cost. I make no criticism of the noble Baroness that she has found it possible on this and other occasions to speak more briefly to your Lordships than have her colleagues in another place. But in the rather fuller remarks made by her colleague, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Mr. Kirkhope, although he sought to describe equity, practicality and cost as the three reasons that the Government were unable to accept the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Weatherill, in the final resort it amounted to the question of cost; who was to pay; and what the cost would be.

I hope that these provisions do not result in fewer people coming forward to volunteer, the organisations being able to have fewer volunteers, or the facilities provided in the Bill not being used. I should be very unhappy about any of those outcomes. But I believe a future government will have to return to the provisions of the Bill and bring forward amendments. It may well be that experience will show what amendments are acceptable not only to your Lordships' House but also to another place on a future occasion.

Therefore, while I regret the amendments and believe that the gesture made by the Government may well turn out to be cosmetic, there is widespread understanding on all sides of the House of the problem. We want the voluntary organisations to make the best use possible of the Bill but we do not want them to be penalised by the costs which may very well fall on that.

Lord Elton

I have the deepest sympathy for the noble Lord, Lord Weatherill, and all those who supported his amendments. Being active in the voluntary sector, I am fully alive to the penalty which the voluntary sector may have to face in years to come.

However, we must strike a balance in relation to what is desirable. If it is agreed that this is a form of protection for young people which is needed, the question is how it is to be paid for. It is either put onto central taxation or onto the voluntary sector or the volunteer. The Government's response is much better than they have been given credit for. I am not at all sure that the amendments to which the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers, referred will be necessary to bring about the state of affairs which he seeks.

The Secretary of State is empowered to make regulations when he wishes to exempt certain people from payment. That payment will then fall on the general taxpayer. No amendment is needed to bring that about but merely the stroke of a pen of an incoming Secretary of State. Therefore, the matter remains in the political arena and the next government will be able to decide who shall and who shall not have to pay. In doing so by means of regulation, I should point out, because it is not at the end of the Bill where one would expect to find it but in Clause 114, that the regulations will be by statutory instrument through the negative procedure and therefore available for debate by Parliament. That is a better solution than noble Lords have given credit for.

Earl Russell

My Lords, I share the regret that the amendment has not been accepted. The Government have lavished a great deal of praise on your Lordships' House in recent times and, while we are all grateful for praise, that praise does not appear to have been matched by any general readiness to accept your Lordships' amendments. I have occasionally entertained the perhaps uncharitable suspicion that their liking for your Lordships' House is in proportion to the ease with which they are able to reverse its amendments.

Baroness Blatch

My Lords, it is end of term and I am not going to bite too much on the words of the noble Earl. However, a great deal of time and serious consideration have been given to the amendments to the Bill by my right honourable friend—and I refer both to the surveillance amendments and the amendments on this matter. I have come to appreciate that when in government, one must consider some of the points made so eloquently by my noble friend Lord Elton. It is a question of balance and determining who pays. We have that indeterminate number of people out there in the voluntary sector—between 8 million and 20 million people. Therefore, it seems to us responsible to think about how the concern could be addressed while at the same time remembering that some difficult decisions would need to be faced as to who is to pay.

I know that the noble Lord, Lord Weatherill, is disappointed. I accept and understand that. But I think he would be much more disappointed had the debates been cut off at this point. As my noble friend said, the matter is still alive and future parliaments will be able to consider the issue.

Perhaps I may say to my noble friend Lord Swinfen that it is not possible for me to be definitive about priorities at this stage. There is no question that children are a priority, but the category of people to be exempt will depend very much on the ability of that category to meet the payments and on the particular case that it is able to make. That will all be part of extremely extensive consultation. Therefore, without anticipating the outcome of that debate which would follow by prompting the use of the powers available to a future Secretary of State, I hope that noble Lords will accept that the Government's response was not wholly negative.

The noble Lord, Lord Rodgers, asked when this is to be implemented. The intention would be to phase the criminal conviction certificate after the introduction of the criminal record and enhanced criminal certificate.

On Question, Motion agreed to.