Police Act 1997 (Criminal Records) (Amendment No. 4) Regualtions 2003

[back to previous text]

Mr. Foulkes: On a point of order, Mr. Benton. Would it be in order for you to adjourn the Committee for a few minutes? It seems that the speech is new to the hon. Gentleman and that he is surprised by the words that he is coming across. There are gaps. It might be helpful for him to reread the speech before he actually delivers it.

The Chairman: That is not a point of order.

Mr. Brazier: I am grateful to the right hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes) for his helpful advice. He has been a parliamentarian for a long time.

On no point can the fee increases be justified. As someone with a long-term interest in children's issues in particular, I was one of those who supported the CRB proposal from the very beginning from the Back Benches. However, the introduction of the CRB was, frankly, a disaster in so many different ways, and I have given some reasons why the delays and mistakes have occurred.

The huge increase in charges cannot be justified. The Government should sort out the service. The Conservatives, too, shall vote against the measure.

3.2 pm

Bob Russell (Colchester): We have an opportunity this afternoon to support the voluntary sector, because the hon. Member for Knowsley, North and Sefton, East (Mr. Howarth) has indicated that he will oppose the regulations. Only one other Government Back-Bench Member is needed.

Column Number: 12

Mr. Howarth: I believe that the hon. Gentleman misunderstood me. I said that I was sorely tempted. However, the temptation abates with every moment that passes in this debate.

Bob Russell: That is disappointing, because I took his comments as a sincere offer of trying to embrace and bring us all together on this serious matter. With only one more Labour Member, we could have annulled the regulations and secured the breathing space that the voluntary organisations in particular need in order to make representations to the Government.

I hope that when the Minister sums up he will explain why only one month's notice has been given and why there has been no consultation. The CRB concept was long in the making, and I believe that most members of the Committee were involved at one stage or another in contributing to debates. It beggars belief that we have come here this afternoon because of regulations being rushed through that will more than double the charges. It will have a serious impact on the Government's social inclusion policies in the voluntary sector and a massive impact on our education systems. We all know that schools are saying that they have inadequate funding. We can argue over whether they are exaggerating or not, but we have heard one of the professional bodies saying how matters are for it.

Mr. Foster: The hon. Gentleman will know my great interest in education. Has he made an assessment of what the additional liability will be for an average comprehensive school in his constituency?

Bob Russell: No, I have not; but I should have thought that that was the sort of the thing that the Government would wish to ascertain before they put the charges through. The hon. Gentleman makes a valid point, and could now be the swing person to annul the regulations.

The Chairman: Order. That is the second reference that the hon. Member has made to annulment. For good order's sake, may I point out that the Committee is not empowered to annul the regulations? What we are doing at the moment is considering it. The Committee is not empowered to annul the regulations.

Bob Russell: Thank you Mr. Benton. I take your advice, and any advice that the Government can give, on whatever mechanism is available to us to help the education and voluntary sectors. I should like an explanation of why the charges have been more than doubled at such short notice, and if the hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier) wishes quickly to have words with the Front Bench on how we can collectively deliver on what he is obviously anxious to put forward, I am sure that everyone would leave here much happier.

The Churches Main committee has expressed concerns. Its secretary, Mr. Derek Taylor Thompson has written to my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Burstow) to say:

    ''Churches . . . are seriously affected by this increase, following the somewhat disastrous history of the Criminal Records Bureau and the additional costs to which this has given rise.''

Column Number: 13

I understand that representations have been made to the Home Secretary. Can the Minister say what response has been made? The Church has also made a strong point about the short notice and the lack of consultation, which have already been mentioned.

These are serious matters. I recognise that, as with the Child Support Agency, the CRB was a good idea, with all-party support, but the way in which it has rolled out has not been quite as was expected, and has not delivered what we all hoped that it would. It is rubbing salt into the wound more than to double the charges at such short notice. I appeal to the Minister and to his right hon. and hon. Friends to take stock of the situation. He must know that there is no real justification for the measure being rushed through. There is a case for it to be considered rationally, with consultation with all the bodies directly affected, to see how it can be taken forward.

3.7 pm

Mr. Peter Ainsworth (East Surrey): Following what the hon. Gentleman just said, a wise and senior colleague once told me that if a Bill had all-party support it should be treated with the very greatest of care. That has certainly turned out to be the case with the legislation introducing the CRB. What we have seen—my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier) took us over the course—has been a shambles and a disgrace. Extremely vulnerable people are now being asked to pay the price of what has gone wrong. We all know that the legislation was introduced to help and protect vulnerable people, particularly young people; but in the hands of the CRB, another set of vulnerable people will get it in the neck.

It is not often that when I receive one of those little cards telling me that I have the honour to serve on a Statutory Instrument Committee I smile a little, but I did on this occasion because I have received numerous letters from residents in my constituency, East Surrey, expressing concern about the operation of the CRB and, in particular, this huge hike in costs. Schools in Surrey already face a funding crisis, which is known to Ministers in the Department for Education and Skills, because we had a meeting with them recently. There is a serious problem, and any incremental cost on top of what they already have to shoulder is a serious matter for these schools.

The care home sector is in a particularly vulnerable state. Many residential care homes throughout Surrey, and several in my constituency, have closed in the past two or three years. The remaining ones are in pretty dire straits, as their proprietors do not hesitate to let me know. The fact that they face increases, such as those that have been proposed without consultation or a decent period of notice, is adding insult to injury. As some have pointed out, that may just tip the balance for a number of the remaining care homes in terms of their viability. That is not in the interest of vulnerable people in my constituency or elsewhere. That is why what we are debating is an extremely serious matter.

I have a letter from Mrs. Deso, who runs Wolf House residential rest home. She raises points that my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury mentioned in

Column Number: 14

his eloquent and fluent speech, including those about the increase in the national minimum wage and the national care standards commission fees, which have increased by 20 per cent.—care homes have to bear those, too—and the 142 per cent. increase in the enhanced CRB checks. She writes:

    ''It is totally unfair that our business planning should be continually prejudiced in this way. With the tight financial controls that we have to exercise because of the inadequate funding levels it is likely that some care homes will be forced to close because of the cumulative impact of the increasing on-costs being imposed by Government.''

That is no vain threat.

With my assistance and that of other hon. Members, the care home sector in my constituency has made representations to Surrey county council about ongoing underlying funding. The council is already spending more than what the Government think that it should on social services, and does its utmost adequately to fund the care home sector people for whom it is responsible, but there is no more money in the kitty. Every additional cost is a threat to the viability of homes such as Wolf House residential rest home, which provides a valuable service to the local community.

I have a letter from Mrs. Sally Vincent of Glebe House nursing home, who says that the increases that we are discussing this afternoon are

    ''likely to cost our Nursing Home several hundred pounds a year.''

She points out:

    ''When you multiply that by all the nursing and residential care homes in East Surrey . . . you may begin to wonder how the CRB could have the nerve to ask for so much extra money when it is failing even to achieve the level of performance of its predecessors.''

There is a crisis of confidence in the CRB, as well as a sense of outrage that the fees are increasing so astronomically while there is systemic failure by the organisation itself.

Mr. Foulkes: The hon. Gentleman is making an eloquent speech, and it makes me wonder why he is no longer in the shadow Cabinet; that is a great pity. He supported the principle of criminal record checks—

Mr. Brazier: We all did.

Mr. Foulkes: We all did, as the hon. Gentleman says. Presumably, the hon. Member for East Surrey (Mr. Ainsworth) still thinks that such checks are desirable. How would he pay for them?

 
Previous Contents Continue

House of Commons home page Parliament home page House of Lords home page search page enquiries ordering index


©Parliamentary copyright 2003
Prepared 9 July 2003