---

The Lord Bishop of Lincoln: I wish to speak on behalf of the Churches, which are perhaps the largest reservoir for volunteers in our society. In 1995 the Bishops of the Church of England adopted a child protection policy which is now being implemented in all

2 Dec 1996 : Column 473

dioceses. I wish to pay tribute to the efficiency of the Department of Health's consultancy service in helping us with that policy.

The Churches welcome in principle the possibility of acquiring enhanced checks as affording additional protection for children. Access to enhanced checks would clearly provide credibility for all voluntary organisations with statutory agencies such as probation, education and social services. All of us who work with children need to do what we can to promote good practice which can restrict opportunities for any abuse of children. We have a duty to ensure that those placed in positions of trust do not abuse them.

I wish to add my concerns to those already expressed in the Committee and gathered together in the amendment about the burdens which the payments for enhanced checks will place on the voluntary sector. Surely, if the Government are committed to the principle enshrined in the Children Act 1989--namely, that the welfare of children is paramount--government funding should cover the cost of the enhanced checks. Charging for checks may well be appropriate for profit-making organisations. However, as the Committee has been reminded, the agencies and the groups of volunteers about which we are speaking do not fall within that category.

There is no doubt about the considerable financial burdens which will be placed on voluntary organisations and the Churches should they be forced to pay for checks on their office holders and volunteers. Society relies a great deal for its well-being and enrichment on the work of volunteers. We need to keep that willingness and service at full strength, as the Government have recognised. If charging for checks is insisted upon, there is a clear danger that some people will be deterred by the requirement to pay, particularly as trustees and insurers will rightly insist upon that. In consequence, voluntary organisations will suffer and decline. I hope that the Committee will support the amendment.

Viscount Waverley: I rise to support the amendment. It must be right.

Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: A nice short speech!

Lord Campbell of Alloway: With respect to the noble Viscount, I wonder whether it is inevitably right. If, as the noble Lord, Lord Weatherill, said, we are dealing with 20 million people a year who offer their voluntary services, are all of them involved, or is the 20 million those who receive no remuneration other than expenses? As the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, raised the point, I should be interested to know what is the administrative position in terms of cost.

It is a little odd and unrealistic to suppose that those within that category who receive no remuneration other than expenses should have some form of waiver, whereas the others have none. It also seems a little odd that as part of their commitment, those who wish to offer their services should not be able or willing to pay and save the coffers of the charity. In that context,

2 Dec 1996 : Column 474

I totally accept that if the charities had to pay for 20 million people--if that be the figure--or for those who receive no remuneration other than expenses it would not be right.

Perhaps the Minister or another Member of the Committee can confirm that there are three checks. One costs £3 to £5; another more important check costs £5 to £6; and an enhanced check, concerned with those who work with children, costs £8 to £10. I begin to wonder whether it is inevitably right and necessary that the amendment should be approved, although I should be the first to agree that it is vital to the country to maintain the voluntary services, which fill a gap that inevitably exists in any state-funded regime.

Lord Renton: Before my noble friend sits down, will he clarify one matter? He referred to a waiver. Is he aware that we are dealing here only with the waiver of a prescribed fee? We are not dealing with the waiver of the certificate.

Lord Campbell of Alloway: I appreciated that fact and I am sorry if it was not apparent.

Lord Murray of Epping Forest: The noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, suggested that volunteers could well put their hands in their pockets and pay these trifling amounts. The fact is that many charities and bodies such as the Retirement and Senior Volunteer Programme are aiming at people who have retired early, perhaps having been made redundant, and are living on very low salaries indeed. We are hoping to provide them with an opportunity to fill their time before they reach the age of 60, 65 or whatever. They cannot afford to pay £3, or £5.

I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, that it is vitally important to encourage voluntary organisations, as the Government have emphasised. However, the Government must make up their mind whether they want to encourage voluntary organisations or to put obstacles in the way of recruiting volunteers. I say that because voluntary organisations cannot function without volunteers.

The experience of charities with which I am involved would suggest that it is becoming more difficult to recruit volunteers. On the one hand, there are more women working who previously might have been available for such voluntary work--with children, at day centres, and so on. On the other hand, as has already been said, charities--especially children's charities--are much more sensitive about the problems of recruiting people who may subsequently turn out to be "wrong'uns". They are bending over backwards so as not to recruit such people.

The central point of the amendment is that, as the noble Lord, Lord Weatherill, said, it brings out the fact that we are not discussing an optional extra; indeed, it will become a requirement. It will become standard practice. Insurers and others will expect charities to recruit people and ensure that, in the increasing state of litigiousness with which we are faced--and we only

2 Dec 1996 : Column 475

have to remember what has been happening in schools recently--they are protected against the dangers that are inherent in using volunteers.

Therefore, to impose any extra charge on volunteers or on their organisations in such a situation would be totally inconsistent with the Government's acceptable former policy. I hope that they will think again on the matter. However, if they will not, I hope that Members of the Committee will require them to do so.

3.30 p.m.

Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, I think that all Members of the Committee are grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Weatherill, for introducing such an amendment. It gives us the opportunity to consider the broad aspects of the issue of voluntary service, which everyone in this Chamber wishes to encourage. It also gives us the chance to talk about the possible costs that Clause 100, as it presently stands, might impose in a situation where no one in this place would wish to put anything by way of disincentive on to voluntary service. In that general sense, we must all be highly sympathetic to what the noble Lord said.

However, in arguing his case, the noble Lord said that there was a danger that the existence of a certificate of a criminal record might make some of the voluntary organisations rather more casual about their selection and training procedures and that in fact such a certificate was not a guarantee of either the morality or the ethical standards of anyone who might enter into voluntary work. In that sense, the existence of such a scheme of criminal records could be a counter indicator. Indeed, if I dare say so to the noble Lord with his parliamentary experience, I believe that he produced an argument that I might have expected to hear from the Government Front Bench in response.

When one considers the question of cost as regards what the Government propose, I must admit that I do not quite know what to think. We know about the cost of the certificates and we know how many people undertake voluntary work. However, to multiply one by the other and say that that is the cost to the voluntary sector, which there is a great temptation to do, would be entirely erroneous.

If we just argue the case of the Scouts, it seems to me that many people who might in a voluntary capacity help them may well, in my experience, have been Scouts themselves. People who grow out of scouting very often volunteer to carry on in the organisation in the service side of the business after they cease to be Scouts. The same applies to cadet forces and to almost all organisations. Therefore, in the case of a young man who has been, so to speak, under your hands for five or 10 years, is it credible that you would then ask for a certificate of criminal record on his account? I find that unbelievable. If someone as distinguished as the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, were to volunteer to work in the voluntary sector, I would find it equally unbelievable if such a certificate were required. Indeed, I find the idea preposterous. We must think most carefully about what the real financial burdens of this proposal would be as opposed to what the theoretical financial burdens seem to be. There is a clear distinction between the two.

2 Dec 1996 : Column 476

Although I am sure that all Members of the Committee have sympathy with the thought behind the amendment, I do not believe that we should blind ourselves to the reality of the situation: the actual cost will not be anything like the theoretical cost. We must also be well aware of the argument put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Weatherill; namely, that even if such a scheme were to exist, it would do nothing to remove the obligation from the voluntary bodies to make the proper checks into the background of any individual whom they may wish to take on to work in a voluntary capacity.

---