---

Lord Northbourne: About a year ago the noble Baroness very courteously sent me details of a scheme to encourage volunteering. Indeed, I am not entirely sure that the Government did not set aside a substantial sum of money to support projects for volunteers. I follow the argument raised by the noble Lord, Lord Murray. The Government must make up their mind as to whether or not they want to encourage volunteers.

I am involved with the Stepney children's fund which runs camps during the summer. The camps cater for about 100 children and the cost is something under £150 per child. We have 40 youngsters, mostly university graduates or young people from universities, acting as volunteers for one week only. At a cost of £10, that would mean at least another £400--indeed, nearly 5 per cent.--on our total costs. That is a significant amount.

The Lord Bishop of Coventry: I want to dispel the notion that we can choose the volunteers for whom we require a certificate. That is simply not the case. Under the Children Act we have to provide certificates. Therefore, in such circumstances, we would have to get as much certification as we could; that would be required of us. As has already been said by the noble Lord, Lord Weatherill, there has been tremendous pressure upon us to do so. We need a degree of certification, so we would need to get as much certification as we could. This will bear very heavily on voluntary organisations. It could kill voluntary recruiting.

I do not believe that Members of the Committee who have spoken have sufficiently represented what a strong destructive effect this will have on voluntary effort. I should plead particularly for those areas where we are, at present, trying desperately to raise the number of volunteers to help with children and young people. I refer to inner cities and the housing estates of our land. I would say that the measure is one which could destroy such efforts if we do not pass an amendment like the one moved by the noble Lord, Lord Weatherill. We must ask the Government to think again on the matter. This cost must be covered. It cannot be covered by the voluntary organisations themselves and it cannot be covered by the volunteers; indeed, it would simply discourage them. It is simply not true to say that we would have choice in the matter as regards whom we certificated. Whatever we know about people beforehand, we must apply the process to everyone.

Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank: I should like to add the support of this side of the Committee to the very

2 Dec 1996 : Column 477

powerful expressions of opinion which we have heard from all Members of the Committee. As the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh said, this is a modest and limited measure, yet it is of the greatest importance to voluntary organisations of all sizes and identities.

I should merely like to say that I am sure that the Minister will spell out very clearly in her response what the cost of this measure might be. The Bill refers to a "turnover" of £18 million as regards its "financial effects". As far as I understand it, the only income of the agency is likely to come from fees. In working out the likely income and deciding what the fees should be, the Treasury and the department must have made some assumptions about what proportion of the total number of applications would come from the voluntary sector. Therefore, I am sure that the Minister will tell the House--indeed, she is nodding her head--the sort of sum of money that would be involved.

Given that the turnover is, in Exchequer terms, as small as £18 million, I cannot believe that the extra cost of granting such certificates free to voluntary organisations (given proper safeguards) is one which the Exchequer should not bear. I say that in anticipation of an argument which the Minister may very fairly put forward--namely, that if this were to be a self-financing organisation and no fees were charged to voluntary bodies, then the fees to others would be greatly increased.

As the Committee knows, at a later stage I intend to oppose the Question that Clause 100 stand part of the Bill. There are many objections to the clause as a whole which do not apply in any way to Clauses 101 and 102. One of the arguments which we shall bear in mind in our discussion today is the considerable sum of money which any applicant may have to pay, if that is not borne by the organisation to which he or she is applying. Were this amendment to be accepted, I hope there will be no argument about the additional costs falling on those who will have to pay for the certificates. It will be a relatively small sum. In view of the importance of the issue and the strength of feeling in this Chamber, I am sure it is a sum that the Treasury should bear.

Lord Craig of Radley: I wish to support the noble Lord, Lord Weatherill, in this amendment, and to follow what the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers, has just said. We are reminded in the Bill that the effect on public expenditure is expected to be broadly cost neutral. Although the figures which the noble Lord, Lord Weatherill, has mentioned are clearly of great importance to individual charities, it does not seem to me that they amount to a large sum of money regarding the overall effect on public expenditure. No doubt the Minister will be able to put us right on those figures, but the statement in the Bill that the overall effect on public expenditure is expected to be neutral would still stand. I very much support the noble Lord, Lord Weatherill.

Baroness Rawlings: I declare an interest as an honorary vice-president of the British Red Cross Society and as someone who has been a volunteer worker for many years. I speak on my own behalf.

2 Dec 1996 : Column 478

I had every intention of supporting the noble Lord, Lord Weatherill, on what appeared to be an important amendment for which I had great sympathy. However, I realised that the point in the amendment which concerns the costs of the enhanced checks on voluntary workers does not cover every worker. Perhaps the Minister will reiterate this point. But, as I understand it, voluntary organisations do not have to check everyone through this system. Therefore the heavy costs that have been mentioned will not arise. Organisations will naturally follow their sensible recruitment procedures and follow up normal checks and references. Only if they are suspicious will they need to use the enhanced system. Will the Minister clarify what would happen if a person who was not checked through the enhanced system turned out to be a "wrong'un"? As few volunteers will need to be checked in this way, costs for any organisation should be minimal and should not amount to the vast sums that have been mentioned. Therefore I hope that the amendment will be withdrawn.

Lord Northbourne: On what basis does the noble Baroness state that only a small percentage of volunteers will need to be checked? Would she be prepared to take the responsibility of accepting unknown volunteers who offer their services to work with children without checking them?

Baroness Rawlings: There would be checks because all organisations carry out minimal checks. However, if they know people who have worked for them for a long time and who have lived in the same area for a long time, they will not need to conduct a criminal check on those people.

3.45 p.m.

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: I declare an interest as a vice-president of the scout movement in Lancashire. I am deeply troubled by the preceding contribution and exchange. When this legislation is enacted, the scout movement and other voluntary organisations will be placed under pressure, as my noble friend Lord Murray said. In the circumstances of our time voluntary organisations have to protect themselves through insurance. They have to protect themselves against any action that may be taken in the future. Insurers will demand that due care is taken. The situation that has been described is rather like someone insuring his house against burglary and then refusing to fit catches on the windows.

For many years my sons belonged to the scout movement. I believe it is difficult for a scout troop leader at local level to judge those individuals who will need to be checked and those who will not. That measure would place such people in an invidious position. I believe that even if such people were not required to take that decision they would still do so. They will be required to do so by insurance companies. It will be impossible for people organising volunteers within their local community to decide that one group of people must be checked but another must not.

It is precisely in some of the most deprived and transient communities in cities where the checks will be needed most as individuals in those kind of communities

2 Dec 1996 : Column 479

will have little knowledge of people who volunteer their services. Those are the very sectors of our community which will have the greatest difficulty in bearing the costs we have been discussing. Some Members of the Committee on the Government Benches have said that the measure may not be as expensive as it seems, or that we cannot quantify the figures. I believe--I say this with the greatest respect--that they miss the point. Many people from different sides of the Chamber have expressed concern about this measure. If in two or three years' time it is discovered that the measure has damaged the volunteer movement, it will be too late to try to retrieve the situation. I support the amendment.

Lord Swinfen: I declare an interest as I work for a voluntary organisation which uses volunteers. However, I do not wish to use that organisation as an example because it employs few volunteers. However, I feel that the insurers of voluntary organisations which employ any volunteers will insist that these checks are undertaken. If they do not do so, the insurers are idiots. However, insurers are not idiots and they like to cover themselves from all angles.

Often social services departments place children with voluntary organisations. I am sure that the directors of social services will want to know that the voluntary organisations with which they place those children have undertaken these checks; otherwise, those children will be placed with other voluntary organisations, or somewhere where the local authority has to pay for them, in which case the costs to the community would be considerably greater. I am not a lawyer but I suspect that if the measure reaches the statute book trustees of a voluntary organisation who failed to insist that the checks were undertaken would be failing in their duties as trustees. Therefore there will inevitably be an increased cost to the voluntary organisation because of these checks.

I have some notes on one voluntary organisation which employs some 3,370 volunteers a year who give some 5,257 weeks of their time. Therefore that organisation employs volunteers who spend, on average, less than a fortnight with that organisation. Therefore that organisation will face a considerable administrative burden as well as the cost of carrying out the checks. With that number of volunteers, at a fee of £10, the cost to this organisation would be £33,700 a year. However, if as a result of the checks 5 per cent. of its volunteers were no longer to come forward, it would then cost that organisation an extra £115,000 a year to pay for the additional permanent staff whom it would be required to take on board.

There are additional costs to voluntary organisations for not carrying out the checks. However, when they use volunteers, the cost is so large that I believe we should support the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Weatherill.

---