| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Baroness Blatch: The noble Lord has graphically illustrated why I believe there is so much misunderstanding about the Bill. On his first point, the Financial Memorandum is written to be entirely consistent with the code of practice and the way in which we believe it would work. The amendments are very different, however. They include waiving the fee completely, which will inevitably stimulate demand, which is what the noble Lord has said, as have the noble Lords, Lord Rodgers and Lord Weatherill: these checks will become common practice and the voluntary organisations will wish to check everybody.
We refer to £18 million as being the turnover in the first year, when, because of phasing--and we considered phasing--only enhanced and full checks would be undertaken. We estimated that about 2.5 million people would require checks. The code of practice does not encourage wholesale checks on absolutely everybody. It does argue for, say, making judgments about whether they need to be done, how much is known about people, whether they have the ability to pay, and all that sort of thing.
There is nothing inconsistent with the Financial Memorandum here. It is consistent with our proposals, but the Committee is discussing an amendment which is asking us to waive the fees, when of course a considerably larger number would need the checks than is envisaged by the Bill.
I was remiss in not coming back to the point raised by my noble friend Lady Carnegy, which links with the point of the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh. We did accept the recommendation of the noble Lord, Lord Cullen, and we did agree that an accreditation agency would be set up. We have agreed to that. I am able to give my noble friend the assurance which she sought from me that we will, of course, consult in some depth with the affected bodies, which will include Scouts, Guides and Brownies and so forth. So, there is nothing inconsistent there.
The noble Lord also said in his report that he saw no reason why the fee should not fall on individuals. Our proposals include that the cost should be amortised across all individuals, rather than that a large body, something between 8 and 20 million people, should be remitted by the effect of this amendment.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: May I pursue the specific point, because we are in Committee? The noble Lord, Lord Cullen, did say, did he not, that the costs should be kept within what such organisations can afford and that there should be government subsidy. That is the point that the Minister is failing to take into account. When the Minister talks about the numbers, surely at present checks are made by voluntary organisations and local authorities on the basis of an existing Home Office circular, and local authorities and voluntary organisations follow the terms of that circular
closely. Is the Minister actually saying that the result of the Government's proposals is going to be a reduction in the number of checks made? That is not the impression that the Government gave.
Baroness Blatch: No. I am pleased that the noble Lord recognised that this is important, because it is absolutely vital to the discussion we are having at the moment. We have taken the view that there will be more checks. We have also taken the view that it is reasonable to accept that individuals themselves should share the burden. I mean "share" the burden, because we are talking about somewhere between 5 million, on the lower end of the checks and 8 million to 10 million on the enhanced checks, and we have always argued that the enhanced checks would be used for a smaller number of people than the full checks, whereas all the arithmetic done by noble Lords opposite, and indeed by some of my own noble friends who support the amendment, has included the enhanced check for everybody. So there is a great deal of difference between us.
So, yes, we believe a number of things. This is important. Access to this information for the voluntary sector is absolutely crucial. We believe it would be fair to spread the cost across individuals. We accept the view of the noble Lord, Lord Cullen, that there is nothing wrong in levying this charge on individuals, but he quite rightly also said that the cost should be what the voluntary sector can afford. We believe that, if one applies the policy more sensibly and indulges in enhanced checks only where they are really needed, and full checks where the cost predominantly falls on the individual, and one bears in mind those people who, as my noble friend Lady Rawlings, said, are so well known to the local voluntary sector that it is considered that checks are not necessary at all, and if that is done consistently with the code of practice, the cost falling on the voluntary sector will be much reduced. Indeed, it will be more affordable.
There is nothing inconsistent in what I have said; there is nothing inconsistent with the Financial Memorandum; there is nothing inconsistent with our response to the Cullen Report and its recommendations. We believe that a balance has to be struck and I pose this question to Members opposite. They cannot argue with my arithmetic. There are between 8 million and 20 million people out there volunteering. If one takes the most conservative estimate, which is 8 million people, and multiplies that by £5 or £6 or £8 or £10, the sum of money is very substantial. If one takes 20 million and multiplies that by £5 or £6 or £8 or £10, the money involved is substantial indeed. It is incumbent upon Members opposite to say where that money will come from.
Lord Monson: Would my noble friend the Minister explain to me whether this fee will be subject to VAT, because if so it will increase by 17.5 per cent?
Baroness Blatch: My understanding is that it will not. If I am wrong, I will let my noble friend know. It is predominantly charitable bodies that are involved.
Viscount Bledisloe: The Minister has said that nobody can quarrel with her mathematics. I confess
I find them wholly unintelligible. I am sure I am being idiotic and not just naive, but the noble Baroness has multiplied the fee by the total number of volunteers. There will not be checks on every volunteer every year. The noble Baroness then said that that was the yearly figure. After the first year there will presumably be checks only on new volunteers, so surely her figures are totally meaningless.
Baroness Blatch: The noble Viscount absolutely makes my point. It may have been unintentional but the noble Viscount makes my point. I have argued that it will not be necessary to do checks on everybody, and I have also said that it is quite wrong for this Committee to accept the argument that you take the number of volunteers and multiply it by the sum of money, but that is precisely what everybody who has spoken in favour of the amendment has done. It is what the noble Lord, Lord Weatherill, has done. He gave an example of a body that had 800 members and he said the cost would be £8,000. There was another one with 400 members, so the cost would be £4,000.
All I can say is that I have taken those components of these amendments and I have played the same game. Perhaps I can make this final point to the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe. One of the difficulties of this amendment is that it is not a scientific proposition. The trouble is that the worst financial scenario that I have given could, in fact, come about. It is, in effect, a blank cheque. It is a blank cheque on the taxpayer and it is a blank cheque on those, if we choose the other way, who would be required to pay, because the truth is that we do not know whether the voluntary sector will check everybody. We do not know whether they will do an enhanced check on everybody or a full check on everybody, but what we do know is that the number can range from the very conservative estimate I gave, which at the bottom end of those figures is £44 million, right to the top end of that estimate, which is £200 million.
The truth is that when we sign up to this amendment we virtually sign up to a blank cheque. It is as long as a piece of string.
Lord Weatherill: I have listened with interest and a good deal of sympathy to what the noble Baroness has said. This is another case of our old friend "the law of unexpected consequences". In the light of Dunblane the whole Committee and most charities would support the thrust of Lord Cullen's recommendations, but the unexpected consequences, as many noble Lords have stated, have been rather different. I accept what the noble Baroness has said about the Scouts or the Guides, who have codes of good practice. Indeed, as I mentioned, Thomas Hamilton was refused a certificate to be a Scout leader as a result of the Scouts' own checks, although he had no criminal record.
There is another point. Are these checks necessary every year because, in effect, as a noble Lord behind me has just whispered in my ear, they are rather like an MOT certificate which is only valid for a period, probably one year?
Baroness Blatch: I promised that I would not come back to my Chief Whip unless the noble Lord said something which could be challenged. There is a provision that one cannot simply come back frequently. There will be a period specified, which will be very much longer than one year, for updating purposes.
Lord Weatherill: That may be so. I do not wish to stress the point any more; but although allegedly voluntary, these checks would, in effect, as both the right reverend Prelates said, become mandatory because of insurers, trustees and other people. Furthermore, some local government officers have already publicly stated that they would refuse to lease premises to youth organisations unless they had carried out the checks. So I am afraid that I remain unconvinced by what the Minister said. With some regret I must test the opinion of the Committee.
I should have confessed at the beginning that in moving Amendment No. 103--I have not moved an amendment since 1965 and I am rather out of practice--I spoke also to Amendments Nos. 106 and 109. As I said, I regret that I have to test the opinion of the Committee.
4.31 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 103) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 137; Not-Contents, 135.
Next Section
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page