| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Page 41, line 14, leave out ("92(6)") and insert ("92(5A)").
Page 41, line 31, at end insert--
Page 41, line 31, at end insert--
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 8 to 68 inclusive. I have spoken to Amendments Nos. 8 to 68 with Amendment No. 7.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 8 to 68.--(Baroness Blatch.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
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 organisations 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.
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
(""authorisation" means an authorisation under section 92;").
66
67
("( ) Where, under this Part, notice of any matter is required to be given in writing, the notice may be transmitted by electronic means.").
68
("( ) For the purposes of this Part, an authorisation (or renewal) given--
(a) by the designated deputy of an authorising officer, or
(b) by a person on whom an authorising officer's powers are conferred by section 94,
shall be treated as an authorisation (or renewal) given in the absence of the authorising officer concerned; and references to the authorising officer in whose absence an authorisation (or renewal) was given shall be construed accordingly.").
69
6.15 p.m.
Next Section
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page