---

Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups Bill [HL]

My Lords, I shall speak to a couple of amendments. Amendment No. 99 is a hugely significant amendment that was added to the Bill at the 11th hour in another place. Despite consistent questioning on funding proposals for the scheme both in this House and in another place, this substantial change was introduced only at the last minute, with almost no time to produce a compromise. Indeed, the short title of the Bill, which we scrutinised more than six months ago, contained the words: "““Nothing in this Act shall impose any charge on the people or on public funds, or vary the amount or incidence of or otherwise alter any such charge in any manner””." Yet Amendments Nos. 99, 167 and other consequential amendments provide for exactly that. In the debate on ways and means in another place, my honourable friend Tim Loughton detailed the inflation-busting rise of £2 in CRB checks. I also ask noble Lords to consider the Government’s record on spending on computer systems within their proposed budget. My main concern is that the amendment amounts to a tax on job applications by another terminology. After all, the sums will all go into the Consolidated Fund for the Chancellor to do with as he wishes. Parmjit Dhanda, the Minister in another place, gave no exact figure for the cost that could be incurred by fees. Nor did he say what those fees would be. All we have to go on is that fees will be charged for costs that ““have been incurred”” or which the Secretary of State ““thinks will be incurred””. Her Majesty’s Official Opposition do not want to hinder the progress of the Bill, which we have broadly supported, or to stop the good intentions behind the underlying measure. However, we are concerned that, so far, the Government have not answered our questions at all. I hope that the Minister will show that the Government are taking the funding of this scheme much more seriously than they have in another place. I shall briefly discuss Amendment No. 171, which is on secondments. I believe that it is a direct response to the amendments that I tabled at earlier stages of the Bill, and I am grateful to the Minister for tabling it. The original idea was to ensure that, by allowing secondment places for a certain time, people of a high calibre would be running the IBB. As a result of the amendment, there will be a greater incentive for people in related fields to work for the IBB. Secondments will enable individuals to gain an understanding of the criminal barring and checking scheme, and to enhance practice in their original professions.