Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups Bill [HL]

I am grateful to the noble Baroness for giving me the opportunity to say a little more about the costs to employers of these new arrangements. I draw the Committee’s attention to the regulatory impact assessment and, in particular, to paragraphs 82 to 85 and the table following paragraph 82 which sets out in detail the cost areas, the estimates of the cost and the principles of who might pay. I think it deals with a number of the concerns raised by the Local Government Association. I say at once that we accept there will obviously be some additional costs for employers and employees as a result of the increased requirements to secure IBB checks, simply by virtue of the increased size of the workforce that will be covered by the new arrangements as a matter of public policy. At the moment, about 6.5 million people are covered by the existing enhanced disclosure requirements; we think that figure will rise to between 7.5 million and 9 million under the provisions of the Bill. However, for some employers there will be a lesser financial requirement than there is now because of the ability in some areas for employers to take advantage of online checks—for which no charge applies—which they are not able to do at the moment. Additionally, there will be a benefit to all employers from the new continuous updating regime brought about by the Bill. Under continuous updating, once an individual has become subject to monitoring by the scheme, the IBB will be able, if necessary, to add a person to a barred list based on the most recent criminal records, police information and information referred by employers and others. The current employer, where feasible, will be notified of any changes to an employee’s barred status, and employers who refer information to the scheme will be informed of the outcome of the referral. As I say, these costs and benefits are set out in paragraphs 82 to 84 of the regulatory impact assessment. Paragraph 82 sets out the monetary costs, highlighting the Government’s commitment to fund all the start-up costs of the scheme but accepting that there will be a review of the current £34 CRB disclosure fee when the new scheme is introduced in 2008. Paragraph 83 states:"““In terms of impact on the workforce it is important to highlight the significant net benefits that will flow to employers (largely in the public sector) from the change to a continuously updated system that will reduce the need for repeat CRB disclosures and speed up the recruitment process through instant access to the barred list. This could bring savings not only to individual employers but to the sectors as a whole””." Paragraph 85 states that,"““there will be an unquantifiable social benefit due to the reduced incidence of abuse of children and vulnerable adults and associated negative social consequences””—" I developed that point more fully at Second Reading. Lest anyone think that these social benefits are small, paragraph 87 of the regulatory impact assessment states:"““Independent research carried out by MORI for the CRB estimates that in 2004 around 20,000 people were refused employment on the basis of information on the Enhanced Disclosure””." So we are talking about a significant number of decisions taken by employers as a result of the existing CRB disclosure system. We expect that information to be much fuller and more widely available when the new IBB regime comes into play. I should stress, however, that the additional costs of central administration and the costs of the IBB and the CRB are not being imposed on employers. The current CRB fee—which will need to be increased—is payable by the individual applicant, not the employer. We fully accept that employers not infrequently pay the fee on behalf of their employees. If an employer considers this to be necessary as part of a recruitment strategy, we would not wish to stand in the way. As I said earlier, I accept that in some cases there will therefore be, in practice, an additional burden on employers. But there is no centrally imposed requirement on employers to meet the application fee; that is rightly a matter for the individual employer’s discretion. I hope I have reassured the noble Baroness that the burdens we are imposing are reasonable in the circumstances and well worth the additional security that employers and the public will enjoy as to the bone fides of those working with children and vulnerable adults.