Children and Adoption Bill [HL]

moved Amendment No. 137A:"Page 14, line 16, at end insert—" ““(   )   No fee shall be payable to the Secretary of State under this section in respect of services in so far as they consist only of the provision of information and advice. (   )   The Secretary of State shall, before providing a service to any person for which he proposes to charge a fee, give the person information about the fee, the basis on which it is payable, and the circumstances in which it may be reduced or waived. (   )   The Secretary of State shall publish standards for the delivery of services for which a fee is payable, and no fee shall be charged unless the service delivered complies with the standards.”” The noble Baroness said: Noble Lords who had the privilege of listening to me and the noble Earl, Lord Howe, during the passage of the Adoption and Children Act 2002 will appreciate that this is an area in which we have some form. I make no apology for returning to the subject of intercountry adoption and, in particular, to the service provided by the central authority to those who are going through the long and difficult process of undertaking intercountry adoption. The thrust of the amendment is to require the Government to explain in some detail exactly what they are going to do to merit the fees which they are proposing to charge to most intercountry adopters. It is true that in times gone past the service to intercountry adopters has been woefully inadequate, although I should place on the record that it has, at times, got better. But I still think that it is worth Members of the Committee being aware that at present the average time for processing an intercountry adoption is between 18 and 23 weeks. Furthermore, I understand that shortly the service is to be relocated to Darlington, which suggests that there may be some disruption to it. In the amendment, I propose, first, that the Secretary of State should charge fees only in respect of information and advice. The full service provided is used by many people other than adopters or prospective adopters—for example, many local authorities use it—and it seems unfair that those who are going through the costly process of adopting children should be the only ones who are required to pay for the service. Secondly, the amendment requires the Secretary of State to give information about fees which he proposes to levy and the basis on which they are payable. The Government already state in the clause that they themselves intend to have the power to reduce or waive a fee. That, in itself, is not a particularly helpful statement. Those who are likely to be in that position do not know the circumstances in which the power is likely to be exercised. The third part of the amendment would require the Secretary of State to publish standards for the delivery of services for which a fee is payable. The reason for putting this forward is that the DfES has not imposed any quality standards either for its own service or—this is a crucial point—for local authorities which are involved in the process of intercountry adoption. A considerable amount of the work carried out by this unit is the interpretation of lengthy reports from local authorities which are not standardised—there is no standard reporting form—and chasing up and evaluating the different reports. So this central authority has not even managed to provide guidance or a form to local authorities. That single action would cut down a great deal of work, and time, at a stroke. Furthermore, much time is spent liaising with the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the Home Office about entrance clearance status. That is a statutory service to the child and, again, we on these Benches wonder why it should be paid for by the prospective adopters of the children. I am given to understand—I believe that the Minister confirmed this in a meeting—that the budget for the unit is £240,000. There are approximately 300 intercountry adoptions per annum, and therefore the department has arrived at a fairly arbitrary figure of £800 as the fee that any person adopting a child would have to pay. If it were equivalent to an adoption certificate, a birth certificate or a marriage certificate in this country, the charge for a certificate of eligibility to adopt would be £11.50. There is a huge gap between £800 and £11.50, and at present I fail to see the basis on which the Government can justify that. With regard to standards of delivery in particular, it is no secret that time and time again people seeking to adopt children from other countries of origin have expressed immense frustration at the amount of time that is taken to process their cases. I believe I am right in saying that the Department for Education and Skills and its predecessor, the Department of Health, have never met the 12-week target for processing files for more than one three-month period in the past five years. In July this year, the target period was reduced to 23 weeks. BAAF, the Overseas Adoption Helpline and others have in the past recommended guidelines that would be helpful to the department in dealing with these issues, but so far they have never been taken up, as I understand it. So there are no formal standards for the service, which is unregulated and for which there is no competition. On that basis, it seems rather odd of the department to come up with a wholly arbitrary charge on top. That is the argument lying behind the amendment. I beg to move.