Children and Adoption Bill [HL]

I should like to make several points in fairly strong terms in connection with the clause. We have here a power to impose a charge for work done by departments in connection with intercountry adoption cases. On Second Reading, I accused the Government of meanness in proposing that provision and I must say that I have had no cause to revise my opinion since. The British Association for Adoption and Fostering (BAAF) has pointed out to me that that was not raised for consultation when the Bill was published before the general election. I suppose that it would have been extraordinary if it had, but, frankly, it did not enter anyone’s head that the Government would regard a charge such as this as reasonable. All the procedures that have been put in place since the Adoption (Intercountry Aspects) Act 1999 right up to the Adoption and Children Act 2002, and all the associated regulations, have been designed with a view to one thing and one thing only, which is to protect children from the risk of harm. That is precisely as it should be and I am certainly not arguing for those procedures to be done away with or diluted. The question is: who should pay for it? There must be due process. When an agency has approved an applicant as suitable to adopt a child, the papers must be processed and the relevant information passed from the child’s country of origin to the approving agency in this country. Why should the prospective adopters have to pay for the cost of that processing? The answer appears to be that it is a service provided for their benefit—therefore they should pay for it. But is it really? The procedures in place are not there to smooth the wheels for prospective adopters; they are there to protect children. As I said, that is the purpose of all the regulation that gives rise to the administration undertaken by government when acting as the central authority. Safeguarding the welfare of children in all other circumstances is funded from public money. Why are children who are not indigenous to the UK being singled out in this way? The Government say that the charge will not be imposed on people who cannot afford it, but they know full well that almost everyone who sets their sights on adopting a child from abroad must reckon on many thousands of pounds worth of expense. It is not a cheap undertaking. The likelihood of anyone who has budgeted several thousand pounds being regarded as too poor to afford the fee from the Government strikes me as implausible in the extreme. In any case, the cost of means-testing will itself generate administrative costs. One must question whether the game will be worth the candle. Will the Minister confirm the amount that the Government believe will be saved if the charging provisions are put in place? Is it correct that it amounts to no more than about £240,000 per year? Is that really the sort of sum that merits the imposition of another hefty fee on prospective adopters, when they are already subject of considerable fees from other quarters? What about the cases where the child is known to the prospective adopters? What happens when someone wants to adopt a relative from overseas? It seems that under the clause they will have to pay the charge and I ask whether that is fair. What if the charge in that type of case acted as barrier to such an adoption taking place? Would it be right for the charge to be responsible for denying a child the opportunity to have a family life in this country? I find it hard to think that the Minister really feels that this clause is ethically justified, but if he does, it would be helpful if he explained why.