I fully accept that, but it is none the less a cost. It is £300,000. The question is whether, for Government priorities, it is better to spend that amount on subsidising intercountry adopters who can afford to pay, or whether it is better spent on providing exactly the sort of placements to which the noble Baroness referred. Of course, once the child is resident in the UK, he or she will access the whole range of children’s services, all funded by the taxpayer, including adoption support, Sure Start, nursery provision and so on. It is only in respect of this service to the adopter that we are making this charge.
It is always more popular not to make a charge. However, we are in the difficult business of weighing priorities and we believe that it is absolutely ethically justified that adopters who can afford to pay for this personal service should do so, thereby enabling us to defray other burdens on the children’s budget which we believe are more deserving of this expenditure.
Children and Adoption Bill [HL]
Proceeding contribution from
Lord Adonis
(Labour)
in the House of Lords on Monday, 17 October 2005.
It occurred during Debate on bills
and
Committee proceeding on Children and Adoption Bill [HL].
Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
674 c175-6GC 
Session
2005-06
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords Grand Committee
Subjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2024-04-22 01:27:15 +0100
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_280749
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_280749
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_280749