Children and Adoption Bill [HL]

moved Amendment No. 31:"Leave out Clause 12." The noble Earl said: My Lords, I make no apology for returning to an issue that we debated briefly in Grand Committee; namely, the provisions in Clause 12. It was clear from our earlier debates that there is an issue of principle here about which we and the Government are in fundamental disagreement. The Government propose to levy charges for the work done by departmental officials in connection with intercountry adoptions. They justify that by saying that this work is a personal service and that the money could be better spent elsewhere. I am the first to agree that no public expenditure is trivial. But we are looking here at saving a sum of money which in the departmental context is small but which to individual adopters could well be substantial. That situation, frankly, does not commend itself to me. More importantly, however, I take issue with the argument that this is a personal service. It is surely no such thing. It is in essence nothing more nor less than child protection work. Where else in this country do public authorities charge for child protection? In the case of intercountry adoptions we have entered into international obligations to ensure that those children who are adopted from abroad are not exploited or otherwise improperly treated. So I ask the question that I posed in Grand Committee. Since when has it been thought right to transfer the cost of meeting those obligations from the public purse to private citizens? I should be very grateful if the Minister was able to answer those points, because bodies such as BAAF which concern themselves with intercountry as well as domestic adoptions regard Clause 12 as a clear and unwelcome signal from government that intercountry adoption, for all the fine words heard during the passage of the 1999 Act, is seen as a low status activity in comparison with domestic adoption. I have to say that that is the only logical conclusion that can be drawn from this clause. I beg to move.