Children and Adoption Bill [HL]

My Lords, I am well aware that I am arguing the least popular cause of all this evening and that my comments will not make many converts, but I hope that I can at least explain the Government’s thinking behind the inevitably unpopular decision to charge for a service that has previously not been charged for. In the first case, there is a simple issue of priorities. We believe that it is better to put the resources into the front line where there is higher priority than to subsidise individuals whom we believe are well able to pay the fees we are discussing, while accepting that we will waive those fees on a means-tested basis for those who are not able to pay. Our second argument relates to some of the international comparisons which we have looked at since then. I think it was suggested in an earlier debate that we were highly unusual in adopting this course. In fact it transpires that other countries do charge at similar rates for their administrative casework services. I am informed that every state in Australia, for example, charges administrative fees at varying rates and for different functions. New South Wales charges 2,270 Australian dollars, about £950, for a central administrative and casework service similar to the one that we are proposing, which is part of government fees totalling 9,700 dollars, or £4,100, on top of fees from other sources. Switzerland, Norway and Israel all have fees which include costs for adoption assessments and for administrative work akin to our casework process. Israel caps total fees at 20,000 US dollars, which is about £11,300. So I do not think that we are way out of line on international practice in what we are seeking to do. The Hague Convention allows reasonable fees to be charged for that work, which is precisely what we propose in this case. As we have said, in the context of approximate total cost to inter-country adoption, which ranged between £10,000 and £12,000, we do not think that it is unreasonable to make a fee of that kind so that resources can be directed to higher priority services. On the point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, we see advice to social workers on domestic and international issues as fundamentally different from the support service that is provided directly to individuals. It is reasonable to split out those costs in the way that we propose. In Grand Committee, I made a point which I repeated today. We are very mindful of the need to see that the service reaches a higher standard before people are expected to pay for it. In Grand Committee, I indicated that we would expect applications for which we are in receipt of full and complete documentation to be processed within 12 to 14 weeks, which is significantly less than some of the periods that have been experienced recently, as we modernise the service and seek to bring administrative functions together in one place. We would be charging for a service that would be improving. I recognise that charging for any service which has previously been free will be regarded by some people as unreasonable. But in the context of priorities, international best practice and overall charges which inter-country adopters face, and the waiver that we will give for those on lower incomes, we believe that this is a reasonable step to take.