Children and Adoption Bill [HL]

The points made by my noble friend Lady Pitkeathley and the noble Baroness, Lady Howarth, are absolutely central to the debate on the amendment. The noble Baroness, Lady Morris, said in defining one-third of time that it would constitute one-third of available parenting time. However, that is a hugely problematic judgment to make as regards what is available in the context of the lives that children lead and how those lives change over time. The time should be assessed over the year as a whole in the manner agreed by the parents. As the noble Baroness, Lady Howarth, said, the one thing that you can be sure of in these cases is that agreement among the parents will be an exceptionally difficult objective to reach. ““Continuing contact”” and ““frequent contact”” are difficult terms to define. The question that underpins it all is whether continuing and frequent contact is expected to weigh against the paramount interests of the child and, if so, how the courts would be expected to interpret that. Therefore, we are not attracted to the amendments. However, a comment that the noble Baroness made went to the heart of the issue that the Committee is discussing. She referred to the great anguish and trauma which arise in resolving cases involving contact and the impact that that has on the child. We are all agreed on that. The difference between us concerns the view of the noble Baroness and the noble Earl, Lord Howe, that changing the statutory presumption that currently applies is a way of lessening that anguish. We have no reason to believe that that is not being properly applied to ensure that the best possible arrangements are made in the interests of the child, including the role of both parents in the upbringing of the child. We have brought the Bill forward because we believe that significant enhancements of the court processes themselves and of procedures that would promote conciliation and agreement between parents before cases come to court would have a good deal of the effect that the noble Baroness seeks to achieve in reducing anguish and delay and in promoting agreement between parents. Where there is disagreement on the enforcement of orders made by the court on the basis of a presumption that the interests of the child should be paramount, we seek more effective redress so that both parents are able to secure the benefits that the courts have sought to impose in cases of disagreement. There is no disagreement between us regarding the issue of intense anguish and difficulty for children. However, we believe that the Bill will promote swifter justice and conciliation out of court and before cases come to court. That in turn will promote a much more mature and, we hope, sensible attitude on the part of parents as regards reaching agreement and ultimately will make the enforcement of contact orders more effective. That will, indeed, significantly reduce the anguish that children suffer. That is the issue on which we should concentrate. We should not seek to fetter the discretion of the court and seek to make it behave in ways that, we are advised, would be unreasonable.