Children and Adoption Bill [HL]

moved Amendment No. 10:"      Before Clause 1, insert the following new clause—" ““Reasonable contact: welfare checklist   REASONABLE CONTACT: WELFARE CHECKLIST    After section 1(3)(g) of the Children Act 1989 (c. 41) insert- ““(h)   the desirability of reasonable contact between the child and both resident and non-resident parents””.”” The noble Earl said: I did not specifically speak to Amendment No. 10 in my earlier remarks. With the leave of the Committee, I should like briefly to do so now. The noble Baronesses on the Liberal Democrat Benches have tabled some amendments in a similar vein, and I apologise to them if I pre-empt anything they were going to say. The amendment intends to pick up a recommendation of the Constitutional Affairs Select Committee Report Family Justice: the operation of the family. In paragraph 47 the Select Committee stated:"““We recommend the insertion of a statement in s 1(3) of the Children Act 1989 (the welfare checklist) indicating that the courts should have regard to the importance of sustaining a relationship between the children and a non-resident parent””." In their reply, the Government expressed support for the general principle articulated by the committee and said that they would consider it further in the light of the pre-legislative scrutiny of this Bill. So now I need to ask the Minister what conclusion Ministers have reached. The Joint Committee on the draft Bill said on page 31:"““We endorse the recommendation of the Constitutional Affairs Committee that an amendment should be made to the ‘welfare checklist’ in the Children Act 1989 to ensure that the courts have regard to the importance of sustaining a relationship between the children and the non-resident parent””." That endorsement by the Joint Committee followed evidence taken from three QCs who agreed on the need to make this change. Their evidence appears on page 5 of the report. As the words ““sustaining a relationship”” are not very precise and, indeed, could be interpreted in a minimalist way, my amendment is framed in terms which are all too familiar to the Committee this afternoon. But they are terms which I believe reflect the sense of what both the Select Committee and the Joint Committee had in mind. I beg to move.