Children and Adoption Bill [HL]

The situation is clear. We do not believe that the position needs to be changed. The current arrangements set out in the 1989 Act and case law provide for the courts to have the discretion that they need in order to ensure that the interests of children are fully met in contact arrangements between their parents in cases of separation and that case law does not unduly constrain the courts in that regard or lead to judgments being made by the courts that give too little contact to parents. So we do not believe that there is a need for changing the presumption. However, we believe that there is a danger—if you change presumption away from the paramount interests of the child, as set out in 1989 Acts—that that will be taken as downplaying that presumption. The evidence that I cited from the report was simply to note that those professionals who observe those relationships at close quarters believe that safety issues are of great concern and have had it reported to them that safety issues are not always taken as full account of as they might be. Now that is not an issue relating to the law; as I explained when speaking to the previous amendments, we believe that the law is very clear about the paramount duty of the court in respect of the welfare of the child and its protection in respect of safety. But if it were to be the case that a change in the presumption were to lead the courts to downplay the presumption in the opening section of the 1989 Act—that the interests of the child should be paramount—we believe that that would be a retrograde step.