Children and Adoption Bill [HL]

Although I rise to speak to Amendment No. 55, I should like to say how much I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, that no one will be helped if the work load of an already creaking system is increased. By tabling this amendment we are in no way abandoning our desire to see much of this Bill changed. But—ever pragmatic—we are also concerned with making what may remain in the Bill better. This amendment, suggested by the Law Society, would require the court to consider the time by when a contact activity can be provided and is likely to be completed before making a direction, in order to allow sufficient time to work with the parents or family concerned but also to avoid such directions in themselves causing delay if the facility ordered is simply not available. This is also a probing amendment to highlight the issue of the need for adequate resources for the provision of a framework or range of contact activity services across the country in order that children and their families may benefit from them. There is an acknowledged need for better facilitation of contact orders. The Law Society and many practitioners in the family law system are concerned that there should be adequate resources for the provision of contact activity services so that children and families may benefit from them with less need for recourse to more lengthy or further court proceedings. The range of options to assist the implementation of an order needs to be sufficiently flexible to address the problem and the options themselves need to be available. For example, there is no point directing a parent to undertake a parenting programme designed to address intractable contact disputes if the facility is not available locally or accessible. In order to avoid directions in themselves causing delay, the Law Society suggests that the court should be required to consider the time by when a contact activity can be provided and whether it can be provided over the likely appropriate period of time in respect of the family concerned. There is already concern among practitioners on the ground about the capacity of existing resources in some areas to be effective in speedily resolving some contact matters. For example, I understand that CAFCASS is not yet in a position in some courts to provide the additional facilitation and support services to fulfil their intended changing role in resolution; or that indeed supervised contact centre services may be unavailable. Could the Minister therefore comment on the current spread and capacity of identified providers of different contact activities and what assessment has been made of their anticipated need? I beg to move.