Children and Adoption Bill [HL]

I am very grateful for these probing amendments, which give us an opportunity to look at the timeliness of provision and the qualifications of the providers. Underpinning them is a concern about resources and the adequacy of provision. We are committed to supporting development of contact activities and the identification of suitable providers. Part of the £7.5 million we announced in this spending review for the development of child contact services, including child contact centres, will be put towards developing and piloting a range of contact activities. These activities will be targeted towards resolving conflict and dispute and supporting parents in developing the skills to focus on their children’s needs. I will write to the noble Baroness about the range of providers available at the moment. Of course, the passage of the Bill will stimulate significant additional demands, which we envisage the sector being able to meet, not least in terms of the resources that will be available from those who benefit making a contribution. In terms of the time periods and qualifications in Amendment Nos. 54, 55 and 59, the Bill requires courts to consider three issues before making a contact activity direction or condition. First, the activity it proposes must be appropriate in the circumstances of the case. Secondly, the activity provider must be suitable to provide it. Thirdly, the activity should be provided in a place to which the person undertaking the activity can reasonably travel. Amendment No. 54, moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, would make additional requirements in terms of qualifications. Amendment No. 55, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Morris, would impose time constraints. Amendment No. 59, also tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, would impose qualification conditions. With regard to time, it will inevitably be part of the process for the courts to take account of the available provision of contact activities and assess who is best placed to provide them. A key determinant will be that that provision should be available on a timely basis and that delivery of the activity will follow swiftly. As I have said, the Bill requires that the court must, before making a contact activity direction or condition, be satisfied that the suggested provider is suitable to provide the activity, that it is appropriate in the circumstances of the case, and that it is provided in a place to which the individual could reasonably be expected to travel. With regard to qualifications, the Bill imposes a requirement on the courts to obtain information about the individual who will be subject to the direction or condition and the likely effects of the contact activity direction or condition on him. That includes any conflict with the individual’s religious beliefs and interference with normal working hours, schooling or other education. A key factor that the court must consider will be that suitable activities are provided in a timely fashion. However, we think it would impose an unnecessary burden on the courts and the providers to specify a precise time period over which the contact activity is to be provided. To do so runs the risk of reducing the flexibility that the Bill provides where the court is expected to have regard to interference with childcare, normal working times—which can change—or attendance at an educational establishment. Nor do we want to impose additional bureaucracy on the courts, with endless variations of orders to take account of those changes and leave them in the position of having to amend contact activity directions or conditions because they have been too detailed in the first place. We are committed to supporting the development of these contact activities and have put in a significant resource already. I hope that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw the amendment because it would create restrictions on the flexibility it gives the courts. On the issue of qualifications in Amendment Nos. 54 and 55, we are of course concerned that people who provide contact activities should be properly qualified. We agree that the Bill as originally drafted did not go far enough. That is precisely why government Amendment No. 121, which was moved earlier, gives a regulation-making power for providing financial assistance for contact activity, providing that assistance can be given only for contact activities whose providers have been approved by the Secretary of State or the National Assembly of Wales, as appropriate. We expect that this will take the form of an approved list of providers and, of course, the qualifications of those providers will be a key element in deciding that they can go on that list. This will ensure that those who are receiving partial or total assistance in meeting the cost of the contact activity will be undertaking the activity from an approved provider. The Committee can be assured that we are going a good deal of the way to meet what the noble Baronesses were seeking to achieve in Amendments Nos. 54 and 59 in respect of qualifications. Amendment No. 55 makes a point about time and, of course, the courts will wish to see that provision is made in as timely a fashion as possible. That will be a key issue for them to address.