Children and Adoption Bill [HL]

I am most grateful to the Minister for that full explanation. On the first four amendments, his statements of intent to have the child’s wishes and feelings taken even more into account than they are at present are valuable, and I accept his explanation that the primacy of the welfare of the child means that the child’s wishes and feelings will be taken into account at all appropriate stages, although it is not specified in the Bill. Amendments Nos. 140A and B were probing, although I did not say so. I accept what the Minister said about Amendment No. 140A. He is correct: it was certainly not our intention to devalue other elements or fetter the court’s decision, especially if the child’s wishes and feelings would put the child in danger. I realise that Amendment No. 140B is flawed because it does not specify, ““where the child can understand”” or ““where it is appropriate to the age of the child to write to them””. Obviously, one would not write to a one year-old child. It was a probing amendment to find out what happens when decisions are made against the wishes of the child. How is that explained to the child? Is there a duty to ensure that it is explained to the child? Who does it? Is it done appropriately? If decisions are made contrary to what older children want, they have a right to know why that was done and have it properly explained to them. From the Minister’s response, I took it that that is currently done by the CAFCASS officer. Is that correct?