Children and Adoption Bill [HL]

I add the weight of this side of the Committee to most of what the noble Earl has just said so eloquently. Having reflected on yesterday’s proceedings in Committee, I shall explain why we believe that this is important. In moving Amendment No. 11 yesterday, my noble friend Lady Walmsley set out why we differ in some respects from the position that has been taken by the Conservatives. We wish to be far less prescriptive about some of the definitions of reasonableness. But we do not disagree with the fundamental principles that the noble Earl outlined. We should focus for a moment on why time is important. Time is important to parents because it is the commodity that enables them to be involved in the lives of their children and in other matters, such as decision-taking about aspects of their children’s lives. Time is important because it enables them to have a quality of relationship that indirect contact does not permit. It is why the case law that the Minister spoke about yesterday is inadequate. The noble Earl, Lord Howe, has eloquently said that a presumption of contact is not a presumption of reasonable contact. It can be a minimal and indirect form of contact. I was struck yesterday by the accusation by the Minister that Members on this side of the Committee had quoted extremes, such as parents being allowed only annual written contact with their children. He said that he did not believe that a court would ever make a direction of that kind. I wondered then, and I wonder now, how does he know? How can he be so certain when we know that there are very many non-resident parents who have spent every penny they have trying to attain reasonable contact? Secondly, in yesterday’s proceedings I was struck by the fact—I think I raised it briefly toward the end of our deliberations—that every time Members of the Committee raised the question of reasonable contact, noble Lords on the other side raised the issue of safety. There is no disagreement. All Members of the Committee agree that safety is a paramount issue. If noble Lords care to go back and look at the amendments that we have tabled, they will see that they contain provisions that make it clear that issues of safety have to be dealt with. We are not talking about cases in which there are reasonable grounds to question safety. In addressing these matters, I wish to take noble Lords back again to the House of Commons Constitutional Affairs Committee report on family justice. I urge noble Lords to read the section on contact, and in particular paragraphs 46 and 47. Having listened to a great deal of evidence on the matter, the committee stated:"““The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child declares the right of a child to have direct contact with both parents on a regular basis, except if it is contrary to the child’s best interests. We note that the present law already regards it to be in a child’s best interests to sustain a full relationship with both parents, unless there are good reasons to the contrary. We consider that a clear statutory statement of this principle would encourage resident parents to assume in most cases that contact should be taking place.""““We understand the problems which would be caused by conflicting legal presumptions. The compromise proposed by the judges, to have a strong guideline that the court should have regard to the importance of a relationship between the children and a non-residential parent, has a great deal to recommend it. The simplest way of achieving this would be to amend the ‘welfare checklist’ in the Children Act 1989. 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-residential parent””." That is exactly what we are trying to do. We are trying to do it because case law is deficient and the more the Minister protested its strength yesterday, the less convincing his argument looked. The importance of having this principle stated in the welfare checklist is to address the valid point made yesterday by the noble Baroness, Lady Howarth of Breckland, that what matters most is practice. That is what we are seeking to influence. Later in the proceedings, we will go on to look at what happens in court with regard to matters such as parenting time plans. We believe that it is important to have this principle in statute to make significant changes to practice that will be of benefit to children. We believe that the current situation is not satisfactory. The Minister protested greatly yesterday that the powers already exist and that the Children Act 1989 does not need to be changed. Quite clearly it does, because it is not working. It is not working in a way that is harmful to children. That is why we are seeking to do what we wish to do. We are not seeking to fetter or constrain the courts in any way at all in deciding what is right for a child in individual cases, but we think that the principle needs to be there for the practice to change. This is the fundamental issue that noble Lords must consider and the one that we believe covers the rest of the Bill.