Children and Adoption Bill [HL]

This has been a useful short debate, and I thank everyone who has contributed to it. The noble Earl, Lord Listowel, picked me up, quite rightly, on a couple of things I said, and I stand corrected. Indeed, I have been briefed by one non-resident parent, a mother, who has had to go back to court 34 times to try and gain contact with her children. The noble Earl is quite right that it is not only fathers. He is also right that non-resident parents can behave irresponsibly and fail to turn up to pre-arranged appointments. The emphasis that I was seeking to place was much more on those aggrieved parents who show up and seek to adhere to the contact order, only to be ignored or otherwise insulted by their former partner when that former partner does not adhere to the court order. The noble Baroness, Lady Howarth, made some very useful points and gave us an insight, as she so often does, into the workings of CAFCASS. I agree that this is a difficult area for CAFCASS. It will no doubt rise to the challenge, but there is some work to be done in preparation for rolling out the provisions. I always look for ways in which we can agree with the Government. The Minister is right about mediation. We are enthusiastic about it; the main difference between us is that we believe that when parents cannot agree, the initial part of the mediation process should be compulsory. You cannot force people to agree, but you can force them to think about some of the key issues that they would have to face if they proceeded to go to court. We are keen on mediation as a concept. I also recognise what the Minister said about the judiciary, which has expressed enthusiasm for enforcement orders. I have spoken to Lord Justice Wall, and the Minister does not misrepresent him. He is very keen that there should be another string to the judiciary’s bow, and who am I to dissent from that? I merely think that this may be more difficult in practice than some people envisage. I do not necessarily think that the judiciary is being na&-uml;ve—I am sure it is not—but maybe some of us are. With that, I think it is time to move on. Clause 4, as amended, agreed to. Schedule 1 [Enforcement orders]: