Children and Adoption Bill [HL]

I thank the Minister for that. Before the noble Baroness, Lady Morris, replies, perhaps I can make three small points. The Minister said that the judiciary is not calling for this change. I would give the Mandy Rice-Davies riposte: they would say that, wouldn’t they? I would suppose that the courts would by definition think that everything they do is perfect. But as the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, said earlier, unless you put the matter in statute, it is going to be patchy; it is not necessarily going to happen all the time. That is why we want ““reasonable”” in the statute. I return to the Minister’s point on the primacy of the child’s best interests and draw his attention to the detail of the wording in subsection (2) of Amendment No. 124A, which states:"““The guidance must outline the type of contact orders the court is likely to impose in a range of circumstances, in order to achieve the best interests of the child””." The very purpose of this subsection is to achieve the best interests of the child. As we are told by every court, every researcher and every expert in the field, reasonable contact with both parents is in the child’s best interests unless there is a good reason to the contrary; and the court has the discretion to take that into account. I will not say any more. I think that we may need to have another meeting with the Minister before Report to discuss this further. I would certainly welcome that if he is able.