I thank the hon. Lady for that intervention, but I shall deal with that point in due course as I want to make some progress.
We have talked at great length here and in the other place about whether it is possible to have two presumptions, and what I hear about the possible undermining of the safety of the child worries me. It is a question of listening. In its written evidence to the Select Committee, Resolution—formerly the Solicitors Family Law Association—suggested that there should be a first presumption and then a second: the first relating to the child, and a second, lower-order presumption relating to the right to see both parents. That was the position during one of our debates, but when Resolution gave oral evidence to the Select Committee, it appeared to change its mind, supporting instead the insertion of a statement into the welfare checklist in the Children Act 1989. It is significant that a major association should, on having listened to what others had said, change its mind in the process of giving evidence.
Children and Adoption Bill
Proceeding contribution from
Annette Brooke
(Liberal Democrat)
in the House of Commons on Thursday, 2 March 2006.
It occurred during Debate on bills on Children and Adoption Bill (HL).
Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
443 c455-6 
Session
2005-06
Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamber
Subjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2024-04-21 22:57:05 +0100
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_304432
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_304432
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_304432