| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Lord Northbourne moved, as an amendment to Amendment No. 2, Amendment No. 3:
The noble Lord said: My Lords, we are making a mistake in trying to define contact in terms of the benefit that it brings to the parents. If we really mean that the welfare of the child is paramount, any attempt to give guidance to the courts and CAFCASS about how much or what kind of contact they should encourage should be worded in such a way as to make it clear that it is child-centred. The Government will say, "Why give guidance at all? Why not just leave the presumption of Clause 1 in the Children Act and let the courts make all the decisions through case law?" I understand that that is the Government's position. I believe that they are wrong. The courts have now been in the driving seat for six to eight years and the outcomes for children are not yet satisfactory. Parliament is responsible for this legislation and for what is going on. Therefore, Parliament should make clear what it wants. The noble Earl, Lord Howe,
14 Nov 2005 : Column 857
quoted someone saying that the system requires "radical revision". Perhaps that is what we should be trying to do.
The noble Earl's amendment about reasonable contact introduced this difficult word "reasonable". Neither he nor anyone else has been able to tell me what reasonable means. It seems that reasonable is what a person thinks is reasonable. What I think is reasonable may be different from what you think is reasonable. We could turn this round by including some words that made it clear that what matters is that the policy is child-centred, so I propose adding "child-centred". I do not know whether that works well, but my Amendment No. 17 would insert "child-centred" before "contact". On reflection, I hate the word "contact" because it implies the sort of uncomfortable sessions to which the noble Earl referred. The phrase "child-centred parenting" should be included. That is what I would like to see.
Moving on boldly, I thought that I had better try to define "child-centred contact" or "reasonable contact", but then I thought that my amendment would not be accepted so I had better define "reasonable contact" as well. I have done that in Amendment No. 16, where I have drawn attention to two or three things. They may not end up in the Bill, but it is tremendously important to make the point that one of the essential features of the relationship between a child and its parent is attachment, as we all know. Attachment means love and trust. One of the things that very often breaks down when a parental partnership breaks up is that one parent—usually the father—goes away. That is perceived by the child as abandonment and desertion, and sometimes it is, although sometimes he is driven away. The word "trust" should be included as well as "love". Also included are the obvious things such as the "care, support and education" that the child needs. I leave those amendments on the table for discussion.
The noble Earl made an extraordinarily good and rather frightening case. Is it really true that the onus in court is on the non-residential parent to show that they should have more time for contact with the child? Can it really be the case that contact can be ended for no good reason? If so, the noble Earl is surely right in saying that the scales are too heavily weighted against the non-resident parent. I beg to move Amendment No. 3.
Baroness Pitkeathley: My Lords, the noble Earl quoted research which showed that, as the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, picked up, the courts were inclined to take the word of the resident parent against the non-resident parent, but many of us would say that that research was selective. We might also quote the recent HMICA report on domestic violence, which showed that, on the contrary, the presumption was rather too much towards assumption of contact. My real difficulty with the noble Earl's amendment is that it is a mistake to assume that you can have a once-and-for-all decision about what is reasonable contact.
14 Nov 2005 : Column 858
I must speak up for CAFCASS workers who work with very difficult parents, not for weeks or months but sometimes for years to establish reasonable contact. I have sheaves of letters that I could quote to your Lordships; I will spare noble Lords that, but I shall quote one, from a parent who says:
"that this case is not about what either parent wants, and is all to do with the needs of the children, but it has been my deepest wish that my children would one day see my home and be a part of my life, and it has taken me years to achieve this.
To me the weekend was a huge success and I must give credit to the children's mother for her complete compliance with the court order and giving every chance for the weekend to work".
Those are parents who until now could not even be in the same room with each other. That kind of work goes on all the time. It seems to me, however, that the amendment tabled by the noble Earl starts and stops with parents, whereas the work done by CAFCASS with resident and non-resident parents starts and stays with the individual children. Of course there is a get-out clause in the amendment, unless a good reason to the contrary is shown; but there are often good reasons, and the problem is that in my view the amendment would weight the legislation and legal advocacy too far towards the parents' rights and not enough towards the children's rights.
Baroness Walmsley: My Lords, I find myself agreeing with a great deal of what the noble Earl, Lord Howe, said. However, for the reasons I explained when speaking to the first group of amendments, I could not support him in the Lobby if he chose to seek the opinion of the House today, because of the hierarchy of priorities that I hold. In an ideal world, I would very much like to see us put something into statute about reasonable contact or even child-centred contact, because it would be very much clearer for everybody. But until we have sorted out the safety issues, which we shall do later today, I would not feel in a position to do that.
Noble Lords will notice that my name and that of my noble friend Lady Barker are attached to Amendment No. 6; that is because it was part of a package of amendments that we tabled in Committee. On the other amendments we have changed our approach. In an ideal world, I should like to amend the Bill in that way, but I do not feel that we can do that until we have sorted out the safety issues.
As for the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, I very much understand the spirit of what he is trying to do, but I question whether any piece of legislation could enable a child to love and trust each of his parents. That is a very noble aspiration, but it is beyond the means of any legislation to be able to ensure such a thing.
As for Amendment No. 4—to return to my comments on the first group of amendments—I noted that the Select Committee on Constitutional Affairs suggested that it might be a good way forward to put something about reasonable contact in the welfare checklist. I look forward to hearing the Minister's
14 Nov 2005 : Column 859
remarks in that regard, because I would very much welcome a conversation with the noble Earl, Lord Howe, and the noble Baroness, Lady Morris, on the subject.
Lord Northbourne: My Lords, to clarify the position, my Amendment No. 16 says that,
"such arrangements for parenting and contact as, in the opinion of the court, will be most likely to lead to the child continuing to love and trust each of his parents",
Baroness Walmsley: My Lords, I understand that point, but I still think that it is beyond any legislation to devise anything that is likely or unlikely to lead to such a thing.
As I said, I would very much welcome a conversation with the noble Earl, Lord Howe, and the noble Baroness, Lady Morris of Bolton, particularly about Amendment No. 4, after today's debate. It could be that if we are satisfied on the issues of safety later in today's debates, we might find ourselves being able to work together on something like that for the next stage of the Bill.
5 pm
Baroness Howarth of Breckland: My Lords, I was not going to speak to these amendments but, having been goaded by the noble Earl, Lord Howe, I need to say a couple of words. First, I admired, as I always admire, his carefully reasoned arguments. They are always carefully thought through and, I believe, very much in the interests of the child and the family. Disagreeing with him does not mean I do not sympathise with the objective he is trying to reach.
I start with the "lies, damn lies and statistics" issue. The figure of 1 per cent comes from the judicial statistics. The Napo research, which is a useful piece of work that I find extremely valuable, has a quite different objective, and shows that CAFCASS was indeed doing its job. We should not be producing a whole load of reports, but intervening on behalf of children and working with the families to improve contact. The research is very selective. It is not modelled; it is an experiential piece of work that looks at cases, so it is not balanced against the whole numbers issue. It is valuable, however, in that it shows that if we work carefully with families we can increase contact. This is what we should be looking for.
The noble Earl is right in saying that the sooner these issues are dealt with, the more likely it is that contact will be maintained, which is what we all want to happen. However, he is not right in suggesting that one parent has to argue for or against contact. It is the responsibility of those looking at the situation, and of the judge assessing the situation, to ensure that the child's interests are put first in whatever is decided. When you are in court, you feel you are arguing for your case, and I usually hear that both parents feel that.
14 Nov 2005 : Column 860
Much as I admire the argument, eloquent as it is, I still do not feel that I could vote for anything that interferes with the central presumption of the child's welfare and interests being paramount.
| Next Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |