---

The Earl of Listowel: My Lords, does the Minister agree that if we are to achieve what so many of us wish—meaningful contact between non-resident parents and children—it is crucial, especially in marginal cases, that there is a high quality supervisor who does not just sit in the corner of the room taking notes, but facilitates contact between perhaps a father who probably has not had contact with his child for a long time? The father may have had issues with, for example, alcohol in the past—it could equally well be a mother—or there could be a history of abuse, but the parent may want the child to have contact with the non-resident parent in a situation where there is a highly skilled professional at hand who can supervise the contact. Does the Minister agree with that?

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, that is not the only activity covered in this part of the Bill. In all the activities, we are looking for the highest possible professional expertise available. I have been fortunate enough to see the staff of contact centres at work and I recognise their professionalism and the difficulties under which they operate with families who have gone through great difficulties and who may still be experiencing them. I pay tribute to those staff. By no means is the situation completely right, but the Government want to work closely with those involved with contact centres and provide the support we can within the inevitable limits.

7.15 pm

Baroness Morris of Bolton: My Lords, I thank the Minister for her reply. In light of her comments, I shall consider the Bill in more detail.

Lord Northbourne: My Lords, I was contemplating reading your Lordships a chunk of Chetneys Family
 
14 Nov 2005 : Column 897
 
Law on deserving and undeserving fathers but, at this late hour, I shall spare the House. It is all very well working on the superstructure of the arrangements for helping separating parents and children, but if the foundation is not right the whole building may collapse. Part of the foundation is knowing the obligations of all kinds of different fathers and mothers. With that thought, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendments Nos. 22 and 23 not moved.]

Earl Howe moved Amendment No. 24:

After Clause 5, insert the following new clause—

"SANCTIONS AGAINST FALSE ALLEGATIONS OF VIOLENCE OR SIGNIFICANT HARM
After section 10 of the Children Act 1989 (c. 41) insert—
"10A SANCTIONS AGAINST FALSE ALLEGATIONS OF VIOLENCE OR SIGNIFICANT HARM
(1) The Secretary of State may make regulations to require the court to act in accordance with subsection (2).
(2) Where during the course of contact proceedings—
(a) a person makes an allegation of violence or significant harm against another person; and
(b) the allegation is found by the court upon investigation to have been fabricated;
the court must have regard to this finding when considering any representations by either person about contact arrangements with a child and may treat it as an aggravating factor when considering whether to make an order under sections 11J to 11N.""

The noble Earl said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 24, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 25A. I hope Amendment No. 24 is self-explanatory. It is designed to highlight what I am afraid is a common occurrence in a separation or a divorce, and that is where one of the spouses manufactures an allegation of violence against the other spouse. Of course, that buys time, and often a great deal of time. No allegation of violence can ever be dismissed as being insignificant or of no account. If the allegation is of violence against a child, it carries even more serious implications: indeed it can be potentially fatal to any request for contact time by the accused parent.

My noble friend Lady Morris and I have been approached by a number of groups who have raised this issue with us. We believe it is genuine. It is quite separate, of course, from the issue of enforcement. The Bill attempts to deal with the case of a resident parent who is obstructive or otherwise non-compliant in adhering to a contact order. But there is no provision for a parent who, for his or her own end, lies to CAFCASS about the actions of the other parent and makes out that abuse or domestic violence has taken place when, in fact, it has not.

We believe it would be sensible to include in the Bill a clause along the lines of the amendment which says that where an allegation of domestic violence has been made, and that allegation turns out, on investigation, to have been made up, there should be consequences.
 
14 Nov 2005 : Column 898
 
The consequences would be up to the court, but I am suggesting that the court would have a duty to have regard to the fabricated allegation when making a contact order and should regard it as an aggravating factor in the context of any enforcement order being considered. The existence of a provision of that kind would, I think, act as a deterrent. I hope that the Minister will at least sympathise with the intent behind the amendment and give me some mild words of comfort.

On Amendment No. 25A, in part, the intent behind this amendment has been superseded by that of the noble Baroness, Lady Gould, whom I congratulate, without hesitation, on her success in winning the approval of the Government for her amendment. It is certainly a step forward. If she reads our amendment, she will see that we are trying to do something even more powerful.

I was very drawn to the amendment that she and her noble friend Lady Thornton tabled in Grand Committee, and I was rather sorry that that amendment did not return for further consideration on Report. However, our concern here is that in too many cases the concerns about the safety of the child are never resolved; they are allowed to drag on for a considerable period, often without a decision on whether the child is at risk. The only problem that I see with the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Gould, is that there is no sense in it of urgency or time horizons. In this amendment we have tried to introduce those time horizons because we think that it is important that the impetus in these matters is maintained by the court. It is very important for CAFCASS to do its work, but we do not want to see any slippage or lack of action.

Child safety should clearly be tackled from the outset and expeditiously. We are concerned that in too many cases an allegation is made which raises concerns over child safety that is then subsequently not addressed sufficiently, with allegations lying on file. It is clearly in the child's interests, but also in everyone else's, for such allegations to be fully investigated as soon as possible. I hope that the sense of that amendment will commend itself to the Minister as well, although I have no expectation that he will wish to adopt the wording we have suggested. However, I place the thought with him for his consideration and guidance. I beg to move.

Lord Adonis: My Lords, the noble Earl asked whether I could express sympathy with his intentions and offer some mild words of comfort. That was not a very demanding threshold; I am used to more demanding thresholds. Certainly I am in a position to offer him sympathy and, I hope, rather more than mild comfort that we are able to achieve the objectives he has set out.

The noble Earl's Amendment No 25A would ensure that comprehensive and timely investigations into allegations of domestic violence and abuse are made. The noble Earl's Amendment No. 24 would put sanctions in place on those who make false allegations. Amendment No. 25A makes the important point, with
 
14 Nov 2005 : Column 899
 
which we entirely sympathise, about the need to hold comprehensive and timely investigations. We believe that Amendment No. 27, tabled by my noble friends Lady Gould and Lady Thornton, and the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, will ensure that that takes place. It will ensure that there are risk assessments in all cases where domestic violence is alleged. We would expect those investigations to be timely because they will in most cases be precipitated by the new gateway form which is completed as soon as parents enter the system. In cases where allegations of domestic violence or abuse are made we would expect an investigation to take place pretty well immediately after that so we would expect the time lines the noble Earl has set out in his amendments to be adopted, but we do not think it is necessary to put them on the face of the legislation. We entirely share the objective that he seeks to achieve. We believe that the new and more robust statutory framework put in place by Amendment No. 27, with the requirement for risk assessments, will achieve what the noble Earl seeks to achieve.

Amendment No. 24 seeks to put in place sanctions to discourage false allegations of domestic violence or harm. The amendment proposes that the court should take such allegations into account when making contact decisions. It may also treat them as an aggravating factor when considering an enforcement order or financial compensation order. We again entirely share the concerns underlying this amendment, but we hope that it will not be pressed for two reasons. First, allegations of domestic violence or harm will now be assessed at the outset of contact proceedings and in any event under Amendment No. 27, which has just been accepted by the House. We believe that the fact that there will be rapid and comprehensive assessment of any allegations will be a very significant deterrent to making false allegations. So we believe that that objective will be secured.

(25)Secondly, there may be some cases where it is in the child's best interests to have a particular level of contact with an accusing parent despite the fact of the accusations. The courts will need to take account of that. But where the courts believe that a penalty would be appropriate and would be consistent with the best interests of the child, they already have the full powers at their disposal to make such a penalty, and indeed, they have been doing so. Only this year the Court of Appeal made a costs order against a parent who made such false allegations, and ensured that serious action was taken in that case. The case in question is Re T, which made the attitude of the courts very clear. In that case on the ending of a marriage various agreements and orders for contact had been made which had all faltered almost immediately. The resident parent then made allegations of sexual abuse. These were investigated and found to be false. The falsely accused parent had expended considerable sums in defending the actions. The Court of Appeal confirmed the decision that the resident parent pay costs to the non-resident parent. Cost orders are unusual in family proceedings since the courts are anxious to avoid seeming to punish one parent if that might lead to reduced co-operation between them.
 
14 Nov 2005 : Column 900
 
However, in this case Lord Justice Wall could not have been clearer in his judgment on upholding the application for costs. He said:

"We do not think that the orders for costs which we have upheld in the instant case are either likely to or should deter a resident parent from advancing a reasonable opposition to contact which is genuinely based on a proper perception of the child's interests. But those who unreasonably frustrate contact need to be aware that the court has the power to make cost orders in appropriate cases and that the consequences of such unreasonable behaviour may well be an order for costs made against the resident parent who has behaved unreasonably".

As I said, that is a Court of Appeal judgment made this year. The decision demonstrates that the courts can and do take appropriate action in cases of false allegations. They are very mindful of the concerns raised by the noble Earl. In the context of the more robust regime that we are putting in place for risk assessments, which we believe will also be a significant deterrent to false allegations, I hope that the noble Earl will feel able to withdraw his amendments.

---