My Lords, we should not change the law on the basis of anecdotal evidence, strong as that is, but the point is that the Napo survey provides us with our first, revealing glimpse of the decisions being taken by courts. If the statistic that I quoted were substantially less than the figure that I gave I might not be so worried, but I was very shocked.
We need to draw this to a conclusion. The Government say that they believe in the value of a meaningful relationship between the child and both his parents, and they say that the way that the courts intervene currently does not work well, but they do not take the obvious next step, which is to change the way that the court system works. They said in the Green Paper that they would do so, but instead they are tinkering at the edges of the existing system, they resist any notion of court-backed guidelines and they repeat the argument that every case is different. It is completely baffling to me why they should be arguing against themselves. There is no doubt in my mind that technical defects or not—and those can be put right—this is an issue on which it is appropriate for me to seek the opinion of the House.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 2) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 93; Not-Contents, 151
[Amendments Nos. 4 to 8 not moved.]
Children and Adoption Bill [HL]
Proceeding contribution from
Earl Howe
(Conservative)
in the House of Lords on Monday, 14 November 2005.
It occurred during Debate on bills on Children and Adoption Bill [HL].
About this proceeding contribution
Reference
675 c865-6 Session
2005-06Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamberSubjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2024-01-26 17:03:36 +0000
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_276423
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_276423
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_276423