Children and Adoption Bill [HL]

moved Amendment No. 9:"Before Clause 1, insert the following new clause—"    ““PARENTING TIME PLANS (1)   The Secretary of State must issue guidance for the courts and for separating parents called parenting time plans (““the guidance””). (2)   The plans must outline the kind of contact orders the court is likely to impose in a range of circumstances should parents be unable to reach agreement regarding contact with their child. (3)   Before publishing guidance under subsection (1), the Secretary of State shall consult and seek approval from the following— (a)   child development experts, (b)   the family courts of England and Wales, (c)   any other person who appears to him to have an interest in the issue. (4)   The Secretary of State may not issue the guidance unless a draft of it has been laid before, and approved by resolution of, each House of Parliament. (5)   The Secretary of State may, from time to time, revise the guidance. (6)   A revised version of the plans does not come into force until the Secretary of State lays it before Parliament. (7)   Where either House, before the end of the period of 40 days beginning with the day on which a revised version of the guidance is laid before it, by resolution annuls that version— (a)   the Secretary of State must, under subsection (5), make such further revisions to the guidance as appear to him to be required in the circumstances, and (b)   before the end of the period of 40 days beginning with the date on which the resolution is made, lay a further revised version of the guidance before Parliament. (8)   In reckoning any period of 40 days for the purposes of subsection (7) no account is to be taken of any time during which— (a)   Parliament is dissolved or prorogued, or (b)   both Houses are adjourned for more than four days. (9)   The Secretary of State must arrange for any revised guidance under this section to be published in such a manner he considers appropriate.”” The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 9, I shall also speak to Amendments Nos. 10 and 29. In Grand Committee, we moved the amendments separately as we felt that full and thorough debates on the issues were needed. We were not disappointed. However, in practice, the amendments are intertwined. Amendment No. 9 allows the Secretary of State to issue guidance for separating parents called parenting time plans. They are not the same as those currently proposed by the Government. The House will not be surprised to hear that they will be based on reasonable contact between both parents and the child. The plans would form the basis of negotiations. Given the countless cases that have passed through the family courts, it is possible to set out a range of circumstances that the courts would impose if parents were unable to reach an agreement. Around 10,000 judgments are made a year on overnight contact. Based on that, it should be possible to come up with a formula that says, ““Overnight contact should be allowed to take place by X in determination of Y””. Courts would take into account such things as religious holidays. I had a number of meetings with religious groups, and one recently with Rabbi Livingstone. A number of faiths, particularly the Jewish faith, are concerned that, where there is a right of passage for a young man, it is important that he has his father to support him through that wherever possible. The parenting time plans could take that into account. Such plans work well in a number of other countries. I stress that they would be court-backed and prepared by child development experts in conjunction with the judiciary. Our plans differ from those proposed by the Government in that the government plans require the warring couples to sit down and write a series of mini-essays together on everything from GCSE choices to Saturday jobs. Although those are important issues, the way in which they are introduced at such a sensitive time can only fuel resentment. Even the most happily married couple might struggle to come through the marathon of the Government’s proposed plan intact. Parents in a fragile state want some certainty and guidelines, and our plans would help. In Amendment No. 10, we propose that couples seek dispute resolution and, if needed, mediation before they go to court. Professionals trained in mediation would make parents aware of the emotional and financial costs of resorting to court. Court-approved mediators and facilitators would provide a stark explanation of the effects on the well-being of children, the length of time that litigation can take, and the financial implication to parents. They would set out the parenting time plans. We are clear that some parents may be able to sort out their differences through dispute resolution, but some scars may be so deep and some enmities so entrenched that mediation is the answer. Whatever is decided at that first meeting, it must be mandatory, otherwise the very people whom we need to help will not go. Resolution—previously the Solicitors’ Family Law Association—believes that, for couples who cannot reach agreement on their own, there should be a swift and effective dispute resolution process, and that an application to court should trigger a compulsory intervention appointment. A solicitor who specialises in family law said to me, ““I can understand the argument about why clients’ attendance at mediation should be voluntary, and when it works it works well, but the empirical evidence suggests that these cases are few and far between””. He went on to say that, ““making mediation compulsory would be one way, arguably the only way, of addressing the issue””. Relate says it has no concerns about these meetings being compulsory. Its experience shows that people sent to Relate, at first probably reluctantly, quickly settle into a good relationship and usually feel very pleased they were sent. As I said in Grand Committee, this amendment sends a clear message that when your relationship has broken down and children are involved, before you go your separate ways, you have an obligation and a duty to face the facts as they are and not as you would have them, and for the sake of your children, to sort it out. Both the amendments I have spoken to would come together in our early intervention pilot. At first we did not think you could put a pilot into primary legislation and then realised there were pilots in the Housing Bill and one in a current electoral bill. I went into the history of the aborted early intervention project at length in Grand Committee. I do not propose to rehearse the details again today, except to say that the Government had handed to them a scheme designed by lawyers and members of the British judiciary which would work in the English legal system. I do not pretend to be a parliamentary draughtsman and I am sure this amendment is deficient in many ways. I suggest to Ministers that they have a thorough search of their respective departments. Somewhere, probably gathering dust on a shelf, is a properly thought-out pilot scheme. When they find it, please could they dust it down and take a good long look at it, as they might realise they have the answer to many of their problems? In Grand Committee, I gave the last word of the amendment to Dame Margaret Booth, a retired High Court judge, who, speaking at a reception in Lincoln’s Inn in May 2002, to mark the publication of the early interventions report said:"““Looking back at the Conference, perhaps the most striking point is how much we have to learn from other countries and their pre-hearing Information and Mediation approach, and from their consensus—sometimes their statutory definition—of the quantum of contact.""““It is a shame that our country does not easily learn from what other jurisdictions have done successfully for so long. In this matter, we are years behind. I believe profoundly that the time has come to remove our blinkers””." I beg to move.