Children and Adoption Bill [HL]

moved Amendment No. 4:"Leave out Clause 1." The noble Baroness said: My Lords, we are nearing the conclusion of what has been a spirited, thoroughly argued, but above all principled debate. From the beginning, our objection to the Bill has been more about what it leaves out than what it attempts to achieve. To all intents and purposes, as I said in Grand Committee, it is all stick and no carrot. Also in Grand Committee, my noble friend Lord Howe, who cannot be in his place this evening due to an important family engagement, said:"““There is a very simple truth associated with contact disputes. It is that if both parties to the dispute are content with the amount of contact that they have with the child, there is no longer any dispute””.—[Official Report, 12/10/05; col. GC 106.]" With the publication of the Green Paper and the Government’s admission that things were not working as well as they could, hopes were raised that measures would be contained in the Bill to help to facilitate better contact. Over the passage of this Bill, we have sought to highlight the problems that many parents face and to put forward solutions. With our two main amendments, we failed to persuade the Government on a presumption of co-parenting and reasonable contact, although I was somewhat amused when the day after Report stage, during the Committee stage of the Identity Cards Bill, I heard the noble Baroness, Lady Scotland, say to my noble and learned friend Lord Lyell of Markyate:"““I know, as does the noble and learned Lord, that a presumption is . . . only a presumption””.—[Official Report, 16/11/05; col. 1138.]" I wish that had been said the day before. Those two amendments were a large part of our desire to strengthen Clause 1. I know that those arguments are lost. However, I want to mention something that the Minister said during Report stage:"““As the Committee will know, the Florida situation is based on parents’ rights and on children’s welfare””.—[Official Report, 14/11/05; col. 873.]" That is the approach that they have taken and it is for them to decide what they want to do. The 1982 Florida statute 61.13 is based on the rights of the child and the duty of parents to have regard to those same rights. It is based on the assumption that in the absence of good reason to the contrary, children from broken homes need both parents in their lives. The statute also assumes that the child has, again in the absence of good reason to the contrary, a presumptive right to frequent and continuing contact with both parents. Acts of that type are to be found in more than 20 US states. Part of the objection to our early amendments was that they would place children in the way of harm. We have always asserted that a robust safety net must be in place. However, as the Minister is aware from a letter that she received from the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, which he copied to us—he also cannot be in his place tonight—Judge John Lenderman of Florida is surprised that reasonable contact will put children at greater risk—or is thought to put children at greater risk—of child abuse or domestic violence. As he says, that,"““almost assumes child abuse or domestic violence in the case of separating parents””." I am sure that that is not what anybody is saying, but that is what comes across. During Report stage, there was much media attention on the issue of safety. We take the issue of safety very seriously and have always said that where the safety of a child is not an issue, the best parent for a child is both parents. But we have grave concerns with some of the statistics used on safety and I urge the Government to take a robust look at the issue. During our discussions, the Minister said that one of the difficulties of legislating is finding the words to put on paper. She also acknowledged that more could perhaps have been done to explain what is happening outside the Bill. She has alluded to some of that tonight, but in order to give her the opportunity to provide the House with the full picture, I beg to move.