Children and Adoption Bill [Lords]

I am grateful for my hon. Friend’s support. That point found support on both sides of the Committee. After my parents split up, my relationship with my grandparents was important—I particularly enjoyed my frequent visits to Eastbourne pier, where I became a fruit machine junky, although that is another story for another day. I will not go into detail on the new clauses tabled by other hon. Members. New clause 17, which has been tabled by the hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole, is similar in many respects to our own attempt to amend the welfare checklist, and as such it merits our support. New clause 18, which was tabled by the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Kidney), concerns the Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service objectives on welfare. It has some merit, and I will be interested to hear what he has to say. New clause 19 deals with access by grandparents, which I have already mentioned and which we support. I have severe reservations about new clause 25 and new schedule 1, which have been tabled by the hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole on behalf of the Liberal Democrats. The new clause and, in particular, the new schedule, which details the arrangements, go completely against the concept of non-prescription that we have tried to promote throughout the Bill. To try to set down in statute, whether it be by default or otherwise, prescriptive arrangements on how a child’s time should be broken up risks treating that child as a commodity and undermines a lot of the good work on bringing about cordial arrangements between parents that are in the best interests of the child. For example, what would happen if a child who is supposed to spend every other Saturday afternoon with their father has a school football match? Must the child opt out of the football match in order to satisfy their father’s or mother’s part of the deal? I am sure that new clause 25 was tabled with the best of intentions, as is the case with so much of what we get from the Liberal Democrats, but it is entirely unworkable in practice and would be dangerous if it were added to the Bill. If the hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole is minded to push new clause 25 to a vote, she should not come to us touting for support, because she will not get it. None of our amendments is rocket science. The concept of shared parenting being enshrined in statute is being looked at in a number of other countries and several US states: it was an undertaking of the new Canadian Government; it is being examined in the Senate in the Italy; a considerable amount of work is currently going on in Australia; and, as we speak, the Senate in Brazil is considering a new law establishing joint custody for children as the first option after divorce—the new law has already been passed by the federal deputy chamber. The idea is not new in this country. As I said in Committee, the previous Conservative Government considered amending the law along those lines in the Family Law Act 1996, section 11(4) of which states:"““the general principle that, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, the welfare of the child will be best served by-""(i) his having regular contact with those who have parental responsibility for him and with other members of his family; and ""(ii) the maintenance of as good a continuing relationship with his parents as is possible””." I would also mention the Children (Scotland) Act 1995, which enshrines the desirability of maintaining personal relations and direct contact with non-resident parents on a regular basis. Why cannot we have that here? Many people with children’s best interests at heart have been calling for it for many years. We have consistently called for these amendments throughout every stage of the Bill’s progress in this House and in their lordships’ Chamber. They would set out for a separating mother and father what the norm will be, what will be expected of them, and what will happen to them if they do not respect the judgments made. It is as simple as the principle that one is innocent until proven guilty. Someone who is a good parent should be deemed to be such unless and until it is proven reasonably that they are not. We want to establish the principle that it is a norm that reasonable contact should be assumed after a split because that is in the best interests of the child in the absence of evidence to the contrary. If the Government are serious about wanting to deal with the problems that many of our constituents face, and about producing a worthwhile piece of legislation that will do something about them instead of just talking about it, headlining the problem and ticking the boxes, they should add these new clauses to the Bill. They are fundamental to its workability and go to the heart of the problem. On that basis, I wholeheartedly commend them to the House.