Children and Adoption Bill [Lords]

With the greatest respect to the hon. Gentleman, for whom I have great respect, especially for his views about grandparents in the sort of proceedings that we are discussing, I believe that he is wrong. As I said, the Children Act 1989 has stood the test of time and thousands of courts have made decisions about contact in the light of that measure. The welfare of the child and its paramountcy is well understood and applied correctly by the courts. The presumption of contact is well established. Those of us who served on the Committee often heard reference to a report by Her Majesty’s inspectorate of court administration, called ““Domestic Violence, Safety and Family Proceedings””, which said that in all the practice sessions that it had observed in the inspection, the presumption of contact was evident. Indeed, paragraph 3.9 of the report worryingly stated:"““and there was consistent evidence that inappropriate assumptions about contact were made, rather than assessments about whether there was any risk associated with domestic abuse cases.””" The presumption of contact is therefore alive and well and the report alerts us to the fact that it applies to an inappropriate extent and that, in some cases, there might be danger for children and parents in allowing contact to proceed. That brings us to the statutory objective that I propose—to reduce the risk of harm. The other great polarised debate is about whether there should be no contact if there is any risk at all of abuse to the child or the other parent. Again, I believe that it goes too far, but until the House of Lords included clause 7, the Bill contained no provision for the court even to ascertain whether any harm was being done. The statement that preceded our proceedings was about schools checking whether staff employed there might pose a risk to children. What about courts? They order somebody to allow contact. Surely they should consider whether there is a risk of harm. Clause 7 provides that if there is suspicion of harm, CAFCASS will undertake a risk assessment, but the Bill includes nothing about what anyone does with it. Under clause 7, at least it will go to the court, and the court will have the power to make orders. My statutory objective about reducing the risk of harm would at least remind the courts that, when they receive a risk assessment report, something ought to be done with it. 5.30 pm The fourth of my statutory objectives deals with parenting relationships after a separation. This brings me to a report to which the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham and I both referred with approval in Committee. It is an excellent report by the university of Oxford, ““Family Policy Briefing 3””, produced in January 2004, which gives advice to policy makers such as ourselves. Its final section, ““The way forward””, warns us to be cautious about making any legislative change at all. It states:"““Introducing a presumption of contact is…problematic””" although the"““case for amending the Children Act may be stronger in relation to domestic violence””." The report goes on:"““Post-separation parenting is a very neglected area…There would be widespread support for a programme aimed at improving service provision””" to promote better relationships between parents after they separate. That is why my fourth statutory objective would be beneficial in the longer term. This is a longer-term issue.