Children and Adoption Bill [Lords]

We have certainly had another full and lengthy debate, but I fear that, yet again, it is without impact on the Government. I congratulate the new Minister on his appointment. He has certainly been thrown in at the deep end, but I fear that, in taking on this difficult mantle, he has adopted the same mindset as the Minister for Children and Families—one of being completely closed to practical, sensible suggestions, based on the real-life experiences of our constituents throughout the country, in refusing yet again in any way to amend the Bill, which is why it will fail. I want to make a few brief comments because we have had a lengthy debate. The hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Kidney) put some perfectly reasonable cases in speaking to his two new clauses. New clause 18, on statutory objectives, would be a sensible way forward, and he drew a very good analogy with the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000, with which he and I were involved all those years ago. There is certainly a cut-across that could be applied in this case. The procedure for allowing grandparents greater access that the hon. Gentleman sets out in new clause 19 is absolutely essential, and I am encouraged by the Minister’s last comments about agreeing to look into that issue. I hope that there will be a meaningful review of the problem. If the hon. Gentleman were minded to press either of his new clauses to a vote—I think that he probably will not, given his ambitions for his place on the Government Benches—he would find support among Opposition Members at the very least. I am sorry if he does not quite have the courage of those convictions to push those new clauses all the way. We should not be surprised about the extraordinary new clauses and lack of consistency from the Liberal Democrats. I feel some sympathy with the hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole (Annette Brooke)—it is not easy being a Liberal Democrat Member of Parliament, signing up to one thing and doing another in the Lobby—but she said that new schedule 1 was easy to ridicule. Well, it is, which is why I want to have another go at it. Let us consider what would be required. The hon. Lady admits that new schedule 1 may not be exactly flawless, but it says that"““any child who has attained the age of one year but is not yet in full-time education…shall…stay with the non-resident parent on alternative weekends from 10 a.m. on Saturday until 5 p.m. on Sunday””." It also says:"““In the case of any child in full-time education who has not yet attained the age of fourteen years, the child shall…stay with the non-resident parent on alternate weekends from after the child finishes school on Friday until 6 p.m. on Sunday””." My son would be furious: he would miss ““Time Team”” on Sunday afternoons if that provision were to apply to a situation such as mine. He would then"““visit the non-resident parent from 4 p.m. until 6 p.m. every Wednesday””." Well, that is cricket practice out of the way as well. That is absurd. It is the sort of prescriptive nonsense that we must avoid in the Bill.