I beg to move Amendment No. 34, in Clause 4, page 7, line 22, at end insert—

‘(3A)In deciding whether a person had reasonable excuse for failing to comply with a contact order, the court shall consider

(a)any objections from the child about the contact arrangements, and

(b)the behaviour of the contact parent.

(3B)No court may make an enforcement order as regards a person in breach of a contact order unless,

(a)it has considered an assessment of the risk to the child concerned and of any person with whom the child has his home, and

(b)it is satisfied that the safety of the child of any person with who the child has his home will not be compromised by making an enforcement order.’.

May I say how pleased we are to be here at this early hour and under your firm guidance, Mr. Hancock?

It might be useful to remind ourselves that the context in which we are discussing enforcement orders is based on reports rather than anecdotes. According to a report by Her Majesty’s inspectorate of court administration, the evidence shows that there is such a strong presumption of contact with both parents that concerns about safety and risk to the child are overridden in practice. It is therefore important to ensure that the Bill makes the safety of the child   paramount throughout the Bill. I welcome the statements by Ministers on Second Reading to that effect.

However, there are concerns that the paramountcy principle in clauses 4 and 5 is not sufficient and needs to be reinforced. We also know from research evidence that the point of separation and the point of enforcement of contact are the most dangerous times for both parent and child. Therefore, it is incumbent on us to ensure that we safeguard children at those points in the separation proceedings. The amendment would ensure that when the courts consider reasonable excuse, they take into account the risk to the child and others, the behaviour of the parent and, most importantly, the views of the child.

The Government stated in “Parental Separation: Children’s Needs and Parents’ Responsibilities”, produced by the Department for Education and Skills and the Department of Trade and Industry, that contact arrangements that put the safety of the child or the resident parent at risk should not be put in place. The amendment aims to express the Government’s intention in legislation, bearing in mind that children have been killed by violent parents—fathers predominantly—as a result of contact arrangements ordered by the courts in England and Wales.

Sturge and Glaser, who provided expert advice on child contact and domestic violence for the Court of Appeal in re L, V, M and H 2000, emphasised that children should be listened to and taken seriously. Indeed, that view was reflected in the Adoption and Children Act 2002. The relevant clause in that Act has not so far been enforced. The issue is particularly important if the child is frightened and does not want to see a violent or abusive parent. To enforce contact in such circumstances could itself be regarded as a form of abuse to the child.

The amendment would also require the court to take account of the behaviour of the contact parent, including any risk they present to the safety of the child or the other parent. As I said, during the contact period and the point of the enforcement order, the child or parent is most at risk of violence. In the Government’s reply to the report from the Joint Committee that scrutinised the Bill, they stated that reasonable excuse

“could of course include genuine concerns about safety, either of the child or of the parent”.

The amendment aims to express that intention in legislation and to ensure that contact is not enforced in cases where domestic violence is likely to endanger the child, the non-abusing parent or any other family member.