---

Children and Adoption Bill [HL]

moved Amendment No. 25:"After Clause 5, insert the following new clause—"    ““COMPENSATORY CONTACT    After section 11P of the Children Act 1989 (inserted by section 5 of this Act) insert— ““11Q   COMPENSATORY CONTACT (1)   This section applies if a contact order with respect to a child has been made. (2)   If the court is satisfied that— (a)   an individual has failed to comply with the contact order; and (b)   a person falling within subsection (6) has been deprived of contact time by reason of the breach, it may make an order granting additional contact time between the person and the child concerned with a view to mitigating the effect of the breach. (3)   But the court may not make an order under subsection (2) if it is satisfied that the individual in breach had a reasonable excuse for failing to comply with the contact order. (4)   The burden of proof as to the matter mentioned in subsection (3) lies on the individual claiming to have had a reasonable excuse. (5)   An order under subsection (2) may be made only on an application by the person who claims to have been deprived of contact time. (6)   A person falls within this subsection if he is— (a)   the person who is, for the purposes of the contact order, the person with whom the child concerned lives or is to live; (b)   the person whose contact with the child concerned is provided for in the contact order; (c)   an individual subject to a condition under section 11(7)(b) or a contact activity condition imposed by the contact order; or (d)   the child concerned. (7)   Where the person proposing to apply for an order under subsection (2) is the child concerned, the child must obtain the leave of the court before making such an application. (8)   The court may grant leave to the child concerned only if it is satisfied that he has sufficient understanding to make the proposed application. (9)   Subsection (2) has effect subject to the restrictions in section 11S. (10)   Proceedings in which any question of making an order under subsection (2) arises are to be regarded for the purposes of section 11(1) and (2) as proceedings in which a question arises with respect to a section 8 order. (11)   In exercising its powers under this section, a court must treat as paramount the interests of the child concerned. 11S   ORDERS UNDER SECTION 11R(2): FURTHER PROVISION (1)   A court may not make an order under section 11R(2) granting additional contact time between a person and the child concerned following the failure by an individual to comply with a contact order unless it is satisfied that before the failure occurred the individual had been given (in accordance with rules of court) a copy of, or otherwise informed of the terms of— (a)   in the case of a failure to comply with a contact order that was varied before the failure occurred, a notice under section 11I relating to the order varying the contact order or, where more than one such order has been made, the last order preceding the failure in question; and (b)   in any other case, a notice under section 11I relating to the contact order. (2)   A court may not make an order under section 11R(2) in pursuance of a failure by an individual to comply with a contact order where the failure occurred before the individual attained the age of 18. (3)   A court may not make an order under section 11R(2) in respect of a failure by an individual to comply with a contact order that is an excepted order (within the meaning given by section 11B(4)).”””” The noble Earl said: My Lords, perhaps I may begin with an apology. For some reason, of which I am not fully aware, the text of the amendment was printed with errors that make it incoherent. The second part of the amendment refers to Section 11R when it should refer to Section 11Q. Similarly references to Section 11S should properly read Section 11R. I am sorry about the confusion. The purpose of the amendment is, I hope, clear. It proposes that where a contact order has been breached and a non-resident parent has thereby been deprived of contact time, it should be open to the court to consider whether the non-resident parent should have that lost contact time made up to him. The Minister may say to me that the courts can do that anyway. The problem is that they do not. I believe that only a specific provision in the Bill will act as a signpost to the courts to put right a wrong that has been done. It is not only an issue of natural justice, it would also be a deterrent; and, above all, it is potentially in the interests of the child. Each case, however, would be judged on its own merits. I hope the Minister will take on board the thrust of the amendment at the very least and that she will have some words of encouragement for me. I beg to move.