I return to the same point: the court order has been made at some point in the past, there is a dispute about whether it has been complied with, and enforcement proceedings take place to make a parent comply. That does not imply any further application to change the existing order so that the child’s welfare becomes the paramount consideration again, unless we amend the Bill to ensure that it is clear that the child’s interests are paramount even at the enforcement stage. If we leave the Bill as it is, there may not be another opportunity before something terrible happens.

In any other situation, the child’s interests would be paramount. I have mentioned the UN convention on the rights of the child. Article 3 says:

“In all actions concerning children, whether undertaken by public or private social welfare institutions, courts of law, administrative authorities or legislative bodies, the best interests of the child shall be a primary consideration.”

The court proceedings relate to a child, and the child’s interest should be paramount. Contrary to what the hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mrs. Miller) said, it is perfectly reasonable for the court to have regard for the wishes, views and expressions of interest of children who are the subject of enforcement proceedings.

There is a very good briefing, which I hope we have all received, from National Family Mediation. It makes clear that seeking children’s views is a core activity of its mediators, and that it does not imply any harm to or difficulty for children. Although some people go further than I would—perhaps a bit too far, by saying that in any such proceedings, children should be separately represented in court—we should expect the children’s interest to be ascertained by someone. It might be the CAFCASS officer, a child’s advocate—a citizen’s advocate, not a lawyer—who represents them in proceedings, or a lawyer by separate representation in the proceedings. All those options could be considered to find the right one with which to proceed.

In moving the Amendment, my hon. Friend the Member for Luton, South mentioned the Government’s response to the Joint Committee’s report on the draft Bill. She mentioned the first part of the Government’s response in paragraph 14 on page 4, which says that an excuse for not complying with a court order

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

That was the quotation. However, the next sentence says:

“In response to the concerns raised, we acknowledge that a more explicit signal of this is needed, and will consider how best to ensure that this is clearly understood.”

I look to my right hon. Friend the Minister to give a more explicit signal of what is needed.