Tim Loughton: I want to make some progress, but will come back to the hon. and learned Lady, too.

Our proposals have widespread support among a multitude of family and parenting groups, but I fully acknowledge that many professionals in the judiciary and some voluntary organisations do not share our view. We have engaged them in constructive debate and perfectly respect the position that they have argued reasonably, even if we do not agree with their conclusions.

It pains me to have to single out one organisation that has behaved reprehensibly on this issue. I would be the first to acknowledge that the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children has done a lot of good work in raising awareness of child abuse and campaigning against it, promoting good practice by engaging children, and raising substantial funds for services for vulnerable children. Many members of my party in my constituency enthusiastically raise money for the NSPCC, as I have in the past. However, during the proceedings on the Bill in the Lords, the NSPCC put out a briefing note that attacked our amendments as a threat to the safety of children, yet produced no evidence to support its claim.

In its latest briefing note, for our scrutiny of the Bill, the NSPCC has made the following claim: "NSPCC believes that any proposals to introduce into the Bill a legislative presumption of contact will be interpreted and put into practice by the courts in a way which is detrimental to the welfare of the child and could ultimately threaten the safety of the child."

In effect, it is saying that if a non-resident parent-predominantly a father-benefits from a presumption of contact, he is more likely to do harm to his own child.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Skills (Maria Eagle): Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Tim Loughton: Let me finish and I certainly will.

In support of its claim, the NSPCC cites the fact that 29 children were killed over the past 10 years during contact visits to non-resident parents. That is an appalling figure. However, it ignores its own research, which shows that over the same period some 800 children have died at the hands of resident parents or carers, and the 2000 publication "Child Maltreatment in the UK", which showed that violent treatment was more likely to be meted out by female carers than male ones.

The briefing is alarmist, sensationalist, misleading, empirically flawed, completely irresponsible and highly reprehensible. It is not worthy of an organisation such as the NSPCC, which claims to stand up for our children. I hope that our deliberations on the amendments will be based on balanced, rational and well-informed debate, rather than the arrant nonsense that I am sure will shock many dedicated and hard-working NSPCC supporters around the country.

Child Maltreatment in the UK - Executive Summary - *.pdf file

Apart from the fact that most children are less likely to report sexual abuse because of the barbaric way in which the perpetrators - most likely their intimates - are going to be treated, there are a host of other negative consequences that all our children have to bear as a result of the malicious abuse propaganda that keeps being foisted into the atmosphere by the feminists and those working in the abuse industry.

Firstly, children who have actually been abused are going to suffer far more from the abuse than they would ever have done otherwise; e.g. see Tea Abuse, NSPCC - Children's Charities Sued for Millions?, Do We Need An Abuse Industry?

Secondly, our children are far less properly cared for; e.g. see The Damage To Society Caused by False Accusations.

Thirdly, the relationships between ALL men, women and children are perpetually being poisoned very deeply by groups such as the NSPCC - with horrendous results; e.g. see NSPCC Needs To Be Stopped.

Notice that the preponderance of parental child abuse arises from the mother.