Andrew Selous (Shadow Minister, Work & Pensions; South West Bedfordshire, Conservative)

This being a clause stand part debate, we can range reasonably widely round it, although I am conscious of your guidance in our last debate.

On the face of it, clause 11 looks like another short, innocuous clause that introduces supplementary provisions and does not warrant too much attention, as it contains no great issues. Subsection (1) mentions the definition of “child”. Further on, clause 37 deals with the meaning of “child”. Just for wider understanding, beyond this Committee—perhaps even for Committee members—I would be grateful if the Minister assured the Committee that the meaning of “child” in clause 11 is the same as that in clause 37, which in general terms refers to children under 16 or children under 20 who are in full-time education or other circumstances that meet with the conditions prescribed in clause 37(1)(b).

Subsection (2) contains the much wider issue of share of care, which I am sensing, increasingly strongly, is a large issue that is not sufficiently addressed in the Bill. It says:

“The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision about when a child is, or is not, to be regarded for the purposes of this Part as living apart from a parent.”

To put it on the record, I understand that under the current definition of what we are talking about, children living apart from one of their parents spend more than 260 nights away from their other parent’s home. If I have understood that correctly, a contention exists between parents on occasions in respect of shared care arrangements when the non-resident parent has their child for approaching 104 or more nights. Understandably, the parent with care might say, “No, you’re not having our children for more than 104 nights, because I don’t want to lose any money.” I have a lot of sympathy with that. I understand the concern of the parent with care about a possible reduction in her maintenance as a result of the child spending 104 nights or more with their father. That is a source of great concern and contention, and it comes back to the general issue, which we discussed in respect of clause 2, about the welfare of the child.

Tim Boswell (Daventry, Conservative)

I have two quick comments on which I would value my hon. Friend’s opinion. First, 104 days neatly coincides with weekends, which must be a typical pattern of shared care. Secondly, the overheads continue for somebody who loses only a few nights of care. That must be a factor in their view of whether the arrangement is equitable.

Andrew Selous (Shadow Minister, Work & Pensions; South West Bedfordshire, Conservative)

As always, the Committee is indebted to my hon. Friend for his wise remarks. On his first point, he is right: 104 days is 52 weekends of two nights. The question of school holidays also comes into that. Parents might have their child every weekend during term time, but they might want them for a bit longer over the summer holiday or the Christmas holiday. Are the maintenance calculations then brought into question because of that?

In respect of my hon. Friend’s second point, the costs of maintaining a certain size of house to accommodate a child during a whole year—even though they are not there every night—are fixed and utilities and rent for a house large enough to have the appropriate number of bedrooms are expensive.

In respect of my hon. Friend’s second point, the costs of maintaining a certain size of house to accommodate a child during a whole year—even though the child is not there each night—are fixed. Utilities and rent for a house large enough to have the appropriate number of bedrooms are expensive. Looking at matters the other way round brings me neatly to the need to recognise the contribution that non-resident parents often make in respect of meals, food and clothes, even though their child is classed as living away from them as parents. The huge concern felt about that by many parents—mainly, but not exclusively, fathers—is justified.

The Bill’s aspiration in clause 2(2)(a) is to cover as many children as possible of divorced or separated parents. Incidentally, the phrase “children of divorced or separated parents” is greatly preferred by many non-resident parents, who deeply resent the term that we have slipped into using, because it is quick and easy. We have to be careful to think of the effect that anachronisms and terms have on people who care deeply for their children and who are greatly involved in their lives. Given that we are discussing a new start or new organisation, perhaps CMEC will think about using new phraseology. It is not really a matter for the Minister to give a detailed response to now, but perhaps it will be considered in the future.

Under clause 2(2)(a), the overriding objective that relates to clause 11 is for CMEC to encourage and support the making and keeping by parents of appropriate voluntary arrangements for their children. The Minister hopes that the definition in clause 11(2) will not have to apply to the greatest number of children. In his ideal world, it would not apply to any children, because the arrangements would be voluntary and therefore it would not be the business of the state, CMEC or any organ of government to look at the regulation and see how many nights here and how many nights there. Parents will have the flexibility to make their own arrangements to have a certain amount of money flowing forward, and the children can come and go without financial consequences. I greatly welcome that aspect of the Bill. It is excellent that more parents will not have to go through nasty weekly conundrums in respect of the split.

I do not expect the Minister to have fully worked out answers now, but the issue is serious. He has said that he will go away and consider a specific amendment from the previous group that we considered. In all  seriousness, I say to him that the matter is of justified and genuine concern. It can be dealt with slightly more equitably than it is at present without requiring the him to take sides between parents with care and non-resident parents. I should be grateful if he could give us clues about his thinking or that of the Department and say whether he is prepared to have the period of summer reflection that he has assured us he will embark on.

Michael Weir (Spokesperson (Energy; Work and Pensions; Trade & Industry); Angus, Scottish National Party)

May I add my words of welcome to you, Mr. Taylor? I wish to follow on from what was said by the hon. Member for South-West Bedfordshire. He referred to the definition of a child under the Child Support Act 1991, to which clause 11 refers. He said that a child was someone under the age of 16 or under the age of 20 in full-time education. I draw the Minister’s attention to the fact that that is not quite correct under Scots law. Under section 1 of the Family Law (Scotland) Act 1985, both parents can be obliged to pay aliment to a child in full-time education to the age of 25, and I will move an amendment to clause 37 in that respect. Will the Minister confirm whether clause 11 refers to the Child Support Act 1991? Presumably it will be referred to as amended, if I am successful in my later efforts on clause 37.

James Plaskitt (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department for Work and Pensions; Warwick & Leamington, Labour)

As the hon. Member for South-West Bedfordshire has reminded us, shared care is a vexed area. As he has recognised, Ministers do not want to get drawn into such an area. They do not want to become involved in the discussion or debates that separating parents might have in respect of arrangements over shared care.

If the hon. Gentleman has studied the White Paper and all the responses from stakeholders and consultees—I am sure that he has—he will know that there was no consensus over the sort of change that should be made. In such circumstances, we were right to conclude that we should leave the existing arrangements for shared care provision within the maintenance calculations.

Andrew Selous (Shadow Minister, Work & Pensions; South West Bedfordshire, Conservative)

The Minister has said that it is not an area that he wishes to get involved in. However, there is currently huge ministerial involvement, because a set of regulations exist that massively affect that area.

James Plaskitt (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department for Work and Pensions; Warwick & Leamington, Labour)

The hon. Gentleman was tempting me to get even further involved than I am. Drawing on the years of experience that we have on this matter, we concluded that the current formula has been reasonably well road-tested and is reasonably effective. There was no consensus in our consultation to do anything different or anything other than the arrangements that already exist. That is why it is sensible to carry over those arrangements into CMEC.

Clause 11(1) sets out that the definition of child

“has the same meaning as in the Child Support Act 1991”

and makes provision for the Secretary of State to regulate when a child is to be regarded as living apart from the parent. The definition of a child in the Child Support Act 1991 is to be amended by clause 37. Following the amendment, a child will be defined as a  person who is under the age of 16, or under the age of 20 under certain conditions. Clause 11 ensures that that meaning is used by the commission not only in the statutory maintenance service, but in information and support services and throughout the child maintenance system. In Scotland, the definition of a child is different, and children have different rights.

Clause 11(2), which was the subject of the debate, refers to children who live apart from one or both parents. To ensure that there is no confusion over the scope of the objective and the circumstances that it is intended to cover, clause 11 gives the Secretary of State the power to provide in regulation when a child is to be regarded

“as living apart from a parent.”

That power is intended to be used in circumstances in which it might be argued that a child lived with both parents, in whatever proportion, and therefore did not fall under the commission’s main objective because that child would not be living apart from one or both parents. The statutory maintenance service has robust and clear procedures that allow the maintenance service to apply clear and consistent rules when assessing a claim, even if there are complex family arrangements such as those that he has referred to.

When the commission exercises other functions, such as the promotion of parental responsibility and the provision of information and guidance, the measure will ensure that that is not restricted in terms of who is considered to be a child living apart from one or both parents.