Clause 11
Child Maintenance and Other Payments Bill
5:00 pm
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.