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