Michael Weir (Spokesperson (Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform; Energy; Work and Pensions); Angus, Scottish National Party)

I beg to move amendment No. 94, in clause 37, page 35, line 32, leave out ‘20’ and insert ‘25’.

The purpose of the amendment is to point out the slight contradiction between the Bill and the laws of Scotland. Members will note that clause 37 defines a child as

“a person who has not attained the age of 16, or has not attained the age of 20 and satisfies such conditions as may be prescribed.”

The amendment would increase the age from 20 to 25, because the definition of a child under Scots law, which can be found in the Family Law (Scotland) Act 1985, defines a child as

“a person—

(a) under the age of 18 years; or

(b) over that age and under the age of 25 years who is reasonably and appropriately undergoing instruction at an educational establishment, or training for employment or for a trade, profession or vocation”.

Under that Act, both parents are under an obligation to aliment the child while they are undergoing such training or instruction. Under the law of Scotland, both parents can be responsible for children until the age of 25 in those specific circumstances. I appreciate that the cases in which that will become a problem are few and far between, but they do exist. If the Bill is not amended, after the age of 20 anyone in Scotland who is relying on this definition of “aliment” may not be able to approach CMEC, because its responsibility would  end when they reached 20. If someone’s aliment had been dealt with through CMEC, perhaps for a large number of years, it is conceivable that it would stop when they were 20, even if there were still an obligation for aliment to continue after that, the result being that the person would be required thereafter to raise an action of their own in the courts to seek aliment from one or both parents and to start all over again, with all the difficulties that could ensue.

Although I appreciate that the cases in which such a circumstance might arise are few and far between, there is a contradiction in this provision. Will the Minister consider the definition of “child” and, perhaps, include in regulations some reference to the fact that in Scotland things are different and allow the definition under the 1985 Act to be carried into the Bill in respect of the Scottish situation?

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

I appreciate the hon. Member for Angus raising that point. I recognise that in Scotland children have different rights. However, our agreeing to his amendment would have at least one perverse outcome under the law that we are seeking to pass here and, for that reason, as well as others, I hope that he will reconsider. Let me expand on that.

As the hon. Gentleman has said, under Scots law courts can make orders for aliment to be paid in respect of a person until they are 25, where they are in education or training for employment or for a trade, profession or vocation. That measure is based on the age by which a person would normally be expected to have completed their education, including any trade apprenticeships, and no longer need parental support.

Under the Children Act 1989, the courts in England and Wales have the power to make orders for maintenance on an application by a person over 18 whose parents are separated and who is receiving instruction at an educational establishment or undergoing training for a trade, profession or vocation. Thus orders for maintenance can be sought in England and Wales for a similar period that aliment might be sought in Scotland.

We would not want to widen the definition of “child” in the way in which the hon. Gentleman has suggested for child maintenance purposes to define young adults substantially older than the age of 20 as “children”. Doing so would extend maintenance dramatically for some young people. Furthermore, when a non-resident parent themselves falls within the meaning of “child” under the Act, they are exempt from paying maintenance. If the amendment were agreed to, legislation would have to be amended so that children born to parents up to age 24 would not have to wait until their non-resident parent reached 25 to get maintenance from them. Amending legislation in the way in which the hon. Gentleman has suggested would cause more complication to the system than we have now, and we want to avoid that. I hope the hon. Gentleman understands that and will withdraw his amendment.

Michael Weir (Spokesperson (Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform; Energy; Work and Pensions); Angus, Scottish National Party)

I hear what the Minister has said, and I understand the difficulties. It looks like over-20s in Scotland will still have to go to the courts in the few cases where the provision applies. However, I accept the  Minister’s reasoning. The amendment would have a slightly perverse application in respect of allowing parents under 25 to escape, and I would not wish to impose that upon the nation.

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.