Clause 37
Child Maintenance and Other Payments Bill
10:30 am
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?