---

Child Maintenance and Other Payments Bill

moved Amendment No. 82: 82: After Clause 15, insert the following new Clause— ““Shared care (1) The Secretary of State shall, within twelve months of the coming into force of this Act, publish a report— (a) reviewing the provisions of the Child Support Act 1991 (c. 48) relating to shared care, with a view to their repeal; and (b) examining alternative provisions for increasing and extending variation provisions for non-resident parents. (2) The report shall be published and laid before both Houses of Parliament.”” The noble Lord said: The three amendments in this group tabled by my noble friend and me try to tackle the thorny issue of shared care and attempt to take a realistic view of it. Amendment No. 82 calls for a review of the shared care rules within 12 months of the Act coming into force. Amendment No. 89 is more of a probing amendment than many amendments and is about the process of the shared care decisions. Amendment No. 90 is effectively an attempt to define realistic shared care. I know that there is a great danger that when a Minister sees a call for a review his eyes start to glaze over, but the aim of Amendment No. 82 is to try to value the shared care; that is, the support of the parent who does not have day-to-day care. What is that parent’s role and what should be given to encourage him or her to take a greater role in support? The unfortunate background to this is that people may use shared care simply as a way of making fewer payments; it is, generally speaking, fathers saying that because he takes the child for x amount of time, x number of days or x number of afternoons there should be a reduction. This is not a call for that. It is a call for a review about what should be required to encourage and support people in the sharing process. We have heard so many arguments stating that two parents are better than one. If those parents decide that they cannot or will not live together in the same household unit, having the two parents making input separately is surely better than having only one doing so. All the arguments in another part of the department about respite care surely reinforce that. There needs to be a real review about government intervention—for instance, providing support to enable the person who is not the main carer to have interaction. Amendment No. 89 again is a probing amendment to seek clarification and answers to some unanswered questions. Will the interim shared-care provision apply to all parents who approach CMEC or just those who are recently separated? For instance, will there be any grounds for an appeal where the non-resident parent does not have the children overnight during the six-month period and, therefore, the parent with care will lose out on some much-needed financial support for the children? How do those things work? That is what we are trying to get at. Amendment No. 90 probably is the most substantial amendment. The amendment would allow for a deduction in child maintenance and liability in respect of shared care only if the child in question stays overnight with a non-resident parent for at least three nights a week on average or at least 156 days in a 12-month period. Effectively, in a seven-day week, three nights a week probably is about as close as you can get for shared care. It is half the time and is a long-term commitment. How can we bring that in? When you take on the fact that this is split as close to down the middle as you can get in a seven-day week, what is the situation? Can we have more clarification? If a person takes on that degree of the upbringing of the child, there might be some concern about whether they are also providing things like half the clothing and school-runs, et cetera. There might need to be a declaration that a person is doing half the care or something very close to it. Should that be taken into account? I beg to move.