---

Child Maintenance and Other Payments Bill

It would need to be covered in regulations. The Bill provides for regulations to be made to facilitate that. Amendment No. 90 would mean that a reduction in maintenance liabilities for shared care would not occur unless care was shared for at least 150 nights per year. The noble Lord may wish to distinguish equal care from shared care. There are arguments about whether any maintenance should be paid in equal-care arrangements. That is not where the Government are on that; we are currently planning to carry forward the current arrangements. We are committed to recognising ongoing shared-care arrangements where they exist and to encouraging them where they do not. If these amendments were accepted, the commission would be unable to recognise the vast majority of shared-care arrangements. Where shared care does occur, in most cases it is for fewer than two nights a week. Only about 2 per cent of the agency’s caseload has overnight care of children for 156 nights or more per year. The reduction in maintenance recognises that shared care invariably involves non-resident parents in extra expense and that that can be substantial. The rules offer a simple and transparent incentive for non-resident parents to share care, both financially and in terms of legal recognition of the ongoing relationship. If the threshold for shared care to be taken into account is increased to 156 nights per year, more non-resident parents would be unable to meet the costs of their children staying overnight and shared-care arrangements would suffer as a result. I hope that on the basis of that explanation the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment. If he feels I have not covered all the points he raised, and if he lets me know, I shall try again.