---

Child Maintenance and Other Payments Bill

Section 4 of the Child Support Act 1991, subsection (10) should be deleted and substituted as follows: "““No application may be made at any time under this section with respect to a qualifying child or any qualifying children if there is in force a maintenance order in respect of that child or those children and the person who is, at that time, the non-resident parent””." The amendment is grouped with Amendments Nos. 194 and 195, both of which stand as printed in the Marshalled List, in the right place and in the right words! I tabled these three amendments to prompt a discussion on the 12-month rule, which features in Section 4(10) of the Child Support Act 1991. Amendment No. 84 is a proposed substitution of Section 4(10), while Amendments Nos. 194 and 195 are simply additional probes. I shall provide a bit of background on the 12-month rule so that we are all singing from the same hymn sheet—or page of legislation. The rule applies where parents have a consent order or, in Scotland, minutes of agreement, made on or after 3 March 2003, dealing with the payment of child maintenance. The rule prevents parents from applying to the CSA for a maintenance calculation for the first 12 months that the order is in place. After that period, either parent may apply to the CSA, effectively terminating the original order. The Solicitors Family Law Association—Resolution—provided me with a real case to explain the point. Resolution was acting for the parent with care in a divorce case, attempting to negotiate a financial agreement. The division of capital was actually agreed, but they failed to reach a settlement. The case had to go to a final two-day hearing, solely because of the issue of maintenance. While the non-resident parent offered a figure for child maintenance, they wanted it to be called a ““school fees order”” to ensure that after 12 months the parent with care could not refer the matter to the CSA with a result that the payment was reduced. The non-resident parent refused on that basis. I have tried to anticipate the Minister’s retort. Perhaps he is about to say that if the 12-month rule was abolished, parents would be locked into agreements that were no longer working. However, that is not the case. An order for child maintenance invariably has an indexation clause providing for yearly increases. Applications back to court are therefore extremely unusual because, unless there has been a substantial change of circumstances—for example, one party has had a significant windfall—there is simply no need to return to court. The 12-month rule does not promote this ““set and forget”” concept, as it promotes future applications between the parties even if there has been no change. The question then arises whether the 12-month rule becomes so crucial for all parents, because of the problems in the past, when parents transferred capital assets between them instead of future child maintenance. Again, that is a question that needs to be asked, as I have done, and answered—which has not yet happened. Surely the issue here is whether parents should have a choice as to how they deal with their own finances if they can reach agreement. Parents understand what they require and what is best for their children, and the 12-month rule undermines their ability to reach a voluntary agreement, as no parent will reach an agreement—especially when an element of capital is involved—if it can simply be undermined 12 months later. On what basis can the Government interfere in what parents believe between them to be fair? The Government have said that they will consider this matter if a case could be made that it would result in, "““better service for customers and lower costs for the Government””." To me, such a comment only demonstrates that the refusal to abolish the 12-month rule has little to do with a concern about proper arrangements being made by parents for their children. I beg to move.