Work and Pensions Committee
Wednesday 15th July 2026
Skip to latest contribution
This debate has concluded
(began 2 weeks, 2 days ago)
Watch LiveSkip to latest contribution
This debate has concluded
09:31
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
And a very warm welcome to this oral evidence session on the Child Maintenance Service. And it's very, um, we're very welcome. Welcoming to Abigail Wood, um, Sarah Darcy and Sam Morphy, would you like to introduce yourself and your organisations before we kick off with questions?Who would like to start?Abigail, you kick off.
09:31
09:32
09:32
Speaker 4
-
Speaker 4
Hello, I'm Sam Wolfie, I'm the CEO of both Parents Matter. We're a national shared parenting charity. We're going for 52 years now. We support separated parents who are having issues seeing their children. It's mainly dads, but it is mums as well. We welcome anyone who is a non-resident parent who seeks help. Um, and in terms of child maintenance, we mainly see obviously paying parents, but we also see people who have on both sides of the fence receiving parents as well, depending on their family circumstances.
09:33
09:33
09:33
09:33
09:33
09:33
09:33
09:33
Speaker 4
-
Speaker 4
Um I don't believe it is producing outcomes which are either fair, transparent or child focused. I think the fundamental issue is the calculation formula. We have this rigid, formulaic algebraic formula, which is almost unique in the Western world. And I think that pitches parents against each other. I think it fuels conflict. It fuels resentment on both sides. It's not transparent, it's not open and does not help what is already a fraught situation. Um, I also think it militates against shared parenting.
It doesn't encourage shared parenting. Um, it almost makes it too expensive to be an involved parent. As the non-resident parent. Um, and I believe it also. Impoverishes well, not just me believing had multiple parliamentary committees and statutory bodies have done research and produced reports show the Unaffordability, particularly for those on low income is impoverishing paying parents, especially those who want to be involved in the children's life and have got contacts costs in doing so. So I think the fundamental issue, all these other issues are tinkering around at the edges, moving to direct pay, better enforcement.
The fundamental issue which is causing arrears in the first place is this. Um, broken calculation system.
It doesn't encourage shared parenting. Um, it almost makes it too expensive to be an involved parent. As the non-resident parent. Um, and I believe it also. Impoverishes well, not just me believing had multiple parliamentary committees and statutory bodies have done research and produced reports show the Unaffordability, particularly for those on low income is impoverishing paying parents, especially those who want to be involved in the children's life and have got contacts costs in doing so. So I think the fundamental issue, all these other issues are tinkering around at the edges, moving to direct pay, better enforcement.
The fundamental issue which is causing arrears in the first place is this. Um, broken calculation system.
09:35
09:35
Speaker 3
-
Speaker 3
Um, I probably won't put a number on it, but I would say, um, that as a charity, we focus on domestic abuse. So I'll be speaking about survivors of domestic abuse experience. Um, and basically how abusers are weaponizing the child maintenance service to continue the abuse and economic control. Post-separation. And I think the CMS at the moment is really failing survivors. And most importantly, their children. What we know is that abusers are deliberately withholding child maintenance payments, even when they can afford to make these payments, um, to cause ongoing, uh, emotional, but also economic harm to survivors and also to their children.
We know from the survivors that we work alongside that often, um, abusers will withhold payments, really crucial times. So before Christmas ahead of birthdays, um, and, and, and summer holidays. And that's really to cause the most devastating impact on the survivor and their ability to provide the basic essentials for their children. Um, and what we know is that survivors are often forced to rely on food banks, um, you know, go without, um, heating, even go without food themselves just to provide the basics for their children.
And I think the, um, in terms of what the research shows is this is not, you know, a small issue. It's highly, highly prevalent. So our national research conducted by Ipsos showed that 1 in 10 UK mothers have experienced an ex-partner deliberately withholding child maintenance support from them. And this rises to 1 in 3 domestic abuse survivors, really showing how, um, how, um, you know, sort of widespread this, this issue is, um, and I think from survivors perspective, the CMS is, is, um, often seen as enabling and facilitating perpetrators rather than safeguarding them.
So they find the system incredibly traumatising. Um, and obviously it's pushing children into poverty because they're not getting the child support. They are entitled to.
We know from the survivors that we work alongside that often, um, abusers will withhold payments, really crucial times. So before Christmas ahead of birthdays, um, and, and, and summer holidays. And that's really to cause the most devastating impact on the survivor and their ability to provide the basic essentials for their children. Um, and what we know is that survivors are often forced to rely on food banks, um, you know, go without, um, heating, even go without food themselves just to provide the basics for their children.
And I think the, um, in terms of what the research shows is this is not, you know, a small issue. It's highly, highly prevalent. So our national research conducted by Ipsos showed that 1 in 10 UK mothers have experienced an ex-partner deliberately withholding child maintenance support from them. And this rises to 1 in 3 domestic abuse survivors, really showing how, um, how, um, you know, sort of widespread this, this issue is, um, and I think from survivors perspective, the CMS is, is, um, often seen as enabling and facilitating perpetrators rather than safeguarding them.
So they find the system incredibly traumatising. Um, and obviously it's pushing children into poverty because they're not getting the child support. They are entitled to.
09:37
09:37
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
I think I simply give it an extremely, extremely low score. The child maintenance system is fundamentally failing in the purpose for which it was set up. It's supposed to enable both parents to contribute financially to the cost of raising their child, and it's just not doing that, um, for the quarter for which statistics are most recently available, 24% of payments weren't made at all. Um, and about 20, about a quarter of payments, at least 90% was paid. Um, and then you've got that 50% in the middle where the paying parent was paying something, but not quite 90%.
So the payments are not being made. And fundamentally this means that children are missing out on that important financial support. Um, it's been mentioned before, but I really want to highlight how effective child maintenance, when it's paid on time and in full, is as a tool in reducing child poverty, it can reduce it by 25%. So it's a really, really important tool that's available to improve the life chances of children. And that's the most important thing here. The child maintenance service is not succeeding in that function.
The other ways in which gingerbread thinks it is failing is that it is unnecessarily increasing tension between parents. So the majority of both paying and receiving parents who we have surveyed have told us that their interactions with the child Maintenance service have increased the tension in their relationship. And then on top of that, both paying and receiving. Parents have said that engaging with child maintenance service has had a negative effect on their own emotional well-being.
So the payments are not being made. And fundamentally this means that children are missing out on that important financial support. Um, it's been mentioned before, but I really want to highlight how effective child maintenance, when it's paid on time and in full, is as a tool in reducing child poverty, it can reduce it by 25%. So it's a really, really important tool that's available to improve the life chances of children. And that's the most important thing here. The child maintenance service is not succeeding in that function.
The other ways in which gingerbread thinks it is failing is that it is unnecessarily increasing tension between parents. So the majority of both paying and receiving parents who we have surveyed have told us that their interactions with the child Maintenance service have increased the tension in their relationship. And then on top of that, both paying and receiving. Parents have said that engaging with child maintenance service has had a negative effect on their own emotional well-being.
09:39
09:39
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
So I think this comes from a range of, of different factors that it increases tension, it increases, it increases distrust. There's a feeling on both sides. And we'll go into different sides of this that, for example, Sam touched on the calculation and both paying and receiving parents feeling that the calculation isn't working for them. It also means when the majority, when they're having contact through the system and information isn't getting through, it's a source of enormous, enormous stress for both parents. And then that spills over into feeling like that's a source of stress with their ex-partner, you know, constantly, constantly having to phone up the kids, having to sit on hold for 45 minutes, having to explain a situation that you explained to them previously and explaining it again and again, that inevitably brings a degree of tension into a separated relationship.
And obviously, ideally, we want separated parents to have as positive relationship as they possibly can.
And obviously, ideally, we want separated parents to have as positive relationship as they possibly can.
09:39
09:39
Speaker 5
-
Speaker 5
You've all touched on the point about perception of fairness and trust. I think that's an important point. Um, particularly given the services is designed to actually bring people together and it's in the best interests of children. Um, I get as many of us around the table would get casework on both sides of the equation here where receiving parents perhaps aren't getting the money and support they they need and paying parents again, they feel they're being aggrieved because they're paying perhaps more or being treated unfairly as a result of the system.
Um, certainly. I mean, I come from a single parent family. My mum brought up three children on her own. We didn't have any recourse to the child maintenance service or whatever it was back then. But essentially, I accept that a robust system is there to for the interest of the children. Unfortunately, at the minute the perception, at least amongst myself and many MPs, it's not working. I just wanted to take maybe Sam, start with you.
Your view on on the balance of fairness and how that's gone out of kilter and what can do to maybe put it back in kilter?
Um, certainly. I mean, I come from a single parent family. My mum brought up three children on her own. We didn't have any recourse to the child maintenance service or whatever it was back then. But essentially, I accept that a robust system is there to for the interest of the children. Unfortunately, at the minute the perception, at least amongst myself and many MPs, it's not working. I just wanted to take maybe Sam, start with you.
Your view on on the balance of fairness and how that's gone out of kilter and what can do to maybe put it back in kilter?
09:40
Speaker 4
-
Speaker 4
I mean, I think we look at we need to look at how other countries do it. I think, you know, this is a fraught area. And the danger is that the way it's set up, it becomes a zero sum game. More money for the paying parent has less money for the child, vice versa. So but I think the fundamental problem is the lack of transparency. And I'm sure Abigail and Sarah can talk about the transparency issues for receiving parents, but, um, if you are a parent who is a non-resident parent trying to be involved in the child's life, um, there is no recognition for, um, the cost of contact, you know, if you want to stay involved, there are travel costs, there's accommodation costs, there's often contact centre costs.
All these things are not taken into account properly within the calculation. Um you also have a situation where there is no recognition of the financial circumstances of the receiving parent. And the UK is pretty much an outlier on this. There are very, very few countries which just have this formula which purely looks at the income of the paying parent. The CMS will defend that. It's simple and it's it's the best way to get money to the children. I mean, I disagree other countries manage to find formulas which are open and transparent.
So for example, when you go to court, whether it's over contact or finances, the court puts the child first. They look at what are the child's needs and how can both parents provide that, whether it's looking after the child or whether it's finances. When you get to CMS, you have this binary formula which purely looks at one person's income. So that immediately creates this sense of unfairness. Um, and particularly on the lower pay, it does produce unaffordable calculations. It's not just me saying this.
So many parliamentary reviews have said exactly the same thing, which then underlies the problem of arrears. But when you're then in that situation where you're trying to do the right thing, I'm not talking about the hard and non payers. That's a different sector. We see the people who want to be involved in the child's life and want to make a contribution to their child's life, are struggling to do so. When you've got all these other costs which aren't being taken care of.
Um and when, if you miss a payment, fairly draconian state sponsored measures are put in place when at the same time you're trying to have contact with your child. And this is where the sense of unfairness and injustice comes in and there is minimal, um, consequences if the other parent for no good reason, breaches a contact order, you compare the, the level of measures and the way the state comes down on, um, you know, fairly single missed payments. And then when you're not seeing your child or struggling to see your child and got all the costs of if you are seeing your child, that's where that sense of unfairness comes in.
And I think, I mean, your question was, how do we improve the system, I think?I mean, I'm arguing for fundamental reform. We need to look at how other countries do it. Look at a system where there's open transparency about your situation. You might not agree with the outcome, but at least you can buy into it. We don't have a system which is transparent either for the paying payment or the receiving payments. You can build that into the existing system.
I think there does need to be recognition of both parents income to create that sense of fairness. And we also have this perverse incentive baked into the current system, where if you're the receiving parent, you can receive more maintenance. If you reduce the contact of the other parent. Um, and that in itself just creates conflict because whenever there's a reduction in contact, there's going to be suspicion. Why is that being done?Um, so having that perverse incentive within the system and there are measures you can do around that in order to, to alleviate that.
But I think the fundamental problem of the system then fuels all these other problems around arrears, and then problems with enforcement.
All these things are not taken into account properly within the calculation. Um you also have a situation where there is no recognition of the financial circumstances of the receiving parent. And the UK is pretty much an outlier on this. There are very, very few countries which just have this formula which purely looks at the income of the paying parent. The CMS will defend that. It's simple and it's it's the best way to get money to the children. I mean, I disagree other countries manage to find formulas which are open and transparent.
So for example, when you go to court, whether it's over contact or finances, the court puts the child first. They look at what are the child's needs and how can both parents provide that, whether it's looking after the child or whether it's finances. When you get to CMS, you have this binary formula which purely looks at one person's income. So that immediately creates this sense of unfairness. Um, and particularly on the lower pay, it does produce unaffordable calculations. It's not just me saying this.
So many parliamentary reviews have said exactly the same thing, which then underlies the problem of arrears. But when you're then in that situation where you're trying to do the right thing, I'm not talking about the hard and non payers. That's a different sector. We see the people who want to be involved in the child's life and want to make a contribution to their child's life, are struggling to do so. When you've got all these other costs which aren't being taken care of.
Um and when, if you miss a payment, fairly draconian state sponsored measures are put in place when at the same time you're trying to have contact with your child. And this is where the sense of unfairness and injustice comes in and there is minimal, um, consequences if the other parent for no good reason, breaches a contact order, you compare the, the level of measures and the way the state comes down on, um, you know, fairly single missed payments. And then when you're not seeing your child or struggling to see your child and got all the costs of if you are seeing your child, that's where that sense of unfairness comes in.
And I think, I mean, your question was, how do we improve the system, I think?I mean, I'm arguing for fundamental reform. We need to look at how other countries do it. Look at a system where there's open transparency about your situation. You might not agree with the outcome, but at least you can buy into it. We don't have a system which is transparent either for the paying payment or the receiving payments. You can build that into the existing system.
I think there does need to be recognition of both parents income to create that sense of fairness. And we also have this perverse incentive baked into the current system, where if you're the receiving parent, you can receive more maintenance. If you reduce the contact of the other parent. Um, and that in itself just creates conflict because whenever there's a reduction in contact, there's going to be suspicion. Why is that being done?Um, so having that perverse incentive within the system and there are measures you can do around that in order to, to alleviate that.
But I think the fundamental problem of the system then fuels all these other problems around arrears, and then problems with enforcement.
09:44
Speaker 5
-
Speaker 5
Thank you. I turn to Abigail. That same question. But but one of the I think you gave some statistics about, um, the. Paying parent paying 24% weren't paying the amount. That that goes to, I guess when you said that in my mind it triggered a question. Well, is the amount that's set the correct amount. If it's perhaps too high and the paying parent can't afford it because the formula is wrong, then arguably that will impact the percentage of what is actually paid.
I just get your view on that as well.
I just get your view on that as well.
09:45
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
That could be could be a factor within it for it to be quite that high. And then the higher I would, I'm speculating here and I'm not sure if speculating is ever helpful, but I would suggest that's more the case where something is paid rather than nothing at all. I think it is worth flagging up that we've got 75% of payments are made at less than 90%. You know this. This money simply isn't isn't getting through. Um, can I turn to the slightly the, some of the broader issues that we hear from, from parents as well in terms of the, the fairness, um, in contrast to what Sam was saying, we hear a lot from receiving parents about a real reluctance from the CMS to, um, to use any of the enforcement tools that they have available to us.
So when we survey parents, it was 6 in 10 parents with care told us that they felt that the service was really reluctant to use any of the powers that they had available. They also report extremely long waiting times for anything to be done after parents, um after payments are missed, after investigations are completed. And during this time, of course, arrears are accumulating and accumulated arrears are not good for anyone. You know, stacked up debt is very bad for the their paying parent and not receiving the money of course, has that impact on the quality of life of the the child in question.
Um, I think having to, as I said before, repeatedly chase the CMS and follow up on what's happening, this really adds adds to the difficulties in these areas. And parents on both sides talk about quite how, how difficult this is. I think in terms of fairness, we also hear from receiving parents how they feel the CMS puts the burden of proof on challenging things like the reported level of income of the paying parent on them, rather than on the system to investigate. Um, so we know at the moment that it's only earned income that is taken into account in the initial calculation.
So any income from assets such as rental properties or dividends or things like that isn't taken into account to begin with. Um, and when parents flag up that, they think there is a discrepancy between what's being reported and the life that they know that their ex-partner is, is living, the CMS is very reluctant to investigate. And they frequently asked receiving parents, can you provide proof of can you provide proof of perhaps your your ex partner's payslip?Things like simply aren't appropriate for them to be providing.
Um, we've heard in really extreme cases where the CMS has asked them to prove proof of a rental property to go and get photographic evidence. And this was a case where there had been domestic abuse. There was a non-molestation order. The the way in which the CMS seems to be putting the burden on the receiving parent to provide this proof, rather than carrying out investigations themselves, feels feels unfair.
So when we survey parents, it was 6 in 10 parents with care told us that they felt that the service was really reluctant to use any of the powers that they had available. They also report extremely long waiting times for anything to be done after parents, um after payments are missed, after investigations are completed. And during this time, of course, arrears are accumulating and accumulated arrears are not good for anyone. You know, stacked up debt is very bad for the their paying parent and not receiving the money of course, has that impact on the quality of life of the the child in question.
Um, I think having to, as I said before, repeatedly chase the CMS and follow up on what's happening, this really adds adds to the difficulties in these areas. And parents on both sides talk about quite how, how difficult this is. I think in terms of fairness, we also hear from receiving parents how they feel the CMS puts the burden of proof on challenging things like the reported level of income of the paying parent on them, rather than on the system to investigate. Um, so we know at the moment that it's only earned income that is taken into account in the initial calculation.
So any income from assets such as rental properties or dividends or things like that isn't taken into account to begin with. Um, and when parents flag up that, they think there is a discrepancy between what's being reported and the life that they know that their ex-partner is, is living, the CMS is very reluctant to investigate. And they frequently asked receiving parents, can you provide proof of can you provide proof of perhaps your your ex partner's payslip?Things like simply aren't appropriate for them to be providing.
Um, we've heard in really extreme cases where the CMS has asked them to prove proof of a rental property to go and get photographic evidence. And this was a case where there had been domestic abuse. There was a non-molestation order. The the way in which the CMS seems to be putting the burden on the receiving parent to provide this proof, rather than carrying out investigations themselves, feels feels unfair.
09:47
09:48
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
Thank you Peter. I'm going to move on to safeguarding now. And you'll be aware that the committee has been looking at safeguarding and how the department as a whole, uh, integrates safeguarding into all policy development. And I just wondered whether you had noticed a change in this over the last couple of years around the approach to safeguarding for both paying and receiving parents within the CMS. I can go. Yes, please do. Sarah.
09:49
09:49
09:49
09:49
09:49
Speaker 3
-
Speaker 3
Relevant to the safeguarding. Because I think um you know um the. Non payment or irregular payments of child maintenance service is recognised as an economic abuse and is criminalised under the controlling and can be criminalised, I should say under the controlling or coercive behaviour offence. So I think it's important to recognise that there can be circumstances where this is recognised as a crime and can be prosecuted, and from what we know about, um, this form of abuse, it often happens in a broader context of um creating fear, intimidation often goes alongside threats of physical sexual violence and other forms of domestic abuse.
So it's really important to, to recognise that when we're talking about domestic abuse within, um, through using the EMS that we're recognising that that wider context of power and control and the real sort of fear and intimidation that survivors face when trying to access the child, support that their children are entitled to. Um, what we have seen is that, you know, since the tragic death of Emma Day, which where she was killed by her abusive ex-partner following her trying to access child support payments, is that the CMS has tried to make some changes to its service, for example, introducing mandatory domestic abuse training.
Um, and also, um, proactively, um. Um, trying to identify domestic abuse. I think what we see from survivors who are accessing this service is that while those changes have been made, it isn't necessarily filtering down to the ground in terms of what survivors are experiencing when they're accessing the service. Um, we've got some a number of concerns, I think, with how the CMS safeguards survivors. Um, since the, um, the fee waiver was scrapped, which was enabled survivors to be able to avoid the application fee, that was a point where they could disclose domestic abuse.
And we haven't yet had assurances about whether the service continues to proactively try and identify domestic abuse at the point of entering the service, and therefore tailoring the support that that customer experiences through the service as well. Um, we have, um, also, um, you know, while there has been an introduction of mandatory training, we're still hearing from survivors that the support that they're offered isn't, um, trauma informed and it isn't safe practice. So I know Abigail has already spoken about issues where survivors are, you know, the burdens being put on them to investigate their abusive ex-partner as part of financial investigations and really putting the burden on them, which we know can be really dangerous for survivors because they're constantly worried about the repercussions of doing so.
Um, for example, one survivor that we work alongside, um, the financial investigation had found that the abuser had not been making accurate, uh, tax disclosures to HMRC. So rather than the CMS reporting that to HMRC, they asked the survivor to report that herself, but she didn't dare to do that because of the very risk to her safety and also her children's safety, because she was still having to support her child contact, which was putting her and also her wider family at risk. I think the third point I just want and the final point I want to make is just the system itself.
Um, hasn't been designed with safety in mind. We know obviously the collect and pay service is much safer survivors because they don't have to share their bank details with the perpetrator, and they don't have to report to the CMS if the um, their ex. Partner isn't making those payments. But we find it really difficult for survivors to stay on that service. So as soon as an abuser starts to show that they're being compliant, they get kicked back onto direct pay. And then that's when their payments stop again.
And then they have the struggle. Survivors say it's like a continuous merry go round on and off the collect and pay service. So I think reforms are really needed to make the system itself safer for survivors.
So it's really important to, to recognise that when we're talking about domestic abuse within, um, through using the EMS that we're recognising that that wider context of power and control and the real sort of fear and intimidation that survivors face when trying to access the child, support that their children are entitled to. Um, what we have seen is that, you know, since the tragic death of Emma Day, which where she was killed by her abusive ex-partner following her trying to access child support payments, is that the CMS has tried to make some changes to its service, for example, introducing mandatory domestic abuse training.
Um, and also, um, proactively, um. Um, trying to identify domestic abuse. I think what we see from survivors who are accessing this service is that while those changes have been made, it isn't necessarily filtering down to the ground in terms of what survivors are experiencing when they're accessing the service. Um, we've got some a number of concerns, I think, with how the CMS safeguards survivors. Um, since the, um, the fee waiver was scrapped, which was enabled survivors to be able to avoid the application fee, that was a point where they could disclose domestic abuse.
And we haven't yet had assurances about whether the service continues to proactively try and identify domestic abuse at the point of entering the service, and therefore tailoring the support that that customer experiences through the service as well. Um, we have, um, also, um, you know, while there has been an introduction of mandatory training, we're still hearing from survivors that the support that they're offered isn't, um, trauma informed and it isn't safe practice. So I know Abigail has already spoken about issues where survivors are, you know, the burdens being put on them to investigate their abusive ex-partner as part of financial investigations and really putting the burden on them, which we know can be really dangerous for survivors because they're constantly worried about the repercussions of doing so.
Um, for example, one survivor that we work alongside, um, the financial investigation had found that the abuser had not been making accurate, uh, tax disclosures to HMRC. So rather than the CMS reporting that to HMRC, they asked the survivor to report that herself, but she didn't dare to do that because of the very risk to her safety and also her children's safety, because she was still having to support her child contact, which was putting her and also her wider family at risk. I think the third point I just want and the final point I want to make is just the system itself.
Um, hasn't been designed with safety in mind. We know obviously the collect and pay service is much safer survivors because they don't have to share their bank details with the perpetrator, and they don't have to report to the CMS if the um, their ex. Partner isn't making those payments. But we find it really difficult for survivors to stay on that service. So as soon as an abuser starts to show that they're being compliant, they get kicked back onto direct pay. And then that's when their payments stop again.
And then they have the struggle. Survivors say it's like a continuous merry go round on and off the collect and pay service. So I think reforms are really needed to make the system itself safer for survivors.
09:52
09:52
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
Yeah. So just to really kind of support what Sara was saying, and certainly what we're hearing from parents, I know there have been some changes that have been made in recent years. They have not filtered through into the experience of parents who are using the system, particularly some of them tell us that their experience when they're speaking to caseworkers on the phone with CMS, there is supposed to have been specialist training. Parents tell us that at best, it feels like dealing with a call centre, was how one parent described it.
But worse than that, that they have felt shamed by their interactions with these core workers and that they felt that they're experiencing a conversation with someone who is holding the sort of stereotypes, the outdated stereotypes about abuse. So rather than it being a trauma informed service, it is it is part of retraumatizing them having to deal with this, this system. Um, the other thing that I would flag up is, again, I know there are safeguards that are supposed to have been put in place, for example, that you can have, um, get access to a sort code if you are on direct pay so that you can share that with the ex-partner so they're not able to trace the area in which you live.
We have spoken to parents who weren't made aware of this. I think the systems for identifying who has experienced abuse are not working properly. Our research showed that 77% of parents using the CMS say that they've experienced abuse. So I know that there's the specialist team dealing with very complex abuse. But really, we need a system. The average experience of the system needs to be trauma informed. Um, and to be working on, on that basis.
There's just one other example I wanted to, to share to bring this to light to you of a single parent that I spoke to a couple of months ago, who's been using the CMS service for 16 years. And she has told us every single time a communication goes to her ex-partner, she receives a threatening message anonymously on social media. She has no direct contact with him, but every single time something goes through, she receives these messages again. And I think it's really important. Part of the safeguarding system that, um, receiving parents need to know when communications are going out to paying parents because for those experiencing abuse, that can be a time that can result in the abuse heightening.
But worse than that, that they have felt shamed by their interactions with these core workers and that they felt that they're experiencing a conversation with someone who is holding the sort of stereotypes, the outdated stereotypes about abuse. So rather than it being a trauma informed service, it is it is part of retraumatizing them having to deal with this, this system. Um, the other thing that I would flag up is, again, I know there are safeguards that are supposed to have been put in place, for example, that you can have, um, get access to a sort code if you are on direct pay so that you can share that with the ex-partner so they're not able to trace the area in which you live.
We have spoken to parents who weren't made aware of this. I think the systems for identifying who has experienced abuse are not working properly. Our research showed that 77% of parents using the CMS say that they've experienced abuse. So I know that there's the specialist team dealing with very complex abuse. But really, we need a system. The average experience of the system needs to be trauma informed. Um, and to be working on, on that basis.
There's just one other example I wanted to, to share to bring this to light to you of a single parent that I spoke to a couple of months ago, who's been using the CMS service for 16 years. And she has told us every single time a communication goes to her ex-partner, she receives a threatening message anonymously on social media. She has no direct contact with him, but every single time something goes through, she receives these messages again. And I think it's really important. Part of the safeguarding system that, um, receiving parents need to know when communications are going out to paying parents because for those experiencing abuse, that can be a time that can result in the abuse heightening.
09:54
09:55
Speaker 4
-
Speaker 4
Is important to remember. I mean, I agree with everything generally everything which has been said. Um, I think the National Audit Office reported that 71% might be the DWP report that 71% of receiving parents report that they are victims of domestic abuse, and that's 51% for paying parents. And that certainly is our experience as well. We do surveys amongst paying parents. They report a very high level of psychological abuse, coercive control and also economic abuse as well, both Pre-separation and Post-separation.
And that abuse can continue often through withholding of the child or other other forms of, of economic abuse, um, within the child maintenance system. We do have reports of people falsely claiming that a payment hasn't been made when it has been made. Um, if there is an arrear reporting that to the credit agency making unaffordable, um demands for payment. Um, and also, as I say, reporting non payments when there have been. So in terms of improving those systems from the paying parent's point of view, I think if the digital tool, um makes it easier for people to prove that a payment has been made, I think that would help.
Um, I'm generally in favour for domestic abuse victims on both sides of the movable to collect and pay, because just not having to negotiate the whole time. Your ex-partner, whether it's over finances or whatever. Um, I mean, we have had people come back and say, well, actually, it was a relief when the child maintenance system came and said, I'm now the intermediary here. You don't have to deal with your ex-partner anymore. Um, so I think if that can be improved as well, um, and also the rolling out of single named caseworkers in those cases of domestic abuse, I think it's just, it's really important that the, the training which caseworkers receive and the referral to a single named caseworker, they need to be properly trained to recognise that this happens on both sides.
As I've said, there is abuse on both sides receiving and paying parents, non-resident and resident parents. The training needs to be completely balanced and even to make sure that those cases on both sides are properly picked up.
And that abuse can continue often through withholding of the child or other other forms of, of economic abuse, um, within the child maintenance system. We do have reports of people falsely claiming that a payment hasn't been made when it has been made. Um, if there is an arrear reporting that to the credit agency making unaffordable, um demands for payment. Um, and also, as I say, reporting non payments when there have been. So in terms of improving those systems from the paying parent's point of view, I think if the digital tool, um makes it easier for people to prove that a payment has been made, I think that would help.
Um, I'm generally in favour for domestic abuse victims on both sides of the movable to collect and pay, because just not having to negotiate the whole time. Your ex-partner, whether it's over finances or whatever. Um, I mean, we have had people come back and say, well, actually, it was a relief when the child maintenance system came and said, I'm now the intermediary here. You don't have to deal with your ex-partner anymore. Um, so I think if that can be improved as well, um, and also the rolling out of single named caseworkers in those cases of domestic abuse, I think it's just, it's really important that the, the training which caseworkers receive and the referral to a single named caseworker, they need to be properly trained to recognise that this happens on both sides.
As I've said, there is abuse on both sides receiving and paying parents, non-resident and resident parents. The training needs to be completely balanced and even to make sure that those cases on both sides are properly picked up.
09:56
09:57
Speaker 4
-
Speaker 4
Um, well, I think this is probably my fundamental bugbear in that there haven't been improvements on affordability. Um, under the old CSA system. I'm not saying that we should go back to the old CSA system. There was the opportunity and it's important that this needs to be in line with the new definition of compliance. You know, compliance needs to be properly achieved. But there was the possibility if you were genuinely struggling to afford to pay that part, payments were accepted, not in terms of saying you're compliant, but in terms of an interim measure, because some money going to the child has got to be better than no money going to the child I am talking here about.
I'm not again, I'm not talking about those hardened non-payers. I'm talking about those who genuinely cannot afford for affordability. Um, there needs to be, um, in terms of, I mean, I would say when, if there is a movement to collect and pay and there is the 20% fee for non payers, I mean, initially if you can't pay and then you suddenly have a 20% fee put on top, I can't see how you're going to be able to pay then. So I think in those circumstances there needs to be some graduation in terms of the fee.
Um, there needs to be a grace period for moving to cases to collect and pay so that people can move to a family based arrangement wherever it's possible. But I think there needs to be a general understanding. Um, but fundamentally this comes back to the calculation. The calculation is producing unaffordable calculations. The National Audit Office did a survey a couple of years ago, and 46% of the people within the CMS system are below the income tax threshold. They're either earning no money, this is paying payments or either earning no money, or they are not earning enough to actually pay any tax.
And those non-payers is actually 62%. So there's a fundamental issue of affordability is creating the bulk of the arrears within the CMS system. Um, and I think there needs to be a recognition of that. So more flexibility. I know that they have a statutory obligation to just go in there and get the money. But I think the way that the system is set up means that they are not taking into account the affordability issues in the way that they should be.
And there's general recognition. They're purely looking at the value. And of course, the value to the child are getting money to them. But the system is set up that they're not recognising the value of having both parents and a child's life that is just not being valued within the system because of the issues around, um, not compensating for shared parenting. So there needs to be another review of the calculation review. I'm really disappointed that the government has decided to make no changes, despite all the criticisms of the calculation.
Um, I would say scrapping the reduced band, um, for there to be some kind of self-support allowance where both parents are level, which both parents can live in dignity. Um, a percentage above that self-support allowance and a general recognition of the cost to the non-resident parents of trying to stay involved in their child's life because there's no recognition or minimal recognition of that within the current system. And I think that would solve a lot of the issues around arrears and affordability.
I'm not again, I'm not talking about those hardened non-payers. I'm talking about those who genuinely cannot afford for affordability. Um, there needs to be, um, in terms of, I mean, I would say when, if there is a movement to collect and pay and there is the 20% fee for non payers, I mean, initially if you can't pay and then you suddenly have a 20% fee put on top, I can't see how you're going to be able to pay then. So I think in those circumstances there needs to be some graduation in terms of the fee.
Um, there needs to be a grace period for moving to cases to collect and pay so that people can move to a family based arrangement wherever it's possible. But I think there needs to be a general understanding. Um, but fundamentally this comes back to the calculation. The calculation is producing unaffordable calculations. The National Audit Office did a survey a couple of years ago, and 46% of the people within the CMS system are below the income tax threshold. They're either earning no money, this is paying payments or either earning no money, or they are not earning enough to actually pay any tax.
And those non-payers is actually 62%. So there's a fundamental issue of affordability is creating the bulk of the arrears within the CMS system. Um, and I think there needs to be a recognition of that. So more flexibility. I know that they have a statutory obligation to just go in there and get the money. But I think the way that the system is set up means that they are not taking into account the affordability issues in the way that they should be.
And there's general recognition. They're purely looking at the value. And of course, the value to the child are getting money to them. But the system is set up that they're not recognising the value of having both parents and a child's life that is just not being valued within the system because of the issues around, um, not compensating for shared parenting. So there needs to be another review of the calculation review. I'm really disappointed that the government has decided to make no changes, despite all the criticisms of the calculation.
Um, I would say scrapping the reduced band, um, for there to be some kind of self-support allowance where both parents are level, which both parents can live in dignity. Um, a percentage above that self-support allowance and a general recognition of the cost to the non-resident parents of trying to stay involved in their child's life because there's no recognition or minimal recognition of that within the current system. And I think that would solve a lot of the issues around arrears and affordability.
10:00
10:00
Speaker 4
-
Speaker 4
Um, I mean, I don't have actual data, which I can point to, but I generally say no, I mean, it's not all bad. I don't want to come here and say it's all bad because as I said, we do have parents who say that it's a relief when they step in. Um, but I think there needs to be more trauma informed training. Um, I mean, just to give the context, again, we know that the suicidal rates amongst men is, is horribly high. It's three times that when you look at separated dads.
So we are looking at a very high level of emotional distress amongst all the other stressors which are involved. If you're being denied contact with your child or you're having to go to court and no one willingly goes to court because of the cost and the trauma and the feeling that you are, the system is against you. Um, if you take into that trauma, plus the fact that separated dads and this is recognised by the government, that there's not sufficient support for them. I think the trauma and force training, which needs to be done on both sides, just needs to recognise the, the trauma, which a lot of people on both sides are going through.
And I don't think that's recognised at the moment. So we still get reports that, um the CMS is heavy handed, um that they um they're difficult to. Get through. And that's a question of resources, but there's a general sense that you are dealing with a state function which is coming down on you. And it's difficult to have a proper conversation with. So there's got to be a way to build that in on both sides. But it is around proper trauma and force training.
So we are looking at a very high level of emotional distress amongst all the other stressors which are involved. If you're being denied contact with your child or you're having to go to court and no one willingly goes to court because of the cost and the trauma and the feeling that you are, the system is against you. Um, if you take into that trauma, plus the fact that separated dads and this is recognised by the government, that there's not sufficient support for them. I think the trauma and force training, which needs to be done on both sides, just needs to recognise the, the trauma, which a lot of people on both sides are going through.
And I don't think that's recognised at the moment. So we still get reports that, um the CMS is heavy handed, um that they um they're difficult to. Get through. And that's a question of resources, but there's a general sense that you are dealing with a state function which is coming down on you. And it's difficult to have a proper conversation with. So there's got to be a way to build that in on both sides. But it is around proper trauma and force training.
10:02
10:02
Speaker 3
-
Speaker 3
Um, I think from our perspective, um, calculations aren't really working for survivors of domestic abuse because at the moment they rely really heavily on the abusive ex-partner disclosing their own income. And so what we see is that perpetrators often hide their earnings. So they might ask to, uh, switch from being employed to self-employed. They might take cash in hand if they are self-employed, they might try and hide um, income by doing salary, salary, sacrifice. And as Abigail mentioned earlier, there's also other elements of income, particularly rental properties that just aren't being taken into account.
Um, we know that survivors have to fight to get financial investigations and we know quite regularly when those financial investigations are made, you know, they find, uh, you know, that there is a significant income that's being hidden by partners. Um, we've also come across a number of cases where survivors have been told that they are being given a nil rate. So, um, that the, the, their ex-partner has said they've got no income, they're not on benefits. And that means that when they're put on that nil rate, the arrears cannot be um.
Enforcement action cannot be taken on those arrears. And essentially they have to go right from the start of the process to try and get a financial investigation in place. And that means that all the time that this is going on, um, that children are not getting any financial help at the moment. And I know Abigail shared shocking statistics, which are just from Dwp's collect and pay figures, which show that a quarter of parents are paying absolutely no maintenance at all. Um, I think going back to what Sam said about the need for trauma informed training, I do think if the CMS can improve its support for vulnerable customers, um, that will help both, you know, receiving parents, but also paying parents as well.
But I think ultimately, um, at the moment, the, um, the reliance on the paying parent, making that accurate disclosure of the income isn't leading to effective outcomes for survivors. And there's much more that the service can do. It can work more closely with HMRC, use HMRC data. We've seen other parts of DWP have access to financial information from employers or banks and building societies. Um, there must be a way that the CMS can do those financial investigations themselves rely on that data.
So it's not down to the survivor to try and advocate for their children to be able to get the child support. They should be entitled to. Um, and, and for the CMS to use existing powers to really, um, take that burden away from survivors and ensure kids can get the child support they deserve.
Um, we know that survivors have to fight to get financial investigations and we know quite regularly when those financial investigations are made, you know, they find, uh, you know, that there is a significant income that's being hidden by partners. Um, we've also come across a number of cases where survivors have been told that they are being given a nil rate. So, um, that the, the, their ex-partner has said they've got no income, they're not on benefits. And that means that when they're put on that nil rate, the arrears cannot be um.
Enforcement action cannot be taken on those arrears. And essentially they have to go right from the start of the process to try and get a financial investigation in place. And that means that all the time that this is going on, um, that children are not getting any financial help at the moment. And I know Abigail shared shocking statistics, which are just from Dwp's collect and pay figures, which show that a quarter of parents are paying absolutely no maintenance at all. Um, I think going back to what Sam said about the need for trauma informed training, I do think if the CMS can improve its support for vulnerable customers, um, that will help both, you know, receiving parents, but also paying parents as well.
But I think ultimately, um, at the moment, the, um, the reliance on the paying parent, making that accurate disclosure of the income isn't leading to effective outcomes for survivors. And there's much more that the service can do. It can work more closely with HMRC, use HMRC data. We've seen other parts of DWP have access to financial information from employers or banks and building societies. Um, there must be a way that the CMS can do those financial investigations themselves rely on that data.
So it's not down to the survivor to try and advocate for their children to be able to get the child support. They should be entitled to. Um, and, and for the CMS to use existing powers to really, um, take that burden away from survivors and ensure kids can get the child support they deserve.
10:04
10:05
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
Restate that from our perspective as well. The calculation simply isn't working. And we were really disappointed to see the wider consultation on that cancelled. Um, I wanted to quickly touch on um, the calculation and how that takes account for um nights. Spent with the non-resident parent and that, that very much isn't working for, for either parent. So we hear from um paying parents that that simply isn't, isn't working for them because it almost provides an incentive for the receiving parent to reduce the amount of overnight stays that that child has reducing that contact.
And that is, you know, if it's safe to do so is a very good thing. Um, but then on the other hand, we hear from parents that this cannot work for them because an agreement will be come to on the basis of say that this child is going to spend 50 nights, 100 nights a year with the non-resident parent. But if the non-resident parent then doesn't stick to that and says, no, not around this weekend, can't do this, I can't do this night. It's then very tricky to go back and get that changed in the past.
So yeah, it's simply not working for either side at the moment. It's based on on very outdated numbers. Um, I think it's really important that there the service is properly resourced so that it can investigate and be curious enough to work out the fully accurate amount of maintenance that is owed. So we don't have maintenance being chased from parents who can't afford it. But equally, in those sad cases where parents do choose to hide their income in order to reduce the amount of money that's paid, that that is identified, and there is enforcement action to make sure that they are paying the appropriate amount towards the cost of their child being raised and.
And that is, you know, if it's safe to do so is a very good thing. Um, but then on the other hand, we hear from parents that this cannot work for them because an agreement will be come to on the basis of say that this child is going to spend 50 nights, 100 nights a year with the non-resident parent. But if the non-resident parent then doesn't stick to that and says, no, not around this weekend, can't do this, I can't do this night. It's then very tricky to go back and get that changed in the past.
So yeah, it's simply not working for either side at the moment. It's based on on very outdated numbers. Um, I think it's really important that there the service is properly resourced so that it can investigate and be curious enough to work out the fully accurate amount of maintenance that is owed. So we don't have maintenance being chased from parents who can't afford it. But equally, in those sad cases where parents do choose to hide their income in order to reduce the amount of money that's paid, that that is identified, and there is enforcement action to make sure that they are paying the appropriate amount towards the cost of their child being raised and.
10:06
10:06
10:07
Speaker 3
-
Speaker 3
Yes. Similarly, um, I think there's, um, from survivors perspective, they don't really feel like they're getting the support. As Abigail mentioned earlier, it feels like they're just interacting with a call centre and there isn't that real understanding about, um, you know, the real sort of harm to them, um, caused by the abuser and also the impact that that will have on their mental health. So I think, you know, as I said, improving the system so that there's effective support for vulnerable customers, both paying and receiving parents would really do a massive, uh, you know, service to survivors because it will mean that they're being supported at a time when, you know, they're going to be struggling with their mental health.
10:07
10:07
10:08
10:08
10:08
10:08
10:09
10:09
10:09
Speaker 7
-
Speaker 7
And you will have a succinct question. Um. What's coming across very strongly is that the CMS processes and procedures seem to be inhuman, formulaic rules based and taking insufficient account of the realities of the lives of the people that they're dealing with. Are people who either lead chaotic lives or have chaos enforced upon them by their circumstances. Um, and I want to just tease out from the three of you, if I can, were about in the CMS system, it might be best to inject some flex or nuance or the ability to be agile, to respond to people's chaotic situations.
And Sam, you mentioned overseas. Formulas and different countries. You also mentioned about a single named caseworker for specific complex cases. I wonder whether these are approaches which might be better suited across the board and with without trying to deal with economic abuse or coercive control, or people going with anonymous comments online that injecting flex into the system could deal with a lot of these issues at source.
And Sam, you mentioned overseas. Formulas and different countries. You also mentioned about a single named caseworker for specific complex cases. I wonder whether these are approaches which might be better suited across the board and with without trying to deal with economic abuse or coercive control, or people going with anonymous comments online that injecting flex into the system could deal with a lot of these issues at source.
10:10
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
And were you going to go, could I come in on that?Um, partly. I push back slightly against the comment about sort of chaotic lives. I feel like almost all parents using this system would say there is chaos enforced on them. Chaotic lives is not a phrase that we would use to describe most of the parents. We're we're working with. It's also not just a sort of computer says no approach that is causing the problems. It's also inconsistency.
Um, so parents say to us, they contact the system. They're given one decision. They contact again to follow up how it's going. And they were told, no, that decision wasn't taken or we haven't received this information. So it is not just the rules being applied to rigidly. It's the inconsistency. We would absolutely support a single named caseworker as well. I think that would having to repeat your story again and again is a huge part of the.
The problem. I'm actually going to ask about communication and the digital portal later, so I won't say the things I'd like to say on that at this point, but I would at that point, I'm.
Um, so parents say to us, they contact the system. They're given one decision. They contact again to follow up how it's going. And they were told, no, that decision wasn't taken or we haven't received this information. So it is not just the rules being applied to rigidly. It's the inconsistency. We would absolutely support a single named caseworker as well. I think that would having to repeat your story again and again is a huge part of the.
The problem. I'm actually going to ask about communication and the digital portal later, so I won't say the things I'd like to say on that at this point, but I would at that point, I'm.
10:12
Speaker 3
-
Speaker 3
Happy to come in from a domestic abuse perspective. Um, I think flexibility can be good in certain situations. Um, in domestic abuse, but I think also it absolutely needs to be backed up with really clear policies and procedures when you're dealing with, you know. Yeah, really, um, sort of complex and. And, you know, real sort of safeguarding issues. I do think in terms of some of the ideas and the pilot around the single named caseworker can be really, really effective.
Um, but I do think we've got to remember that there's high levels of domestic abuse cases within the CMS. I know we've spoken about Gingerbreads, um, survey that suggested around 77% of cases of domestic abuse related, um, you know, DWP figures suggest that around 60% of applications, um, were domestic abuse related because of the accessing the fee waiver. So I do think the DWP needs really solid and effective domestic abuse policies and processes. And to that be absolutely at the core, given that the majority of domestic abuse cases, cases in the CMS are domestic abuse related.
Um, but I do think we've got to remember that there's high levels of domestic abuse cases within the CMS. I know we've spoken about Gingerbreads, um, survey that suggested around 77% of cases of domestic abuse related, um, you know, DWP figures suggest that around 60% of applications, um, were domestic abuse related because of the accessing the fee waiver. So I do think the DWP needs really solid and effective domestic abuse policies and processes. And to that be absolutely at the core, given that the majority of domestic abuse cases, cases in the CMS are domestic abuse related.
10:13
Speaker 4
-
Speaker 4
Well, I mean, most of I mean, most of I think I say the I mean, the issues are down to fundamental form, which I think is what the House of Lords has called for as well, um, which unfortunately doesn't seem that it's on the horizon at the moment in terms of the system we've got at the moment. I mean that flexibility, I've talked about part payments. Um, I think it's important that that doesn't militate against the compliance figures and recognising what is and isn't compliant. But there must be a way that there's flexibility for those people who are genuinely struggling or which is a very, very high percentage.
That part payments can be allowed for a longer period. And, you know, still, you know, there's still arrears building up, but part payments in order to get money to the children, um, is better than none. But also use of the digital tool. I think, you know, there is an opportunity for if it's improved and a lot of people talk about it's, it's complicated and it's not easy to use and it's not particularly user friendly. But if that is a way for people to be able to, um, report that they have made payments.
Um, so there's no confusion. I think that can, that, that can help to achieve the, the non payment issue. But I think the main flexibility would be around, you know, the possibility to look at can payments be accepted in some form.
That part payments can be allowed for a longer period. And, you know, still, you know, there's still arrears building up, but part payments in order to get money to the children, um, is better than none. But also use of the digital tool. I think, you know, there is an opportunity for if it's improved and a lot of people talk about it's, it's complicated and it's not easy to use and it's not particularly user friendly. But if that is a way for people to be able to, um, report that they have made payments.
Um, so there's no confusion. I think that can, that, that can help to achieve the, the non payment issue. But I think the main flexibility would be around, you know, the possibility to look at can payments be accepted in some form.
10:14
10:15
Speaker 4
-
Speaker 4
I'd look at, I mean, every other country in Europe has some mechanism on different levels of taking account of both parents income. Um, you know, Spain, France, Germany, um, Norway, Sweden, um, all the major countries, Italy, um, but particularly I think the model which we should be looking at is Australia and New Zealand because similar to us, they have an agency based system. A lot of these other countries have a court based system, which would mean that we then go back, you know, we then go to the courts to have that proper transparency.
But there are countries out there which have proper sharing, proper looking at both parents income, but they also have it through an agency like we have in this country. Um, so I would say that the best model we should be looking at is an income shares model like they have in those countries, and they do manage to make it work.
But there are countries out there which have proper sharing, proper looking at both parents income, but they also have it through an agency like we have in this country. Um, so I would say that the best model we should be looking at is an income shares model like they have in those countries, and they do manage to make it work.
10:15
Speaker 8
-
Speaker 8
I think you've just given us that line of inquiry to explore. So thank you so much. It's really helpful. And then my, my real question to Sarah to start off with, uh, is, is around safeguarding. Um, and when safeguarding falls down within the CMS, is it around a failure to apply policies and systems that they have in place?Or is it a failure to have the appropriate systems and policies in place just to build on that?What is your experience of the culture of the organisation, and what is your experience of the organisation having a level of professional curiosity in the interest of finding out the truth.
10:16
Speaker 3
-
Speaker 3
That's a really important question. And I think what we hear from survivors all the time is that they find that the service isn't, uh, doesn't have a very deep understanding of, of domestic abuse and including economic abuse and how abusers will misuse the child maintenance service as a form of control. Post-separation. So survivors tell us that they have a really sort of, uh, experience of the system where they're continually having to recount their experiences of domestic abuse to multiple caseworkers. And that in itself is really traumatizing.
Survivors often have to build up the confidence for weeks before they, they feel that they can make a call and chase something up. That's that's happened on the service. They share that there's really a lack of sort of, um, documentation of, of conversations. So survivors often have to ask for that in writing, follow it up, only to be told by a different caseworker that that isn't policy and they can't do that. So survivors are repeatedly going through a system where they're not really sure what decisions are being made.
They've been made in that way. When they think they're able to move forward to access the support their children are entitled to, that they're told that isn't the policy. So I think it's it's a mixture of, um, at the moment while there is that mandatory domestic abuse training, we're looking forward to engaging with DWP on that training development to understand how effective it is actually supporting, uh, CMS colleagues to operationalize their learning.
Survivors often have to build up the confidence for weeks before they, they feel that they can make a call and chase something up. That's that's happened on the service. They share that there's really a lack of sort of, um, documentation of, of conversations. So survivors often have to ask for that in writing, follow it up, only to be told by a different caseworker that that isn't policy and they can't do that. So survivors are repeatedly going through a system where they're not really sure what decisions are being made.
They've been made in that way. When they think they're able to move forward to access the support their children are entitled to, that they're told that isn't the policy. So I think it's it's a mixture of, um, at the moment while there is that mandatory domestic abuse training, we're looking forward to engaging with DWP on that training development to understand how effective it is actually supporting, uh, CMS colleagues to operationalize their learning.
10:17
10:17
Speaker 3
-
Speaker 3
Um, well, we don't quite know whether we would classify it as trauma informed, but I think we definitely know from our work with survivors that, um, the training that is being received isn't translating into trauma informed service delivery. So I think there's a question about how effective the training is at enabling, that. And I think also, you know, just going back to a point I made earlier about the system design, and we have really welcomed the government's intention to move from direct pay, to collect and pay only service, because I think it will help alleviate some of the issues that others have shared on the panel today, uh, around, um, you know, survivors not being, um, you know, burdened with having to report the, that their ex-partner hasn't made payments.
It will enable the service to monitor enforcement more easily and also enable them to move more quickly in terms of taking enforcement action. Um, we're still waiting for that legislation to be brought forward. We don't quite have a date yet. And also the government has committed to other reforms of the service. So for example, um, introducing secondary legislation that would enable, uh, the CMS to administer liability orders without burdening the court system. And that would enable them to take enforcement action much more quickly.
And we do know from our experience in, with working with the financial services sector that when there is some accountability for perpetrators actions and a misuse of, of services, um, it does often result in more compliance. And I think, you know, especially the, the kind of, uh, um. The commitment to introduce a, a non-compliance fee would be really welcome. Because I think from our perspective, we see that as, um, encouraging those who are refusing to pay despite being able to afford to do so would encourage them to actually make those, those payments to their, their children.
It will enable the service to monitor enforcement more easily and also enable them to move more quickly in terms of taking enforcement action. Um, we're still waiting for that legislation to be brought forward. We don't quite have a date yet. And also the government has committed to other reforms of the service. So for example, um, introducing secondary legislation that would enable, uh, the CMS to administer liability orders without burdening the court system. And that would enable them to take enforcement action much more quickly.
And we do know from our experience in, with working with the financial services sector that when there is some accountability for perpetrators actions and a misuse of, of services, um, it does often result in more compliance. And I think, you know, especially the, the kind of, uh, um. The commitment to introduce a, a non-compliance fee would be really welcome. Because I think from our perspective, we see that as, um, encouraging those who are refusing to pay despite being able to afford to do so would encourage them to actually make those, those payments to their, their children.
10:19
10:19
10:19
10:20
10:20
10:20
10:20
10:20
10:21
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
I think the government really needs to make sure that this service is properly resourced. Inevitably, there's going to be an increase in the number of cases that they're dealing with. And what we're hearing from parents at the moment is they are interacting with the service. That very much gives the impression of being underfunded and struggling to function at the moment. And that's before all of the direct pay cases are moved over. So we need to absolutely make sure that there's there's proper resources behind it.
Um, I think the system also needs to be working in a way that is working efficiently. I don't know if you'll ask about this later, but I did have some things I wanted to share about the online portal. Would this be the right point to to share those remarks?Having to have made contact with the service over the phone is an enormous waste of time for both parents, and I assume it's really inefficient for the service itself. Um, there was someone who wrote to us very recently who said in the last few months, she has spent 22 hours on the phone to the CMS.
Um, that is not unusual. I want to reiterate that's not unusual, but it's the numbers that have been most recently shared with me from someone in their particular case. Um, there was a time when there was a live chat function on the online portal and parents told us they really liked that and that really helped. At the moment, the limitations of the online portal, it means you can't do really basic things, as Sam says either that are paying parent can log and show that they've made a payment or that a receiving parent can say, I haven't received it.
There's no way to do those basic things. And we hear from parents that they would really like to see something. Perhaps if you're familiar with it, a little bit like the Universal Credit Journal, so you can see the messages back and forth. And that would also help hugely with when parents contact the service and say, I was last told X, Y, or Z. Um, and then they're told by the caseworker something completely different. Um, there's really awful story we heard for parent who got in touch with us and an investigation was started and she was told about this, but she was told, you won't hear from us for quite a long time while we conduct the investigation.
Don't get in touch. We will be getting on with it eventually. It had been about a year. So she gets in touch and says, how is this progressing?They said, oh, the investigation, oh, we haven't started it. Sorry. We forgot. Um, she lost a year of progress and a year of not receiving anything. And again, we're sharing examples like this that feel shocking. We do not have to dig deep to find these.
These are not unusual outliers. These are very common experiences.
Um, I think the system also needs to be working in a way that is working efficiently. I don't know if you'll ask about this later, but I did have some things I wanted to share about the online portal. Would this be the right point to to share those remarks?Having to have made contact with the service over the phone is an enormous waste of time for both parents, and I assume it's really inefficient for the service itself. Um, there was someone who wrote to us very recently who said in the last few months, she has spent 22 hours on the phone to the CMS.
Um, that is not unusual. I want to reiterate that's not unusual, but it's the numbers that have been most recently shared with me from someone in their particular case. Um, there was a time when there was a live chat function on the online portal and parents told us they really liked that and that really helped. At the moment, the limitations of the online portal, it means you can't do really basic things, as Sam says either that are paying parent can log and show that they've made a payment or that a receiving parent can say, I haven't received it.
There's no way to do those basic things. And we hear from parents that they would really like to see something. Perhaps if you're familiar with it, a little bit like the Universal Credit Journal, so you can see the messages back and forth. And that would also help hugely with when parents contact the service and say, I was last told X, Y, or Z. Um, and then they're told by the caseworker something completely different. Um, there's really awful story we heard for parent who got in touch with us and an investigation was started and she was told about this, but she was told, you won't hear from us for quite a long time while we conduct the investigation.
Don't get in touch. We will be getting on with it eventually. It had been about a year. So she gets in touch and says, how is this progressing?They said, oh, the investigation, oh, we haven't started it. Sorry. We forgot. Um, she lost a year of progress and a year of not receiving anything. And again, we're sharing examples like this that feel shocking. We do not have to dig deep to find these.
These are not unusual outliers. These are very common experiences.
10:24
Speaker 3
-
Speaker 3
Um, I think from our perspective with the proposed reforms to, um, the service that would move it to collect and pay only, um, from our perspective, it's really important that the CMS actually identifies the domestic abuse cases within its caseload, so that we can make sure that survivors are being supported through the transition from direct pay to collect and pay. Once those reforms are introduced. I think from our perspective, we already see that abusers try and force survivors into making family based arrangements because they know there'll be no accountability if they don't pay, if they're managing it privately.
Um, so it's absolutely critical from our perspective that there is an automatic transition from direct pay to collect and pay so that there isn't the risk of an abusive ex-partner, um, in pressurising a survivor to, to leave the service entirely. Um, we, we do welcome the proposals to reduce the fees that will be charged to access the collect and pay service, because we know from our work with survivors that they are often fearful of accessing at the moment because of the fees that are charged to the paying parents of 20%, because they're scared of the kind of repercussions of, that fee being put on, on the abusive ex partner.
Um, while we do welcome the reduction, we do think it should be a free at, uh, you know, point of use service. Um, so no fees for those who are accessing it. But obviously, as I shared earlier, we do welcome a non-compliance fee for those who aren't paying the child support that they should be. I think, um, you know, following on from what Abigail said, you know, it will be really critical that the CMS properly resources the transition and ensures that its case workers receive specialist training to enable them to support survivors with the transition and to support them through the collect and pay service.
Um, we know that, um, uh, that at the moment with, um, when um, ex partners are making payments, um, on collecting pay, they're then being pushed on to direct pay or family based arrangements. And we really want to have a guarantee that survivors will not be forced out of the service when there is a history of compliance so that they can continue to access it because it's so important for their safety to be able to access the CMS. And then I think, um, just finally, um, we do need more reforms to the service, um, in relation to enforcement because it is really broken at the moment.
Um, very few um cases. Actually go to enforcement, even though there's a history of non-payment. And also we see really, um, kind of loopholes within the service within the system whereby abusers are able to, um, lodge appeals without any evidence for why they're making appealing an appeal. They might make token payments to, um, you know, avoid enforcement action. You know, survivors have told us that, you know, the CMS just drops enforcement action. When there's a token payment that's been made and just said, well, at least you're getting something when actually they've got tens of thousands of pounds in arrears stacked up.
Um, so we really want to see the CMS using its existing enforcement powers because it does have quite a lot of power at its disposal, but also introduce that reform to liability orders as well.
Um, so it's absolutely critical from our perspective that there is an automatic transition from direct pay to collect and pay so that there isn't the risk of an abusive ex-partner, um, in pressurising a survivor to, to leave the service entirely. Um, we, we do welcome the proposals to reduce the fees that will be charged to access the collect and pay service, because we know from our work with survivors that they are often fearful of accessing at the moment because of the fees that are charged to the paying parents of 20%, because they're scared of the kind of repercussions of, that fee being put on, on the abusive ex partner.
Um, while we do welcome the reduction, we do think it should be a free at, uh, you know, point of use service. Um, so no fees for those who are accessing it. But obviously, as I shared earlier, we do welcome a non-compliance fee for those who aren't paying the child support that they should be. I think, um, you know, following on from what Abigail said, you know, it will be really critical that the CMS properly resources the transition and ensures that its case workers receive specialist training to enable them to support survivors with the transition and to support them through the collect and pay service.
Um, we know that, um, uh, that at the moment with, um, when um, ex partners are making payments, um, on collecting pay, they're then being pushed on to direct pay or family based arrangements. And we really want to have a guarantee that survivors will not be forced out of the service when there is a history of compliance so that they can continue to access it because it's so important for their safety to be able to access the CMS. And then I think, um, just finally, um, we do need more reforms to the service, um, in relation to enforcement because it is really broken at the moment.
Um, very few um cases. Actually go to enforcement, even though there's a history of non-payment. And also we see really, um, kind of loopholes within the service within the system whereby abusers are able to, um, lodge appeals without any evidence for why they're making appealing an appeal. They might make token payments to, um, you know, avoid enforcement action. You know, survivors have told us that, you know, the CMS just drops enforcement action. When there's a token payment that's been made and just said, well, at least you're getting something when actually they've got tens of thousands of pounds in arrears stacked up.
Um, so we really want to see the CMS using its existing enforcement powers because it does have quite a lot of power at its disposal, but also introduce that reform to liability orders as well.
10:26
Speaker 4
-
Speaker 4
I think there's probably three things that need excuse me, which are needed. I think there should be a six month um hand. Over period so that those people on direct and pay have the ability to review their circumstances, review the capacity wherever safe to move to a family based arrangement. And I think there needs to be support from the CMS to, um, give that kind of help and support in order to move to a family based arrangement. I think enforcement before moving over to collect and pay or when moving over to collect and pay, needs to be focused on.
Refusal to pay rather than inability to pay. And secondly, I think there needs to be a grace period. If there are any underpayments under direct and pay system needs to be a grace period before you go into the enforcement regime for collect and pay. So broadly, I support it, but there needs to be some mechanism in place in order to make that safe transition.
Refusal to pay rather than inability to pay. And secondly, I think there needs to be a grace period. If there are any underpayments under direct and pay system needs to be a grace period before you go into the enforcement regime for collect and pay. So broadly, I support it, but there needs to be some mechanism in place in order to make that safe transition.
10:27
10:27
Speaker 10
-
Speaker 10
Thank you. Um, I, I get approached by people on both sides of the equation. It feels like the good faith actors are getting penalised and the bad faith actors are losing on both sides of the fence, which is very disappointing. Turning specifically to enforcement. And Abigail, if I can ask you first, um, do do you think that the CMS has the sufficient enforcement powers it needs?Does it need more?Does it have the powers?It's not using them properly.
And do we even have an understanding of what compliance actually means?
And do we even have an understanding of what compliance actually means?
10:28
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
So at the moment the CMS does have pretty good enforcement tools at its disposal. From our perspective, they're just not being used often enough or being used appropriately. So I think better use of the existing powers is the first step that needs to happen. On the question of compliance. To be honest, we've been getting slightly conflicting information in different places on this, and what counts as, as compliance, um, whether it is paying something at all or whether it's certainly the government figures that are published, they show these are the ones I touched on before, whether um, there was no payment at all, whether it was a payment up to 90% or a payment of 90% and above.
10:28
Speaker 3
-
Speaker 3
Whether it's paying over the 90%. I mean, I would suggest there doesn't seem to be any measure for paying everything that is owed and on time, which is, I think, what the average person would say that is compliant. So it seems like there's a bit of a gray area in this at the moment. I also noticed when the minister spoke at the Westminster Hall debate in March on this, I saw in the Hansard the report of 74% compliance, and that was 74%, 74% payment of something.
So it could be an extremely low amount. So clarity around compliance from the government is something that didn't really welcome.
So it could be an extremely low amount. So clarity around compliance from the government is something that didn't really welcome.
10:29
10:29
Speaker 5
-
Speaker 5
I believe they do have the powers. They're not using it. And they're certainly I mean, I make this point, compare the powers for non-payment of child maintenance compared to the complete lack of powers for for breach of a contact order. I think it needs to be put in that context. I think there is an issue around when arrears are building up due to CMS errors. I think that enforcement should be paused whilst there's a complaint, because we've seen there's a BBC report a few few weeks ago about arrears building up purely because of errors on CMS miscalculations and the rest of it.
I think in those circumstances there needs to be a pause to arrears and a pause to enforcement action, which isn't there at the moment. But generally they do have enforcement powers. They're just not being used properly.
I think in those circumstances there needs to be a pause to arrears and a pause to enforcement action, which isn't there at the moment. But generally they do have enforcement powers. They're just not being used properly.
10:30
10:30
10:31
10:31
10:31
10:32
Speaker 5
-
Speaker 5
Um, general confusion. I think when you're using the tool, it's confusing as to which income year is being assessed and how the calculation has got out. For a lot of people. Um, so I think there needs to be recognition that for a lot of people, especially if you're not digitally able as Abe was, other people that it is generally confusing. Um, but I think there could be improvements there.
10:32
10:33
10:33
10:33
10:33
10:33
Speaker 4
-
Speaker 4
I've touched on a lot of this earlier, so I'll keep it brief. But, um, you know, I totally agree that at the moment it is a really confusing system. Survivors don't often, um, understand or give an explanations for why decisions have been made. So that makes it really difficult for them to know what their next steps are or, um, how they can take their case forward. We also know in terms of the complaints system, it's incredibly lengthy. Some survivors go through the process and it takes years.
Um, and I think we sort of see that in the parliamentary ombudsman.
Um, and I think we sort of see that in the parliamentary ombudsman.
10:34
10:34
10:34
10:34
10:34
10:35
Speaker 3
-
Speaker 3
We absolutely support named caseworkers too. We think this is really important. Um, a properly functioning interactive digital portal would help. And I also think in communications to parents, in essence, like a good exam answer showing the working when a calculation when parents are told about a calculation. So not just the amount due but showing. This is how the calculation has been applied that that sort of opacity around it doesn't help matters at all. So I think that would help bring a bit of clarity to it all.