Child Maintenance Service

Chris Hinchliff Excerpts

Tuesday 17th March 2026 Westminster Hall

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Andrew Western)]

It is an honour to serve under your chairship, Mr Stringer. I am struck, as was the hon. Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole (Vikki Slade), by the level of interest in this debate and, indeed, by the specifics of some of the cases that have been raised. I concur with her that this is an incredibly important debate, and one that perhaps could have used more time. I am sure that Members will look where they can at various mechanisms to ensure that we return to this in future.

I want to begin by recognising the vital role that the Child Maintenance Service plays in supporting families across the country, notwithstanding that we all have examples in our casework of challenging cases—cases where the service could do better. The CMS now supports more than 1.1 million children, a figure that rose nearly 5% in the 12 months to September 2025, through both family-based arrangements and arrangements made via the CMS. An estimated £2.9 billion is transferred each year to children in separated families, keeping around 120,000 children out of relative low income after housing costs.

I know that almost all parents want the best for their children, and that, in spite of the difficulties and conflicts inherent in family break-up, a majority of paying parents consistently contribute towards their children’s upbringing, helping to ensure that they receive the support they need. Compliance levels within the collect and pay service remain strong; in the most recent reporting quarter, 74% of paying parents under collect and pay paid maintenance.

To set the scene, it is worth explaining how the CMS operates. The CMS is statutorily obliged to consider all valid maintenance applications in accordance with relevant legislation. To ensure consistency and fairness across the system, the CMS applies a set of broad rules intended to secure the best overall outcomes for all parents. Clear, simple rules are essential; they make the system more efficient, improve customer service and are vital when dealing with hundreds of thousands of cases.

That is in stark contrast to previous schemes operated by the CMS’s predecessor, the Child Support Agency, which were notoriously complex and inflexible. Those schemes relied heavily on parents providing detailed financial information that was often difficult to obtain or keep up to date. The result was significant delays and, too often, families being let down.

That said, the Government recognise that there is more that the CMS can do to deliver a fair and trustworthy service that is more accessible to parents, and particularly to those who are vulnerable. That is why the CMS is continuing to make significant and meaningful improvements to the service wherever possible, to ensure that parents feel informed, supported and confident in the actions being taken on their case.

[Chris Hinchliff (North East Hertfordshire) (Lab)]

I thank the Minister for setting the scene. Would he reflect back to the House that, notwithstanding what he has said, there is a clear pattern of a lack of reliable communication, a failure to enforce payments and what often seems like an inability to keep in line with legislation? Does he recognise that what we are all experiencing on behalf of our constituents is an organisation that does not seem to have basic administrative competence?

[Andrew Western]

I will come to the points about communication and enforcement momentarily. I acknowledge that we all have difficult cases, but the CMS does handle billions of pounds a year in payments to families, and it is important to recognise where it works as well as where change is needed. It is failing for some families, as in the cases that have been outlined, and we want to put that right.

I will now turn to the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton North East (Kirith Entwistle). I will start with the three asks from Gingerbread. First, on the disclosure of domestic abuse and the handling thereof, the CMS recognises that both receiving and paying parents can be victims of domestic abuse, including coercive and controlling behaviour, and it has put a number of safeguards in place to help them use the service safely. All caseworkers receive extensive domestic abuse training, which has been refreshed to reflect the Home Office’s statutory guidance on controlling or coercive behaviour, so that they are equipped to identify risks and signpost parents to specialist support. The CMS also has a domestic abuse plan and a regularly updated list of resources to support victims.

Where safety concerns arise, though—I accept that they arise in some instances—the CMS can advise on non-traceable payment methods, such as accounts with centralised sort codes to ensure a parent’s location cannot be identified. The Government are also taking wider steps to minimise opportunities for abuse within the maintenance system, perhaps most importantly through plans to remove direct pay, reducing the need for any contact between parents and closing off avenues for economic control or coercion.

The second point concerned evidential standards for shared care, which is a contested area. I absolutely accept that it is a difficult space for our caseworkers to operate in. When a dispute arises regarding overnight stays, the CMS must avoid taking one parent’s word against the other and must consider certain types of evidence, such as a court order or an agreement between the parents, but it may consider other types of evidence as well, including in cases where a court order is not in place. Formal evidence will carry more weight than other evidence in establishing whether there is a pattern of shared care, but the CMS will consider each parent’s statements before making a decision.

Where the parties agree in principle that there is a level of shared care but cannot agree on a number of nights, the CMS can make an assumption of shared care of one night a week, but as I said earlier, shared care disputes are challenging. We understand the frustration and the concerns that they present for parents, and we are keeping the issue under active review and looking at how the process can be improved. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton North East is due a conversation with my noble Friend Baroness Sherlock. She may want to ask Baroness Sherlock for the specifics on that, given that she is the lead Minister on this issue.

Gingerbread’s third substantive point concerned the welfare of the child, and I want to offer reassurance on that. Clearly, the entire point of the CMS is to ensure the welfare of the child as it pertains to financial stability and to ensure the ability of parents to look after their children, but if specific safeguarding concerns arise, there are procedures in place to report them to the relevant authority, which is usually the local authority where the child lives.

There were a couple of other points that I want to touch on, including the question of enforcement. Clearly, there are always improvements to be made. There was a specific question about hidden income. There is a financial investigation unit in place. If there are specific cases that colleagues would like me to refer to that unit, I am happy to do so. We do have, for want of a better description, persistent offenders who are difficult to pin down. We will all have such examples in our caseload, and we are looking at what more we can do to track people down in those cases.

I am conscious of time. This has been an incredibly important debate. The door of my noble Friend Baroness Sherlock is always open to colleagues who want to talk about CMS reform. We are undertaking a calculation review. We are looking to abolish direct pay as soon as parliamentary time allows. That is a very important step to tackle coercive control and abuse in the system. We can always do more. I am happy to speak to colleagues at any point, but I also strongly encourage them, if necessary, to book in with my noble Friend.

Motion lapsed (Standing Order No. 10(6)).