Work and Pensions Committee
Wednesday 14th October 2026
Skip to latest contribution
This debate has concluded
(began 23 hours, 47 minutes ago)
Watch LiveSkip to latest contribution
This debate has concluded
09:35
Debbie Abrahams
-
-
Debbie Abrahams
A very warm welcome to the second oral evidence session for this inquiry into the Child Maintenance Service. And today, we're very lucky to be joined by this first panel. Elizabeth Cooper, who is a barrister from Saint John's Chambers. A warm welcome there. Doctor. Doctor Samantha Callan, who is a co-founder and director of the Family Hubs Network, and Michelle Conley, who's joining us virtually from Naxa and National Child Child Support Advisory Service.
So. So thank you again. And if you've got any technical issues, just wave and we'll, we'll just make sure that that we're aware of, of those. I'm going to start the questions. And I wonder if you could outline to the committee really the support that the Child Maintenance Service provides to parents to make an initial child management arrangement, what that is, how effective that support is, and looking at both the family based arrangements, but also statutory arrangements, who would who would like to start?
So. So thank you again. And if you've got any technical issues, just wave and we'll, we'll just make sure that that we're aware of, of those. I'm going to start the questions. And I wonder if you could outline to the committee really the support that the Child Maintenance Service provides to parents to make an initial child management arrangement, what that is, how effective that support is, and looking at both the family based arrangements, but also statutory arrangements, who would who would like to start?
09:37
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
I'm sorry. I thought you were looking at me. Yes, I will start. And so family based arrangements are 2012 scheme was really I wouldn't say pushing, but really hoping that as many parents as possible would undertake family based arrangements and. And in many ways, it keeps you out of the the complications of somebody else being involved in your finances, if at all possible. And fair and types of support.
Things like information about options, guidance on the different ways to arrange child maintenance.
Things like information about options, guidance on the different ways to arrange child maintenance.
09:37
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
point. It's pretty much all online and you can ring. But I think one of the main points I want to make is this is such a contested, difficult subject. Whether you're on a family based arrangement, you've somehow managed to make that work or whether you are going for the statutory service, which is currently direct pay and collect and pay. I know the government is planning to to legislate to turn everyone into collect and pay who does not want to make a family based arrangement.
So there's all sorts of online tools and an explanation. If you are, if you are just trying to get the advice before perhaps going into the CMS proper. But but the problem is you've got two people, you've got two very different customers. The CMS treats both as customers, but they both have different ways of grading. Whether the outcome is, is, is acceptable or not. So I think the you can help people.
Create an arrangement and come to an agreement. But it's the sustaining that is, is the difficult thing. And there is no help in the current system to sustain an arrangement. And things are very subject to change. Emotions are subject to change, circumstances are subject to change. And yes, there are variations that can be made. You can you can change of circumstances all through an online or a phone system.
But it's very mechanical and harsh. Despite the fact that DWP are trying to develop trauma informed systems.
So there's all sorts of online tools and an explanation. If you are, if you are just trying to get the advice before perhaps going into the CMS proper. But but the problem is you've got two people, you've got two very different customers. The CMS treats both as customers, but they both have different ways of grading. Whether the outcome is, is, is acceptable or not. So I think the you can help people.
Create an arrangement and come to an agreement. But it's the sustaining that is, is the difficult thing. And there is no help in the current system to sustain an arrangement. And things are very subject to change. Emotions are subject to change, circumstances are subject to change. And yes, there are variations that can be made. You can you can change of circumstances all through an online or a phone system.
But it's very mechanical and harsh. Despite the fact that DWP are trying to develop trauma informed systems.
09:39
Debbie Abrahams
-
-
Debbie Abrahams
Okay. Elizabeth, do you want to. Yes. I would add that there is an online calculator that is usually the first port of call for most service users, which is in the starting point. Really helpful for them to get an idea of what their obligation is. But it's quite simplistic and doesn't deal with the more complicated cases. So if you are a Paye earner, then it's great, but if you are or are the receiving parent of maintenance from somebody that has a company and receives dividends, for example, then there is an issue because the online system and the information online doesn't make it clear that the CMS does not, as a starting point, take into account dividends in the initial calculation.
And so I have on both receiving parents and paying parents have situations where you get an absurdly low calculation based on what is inevitably a pay income set below the tax threshold, and then the receiving parent doesn't understand why, when they're clearly far more wealthy than earning 12,500, for example. And what the current system requires you to do is make a variation application for dividends or other types of unearned income to be taken into account.
And that is some months potentially down the line. That is not backdated to the original date of the calculation. That is only dated to the date of the application for variation. And so it depends when that receiving parent, for example, suddenly obtains the knowledge that they actually need to make that that variation. Are
And so I have on both receiving parents and paying parents have situations where you get an absurdly low calculation based on what is inevitably a pay income set below the tax threshold, and then the receiving parent doesn't understand why, when they're clearly far more wealthy than earning 12,500, for example. And what the current system requires you to do is make a variation application for dividends or other types of unearned income to be taken into account.
And that is some months potentially down the line. That is not backdated to the original date of the calculation. That is only dated to the date of the application for variation. And so it depends when that receiving parent, for example, suddenly obtains the knowledge that they actually need to make that that variation. Are
09:41
09:41
Debbie Abrahams
-
-
Debbie Abrahams
Yes. So the rental income, for example, depends on the classification of the tax paid on rent as to how it is then input into somebody's tax return, and then whether or not the CMS takes that into account as rental income or other unearned income. And anything that falls into something that is not salary effectively, including, for example, payments made by way of directors loan accounts or shareholders loan accounts that are ostensibly loans but could be characterized as income, depending again, on the treatment of that for tax falls.
Outside of that very straightforward calculation that the calculation calculator enables you to access online.
Outside of that very straightforward calculation that the calculation calculator enables you to access online.
09:42
09:42
Speaker 3
-
Speaker 3
Yes. Thank you. Oh, so I think the problem that in my view is that that the CMS is very much of a an administrative service. So it's not advisory. So the, the, the support throughout the entire scheme is very limited. We there's another gap that was created when the same options helpline was, was removed, because at least that was a touch point where parents could feel that they had a human contact with a voice that that could could listen to their personal circumstances and, and address any specific concerns or queries.
Everything is now online. It's just a factual sheet that parents have to read. It's very indifferent. It's very matter of fact. It's quite impersonal. And at a time where parents really need to be able to have that practical support. And I think there's there's, there's experiences here that are negative from both the receiving parents point of view. In our line of work, we see both , we, we help both receiving parents and paying parents.
So we get a really good insight to, to the overview, the parents experience completely. And I mean, certainly one of the common problems that we're having at the moment is these applications are just being shut down before they're even processed for reasons that are just not they're just not in following the regulations. They, they're, they're based on perhaps lack of time, lack of resource, lack of training, but they're being shut down and paying.
Parents are having their applications refused for six, seven months before that. That application is revisited again. And from a paying parents point of view, their experience, I mean, most paying parents actually want to support their children. They want to be involved in their children, in the upbringing of their children. But right from that very first contact, the language used is very hostile. It's entrenched with threats. There's the there's a no discretion part where if you do not reply within the 14 days of that QR code, you're immediately deemed as non-compliant.
And there's no discussion about any facts that may have hindered that particular contact. Again, somebody searching for advice about how do I how do I deal with this application? It's all stick and no carrot. And certainly addressing the point with the online calculator, I mean, it is it is a very basic starting point. And sometimes there are real clear indications that perhaps there is more to to what is being declared as as an earned income.
And there needs to be a little bit more of an exploration about the unearned income, particularly with dividends. I know this is a point that that's been mentioned as as legislation to to amend that, but I think that was back in 2022, when they're approaching the end of 2026, and we don't seem to be any further forward. So again, what's creating is a system that immediately isolates and antagonises parents. And instead of reducing parental conflict, you're right from that very beginning stage inflaming that that relationship.
Everything is now online. It's just a factual sheet that parents have to read. It's very indifferent. It's very matter of fact. It's quite impersonal. And at a time where parents really need to be able to have that practical support. And I think there's there's, there's experiences here that are negative from both the receiving parents point of view. In our line of work, we see both , we, we help both receiving parents and paying parents.
So we get a really good insight to, to the overview, the parents experience completely. And I mean, certainly one of the common problems that we're having at the moment is these applications are just being shut down before they're even processed for reasons that are just not they're just not in following the regulations. They, they're, they're based on perhaps lack of time, lack of resource, lack of training, but they're being shut down and paying.
Parents are having their applications refused for six, seven months before that. That application is revisited again. And from a paying parents point of view, their experience, I mean, most paying parents actually want to support their children. They want to be involved in their children, in the upbringing of their children. But right from that very first contact, the language used is very hostile. It's entrenched with threats. There's the there's a no discretion part where if you do not reply within the 14 days of that QR code, you're immediately deemed as non-compliant.
And there's no discussion about any facts that may have hindered that particular contact. Again, somebody searching for advice about how do I how do I deal with this application? It's all stick and no carrot. And certainly addressing the point with the online calculator, I mean, it is it is a very basic starting point. And sometimes there are real clear indications that perhaps there is more to to what is being declared as as an earned income.
And there needs to be a little bit more of an exploration about the unearned income, particularly with dividends. I know this is a point that that's been mentioned as as legislation to to amend that, but I think that was back in 2022, when they're approaching the end of 2026, and we don't seem to be any further forward. So again, what's creating is a system that immediately isolates and antagonises parents. And instead of reducing parental conflict, you're right from that very beginning stage inflaming that that relationship.
09:45
09:45
09:46
Debbie Abrahams
-
-
Debbie Abrahams
Yes. I'll start. I think there are a number of challenges. The two systems are clearly set up to be independent, but the decisions made in each of those systems impact on the other system. And just by way of example, so I specialise in financial remedy proceedings. I also do private law proceedings. And if we start with financial remedy proceedings, the determination of child maintenance is directly relevant to a number of the section 25 Matrimonial Causes Act, factors that a court has to take into account when determining the fair outcome in financial remedy proceedings.
And there's a tension between the fact that maintenance is a highly variable calculation. Clearly there is in-built into the system the provision for annual reviews of child maintenance, albeit that that in itself can rely depending on when the annual review is on quite outdated information. It could be from a tax return from several years prior, for example. But the Family Court in Financial Remedy Proceedings is being asked to make a final decision on capital distribution, where somebody's income feeds into their mortgage capacity.
Mortgage lenders sometimes will take into account child maintenance as an income resource, and therefore, when the court is assessing that party's housing needs and the capital that they need in order to purchase suitable housing, the maintenance calculation, whether that is notional because it hasn't yet happened or it's existing, is highly relevant to that. And because it's so variable moving forward, there are final decisions being made in the financial remedy courts that ultimately a year later can change because even if the parties agree with this is the right amount and this is the information and the order that is based upon that right amount, the jurisdiction of the CMS can only be ousted for for that one year.
And you may have heard of what we call Christmas orders, which are the the mechanism by which some practitioners attempt to get around this point, that the CMS, if they are approached a year after a maintenance order is made in the family court, will then make an application which discharges the financial Remedy court maintenance order, and that then removes the certainty for the parties that have agreed or had imposed judges, for example, imposing a financial remedy final order.
And so I think one of the one of the key things that I think is important is when a financial remedy court requires some some level of certainty as to what the position is moving forward, because they are making very important decisions, final decisions based on that, because capital decisions are final and non-variable, there needs to be, in my view, consideration of whether or not that 12 month period should, subject to appropriate safeguards, be extended further.
That's not to say necessarily for five, ten years, etc., but to give some certainty to parties for for the foreseeable future.
And there's a tension between the fact that maintenance is a highly variable calculation. Clearly there is in-built into the system the provision for annual reviews of child maintenance, albeit that that in itself can rely depending on when the annual review is on quite outdated information. It could be from a tax return from several years prior, for example. But the Family Court in Financial Remedy Proceedings is being asked to make a final decision on capital distribution, where somebody's income feeds into their mortgage capacity.
Mortgage lenders sometimes will take into account child maintenance as an income resource, and therefore, when the court is assessing that party's housing needs and the capital that they need in order to purchase suitable housing, the maintenance calculation, whether that is notional because it hasn't yet happened or it's existing, is highly relevant to that. And because it's so variable moving forward, there are final decisions being made in the financial remedy courts that ultimately a year later can change because even if the parties agree with this is the right amount and this is the information and the order that is based upon that right amount, the jurisdiction of the CMS can only be ousted for for that one year.
And you may have heard of what we call Christmas orders, which are the the mechanism by which some practitioners attempt to get around this point, that the CMS, if they are approached a year after a maintenance order is made in the family court, will then make an application which discharges the financial Remedy court maintenance order, and that then removes the certainty for the parties that have agreed or had imposed judges, for example, imposing a financial remedy final order.
And so I think one of the one of the key things that I think is important is when a financial remedy court requires some some level of certainty as to what the position is moving forward, because they are making very important decisions, final decisions based on that, because capital decisions are final and non-variable, there needs to be, in my view, consideration of whether or not that 12 month period should, subject to appropriate safeguards, be extended further.
That's not to say necessarily for five, ten years, etc., but to give some certainty to parties for for the foreseeable future.
09:49
09:49
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
Yeah. Thank you. I mean, I think the thing, the thing to bear in mind is that family courts are kind of primary concern is, yes, the child's welfare and safety and finance becomes interlocked with all that, whereas the child maintenance system is is kind of interested in money flowing. So there's different aims, there's different information. Parents are caught up in, in this system that it's both the government, both systems are kind of are, are state as it were.
But the, the parents think there is no joint. And they're absolutely right that there is no joint. And I think my, my, my review, my review for the government on how the CMS has to how they respond to domestic abuse. One of the one of the areas that I felt was very important and neglected was the legal administrative abuse. Where systems can be used. Paying parents can be victims of this, as well as receiving parents and the.
In a 2025 family court case, the judge accepted evidence that the deployment of multiple forums, Family Court, Financial Remedies Court and the CMS tribunal all form part of an alleged continuing pattern of coercive and controlling behaviour, and it caused substantial harm. And may I just make one one more point. And it's not it's not meant to be political, but I am concerned at the section. Sorry. Well clause currently clause 17 of the Courts and Tribunals Bill, that would remove the presumption that it isn't a child's best interest.
It's a rebuttable presumption and a child's best interest to have contact with both parents, because that immediately introduces a whole new possibility that parents will feel at a disadvantage before they even come to the courts and to the child maintenance system. It's that knock on effect of, of a, of a presumption that's actually it is having a good effect in things like prisons, because there is a there is an acknowledgement that that even if a father or mother is, is away from a child, that actually is good.
If that child has contact, unless to the evidence is to the contrary. So I'm just inserting this extra layer of, of, of, of concern.
But the, the parents think there is no joint. And they're absolutely right that there is no joint. And I think my, my, my review, my review for the government on how the CMS has to how they respond to domestic abuse. One of the one of the areas that I felt was very important and neglected was the legal administrative abuse. Where systems can be used. Paying parents can be victims of this, as well as receiving parents and the.
In a 2025 family court case, the judge accepted evidence that the deployment of multiple forums, Family Court, Financial Remedies Court and the CMS tribunal all form part of an alleged continuing pattern of coercive and controlling behaviour, and it caused substantial harm. And may I just make one one more point. And it's not it's not meant to be political, but I am concerned at the section. Sorry. Well clause currently clause 17 of the Courts and Tribunals Bill, that would remove the presumption that it isn't a child's best interest.
It's a rebuttable presumption and a child's best interest to have contact with both parents, because that immediately introduces a whole new possibility that parents will feel at a disadvantage before they even come to the courts and to the child maintenance system. It's that knock on effect of, of a, of a presumption that's actually it is having a good effect in things like prisons, because there is a there is an acknowledgement that that even if a father or mother is, is away from a child, that actually is good.
If that child has contact, unless to the evidence is to the contrary. So I'm just inserting this extra layer of, of, of, of concern.
09:52
Speaker 3
-
Speaker 3
Sorry. Yeah. So the whole point of jurisdiction is really, really complex. And it's one of the areas that there's a lot of misunderstanding around that as, as Elizabeth mentioned, CMS can trump the courts after 12 months. And that court process has had a much deeper review of the circumstances and perhaps a longer view of the future of how that would look. And certainly, we see a number of applications coming through that are likely to be heading towards a tribunal venue, because paying parents with complex and, and, and high net worth individuals do see the CMS as a good safe exit route from an expensive court order.
So I certainly think an extension of that 12 month period would benefit some security for the children. The information about jurisdiction is is wildly misunderstood across across all sectors really. And it can have really significant financial consequences because we also have seen a number of cases where CMS had the jurisdiction , because mum had applied to both the CMS and to the courts process, through the courts, through their financial remedies, secured a maintenance order within their final solutions, final court orders.
But nobody actually took the efforts to notify the CMS. So we have a system where a paying parent actually becomes liable under both schemes. And again, there's no discretion within the CMS legislation to apply common sense where the evidence can clearly show, well, actually, this court order is what told me to pay, and that's what I've been paying, whereas actually the debt's just accrued. And we've we've seen cases with significant debts that have accrued because that information is misunderstood.
And, and it and it's just not available through CMS, through family lawyers, through through online information. It's just not available. And, and that's having significant financial consequences to, to parents.
So I certainly think an extension of that 12 month period would benefit some security for the children. The information about jurisdiction is is wildly misunderstood across across all sectors really. And it can have really significant financial consequences because we also have seen a number of cases where CMS had the jurisdiction , because mum had applied to both the CMS and to the courts process, through the courts, through their financial remedies, secured a maintenance order within their final solutions, final court orders.
But nobody actually took the efforts to notify the CMS. So we have a system where a paying parent actually becomes liable under both schemes. And again, there's no discretion within the CMS legislation to apply common sense where the evidence can clearly show, well, actually, this court order is what told me to pay, and that's what I've been paying, whereas actually the debt's just accrued. And we've we've seen cases with significant debts that have accrued because that information is misunderstood.
And, and it and it's just not available through CMS, through family lawyers, through through online information. It's just not available. And, and that's having significant financial consequences to, to parents.
09:54
Rushanara Ali
-
-
Rushanara Ali
I'm going to I'm going to press on. My next question. It's for Elizabeth. How often do see challenges arising because lawyers don't have a full understanding of the C, C, C, M s and also for just very briefly, if you if you have suggestions on what could be done to promote more joint working beyond what you've already said, then please do say okay.
09:55
Debbie Abrahams
-
-
Debbie Abrahams
Yes, there are very few solicitors and barristers who are comfortable practicing in this arena. I am direct, access based and as well as receiving instructions through solicitors, and I very commonly get referrals from solicitors from clients who have approached them. These are exceptional city centre based firms and yet they do not feel comfortable taking on CMS cases. And then that continues within the family court itself, because frequently I encounter.
Judges who clearly understand the jurisdiction to an extent, but. Do not understand the intricacies in relation to annual reviews, how variable the the calculation may be, depending on the complexity of the paying parent situation. And that of course then has then causes problems. Because if you're at a final hearing or at an FDR , where a court is trying to push the parents and and mediate effectively an agreement between them, there has to be a level of knowledge from the judiciary to say, well, this is the this is the scenario moving forward in terms of the income that this party will receive by way of CMS liability.
And I take that into account in X, Y, and Z ways. And instead, what they're doing is treating the current calculation as if that is the calculation and is cemented moving forward, even when there is evidence to suggest that next year's calculation may very well be different. And it's because the the council on the other side is not necessarily up to speed with the impact on it. And therefore you can't necessarily have the exchange of submissions that you might want to to put to the judge in in the knowledge that they would need in order to take into account the number of variables that the CMS will take into account in the future.
And I, I have been wondering about about this as to whether or not the Financial Remedies Court and the DWP could kind of work together on a standard approach to be taken in in CMS, in financial remedy cases, for example, could there be a child maintenance service information kind of statement which sets out the current assessment, the effective date, the income upon which that's based and how that decision has been reached, the shared care assumptions, and importantly, whether there is a pending challenge and what the relevant review dates are.
Because the other issue is that invariably, when calculations are appealed to the lower tier tribunal, those appeals take sometimes years. In the meantime, the financial remedy decision has been made, and sometimes the appeal will enable a decision to be backdated . And sometimes it won't. It won't do that because in the meantime, there will have been a number of other annual reviews with the same issue. And so I think that in the starting point needs to be potentially an information statement that gives the judiciary a particular format, and then perhaps an idea of consistent treatment of maintenance in mortgage capacity evidence as well.
I think that would be helpful. So taking into account with and without maintenance scenario testing in disputed cases, so that the court again can assess whether proposed housing solutions remain viable depending on the varying various CMS positions and then joint guidance and judicial training. I'm not sure whether there is any specific judicial training on on CMS cases, we have the, for example, Financial remedies guide of earlier this year, which tells us what should happen at every stage of the financial remedy proceedings, building on top of the family procedure rules.
And as yet, there's nothing in there in relation to child maintenance. So I think some joint joint guidance and judicial training would be of massive assistance.
Judges who clearly understand the jurisdiction to an extent, but. Do not understand the intricacies in relation to annual reviews, how variable the the calculation may be, depending on the complexity of the paying parent situation. And that of course then has then causes problems. Because if you're at a final hearing or at an FDR , where a court is trying to push the parents and and mediate effectively an agreement between them, there has to be a level of knowledge from the judiciary to say, well, this is the this is the scenario moving forward in terms of the income that this party will receive by way of CMS liability.
And I take that into account in X, Y, and Z ways. And instead, what they're doing is treating the current calculation as if that is the calculation and is cemented moving forward, even when there is evidence to suggest that next year's calculation may very well be different. And it's because the the council on the other side is not necessarily up to speed with the impact on it. And therefore you can't necessarily have the exchange of submissions that you might want to to put to the judge in in the knowledge that they would need in order to take into account the number of variables that the CMS will take into account in the future.
And I, I have been wondering about about this as to whether or not the Financial Remedies Court and the DWP could kind of work together on a standard approach to be taken in in CMS, in financial remedy cases, for example, could there be a child maintenance service information kind of statement which sets out the current assessment, the effective date, the income upon which that's based and how that decision has been reached, the shared care assumptions, and importantly, whether there is a pending challenge and what the relevant review dates are.
Because the other issue is that invariably, when calculations are appealed to the lower tier tribunal, those appeals take sometimes years. In the meantime, the financial remedy decision has been made, and sometimes the appeal will enable a decision to be backdated . And sometimes it won't. It won't do that because in the meantime, there will have been a number of other annual reviews with the same issue. And so I think that in the starting point needs to be potentially an information statement that gives the judiciary a particular format, and then perhaps an idea of consistent treatment of maintenance in mortgage capacity evidence as well.
I think that would be helpful. So taking into account with and without maintenance scenario testing in disputed cases, so that the court again can assess whether proposed housing solutions remain viable depending on the varying various CMS positions and then joint guidance and judicial training. I'm not sure whether there is any specific judicial training on on CMS cases, we have the, for example, Financial remedies guide of earlier this year, which tells us what should happen at every stage of the financial remedy proceedings, building on top of the family procedure rules.
And as yet, there's nothing in there in relation to child maintenance. So I think some joint joint guidance and judicial training would be of massive assistance.
10:00
10:00
10:00
10:00
Speaker 3
-
Speaker 3
So this is this is an area where I think real change is needed because the aim here is to lift child poverty to, to, to remove child poverty. But there's such a much broader picture involved here. And, and as I said from the outset, I think the problem is the starting point is that CMS treat parents in isolation and they can't distinguish between those parents that can't pay and those parents that won't pay.
So there's no, no distinguishing between those two categories. And and right from the outset, the language is hostile and it's threatening. And that's immediately going to feel that one party's feeling attacked, which if you if you're getting unfairness, if you're getting that view from one parent, you're immediately going to, to, to affect the compliance. So my point has always been that the system must have an effective communication process that involves both parents.
From that very first point of contact, it's got to be inclusive of both parents and both parents. It's whether there's a point of disclosure from the beginning part of the application to eradicate concerns such as we addressed earlier with unearned income. The the just needs to be a much, much better inclusive communication system so that both parents feel that they are treated with the same level of respect and and involvement within the decisions around their children, rather than one parent continually feeling that they're not listened to, their complaints are unanswered.
They have random poor decision making with no explanation around them, and then just compounded by threat after threat after threat. If if, you know, ignoring all of their protests, ignoring all of their complaints, just continual threats. So mediation, certainly there would be an argument for that to be included. But I just I'm not so sure the resources would extend that far. Whereas if we had something with a good communication system, we could at least start to rebuild the trust and repair the damage that has already been created.
So there's no, no distinguishing between those two categories. And and right from the outset, the language is hostile and it's threatening. And that's immediately going to feel that one party's feeling attacked, which if you if you're getting unfairness, if you're getting that view from one parent, you're immediately going to, to, to affect the compliance. So my point has always been that the system must have an effective communication process that involves both parents.
From that very first point of contact, it's got to be inclusive of both parents and both parents. It's whether there's a point of disclosure from the beginning part of the application to eradicate concerns such as we addressed earlier with unearned income. The the just needs to be a much, much better inclusive communication system so that both parents feel that they are treated with the same level of respect and and involvement within the decisions around their children, rather than one parent continually feeling that they're not listened to, their complaints are unanswered.
They have random poor decision making with no explanation around them, and then just compounded by threat after threat after threat. If if, you know, ignoring all of their protests, ignoring all of their complaints, just continual threats. So mediation, certainly there would be an argument for that to be included. But I just I'm not so sure the resources would extend that far. Whereas if we had something with a good communication system, we could at least start to rebuild the trust and repair the damage that has already been created.
10:03
10:03
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
Absolutely. I think the mediation voucher has been very important. The Reducing Parental Conflict program. Almost all of the local authorities have taken the money up and really run with that. And and , and they are encouraging everybody in the local authority in the best cases to, to have a have an eye to conflict as being a problem in, in a family system that you might not present with, with going through a really messy separation, you might present with all of the kind of offshoots of that.
And I think there's a lot more. There's, there's, there's a lot more. Sorry, just to say the voucher, I think that's been a really important nudge in the right direction. But £500, the people around me will know that that might get you one and a half sessions. But still, I don't I don't think the government should have to pay for everything. I think you you value what you what you have to pay a, a good contribution towards.
So I don't know if you want me to talk about it now, but I think there is a role. There is a greater role for mediation. But. But it needs to be as part of a community based support package because we've had a just finish with this. We've had almost 40 years of a child support system, and we just keep discovering the same mistakes and, and the lack of DWP that CMS constantly trying to improve and up their game.
And that's what I found in my review. They are a reform minded organisation, but they are they are working with the most frail family systems, and they need something in the community where people can go and face to face. Look at my ream of paperwork from the CMS, what do I do? And get in there before the ream builds up early intervention.
And I think there's a lot more. There's, there's, there's a lot more. Sorry, just to say the voucher, I think that's been a really important nudge in the right direction. But £500, the people around me will know that that might get you one and a half sessions. But still, I don't I don't think the government should have to pay for everything. I think you you value what you what you have to pay a, a good contribution towards.
So I don't know if you want me to talk about it now, but I think there is a role. There is a greater role for mediation. But. But it needs to be as part of a community based support package because we've had a just finish with this. We've had almost 40 years of a child support system, and we just keep discovering the same mistakes and, and the lack of DWP that CMS constantly trying to improve and up their game.
And that's what I found in my review. They are a reform minded organisation, but they are they are working with the most frail family systems, and they need something in the community where people can go and face to face. Look at my ream of paperwork from the CMS, what do I do? And get in there before the ream builds up early intervention.
10:04
10:05
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
Well, I think the whole the direct pay problems that the government is trying to solve, which is that you can conflict, can build up because the the there's not an automatic government redress if you don't pay. I, I think the and I think it's good that they're reducing the fees. If everyone moves into direct into collect and pay to 2% and 2%. But, but I think the the problem is still you're in this very.
As Michelle has explained, you're in this very hard edged system. So with so many things, we've had so many reforms to the payment system of child maintenance. If we only kind of tweak at the edges. I mean, this is quite a big reform. I do grant you that. But if we're just trying to reform a system rather than to put other support in place, we're never going to get over the internal contradictions in the CMS, such as the more contact you give to another parent, the less money you get.
Well, that's that's a big internal contradiction that. needs proper smoothing in a community based setting.
As Michelle has explained, you're in this very hard edged system. So with so many things, we've had so many reforms to the payment system of child maintenance. If we only kind of tweak at the edges. I mean, this is quite a big reform. I do grant you that. But if we're just trying to reform a system rather than to put other support in place, we're never going to get over the internal contradictions in the CMS, such as the more contact you give to another parent, the less money you get.
Well, that's that's a big internal contradiction that. needs proper smoothing in a community based setting.
10:06
10:06
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
Absolutely. Well, that's sorry, yet another reason why I think these family hubs that are now all around the country, if you have triage, if you have a family separation clinic, which is something I've been working on, it's spotting these, these, these, these issues, coercive control, etc., psychological abuse, emotional abuse. It's we, you can't really tell that on the phone much as you, you know, despite all your training. So it's another reason why if you are in a family based arrangement, let's, let's, let's talk to you in a setting that's.
10:06
10:07
10:07
Patrick Hurley
-
-
Patrick Hurley
Thank you. Chair. I have a question about equal care cases. So whichever of the panel feels like they want to come back and find to open it up. The 2012 regulations say that a parent should only be treated or should only be treated as the non-resident parent if and only if that person provides day to day care to a lesser extent than the applicant. So if two parents provide equal care, precisely equal care, then neither parent will be required to pay.
Maintenance is my understanding. The problem comes when it comes to the interaction with child benefit, and I just want to clarify or get some confirmation from the panel as to the interaction and how child benefit is treated in this in these sorts of equal care cases, whether or not it's a it is used as evidence for one parent to be non-resident or one parent to be given primary duties. So whoever would like to take that on.
Maintenance is my understanding. The problem comes when it comes to the interaction with child benefit, and I just want to clarify or get some confirmation from the panel as to the interaction and how child benefit is treated in this in these sorts of equal care cases, whether or not it's a it is used as evidence for one parent to be non-resident or one parent to be given primary duties. So whoever would like to take that on.
10:08
Speaker 3
-
Speaker 3
I think if, if, if I can perhaps address that first child benefit very much is the language for CMS. And yes, that is very often used as the deciding factor. So although you have the rebuttable assumption for where child benefit is paid to to determine the primary carer, that's usually the deciding factor. And the CMS will routinely disregard lots of other evidence that might have been provided, including maybe a child arrangement order.
So traditionally or historically , that has forced most applications where equal day to day care has has become an issue that's forced them into the tribunal arena. There's long delays on that. That then brings complications around payments and arrears, accruing, etc., and whether payments continue because there's no responsibility to reimburse. I think the problem is the narrative around the equal care position is is misunderstood. Again, we find lots of parents have been told, my solicitor told me I don't have to pay.
And that's not exactly true, because there is a difference between what the CMS treat has band equal shared care and day to day care equal shared care. So there does need to be a greater involvement to decide whether parents do equally share the day to day care of their children. And CMS routinely don't take that that level of of investigation, no communications, no explanations, just they reject the position and force the the aggrieved parent into tribunal.
My only point that I will say on that is that I, I am aware that CMS have introduced new checks and changes where the equal shared care is concerned and. And I understand they are now taking a greater view on evidence that is provided rather than just now relying on the child benefit. So it's relatively new. It would be nice to see that there is a reduction in applications to tribunal when regulation 50 is raised, but it's it's a case of watch this space because up until now it it's very much decided by who claims the child benefit.
Okay.
So traditionally or historically , that has forced most applications where equal day to day care has has become an issue that's forced them into the tribunal arena. There's long delays on that. That then brings complications around payments and arrears, accruing, etc., and whether payments continue because there's no responsibility to reimburse. I think the problem is the narrative around the equal care position is is misunderstood. Again, we find lots of parents have been told, my solicitor told me I don't have to pay.
And that's not exactly true, because there is a difference between what the CMS treat has band equal shared care and day to day care equal shared care. So there does need to be a greater involvement to decide whether parents do equally share the day to day care of their children. And CMS routinely don't take that that level of of investigation, no communications, no explanations, just they reject the position and force the the aggrieved parent into tribunal.
My only point that I will say on that is that I, I am aware that CMS have introduced new checks and changes where the equal shared care is concerned and. And I understand they are now taking a greater view on evidence that is provided rather than just now relying on the child benefit. So it's relatively new. It would be nice to see that there is a reduction in applications to tribunal when regulation 50 is raised, but it's it's a case of watch this space because up until now it it's very much decided by who claims the child benefit.
Okay.
10:10
10:10
Speaker 3
-
Speaker 3
Well, I think it it it really comes down to what is your the boring day to day routines of, of, of child contact. So lives with both parents order doesn't necessarily provide sufficient information. It's about who is providing the school runs, who's doing the after school pickups and drop offs, who's taking the children to the doctors, who's who's administering the medicine, who's having the discussions about what school the children are going to attend, what what mental well-being is being provided for the children.
There's a whole, whole scheme of questions that need to be addressed to really drill down into whether children are being cared equally by both parents, because this is not about number of overnights. This is not what I have them five days a week and then two days and swap it the next week. It's about who's providing that day to day care for the children. So it's got to be about that day to day routine that that everybody does or parents do without really sort of having to, to think about it.
There's a whole, whole scheme of questions that need to be addressed to really drill down into whether children are being cared equally by both parents, because this is not about number of overnights. This is not what I have them five days a week and then two days and swap it the next week. It's about who's providing that day to day care for the children. So it's got to be about that day to day routine that that everybody does or parents do without really sort of having to, to think about it.
10:12
10:12
Debbie Abrahams
-
-
Debbie Abrahams
I add to that, please? Because I have experience of a number of cases where parties have an exactly equal number of, of nights spread over, say, 14 days shared school holidays exactly equal. And so their understanding is that there shouldn't be a liability for child maintenance. But as you may know, there's a difference between having exactly equal number of nights, which entitles you to a discount in what you pay and equal day to day care.
And the questions that Michelle raises are exactly the kind of questions that I advise my clients to get evidence of in order to rebut the presumption that child benefit answers the question, and they submit that evidence, provide the exhibits that they need to do that. I'm I'm the first port of call that the school identifies. I'm the address that the child is registered with the doctor. And still repeatedly the CMS come back and say, no, I don't accept that information.
And then I'm struggling to advise my clients. Well, I'm not sure what else you can provide here. We just have to appeal it to the tribunal and see if a face to face human will give us a different answer. And invariably they do. But of course, that then clogs up the tribunal system, which could otherwise be dealing with far more complex cases in terms of income.
And the questions that Michelle raises are exactly the kind of questions that I advise my clients to get evidence of in order to rebut the presumption that child benefit answers the question, and they submit that evidence, provide the exhibits that they need to do that. I'm I'm the first port of call that the school identifies. I'm the address that the child is registered with the doctor. And still repeatedly the CMS come back and say, no, I don't accept that information.
And then I'm struggling to advise my clients. Well, I'm not sure what else you can provide here. We just have to appeal it to the tribunal and see if a face to face human will give us a different answer. And invariably they do. But of course, that then clogs up the tribunal system, which could otherwise be dealing with far more complex cases in terms of income.
10:13
10:13
10:13
Patrick Hurley
-
-
Patrick Hurley
10:13
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
That's a great question. Thank you. So what we what we need is for that kind of crock of gold at the end of the rainbow cross-government working. So MoJ are keen to have this because as as you may know, the president of the family division, Andrew McFarlane, said about 38% of separating. Parents are using the courts and and and judges are saying, why am I adjudicating between which service station on the M4 to drop this child off at.
I mean, it's just it's it's it's tragic. And it's, it's a huge drain on the public purse and, and, and on the court time. But it's because parents do not have somewhere to go early to to prevent conflict from building. It will sometimes build regardless of the the any early help. But just now we we unlike in Australia, where it's a statutory Pre-action family dispute resolution requirement. When parents are in dispute that they will have have been to to to somewhere that they.
Sorry, let me start again. You cannot take action in the family courts in Australia unless you've. You've used statutory family dispute resolution. And the gateway for that is these family relationship centres and I visited them in Australia. They do good work. They. They do child focused mediation. You can watch films about the effect that will likely be incurred on your child if you just have war without end.
But but the main thing is it's storefront. It's it's not it's not a. Government building in the usual sense. The kind of the family court can look very austere. It's a place you, you, you would like to go. And, and I think the we just we just need. Currently there is. The government has made a good start in 2023. One of the minimum expectations on family hubs.
Sorry, 2022 that's been continued under this government was that they would support separating families. But it's very minimalist. And what we need is, as I said, and I can I can write in about this because there's quite a lot of detail. But but what would be good in a family hub is if you could have something called a pre mediation information and assessment meeting, you could actually get something that's not short circuiting the process of the, the miam and then maybe mediation or going, going to a lawyer, but where you just jolly well get some advice.
And you know that even if you do mediate, you're still going to have to pay a solicitor to get a consent order, because a lot of people, it's just they have very little idea of, of, of the process of separation. And they go into it and suddenly it gets very contested. So I hope I've answered your question. There's a lot more I could say, but it will take the a resolution at the heart of government.
I think that this is a very important area for family hubs because they're meant to be not. 19 this is this is separating families, almost without exception, are going through something pretty traumatic. And in Norway, Australia, as I've said, they don't expect you to go through that process without face to face help. And that's where CMS could be really helped as well. Thank you chair.
I mean, it's just it's it's it's tragic. And it's, it's a huge drain on the public purse and, and, and on the court time. But it's because parents do not have somewhere to go early to to prevent conflict from building. It will sometimes build regardless of the the any early help. But just now we we unlike in Australia, where it's a statutory Pre-action family dispute resolution requirement. When parents are in dispute that they will have have been to to to somewhere that they.
Sorry, let me start again. You cannot take action in the family courts in Australia unless you've. You've used statutory family dispute resolution. And the gateway for that is these family relationship centres and I visited them in Australia. They do good work. They. They do child focused mediation. You can watch films about the effect that will likely be incurred on your child if you just have war without end.
But but the main thing is it's storefront. It's it's not it's not a. Government building in the usual sense. The kind of the family court can look very austere. It's a place you, you, you would like to go. And, and I think the we just we just need. Currently there is. The government has made a good start in 2023. One of the minimum expectations on family hubs.
Sorry, 2022 that's been continued under this government was that they would support separating families. But it's very minimalist. And what we need is, as I said, and I can I can write in about this because there's quite a lot of detail. But but what would be good in a family hub is if you could have something called a pre mediation information and assessment meeting, you could actually get something that's not short circuiting the process of the, the miam and then maybe mediation or going, going to a lawyer, but where you just jolly well get some advice.
And you know that even if you do mediate, you're still going to have to pay a solicitor to get a consent order, because a lot of people, it's just they have very little idea of, of, of the process of separation. And they go into it and suddenly it gets very contested. So I hope I've answered your question. There's a lot more I could say, but it will take the a resolution at the heart of government.
I think that this is a very important area for family hubs because they're meant to be not. 19 this is this is separating families, almost without exception, are going through something pretty traumatic. And in Norway, Australia, as I've said, they don't expect you to go through that process without face to face help. And that's where CMS could be really helped as well. Thank you chair.
10:17
10:17
10:17
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
Right. Well thank you. I think one one very good reform is that you have you have named and trained specialist caseworkers. So you can you can if rather than you having to repeat your story again and again, which is very, very distressing as, as everyone can imagine, you can go straight into a team. It might not always be the very same person, but if people don't mind, as long as there's, there's good records that have been kept and they, they say this is my name, or they give their number and people say, oh, yeah, we've got we've got all your information here.
And one thing I would say for CMS is I have heard that it's like you're starting all over again every time you pick up the phone. Well, why can't we be using AI like so many doctors are now to record these conversations so that people don't have to repeat themselves all the time. They can make outbound calls, they can be much more proactive. And, and one thing I asked the team recently is, are you are you capping the number of people in this specialist team by, by the amount of people you've got who are trained? And they said, no, we are we are trying to kind of ebb and flow the team, adjust it for the number of cases that we think qualify to go into the team.
So I thought, well, that's that's quite encouraging. Moving on. I said, I watched some of the training that that the all operatives have, and it was very focused on it will be a woman who's the victim and it will be the receiving parent. It was the and I just said, we need a lot more balanced training. I haven't I haven't seen a lot, but, but I mentioned it to them recently and they, they say, yes, we will, we will go and review that.
But and I another thing others will talk about. The calculation has not been reformed. They made a decision not to reform the calculation for kind of cost of living reasons. But what what their research did show the government did some attitudinal research is a priority to to change the calculation. I know Professor Hirsch will be talking about this in the next session, and their research showed that the paying parents willingness to pay does increase if they have more contact with the child, and if the calculation is viewed as fair and not excessive.
And if it's transparent, we all know about the algorithm, then there's less conflict with the other parent. So I wish the government had made a different decision on the basis of their research. But the but they haven't. But I think there's some good data in there. And finally, both salaries should be taken into account. Again, a service that's considered inherently unfair is, is, is an engine of, of more conflict. And they've, they've, I think many European countries, Australia and New Zealand countries systems take both parents income into account.
But we we still say, no, it's it's too complicated. So but my final. Well, I made several recommendations, but my final recommendation. I have not seen enough. Progress on. But I think I think again, it's it's a political decision. Is this community based help. We we're not going to see a major change, especially in identification of domestic abuse if it's all done on the phone or online.
And that's why I keep pushing on the Family Hubs button. Thank you.
And one thing I would say for CMS is I have heard that it's like you're starting all over again every time you pick up the phone. Well, why can't we be using AI like so many doctors are now to record these conversations so that people don't have to repeat themselves all the time. They can make outbound calls, they can be much more proactive. And, and one thing I asked the team recently is, are you are you capping the number of people in this specialist team by, by the amount of people you've got who are trained? And they said, no, we are we are trying to kind of ebb and flow the team, adjust it for the number of cases that we think qualify to go into the team.
So I thought, well, that's that's quite encouraging. Moving on. I said, I watched some of the training that that the all operatives have, and it was very focused on it will be a woman who's the victim and it will be the receiving parent. It was the and I just said, we need a lot more balanced training. I haven't I haven't seen a lot, but, but I mentioned it to them recently and they, they say, yes, we will, we will go and review that.
But and I another thing others will talk about. The calculation has not been reformed. They made a decision not to reform the calculation for kind of cost of living reasons. But what what their research did show the government did some attitudinal research is a priority to to change the calculation. I know Professor Hirsch will be talking about this in the next session, and their research showed that the paying parents willingness to pay does increase if they have more contact with the child, and if the calculation is viewed as fair and not excessive.
And if it's transparent, we all know about the algorithm, then there's less conflict with the other parent. So I wish the government had made a different decision on the basis of their research. But the but they haven't. But I think there's some good data in there. And finally, both salaries should be taken into account. Again, a service that's considered inherently unfair is, is, is an engine of, of more conflict. And they've, they've, I think many European countries, Australia and New Zealand countries systems take both parents income into account.
But we we still say, no, it's it's too complicated. So but my final. Well, I made several recommendations, but my final recommendation. I have not seen enough. Progress on. But I think I think again, it's it's a political decision. Is this community based help. We we're not going to see a major change, especially in identification of domestic abuse if it's all done on the phone or online.
And that's why I keep pushing on the Family Hubs button. Thank you.
10:21
10:21
10:21
10:21
10:21
10:21
10:21
10:22
Debbie Abrahams
-
-
Debbie Abrahams
I think the only thing that that I would add being a public law practitioner when I started out is that to my knowledge, the matrix don't take into account or have any support in relation to assisting the parents in making provision financially for the children. It's more to, I suppose, firefight the immediate concerns in terms of the safety of the children and probably the safety of the the the, the parent.
10:22
Liz Twist
-
-
Liz Twist
I'm just thinking we heard evidence on this of the fact that sometimes, as we've heard, the EMS can be used as a tool to. To continue domestic abuse through different financial and other pressures. And I just wonder if there's any way in which we could or should make that link so that people are aware of the whole picture.
10:23
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
Well, I think you've you've pointed on why the government is, is considering abolishing direct pay because it was being used as a very effective, very nasty tool. You'd you'd have people making payments to the other parent and putting nasty references in. I hardly like to say it, but for prostitution services or something, I mean really unpleasant. Not paying on time, paying just enough that it was hardly worth the while to say to the CMS, the money's not flowing.
It was. And also somebody being paid, but then turning the tables on the paying parent to for for these, as I say, legal administrative abuse reasons and saying you're, you're reporting them to the CMS for not paying. So it was, it was ripe, rife with, with, with, with problems on that front. But I think when I, when I interviewed a lot of CMS professionals and they, they, they felt that their hands were quite tied.
They, they probably would have, you know, liked to be been involved in America. I would say if we had CMS people based in family hubs, there would be a lot of job satisfaction there because they, they, they, they sense the frustration, the person that they're talking to, and they feel it themselves because they're thinking, how much of this story am I, am I really getting. And I've got to be quite hard edged for the reasons that Michelle has talked about. So again, it's I keep coming back, if I may, to this, this, this problem that the that there's that we're trying to do everything almost like through the letterbox of a house when if you could sit and talk to somebody, then you'd things could be resolved more equitably and easily.
It was. And also somebody being paid, but then turning the tables on the paying parent to for for these, as I say, legal administrative abuse reasons and saying you're, you're reporting them to the CMS for not paying. So it was, it was ripe, rife with, with, with, with problems on that front. But I think when I, when I interviewed a lot of CMS professionals and they, they, they felt that their hands were quite tied.
They, they probably would have, you know, liked to be been involved in America. I would say if we had CMS people based in family hubs, there would be a lot of job satisfaction there because they, they, they, they sense the frustration, the person that they're talking to, and they feel it themselves because they're thinking, how much of this story am I, am I really getting. And I've got to be quite hard edged for the reasons that Michelle has talked about. So again, it's I keep coming back, if I may, to this, this, this problem that the that there's that we're trying to do everything almost like through the letterbox of a house when if you could sit and talk to somebody, then you'd things could be resolved more equitably and easily.
10:24
10:25
Debbie Abrahams
-
-
Debbie Abrahams
So I was just about to say on, on that point, a colleague of mine has a case currently where she, the, the paying parent has told the CMS that there is a shared care arrangement. He hasn't actually seen the children for many months. And the CMS have. Completely changed the calculation based on what he has asserted and are refusing to take into account anything other than a court order from the parent with care.
And as a result, she doesn't have a court order. And in fact, one of the children is over the age of 18, over the age of 16, so she wouldn't be able to get a court order. And so she's stuck in this situation where the maintenance has now dropped off to nothing. And there's nothing, ostensibly, that the CMS will accept as evidence to show that the reality on the ground is not what he is asserting. So that is one example of the kinds of ways in which people are using the system as it currently is.
And as a result, she doesn't have a court order. And in fact, one of the children is over the age of 18, over the age of 16, so she wouldn't be able to get a court order. And so she's stuck in this situation where the maintenance has now dropped off to nothing. And there's nothing, ostensibly, that the CMS will accept as evidence to show that the reality on the ground is not what he is asserting. So that is one example of the kinds of ways in which people are using the system as it currently is.
10:26
10:26
Debbie Abrahams
-
-
Debbie Abrahams
Yes, yes, I would, absolutely not. Least because it gives that human contact to be able to talk them through. Well, this this is how it works. This is how the calculation can work. This is the variations that that can be applied. And this, these are the range of possible outcomes for you. So I think it would be extremely helpful. Yes.
10:26
10:26
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
Thank you so much Liz. And that concludes the evidence session for this first panel. Thank you so much, all of you, for joining us. Michelle on line. Samantha and Elizabeth here in in person. Thank you. Back to this inquiry session on the Child Maintenance Service. This is our second panel for the morning. And it's a pleasure to welcome Christine Davies. Doctor Christine Davies, formerly at the Royal Holloway University College, London.
And we also have in the room Professor Donald Hirsch, emeritus professor of social policy from Loughborough University. And Mari, I hope I get this pronunciation haapanen. Is that correct? Yes. Thank you. Is joining us virtually from Finland. So it's it's lovely from the University of Turku. So it's lovely to to welcome you as as well. I'm going to start questions and I wonder if you could explain to the committee how fit for purpose you think the current child maintenance calculation form formula is.
If you perhaps could go into a little bit of information and one of you about what what it is, how they actually go about calculating this. And also in your response, why, if you think it's not fit, fit for purpose, that is who would like to start?
And we also have in the room Professor Donald Hirsch, emeritus professor of social policy from Loughborough University. And Mari, I hope I get this pronunciation haapanen. Is that correct? Yes. Thank you. Is joining us virtually from Finland. So it's it's lovely from the University of Turku. So it's lovely to to welcome you as as well. I'm going to start questions and I wonder if you could explain to the committee how fit for purpose you think the current child maintenance calculation form formula is.
If you perhaps could go into a little bit of information and one of you about what what it is, how they actually go about calculating this. And also in your response, why, if you think it's not fit, fit for purpose, that is who would like to start?
10:29
10:29
Speaker 5
-
Speaker 5
Very much. Yes. Thank you. Okay. Could be my best. And thank you for inviting a few details, please. The Child maintenance calculation scheme, a summary at the end and the beginning is that it really isn't fit for purpose because it produces amounts that can't be paid. The decision was made having had problems with the 1993 scheme to go for a very simple scheme, and so the child maintenance is calculated just as a percentage of the income of the second parent.
I'll call it the second parent, the one who hasn't got the main care of the children. A percentage. The basic rate is a percentage of the whole income. And this causes problems because if people aren't earning very much, of course they can't pay a big percentage or even a significant percentage of their income. And so what the child maintenance scheme does is introduce two thresholds. It has one below which you just pay a nominal sum at a flat rate.
It has another above which you'll pay the full amount. And in between there is a sort of intermediary where you pay the reduced reduced fee, the reduced charge. And this does seem to be make sense. You know, you'd only pay the full amount when you're earning enough. And if you're paying earning less than that, you pay a reduced amount. The trouble is, in this insistence that the maintenance is on the full amounts, because if you think of what happens, and I'll draw a graph in the air, a percentage of the income, and then they're saying up to this first threshold, you just pay a flat amount.
When you get the top one, you're paying that whatever. But in between you've got to go rocketing up. And so quite a large proportion of every pound that you earn is going in extra child maintenance. This causes problems. The structure causes problems, but even more so. I've been involved in this for a long time and chose specific things to draw people's attention to. What sort of threshold should we have, and the current thresholds below which you pay nothing.
Well, the flat rate and above which you pay the full amount was set in 1998 at £100 a week and £200 a week, so give you a flavor. In 1998, £100 was 20% above the income tax rate. Anyway, you started paying income tax. So obviously as time has gone on, it's got silly. And in my briefing paper before the meeting, I gave you an example of the kind of thing that happens.
People who should, under the intentions of the scheme, be paying just the flat amount, a nominal sum. It would be £7. If you're on Universal Credit, plus the 20% that they charge for going through the collect and pay instead of paying that they're paying the full amount and someone earning £300 a week, which is probably where the threshold ought to be. Now, instead of paying £8.40 a week, it's being asked to pay £68.40 a week.
And these are people who are really on a very low income, so it just doesn't make sense. And this problem has been there right, since 2003, because the same kind of structure was used. Then the same thresholds were used, then grief.
I'll call it the second parent, the one who hasn't got the main care of the children. A percentage. The basic rate is a percentage of the whole income. And this causes problems because if people aren't earning very much, of course they can't pay a big percentage or even a significant percentage of their income. And so what the child maintenance scheme does is introduce two thresholds. It has one below which you just pay a nominal sum at a flat rate.
It has another above which you'll pay the full amount. And in between there is a sort of intermediary where you pay the reduced reduced fee, the reduced charge. And this does seem to be make sense. You know, you'd only pay the full amount when you're earning enough. And if you're paying earning less than that, you pay a reduced amount. The trouble is, in this insistence that the maintenance is on the full amounts, because if you think of what happens, and I'll draw a graph in the air, a percentage of the income, and then they're saying up to this first threshold, you just pay a flat amount.
When you get the top one, you're paying that whatever. But in between you've got to go rocketing up. And so quite a large proportion of every pound that you earn is going in extra child maintenance. This causes problems. The structure causes problems, but even more so. I've been involved in this for a long time and chose specific things to draw people's attention to. What sort of threshold should we have, and the current thresholds below which you pay nothing.
Well, the flat rate and above which you pay the full amount was set in 1998 at £100 a week and £200 a week, so give you a flavor. In 1998, £100 was 20% above the income tax rate. Anyway, you started paying income tax. So obviously as time has gone on, it's got silly. And in my briefing paper before the meeting, I gave you an example of the kind of thing that happens.
People who should, under the intentions of the scheme, be paying just the flat amount, a nominal sum. It would be £7. If you're on Universal Credit, plus the 20% that they charge for going through the collect and pay instead of paying that they're paying the full amount and someone earning £300 a week, which is probably where the threshold ought to be. Now, instead of paying £8.40 a week, it's being asked to pay £68.40 a week.
And these are people who are really on a very low income, so it just doesn't make sense. And this problem has been there right, since 2003, because the same kind of structure was used. Then the same thresholds were used, then grief.
10:33
10:33
10:33
10:33
Speaker 4
-
Speaker 4
Well, our research has been particularly on the paying parents who are non-resident but who have some shared care with some responsibility for overnight care of children. And so superimposed on this system, there is some consideration taken in the formula of, of the of that sharing of care. But it doesn't both structurally and in terms of the the levels, it doesn't really correspond in any way to what the kind of costs that people actually face.
I mean, I can talk more about it, but just in, in brief, in terms of the, the levels you get let off a certain proportion of what you're paying according to how much time you're sharing the care. So if you're doing a day a week, you get you get a seventh, but that isn't, that's a seventh of, of what is generally 12% in these lower income, lower to middle income brackets. And it just doesn't add up to very much.
If you were on £200 a week, it would be £3 a for every day, roughly £3 for every day that you spend caring, which doesn't even pay for the extra fuel costs in our. And we identify many different costs. But there's also a structural issue, which is that our research, which I can talk more about, is showing that a lot of the costs that people face are fixed costs, providing a suitable home, particularly for their children to, to spend time in.
And, and so it's not sort of just twice as much if you're for two days and for one day. And there are ways that we've suggested in a note to the committee that you could start to change that structure.
I mean, I can talk more about it, but just in, in brief, in terms of the, the levels you get let off a certain proportion of what you're paying according to how much time you're sharing the care. So if you're doing a day a week, you get you get a seventh, but that isn't, that's a seventh of, of what is generally 12% in these lower income, lower to middle income brackets. And it just doesn't add up to very much.
If you were on £200 a week, it would be £3 a for every day, roughly £3 for every day that you spend caring, which doesn't even pay for the extra fuel costs in our. And we identify many different costs. But there's also a structural issue, which is that our research, which I can talk more about, is showing that a lot of the costs that people face are fixed costs, providing a suitable home, particularly for their children to, to spend time in.
And, and so it's not sort of just twice as much if you're for two days and for one day. And there are ways that we've suggested in a note to the committee that you could start to change that structure.
10:35
10:35
10:35
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
examples in Finland. In Finland. If I can. briefly tell about the background of of system in Finland. In Finland. Parents can agree on site maintenance and. municipalities can then ratify the agreement. The amount is in principle based on on on case by case discretion. But there are also official guidelines. How to determine child support.
These guidelines were made in. 2007 and they are based on the maintenance is calculated based on children's needs and both parents ability to provide for the child. So these guidelines were made in.
These guidelines were made in. 2007 and they are based on the maintenance is calculated based on children's needs and both parents ability to provide for the child. So these guidelines were made in.
10:36
10:36
10:36
10:36
10:36
10:36
10:36
10:36
10:37
10:37
John Milne
-
-
John Milne
Thank you very much. I'm going to hand over now to John Mill. Thank you chair, and best. questions for for Christine. So you touched on this a little earlier, but obviously the, the, the principles for the child maintenance service and the thresholds were, were laid down some time ago. Do you do you think do you think you know what's changed. What were the .
10:37
Speaker 4
-
Speaker 4
Assumptions then. Are they relevant to today? Indeed, they were set in. 1998 when the Green Paper was put forward to propose the. What was in. 2003 scheme and. It's difficult to know. I mean, obviously anything that was happening was relevant in 1998 is not relevant now. I could give all kinds of examples. For example, the £100 threshold was equivalent to 30 hours work at the national minimum wage.
It's now about. 4.5 hours work at the National. It really is very, very bad. And the problem? It's difficult to know what to say. But the problem with this, because are we talking more about the review.
It's now about. 4.5 hours work at the National. It really is very, very bad. And the problem? It's difficult to know what to say. But the problem with this, because are we talking more about the review.
10:38
10:38
Speaker 4
-
Speaker 4
Research there or later on, or shall I bring that in now? Bring it in now. Bring it in now. Right. I, I've been involved in this for a long time and have meetings with what was families need fathers and both parents matter. So we actually have quarterly meetings with the child Maintenance Service policy group. And this means that I do have some sort of insight. And I'm told various things about things that were happening and for ever for, I don't know how many years their attitude has been that there's nothing wrong with the structure.
They can do things in other ways. And the senior member of the team actually said to me, you know, we'll just have to disagree with this, Christine, you say the structure is at fault. We say it's fine. So, in fact, in the work that they did, building towards a possible.
They can do things in other ways. And the senior member of the team actually said to me, you know, we'll just have to disagree with this, Christine, you say the structure is at fault. We say it's fine. So, in fact, in the work that they did, building towards a possible.
10:39
10:39
10:39
10:39
10:39
Speaker 4
-
Speaker 4
That's going on the. Well said. I mean the threshold for paying income tax has been frozen for a few years in any case. So it's there are political reasons why you might want to use one comparison or use another. Now this is fine. If the structure was fine, you could say yes. And I do wonder what I'm about to say is perhaps the reason why they haven't gone ahead with the consultation.
Because if you change the thresholds in that way, you might change the lower threshold to .
Because if you change the thresholds in that way, you might change the lower threshold to .
10:40
10:40
Speaker 4
-
Speaker 4
Say, as an easy example, on the top 1 to 600. But in that region, the parents are now paying income tax. They're probably on universal credit, which means that for every pound they earn, they're paying National. Insurance income tax, the child maintenance increases. And if you're paying for three. children under the collect and pay scheme, then the result of this is for every pound that you earned between.
£300 and one, your Universal Credit ran out, you'd be losing £0.05. I
£300 and one, your Universal Credit ran out, you'd be losing £0.05. I
10:40
10:40
10:40
10:41
Speaker 4
-
Speaker 4
them now, they go out of date again. Is there a sort of principle or. mechanism by basic fundamental thing I would say is you can't stick with this structure. If you tried doing it with income tax, you get a silly situation. You know, you'd the moment you pay your National insurance at 8% and your income tax at 20%, so it's 28%. But if you did this sort of thing, you'd pay nothing to start with.
28% at a certain level, and in between, you'd be paying. £0.56 of every pound that you earn. And it's it just doesn't make sense. What happens in other. countries is that they have a self-support allowance. So just like with income tax, you have a personal allowance. There is an allowance for your basic living costs and your maintenance is charged above that. And rather interestingly, when they set up the.
28% at a certain level, and in between, you'd be paying. £0.56 of every pound that you earn. And it's it just doesn't make sense. What happens in other. countries is that they have a self-support allowance. So just like with income tax, you have a personal allowance. There is an allowance for your basic living costs and your maintenance is charged above that. And rather interestingly, when they set up the.
10:42
10:42
10:42
John Milne
-
-
John Milne
If they can't support themselves, they can't support the children. Yeah, an important principle. Moving on to other countries. Let's go for Finland. Yeah. How? How so you talked a little bit about how maintenance is is calculated in Finland. But what are the key. differences to the UK and pluses and minuses . In your
10:42
10:42
10:42
10:42
10:43
10:43
10:43
10:43
10:43
10:43
10:43
10:43
John Milne
-
-
John Milne
are working on that at the moment. So. Okay. Okay, I'll move on to the next question then. So so there's a general question. So so this is about CM's. interaction with other other benefits. So so what evidence is there that interactions between the Social Security system and CMS can cause problems for parents specifically on low incomes. And what sort of .
10:43
10:43
10:44
10:44
10:44
10:44
Speaker 7
-
Speaker 7
Which includes children, they're some of the time they're being treated as a single person if they're on benefits. So, for example, they, they would only have have the right to one bedroom to be , to be paid for. And either the social housing with the bedroom tax or, or under the local housing allowances, if they're in the private sector. But also quite an interesting one. And I think Christine is, has has suggested this as well, that there's a real case for giving them a work.
10:44
10:44
10:44
10:44
Speaker 7
-
Speaker 7
That once you start earning, you don't immediately get your universal credit withdrawn from the first pound. And the rationale for giving a work allowance for people who've got family. responsibilities is that they have other responsibilities. And you're taking that into account in terms of thinking about how much you expect them to work or what happens, you know, if they if they do small bits of work. So there would be a real case for that as well as for potentially a higher universal credit standard allowance.
I mean, of course, the government isn't exactly overflowing with cash, so I'm not suggesting they'll do this tomorrow. But to start thinking about how paying parents who do have. responsibilities for their children and can , can avoid bringing them up in poverty, because we think about poverty very much about the lone parent where who is the primary carer, but not about the fact that they may be spending quite a lot of time in in.
I mean, of course, the government isn't exactly overflowing with cash, so I'm not suggesting they'll do this tomorrow. But to start thinking about how paying parents who do have. responsibilities for their children and can , can avoid bringing them up in poverty, because we think about poverty very much about the lone parent where who is the primary carer, but not about the fact that they may be spending quite a lot of time in in.
10:45
10:45
Speaker 7
-
Speaker 7
, or not being able to stay with that parent and have the benefits of, of having a relationship with the second parent because they just can't afford it. I mean, one reason for thinking in this way is because anything you do to change the formula which favours paying parents will obviously there'll be a quid pro quo in terms of the receiving parent receiving less. And there may be a case for that in many cases.
But I think you have to think of those two things together,
But I think you have to think of those two things together,
10:46
10:46
10:46
10:46
10:46
Speaker 4
-
Speaker 4
Every worker had a work allowance and building up to that year, the government proposes in order to try and save money, was that they should. increase the what's it called? The taper rate, which was at 65, increase that to 75. And then also to get rid of the work allowance for people who didn't have responsibility for children, they didn't go around. They didn't go forward with increasing the work, the taper rate. But they did go.
And now people who are deemed to have no responsibility for children do not have a work allowance. You know, universal credit is meant to enable people to go into work and to benefit from their work. And I would very much like that work allowance to be given back, not just to people who have responsibility for.
And now people who are deemed to have no responsibility for children do not have a work allowance. You know, universal credit is meant to enable people to go into work and to benefit from their work. And I would very much like that work allowance to be given back, not just to people who have responsibility for.
10:47
10:47
Speaker 4
-
Speaker 4
Include the paying parents in that, but for every person to have a work allowance, why should they be excluded? And if you look at the figures now, I mean, the the first parents, the one with primary responsibility for children, it opens up so many benefits. They get the child benefit, but that opens up everything else. They're treated as if they have sole responsibility for the children. Their work allowance is. I can't remember the exact figures, but it's more than.
£400 a month. If they aren't.
£400 a month. If they aren't.
10:48
10:48
10:48
10:48
10:48
10:48
10:48
10:48
10:48
10:48
10:49
10:49
10:49
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
How they determine child maintenance, but also that parents can. themselves agree on site maintenance so they don't have to make a formal agreements. That's one. And also that both parents incomes are accounted for. That's one one thing that might make a difference. And about discussing the benefits, well, some. countries do it better than other countries. And in Nordic. countries there are.
possibilities to split benefits between parents. If if there is a shared care. arrangements and and for example, Sweden and Norway do this way better than in Finland.
possibilities to split benefits between parents. If if there is a shared care. arrangements and and for example, Sweden and Norway do this way better than in Finland.
10:50
10:50
10:50
10:50
10:50
10:51
10:51
10:51
10:51
10:51
10:51
10:51
10:51
10:51
10:51
John Milne
-
-
John Milne
Maintenance or through the other parent. Thank you. And moving on. I don't know if you were hearing the conversation in between, but so I was asking the other contributors about interactions between the Social Security system and the CMS and the impacts on parents with on low income. Are there any lessons, do you think, that the UK government could learn from other countries, including Finland, as to how the social security .
System
System
10:52
10:52
10:52
10:52
10:52
10:52
10:52
10:52
10:52
10:52
10:52
Liz Twist
-
-
Liz Twist
Thank you, thank you. Thank you very much, Liz Twist, thanks very much. Right. I think we've already touched on the questions that I'm going to ask, but still, I'd be glad of your thoughts. So the. Department said to us in its evidence that the CMS. calculation formula. represents an amount of money that's broadly. commensurate with the amount of paying parent would spend on the child if they were still living with them.
How . Accurate
How . Accurate
10:53
10:53
10:53
10:53
10:53
Speaker 4
-
Speaker 4
It really is quite remarkable. The decided, for example, that. For one child that a family would spend 30% of the income would go on the children, the one child. Just think about your own personal situation. 30% would go on the child. And since there were two parents, we should divide this by two and pay. 15% each. Now, apart from the mathematical flaw in in that, as I said, there was no logical foundation for this.
And also when you start looking at the.
And also when you start looking at the.
10:54
10:54
10:54
10:54
Speaker 4
-
Speaker 4
A huge proportion of your income goes on basic things like rent. And at the other end of the scale, if you're earning an awful lot, it isn't that 30% of that or the amended amount for large incomes. It isn't that that percentage is going on the child. It may be that people are. investing in, you know, their future. They're doing this, they're doing the other. So the percentages just didn't make sense.
I'll obviously other people want to say things, but in.
I'll obviously other people want to say things, but in.
10:54
10:54
10:55
10:55
10:55
10:55
10:55
Speaker 7
-
Speaker 7
About the proportion of, of a couple of an income of somebody living in a couple, but of an individual income of somebody living in a couple that would be spent on the child. And they start off with looking at the cost of toys and things that you can do directly. And then they sort of say, well, housing, you can't really work this out. So we'll do this on a pro rata basis. And then they just come up with a proportion.
And I don't think it's a question you can answer, because the fact is that when families are living.
And I don't think it's a question you can answer, because the fact is that when families are living.
10:56
10:56
Speaker 7
-
Speaker 7
So many things are different from when they're living as one. There's the economies of scale. There's the fact that it isn't one parent who is. contributing some of their income if you're getting a family benefit. So I just think it's a non-starter. I think that what was suggested in relation to the Australian system makes more sense. But it starts with with with the current situation and the costs it needs to start with the current situation, the costs, not some.
abstract figure. I think we're always going to have an. arbitrariness in this though, as we do with our benefit system where where the social our Social Security benefits are based on ultimately based on something which was reported in the Beveridge report, which was had research in the. 1930s when they set the national assistance levels. And that was about what people spent, not what they needed. And. And since then, it's all about how much do you uprate it each year.
And so it's a nice idea to say, well, what would it what was the previous situation, how we can translate this into the current situation. But the current situation isn't the same, not least. because two.
abstract figure. I think we're always going to have an. arbitrariness in this though, as we do with our benefit system where where the social our Social Security benefits are based on ultimately based on something which was reported in the Beveridge report, which was had research in the. 1930s when they set the national assistance levels. And that was about what people spent, not what they needed. And. And since then, it's all about how much do you uprate it each year.
And so it's a nice idea to say, well, what would it what was the previous situation, how we can translate this into the current situation. But the current situation isn't the same, not least. because two.
10:57
10:57
10:57
10:57
10:57
10:57
10:57
10:57
Liz Twist
-
-
Liz Twist
needs of, of, of the parents. Also. Thank you. So just to summarize, what I'm hearing is no, it doesn't reflect the the amount. commensurate that a paying parent would be expecting to, to pay towards the costs. And Donald, can I ask you to go a bit further? How could the. calculation formula be amended to take . Into
10:58
10:58
10:58
10:59
10:59
10:59
10:59
10:59
Speaker 7
-
Speaker 7
Making sure and equipment, which you couldn't just constantly transport between different places, different homes. There was a bit on sort of things like food, but the, the bulk of the costs were what I would call fixed costs. It's not, it's not going to. vary sort of according to how many nights they're there. It's about about having an alternative home. So one thing you could do is to make it is to have a flat rate.
11:00
11:00
11:00
11:00
11:00
11:00
11:00
Speaker 7
-
Speaker 7
That it's reduced by. So that that really helps people for whom the current amount is very low people on lower incomes. But that if. But you also have the. 12% amount which sorry, the . The current system which which. reduces the presumed income, which which 12% is paid on you have that you have that system. As for people who are better off and it's just whichever is the greater.
So, so so a reduction of, of the, the liability of the paying parent by a fixed amount, unless, unless. 12% of their income is. Sorry, sorry. So you'd have, you'd have a banded system. You'd have, you'd have the present system where it would be a certain proportion of your days, which would. determine what, what your income was presumed to be. And then 12% would be added on to that.
Sorry. These things are always very complicated to explain. Yeah, in my paper, but the ultimate thing that I'm saying is that in order to avoid poverty within these.
So, so so a reduction of, of the, the liability of the paying parent by a fixed amount, unless, unless. 12% of their income is. Sorry, sorry. So you'd have, you'd have a banded system. You'd have, you'd have the present system where it would be a certain proportion of your days, which would. determine what, what your income was presumed to be. And then 12% would be added on to that.
Sorry. These things are always very complicated to explain. Yeah, in my paper, but the ultimate thing that I'm saying is that in order to avoid poverty within these.
11:01
11:01
Speaker 7
-
Speaker 7
You certainly would want to take account at some sort of flat rate of these basic costs of making sure that people have a home that's decent. And as I said earlier, if you can combine that with the state being a bit more generous towards regarding them as families than, than that flat rate wouldn't have to be as high and therefore reduce what the what the receiving parents are getting, but particularly housing, I think it would be more about about state rules, benefit rules regarding people as having a right to more than .
One
One
11:02
11:02
11:02
11:02
11:02
11:02
11:02
11:02
11:03
11:03
11:03
11:03
11:03
11:03
11:03
11:03
11:03
11:03
11:03
11:03
Speaker 7
-
Speaker 7
I think. I think the problem is that we don't actually study poverty in that way. And maybe we should be. I mean, our report was about needs. We didn't we didn't look at the actual. experiences in. There'd be room for a survey of that. But when we when we report on child poverty rates, we completely ignore any evidence because we don't have a basis for doing it, of saying what is what is the income? Who is falling below a certain amount of income , taking into.
account the extra. obligations of, of somebody .
account the extra. obligations of, of somebody .
11:04
11:04
Liz Twist
-
-
Liz Twist
With a child staying some of the time. So it sounds like there's a gap in the information that we have and the data we have. So, Mary, can I ask you, how could the UK government approach data. collection to gain a better. understanding of the economic well-being of. children in families with shared care?
11:04
11:04
11:04
11:05
11:05
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
Who is actually living in their. So there has been some. Comparative studies. For example, the silk who. That included also children's living arrangements in the. 2021 model. So. So we have been able to. research also these households that that. traditionally in, in these household based surveys seem not to have children, but actually do have children. And also those households that seem to have full .
Time
Time
11:05
11:05
11:06
11:06
11:06
11:06
11:06
11:06
11:07
11:07
11:07
Speaker 4
-
Speaker 4
accounts for this. Yes. May I come back? Yes. Because we talk about lack of data and research, but all the data is there in the Child Maintenance service, the National Audit Office, very powerful report because of course they have access to all the data. And if the pain parent is in poverty, then the children are in poverty in their involvement with that parents. And if you look at the National Audit Office report.
46% of paying. parents do not earn enough to pay income tax. 62% of those in arrears do not earn enough to pay income tax. But the people who are actually on the child maintenance service books are people who are more or less living in poverty themselves. Regard even before they start having to pay child maintenance. And again, if you go back to the National Audit Office, they talk about the this may come back later.
The amounting arrears and these arrears can never be paid back because the people don't earn enough money to to pay them back. And if you want a little personal story, I mean, MP years ago in my. hometown was saying all these sort of parents who . Got the
46% of paying. parents do not earn enough to pay income tax. 62% of those in arrears do not earn enough to pay income tax. But the people who are actually on the child maintenance service books are people who are more or less living in poverty themselves. Regard even before they start having to pay child maintenance. And again, if you go back to the National Audit Office, they talk about the this may come back later.
The amounting arrears and these arrears can never be paid back because the people don't earn enough money to to pay them back. And if you want a little personal story, I mean, MP years ago in my. hometown was saying all these sort of parents who . Got the
11:08
11:08
11:08
Speaker 7
-
Speaker 7
Can I just say, well, I have a bit of a warning here, which is that we can look at the cost of a child and the research at the centre, which I've worked at the centre for Research in Social Policy at Loughborough University, regularly does that for for Child Poverty Action Group. But what we conclude is that certainly. benefits are much too low to cover the cost of a child, and benefits generally are much too low to cover what we think of as a decent standard of living, or what we identify as a decent standard of living.
So there are always going to have to be compromises. And what you can't do, for.
So there are always going to have to be compromises. And what you can't do, for.
11:09
11:09
Speaker 7
-
Speaker 7
Is to look at our research, which says that it really to provide a decent amount for a child. In our model, you need nearly. £100 a week for for a child, if they're living with you for some of the time. That saying that therefore you should reduce the obligations by £100 a week would be quite tricky for the receiving parent, I think. And the problem being that both in the case of being on low incomes, don't have enough to live on, and so we shouldn't be under any illusions that we can just say, let's look at the cost of the child and how to how to distribute it, because you're not going to cover it fully without a .
11:09
11:09
11:10
11:10
Speaker 7
-
Speaker 7
Well, I mean, one of the main things that it it. commissioned was a big a big sort of. interactive survey, putting different. scenarios to, to paying parents and receiving parents. And I don't know why anyone was surprised to hear that the paying parents didn't didn't want the payments to go up and receiving parents didn't want them to go down. There were exceptions to that. I think that there were some questions where .
Paying
Paying
11:10
11:10
Speaker 7
-
Speaker 7
point in this was a survey. This was this was the Dwp's. It came out in June. It was. Dwp's consultant's report, which was looking at the case for changing the system. And I feel that that's not a very good reason. I mean, I mean, except that. sometimes reopening a can of worms is, is difficult. So I don't I don't feel as though they've .
That kind of research is sufficient to say the system is fine as it is, because it's obvious that if you ask people whether they would like to pay more or receive . Less,
That kind of research is sufficient to say the system is fine as it is, because it's obvious that if you ask people whether they would like to pay more or receive . Less,
11:11
11:11
Speaker 4
-
Speaker 4
Indeed. Christine, do you want to support that wholeheartedly? That's the research that they did, the survey that they did in which they gave us a reason for not going ahead. It didn't really. Well, Donald's got much better and much more polite language than I would use. But I mean, to to ask well, it came up actually in our quarterly meeting as well, and I asked some questions and got a feedback from this because they said things like, oh, paying a bit less and it wouldn't make much difference.
And when we queried it, in fact, the evidence was that it would have to be a very significant. reduction in order for it to make a difference in order to make it affordable. But the example I gave earlier of someone being asked to pay. £68.40 instead of the.
And when we queried it, in fact, the evidence was that it would have to be a very significant. reduction in order for it to make a difference in order to make it affordable. But the example I gave earlier of someone being asked to pay. £68.40 instead of the.
11:12
11:12
11:12
11:12
11:12
11:13
11:13
11:13
11:13
Speaker 4
-
Speaker 4
In some of my documents, I've written comments about the system, things the system has to satisfy. It's going to succeed. Parents have got to see payments have got to be seen. To be fair, they've got to ask for a reasonable amount. And of course, the bottom line, they've got to be affordable at the moment. Certainly the affordability is something one can go on about.
I mean, the arrears are absolutely horrific. If I can say something now, the National Audit Office, that when they did their report, the arrears were about.
I mean, the arrears are absolutely horrific. If I can say something now, the National Audit Office, that when they did their report, the arrears were about.
11:14
11:14
11:14
11:14
Speaker 4
-
Speaker 4
Rising at about. £1 million a week. And they said, well, by. March 31st it's going to reach a billion. The government's response to this was would not recognise these figures. But if you look at the figures for June this year, they've now reached more than. £800 million and they're rising at more than. £2 million a week. And we're going to reach that target of the billion level by the end of next year.
And as the National Audit Service said, one of the things they said is these mounting arrears have got to be looked at. You've got to find a way . Of dealing with them
And as the National Audit Service said, one of the things they said is these mounting arrears have got to be looked at. You've got to find a way . Of dealing with them
11:14
11:14
11:14
11:15
11:15
11:15
11:15
11:15
Speaker 4
-
Speaker 4
Whereas when I would just look at one. You share the costs between the. children according to their ability to pay. And that ability to pay includes. their benefits of getting from the state as well. That would be seen to be something that was fair at the moment, as I say, only one income is taken into account. I think stories always tell can reveal a picture. When this was being looked at some time back, one girl said my ex step tells the complicated relationships that are nowadays.
My ex stepmom lives in a four bedroomed house and has two horses. My father lives in a bedsit and can't afford to feed himself, and yet he is expected to pay maintenance. So there's a practicalities. At the moment things don't work. You've got to have a system that's affordable. It's not.
My ex stepmom lives in a four bedroomed house and has two horses. My father lives in a bedsit and can't afford to feed himself, and yet he is expected to pay maintenance. So there's a practicalities. At the moment things don't work. You've got to have a system that's affordable. It's not.
11:16
11:16
11:16
11:16
11:16
11:16
Speaker 7
-
Speaker 7
Because I think the previous system was just seen as too complex. I'm I'm not an expert in, in child maintenance and, and, and wouldn't presume to propose a new system. But in terms of looking at at what its outcomes are, I think it's quite a significant thing that back in. 2009 and 2012, I think it was the. legislation said brought in this. presumption that of shared care, if that were possible.
And now we're taking that away. I just think as part of any review, you would want to think very. carefully about how you can continue to. enable shared care, where that is. appropriate in terms of safeguarding and things like that, but not to sort of go back to the system where we before all this, where it was about custody, basically, it was just the idea was that one one side had custody and the other one didn't have.
And and if we if we do believe that it's good for children to grow up with a relationship with both parents, we've got . To
And now we're taking that away. I just think as part of any review, you would want to think very. carefully about how you can continue to. enable shared care, where that is. appropriate in terms of safeguarding and things like that, but not to sort of go back to the system where we before all this, where it was about custody, basically, it was just the idea was that one one side had custody and the other one didn't have.
And and if we if we do believe that it's good for children to grow up with a relationship with both parents, we've got . To
11:17
11:17
11:17
11:17
11:17
11:17
11:18
11:18
11:18
11:18
11:18
11:18
11:18
11:18
Speaker 4
-
Speaker 4
We we talked earlier on about the interaction with Universal Credit. Yes. And picking up the Social Security Advisory Committee in their report, one of the things they asked the government to do was to. They said there is no joined up. policy for dealing with separated parents. And that is something that's got to be looked at because at the moment, because there is no separated policy, we have this. interaction with Universal Credit.
We talked earlier on about the differences in which Universal Credit deals with the two.
We talked earlier on about the differences in which Universal Credit deals with the two.
11:18
11:19
11:19
Speaker 4
-
Speaker 4
But this involves looking at the two families, looking at what they receive before you decide on what the child medicine should be. But then the suggestions that were made to me didn't. Then actually then look at what the child maintenance should be when you get to that situation. But that joined up thinking, joined up policy for dealing with separated families in Australia. The concept.
11:19
11:19