Child Maintenance Service

Kirith Entwistle Excerpts

Tuesday 17th March 2026 Westminster Hall

[Kirith Entwistle (Bolton North East) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the effectiveness of the Child Maintenance Service.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Stringer. I declare an interest, as I am currently involved in a tribunal with the Department for Work and Pensions concerning my own child maintenance service case, which I will not refer to today.

I am bringing this motion before the House to highlight the urgent need for reform to the child maintenance service, particularly how it deals with post-separation abuse. What should be a system designed to support children is, in reality, too often used by perpetrators as a means of continuing both psychological and economic control and abuse.

For many victim-survivors of domestic abuse, leaving a relationship is the hardest step they will ever take, particularly when children are involved. It is a moment of courage, relief and when they hope the worst is finally behind them. What too many discover is that the abuse does not end when they leave; it simply changes form. Again and again, I hear from survivors who tell me the same thing: the child maintenance service has just become another arena in which the abuse can continue.

[Warinder Juss (Wolverhampton West) (Lab)]

My constituent Megan contacted me to say that she has escaped from her abusive former partner, who is supposed to be contributing less than £1 a day towards their child’s needs, but is not even managing that, although he does have influence over key decisions such as schooling and where they live. The domestic abuse is therefore still persisting, even though she has left her former partner. The child maintenance service is being weaponised against victims. Does my hon. Friend agree that we have a clear responsibility to help people such as my constituent Megan and her child?

[Kirith Entwistle]

That is exactly why this debate matters. I will come on to some of the points my hon. Friend raised.

When a public service not only allows, but actively facilitates, the continuation of abuse and fails to recognise the realities of coercive control, it is not just flawed; it is unjust. The national evidence is deeply concerning. Research by Gingerbread, a charity supporting single-parent families, found that 77% of primary carers using the CMS reported experiencing domestic abuse from the other parent.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the hon. Member for securing the debate. This is a massive issue in my constituency, as it is in hers. In Northern Ireland, a large proportion of parents relying on the CMS face difficulties in receiving timely maintenance, which directly impacts child poverty and family stability. Does she agree that there may be a lack of staff, and that to ensure that the CMS system operates effectively for families not just in her constituency, but in Northern Ireland, more needs to be done to reduce the backlogs and secure the financial support that their children are entitled to?

[Kirith Entwistle]

Absolutely.

Even more troubling is that 45% of the parents in that research said that the CMS’s involvement had actually led to an increase in abusive behaviour. Those figures should stop us in our tracks.

For survivors, the very experience of using the CMS can be deeply distressing. From the cold tone of emails and letters to the aggressive and harsh text messages, right through to the opaque way payments are calculated, the process can be deeply triggering for those who have experienced abuse. At the very beginning, survivors are asked whether they have experienced abuse and what form that abuse took. For a moment, there is hope that the system might understand the gravity of that disclosure, but what follows is often little more than signposting to a list of organisations before the process simply continues as though the question had never been asked.

Ultimately, the disclosure changes nothing. There is no meaningful change in how the case is handled, no structural safeguards and no recognition that the dynamics of abuse may shape the entire case. Crucially, it does nothing to change the tone of communications with the CMS. For someone who has taken enormous personal risk to leave an abusive partner, that can feel like jumping out of a plane only to find that there is no parachute, no safe landing and no one to catch them when they fall.

[Rachel Gilmour (Tiverton and Minehead) (LD)]

My team has been absolutely inundated with child maintenance service casework. I agree with the hon. Member’s point about the faceless nature of the service and how unhelpful—in fact, damaging—that is to people who have been subject to domestic abuse.

Some constituents’ cases show a clear and worrying pattern of one parent’s evidence being approved when there is clear evidence on the other side that it is a lie, to use rather frank terms. There are some accounts from constituents who have been driven to suicidal ideation because of the shambles of the system, so I am grateful to the hon. Lady for raising this matter today.

[Kirith Entwistle]

The hon. Member is absolutely right. I will come on to that issue shortly.

Surely we must ask whether this is really the standard we are willing to accept. Another fundamental weakness lies in how the CMS deals with shared care, in that it absolutely fails to do so. In theory, maintenance calculations are meant to reflect the number of nights a child spends with each parent; in reality, the system largely relies on what parents report themselves. Rather than establishing the reality of shared care, the number of nights is effectively averaged out based on those reports, with no evidence required. When parents try to push back and provide evidence, that is often disregarded unless a court order is in place.

[Catherine Fookes (Monmouthshire) (Lab)]

I thank my hon. Friend for securing this debate. As a child of divorced parents way before the CMS came into existence, I know that the whole issue of how much the paying parent should pay and getting them to pay on time is extremely stressful—for the children as well.

My hon. Friend raised good points about child maintenance being routinely weaponised. Collect and pay may help lots of families by making it harder for abusers to withhold payment, but I know from my caseload that many parents say that income is being hidden and that the CMS is allowing that income to be hidden—if a parent is self-employed or becomes a “director”, for example. Does she agree that the CMS must be equipped to find that hidden income?

[Kirith Entwistle]

My hon. Friend raises a particularly important point. I will come on to the collect and pay service and how that is also broken.

The result of how the CMS deals with shared care is a system that accepts unverified claims, but refuses genuine evidence. It is confusing, adversarial and often deeply unfair. The structure of the CMS also creates the wrong incentives. When maintenance calculations change depending on the number of nights a child spends with each parent, disputes over care arrangements quickly become disputes over money. Fortalice, a leading domestic abuse charity in my town of Bolton, is all too aware of that problem. It tells me of cases where a parent seeks increased overnight contact—not because that is in the child’s best interests, but to reduce their CMS payments or claim additional financial support. Children should never become bargaining chips in financial disputes.

[Peter Fortune (Bromley and Biggin Hill) (Con)]

I congratulate the hon. Member on securing the debate. We are all here because we have been inundated with issues and complaints about the CMS. One of the things I hear about over and over again is the lack of communication. Does the hon. Member agree that if the CMS got the communication right, some of these disputes might not escalate to the point where they become very troublesome indeed?

[Kirith Entwistle]

As I mentioned earlier, there is a big issue with how the CMS communicates with both parents.

[Steve Yemm (Mansfield) (Lab)]

We have all received casework on this subject. I often find that what I can only term incompetence by the CMS enables non-resident parents to shirk financial responsibility—at the expense of the child, at the end of the day. Does my hon. Friend agree that we in Government must look into these issues and take decisive action to ensure that the CMS is fit for purpose, gets a grip and actually does the job we are asking it to do?

[Kirith Entwistle]

I completely agree. These issues are not theoretical; I see them repeatedly in cases raised by my own constituents in Bolton. One constituent, who I will call Emily, left an abusive relationship and is still dealing with the consequences through the CMS. She describes intimidation and harassment from the father of her children, alongside unreliable maintenance payments. Money arrives late, arrives short or does not arrive at all. Her case remains on direct pay, meaning that the system still relies on co-operation between parents, even when there is a history of abuse. For many survivors, that is not a neutral arrangement: it can mean ongoing contact with the person they are trying to escape and persistent fear about what will happen if they challenge missing payments.

Emily has repeatedly asked for her case to be moved to collect and pay, so that payments can be handled through the CMS without that direct interaction, yet delays, missed call-backs and poor communication have left her stuck in a process that exposes her to distress and financial uncertainty. Other frontline charities in Bolton, such as Endeavour, tell me that they see that pattern all too regularly. Survivors describe payments being withheld, not because the other parent cannot afford to pay but because that unpredictability becomes a form of control. Many report that payments stop just before birthdays, Christmas or school holidays, only to restart later. That pattern is not random; it is about maintaining power. Survivors tell us that they feel trapped by the CMS, and we absolutely must listen.

[Mr Jonathan Brash (Hartlepool) (Lab)]

One of my constituents has raised this issue with me; she is owed nearly £6,000. She says:

“What makes me most mad is if he paid, I wouldn’t need UC to top up my wages. The government is paying twice, once for chasing him and once for covering him.”

Is the system not completely broken?

[Kirith Entwistle]

That is such a powerful point, and I am really sorry on behalf of my hon. Friend’s constituent. Sadly, that is not an isolated case.

Some say that they are asked to pay far more than they can afford, while others say that the support they receive does not come close to covering the cost of raising their children. When they try to seek clarification, they hit another problem with the CMS: inconsistency. Different advisers give different answers, and staff are working from guidance rather than clear, consistent rules. As a result, parents can end up receiving conflicting advice from the very organisation that is meant to support them and their children through a difficult time.

[Joy Morrissey (Beaconsfield) (Con)]

I thank the hon. Member for being so brave in introducing this debate; many of us have dealt with this issue on a daily basis.

There is an issue of fairness in the allocation of the rules. I had one father who tried to kill himself because he felt that there was no allocation of fairness in what he was trying to do for his family. The rules do not seem to be clear cut, and there does not seem to be a way through for families who want to work together. The system seems to disproportionately favour the spouse who is willing to lie and say things about the other, and that has to change. It is just not sustainable.

[Kirith Entwistle]

Absolutely. The system is fundamentally broken. Children must be at the heart of any decision made about them. It is important to recognise that many parents, particularly single mothers, who have experienced abuse do not use the CMS at all. They avoid it because engaging with the system may mean renewed contact with the very person they are trying to escape. They do not see the CMS as protection, but merely as another channel through which a perpetrator can exert control.

[Julia Buckley (Shrewsbury) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend is making a powerful case for the reform of the CMS. My constituent has been hounded by her ex-partner, with eight consecutive investigations by the CMS triggered by his complaints about her. It has ultimately caused her to give up work. Does my hon. Friend agree that vexatious complaints such as those must be identified and prevented from taking up CMS resources and allowing the continuation of financial abuse?

[Kirith Entwistle]

Absolutely. My hon. Friend raises yet another issue with the CMS and highlights just how badly the system is set up.

Mothers struggle on alone, absorbing financial pressure themselves rather than risking opening the door to further abuse. That should deeply concern this House. We must remember what is at stake. Child maintenance exists for one reason: to support the quality of life and wellbeing of children. Yet the experiences that we have all described suggest that children are being drawn into adult conflict, rather than being protected and shielded from it.

In the worst cases, the CMS allows children to be weaponised by perpetrators; I can make no stronger point than that. How can we possibly continue with a service that allows that to happen—a service that effectively tells perpetrators that more overnight contact may mean lower maintenance payments; a service where the amount paid can be disputed, delayed or manipulated because the rules are unclear; a service where weak enforcement allows some parents to evade their responsibilities altogether; and a service that some survivors avoid entirely because it does not feel safe?

Campaigning organisations, such as Gingerbread, have already set out practical proposals for change, and I would be grateful if the Minister could address three areas where the system must work better for survivors and their children. First, we need a genuinely child-centred approach to maintenance so that decisions about contact and payments are driven by children’s wellbeing, rather than financial incentives. Secondly, disclosures of domestic abuse must trigger meaningful safeguards, not mere signposting or lip service. There must also be clearer evidential standards for shared care, particularly where no court order is in place. Finally, survivors should have better access to collect and pay alongside a named caseworker so they are not forced into ongoing contact with perpetrators or required to repeat traumatic experiences.

[Tonia Antoniazzi (Gower) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend is making an excellent case. Has she noticed that child maintenance payments are being stopped when an ex-partner applies for child benefit? That is another source of income that is being manipulated by a partner to keep the money from the parent who is looking after the children.

[Kirith Entwistle]

Absolutely; it is just another vehicle being used by perpetrators to continue that post-separation abuse.

At its heart, this debate is about the lives of children growing up in separated families across the country. The child maintenance service was created with the intention of supporting those children, but when the system allows post-separation abuse to continue, when it leaves survivors feeling unheard and unsafe, and when children are drawn into that harm, it is clear that reform is urgently needed. The question we must ask ourselves is simple: can we honestly continue with a system that allows children to be weaponised by perpetrators of abuse? I do not believe that we can.

[Graham Stringer (in the Chair)]

I will call Vikki Slade, but I want to hear from the Minister because this is an important debate. I am going to restrict the hon. Lady to two minutes.

Oral Answers to Questions

Kirith Entwistle Excerpts

Monday 9th March 2026 Commons Chamber

[Pat McFadden]

The hon. Member has posed a very good and important question, and the issue of graduate unemployment is by no means confined to the UK. In the United States, for example, a similar debate about graduate unemployment is taking place. The truth is that structural developments are happening in the labour market. Technology is undergoing a big shift, and I think that all Governments must ask themselves how to help young people through this transition. The one thing that we cannot do is abandon them to it: we have to train people, and we have to ensure that the UK is best placed to take advantage of this big technological shift.

[Kirith Entwistle (Bolton North East) (Lab)]

10. What recent assessment he has made of trends in the level of child poverty in the Bolton North East constituency.

[The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Dame Diana Johnson)]

Under the last Government an additional 900,000 children became part of the child poverty statistics, but as a result of our Child Poverty Strategy, published in December, 550,000 will be lifted out of poverty by the end of the current Parliament—the largest number ever in a single Parliament. The removal of the two-child limit from April, for instance, could benefit about 4,710 children in my hon. Friend’s constituency.

[Kirith Entwistle]

I am proud that this Labour Government will lift more than 4,500 children in my constituency out of poverty by scrapping the two-child limit, but what further measures are the Government implementing to tackle child poverty and support families in my constituency?

[Dame Diana Johnson]

Reducing child poverty is a moral imperative for us all, and for this Government in particular. We know that growing up in poverty damages children’s health, education and future employment prospects. We have just been discussing the number of NEETs, and many of those children could become NEETs, so child poverty is bad for the UK’s economic prosperity as well. We had not just been waiting for the strategy in December; we had already introduced the extension of free school meals eligibility, tripled access to breakfast clubs and supported the holiday activities and food programme, and we have put £1 billion into the reforming crisis and resilience fund.

Green Book Review

Kirith Entwistle Excerpts

Wednesday 2nd April 2025 Westminster Hall

[Kirith Entwistle (Bolton North East) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Pritchard. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Mrs Russell) for bringing this crucial debate back to Westminster Hall and it is great to be here with north-west colleagues again. Reforming the Green Book—the Government’s rule book for assessing public investment—might sound technical or dry, but for the people I represent in Bolton North East, it is profoundly consequential.

The Green Book is not just a document; it is a tool that shapes where investment goes, what gets prioritised and who gets left behind. Unless we change how those decisions are made, towns such as mine in Bolton will continue to be overlooked. Many hon. Members have spoken powerfully about how the Green Book favours London and the south-east, and they are right. At the heart of the problem are its outdated rules, which prioritise short-term, easily predicted returns. The rules do not ask about need or potential. They ask where we will see the biggest, fastest payback and, almost every time, the answer is the places that are already thriving—places with high wages, strong growth and well-connected transport. The result is a baked-in bias that overlooks the untapped potential of towns such as Bolton and says that our time, our housing, and our transport matter less, just because our postcode starts with a “BL” rather than a “W”.

Bolton does not just need fair treatment from London, it needs it from Greater Manchester, too. Even when public investment comes to Greater Manchester, the same pattern repeats. Time and again the Green Book prioritises funding into Manchester, where the numbers look better, and leaves Bolton behind. On the ground, the consequences are obvious: fewer jobs, slower trains and many more missed opportunities. Look at the business case to extend the Metrolink to Bolton. It has strong local support, clear economic value and huge potential to drive business growth, unlock investment and boost productivity. However, under the Green Book, the business case falls short because it does not account for induced demand. Infrastructure does not just respond to growth; it creates it. The Green Book neglects the homes that would be built, the businesses that would invest, and the people who would finally be connected to opportunity. That holds Bolton back, both in ambition and in growth.

Between 2007 and 2022, Manchester’s economy more than doubled, while Bolton’s grew 40% less. In the last five years alone, Manchester’s economy grew by a third, but Bolton’s by just 12%. That is not because we lack talent or ideas, but because the Green Book rewards places that are already well-resourced and overlooks Bolton’s potential. Here is where the frustration sets in. We are told that the numbers do not add up, but I say that the system does not add up. We are being asked to play a game that we were never meant to win, judged by rules that we did not write. I look forward to hearing from the Minister about how the Green Book can be reviewed so that towns such as mine feel the difference, and no longer feel left behind or overlooked.

First, I hope that we can adjust the appraisal formula, so that £1 of benefit in Bolton is not judged to be worth less than £1 in London or Manchester. Secondly, I hope we ensure that business cases reflect long-term impact—not just what can be delivered in year one, but what can be delivered over five, 10 or 20 years. Finally, I hope we can ensure that public investment allocated to Greater Manchester reaches towns such as Bolton.

Bolton does not lack ambition; it lacks backing. It does not lack ideas; it lacks investment. Public investment should open doors, but the Green Book, as it stands, is locking towns such as mine out of the future. It is about time that that changed.

Income Tax (Charge)

Kirith Entwistle Excerpts

Monday 4th November 2024 Commons Chamber

[Kirith Entwistle (Bolton North East) (Lab)]

This Budget sets out the first steps in the Work and Pensions Secretary’s plan to drive up opportunity and drive down poverty in every corner of the land. The choices made in this House have real and lasting consequences. The state of our country today is a direct result of the actions of the Conservative party over the past 14 years.

In my short time as an MP, I have received thousands of pieces of correspondence from constituents. A young man who recently wrote to me was thrilled to have passed his driving theory test, yet the system simply cannot accommodate him: the earliest appointment for a practical test is six months away. I have heard from a father who has been trying for two years to find an NHS dentist who will register his young daughter as a patient. I have had an email from a woman with severe mobility issues who is trapped in her front room while stuck on a waiting list for suitable social housing. Even if a house becomes available, she will have to compete with other residents because there simply are not enough affordable homes.

Those examples paint a picture of life in Britain after 14 years of Conservative failings. Now, under this Labour Government and with this new Budget, there is at last a glimpse of hope. I am delighted that the Budget will bring £25 billion into our NHS. Together with my fellow Bolton Members of Parliament, I am determined to fight for local dentist services and to secure development at Royal Bolton hospital, especially in the maternity unit, where RAAC has been detected.

I also highlight the £5 billion for house building and £3.4 billion for the warm homes plan. This investment will provide access to quality affordable housing for working people, a transformative change for families in my constituency. Following discussions with the Minister responsible for local growth and building safety, my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham North and Kimberley (Alex Norris), I am incredibly proud to announce that we finally have sign-off for investment in Bolton town centre. After much uncertainty and confusion caused by the previous Government, this funding will be transformative for Bolton. I am pleased to see this Government taking towns like mine seriously.

Finally, we promised not to raise taxes on working people’s payslips, and we have kept that promise. I am pleased to share that over 8,700 people in Bolton North East will see a pay rise because of the increase in the minimum wage. Our choices matter, and this Budget is how we choose to deliver change. This is a Budget that invests in our future, revitalises our NHS and builds a fairer, more ambitious Britain.

[Several hon. Members rose—]