Reforming the Child Maintenance Service (Public Services Committee Report)

Lord Farmer Excerpts

Monday 8th June 2026 Grand Committee

[Lord Farmer (Con)]

My Lords, I, too, thank the noble Baroness, Lady Morris of Yardley, her committee and its support team for this report, which covered much ground and recommended far-reaching reforms that stand a good chance of improving outcomes. They address long-running problems with the service and its precursors.

To declare my interests, my parliamentary adviser, Dr Samantha Callan, is the Government’s independent reviewer of the Child Maintenance Service’s response to domestic abuse, which is frequently mentioned in the committee’s report. She is also the director of the Family Hubs Network, which she and I co-founded in 2019 to show government the potential for family hubs to be a game-changer for families. Thanks to this Government, building on what the Conservatives achieved, they are now in every local authority in England. This is relevant because the Select Committee’s report envisaged a clear role for early intervention and support for separating parents that is easily available, community-based and delivered particularly in family hubs. Finally, I also took the Child Support Collection (Domestic Abuse) Act through the Lords.

This public service comes under attack every day, often for good reasons. However, after Dr Callan went under the bonnet of the CMS, she said in her January 2023 report that she found it to be a “reform-minded” organisation. It has the almost impossible task of helping separated parents, some of whom have never lived together, come to a durable arrangement for financially supporting children they were both responsible for bringing into the world.

We are a country that cares about child poverty. This service can be unreservedly concerned with its alleviation, because all maintenance payments are now disregarded for tax and benefit purposes. That said, we need to communicate more effectively to all parents, not just those who are separating, that it is parents who have the primary responsibility to provide for their children, not state agencies. Separated parents also have a responsibility to be single-mindedly child-focused in their dealings with each other, to avoid further harm to their children than that caused by the split itself or by being born to a home where one biological parent has always been non-resident. The Minister acknowledged this to the committee when she outlined the CMS’s role to facilitate payments between separated parents

“without causing any further harm”.

That harm must be mitigated, not least by the CMS working quickly and efficiently.

However, we need to acknowledge that the seeming intractability of problems facing this public service stems from our culture of hyperindividualism and family breakdown. Undoubtedly, some relationships must end, but we now take for granted the very high numbers of UK children not living with both their parents—around 44%, according to the IFS. It also highlights the fragility and complexity of so many UK families compared with other countries. Any reforms should learn lessons from abroad, but the character and prevalence of fractured families here set us apart, and what works elsewhere may falter here. I am not counselling despair or hand-wringing: quite the opposite. This policy area is another where the Government must grasp the nettle and be willing to make tough choices, and it is not true that the past 14 years were squandered in this regard.

The coalition implemented the Henshaw review commissioned by the previous Labour Government and legislated in a very tough environment to deliver the 2012 system. It has proven to be far from perfect but, fast-forwarding to 2023, the Conservatives also began to implement the Callan review, including by introducing two small but important Private Members’ Bills that would have improved enforcement and the service received by customers reporting domestic abuse.

However, the Select Committee’s report highlights that the secondary legislation required to bring these into force has not been forthcoming. I am particularly troubled by parents trying to obtain child maintenance when abuse from ex-partners is ongoing. Under Direct Pay, a paying parent cannot be stopped from putting money into their ex-partner’s bank account under the reference “for prostitution services”—if they put money in at all. Receiving parents can perpetrate emotional and psychological abuse by falsely telling the CMS that payments have not been made, so their ex becomes unjustly entangled in protracted and highly distressing enforcement proceedings. DWP research found that 71% of receiving parents and 51% of paying parents in Direct Pay report domestic abuse from the other parent. The CMS itself said that Direct Pay is

“not fit for purpose for victims of domestic abuse”,

given that it is

“difficult to pick out victims … comprehensively and reliably”.

So abuse is rife within the CMS customer base—not just male on female and not just paying parent on receiving parent. It is often insidious, subtle and very difficult to prove, so I have some sympathy with this Government’s plans to abolish Direct Pay altogether. However, I await the Minister’s later response to the Select Committee’s robust challenge concerning the likely efficacy of this reform and its supporting data.

I am also concerned that the legislation will simply never be brought forward because, while the organisation may be reform minded, nothing will happen unless the Government are of the same stamp. CMS reform is a can that has been kicked down the legislative road on many occasions, despite the severely outdated primary legislation that underpins many of its key operations.

The Select Committee report also mentions “lack of transparency” in calculations, about which we have heard a lot today. It helps explain why so many parents—paying and receiving—are deeply unhappy with the CMS service. A DWP survey of customers in contact with the CMS found that overall customer satisfaction was 39%, with only 47% of receiving parents and 31% of paying parents saying that they were satisfied. The committee cited important affordability and fairness issues being repeatedly raised in many reviews stretching back to 2014, and referred extensively to the planned calculation review. However, I understand that a letter to stakeholders from the Minister at the end of last week said that this planned public consultation on rates, thresholds and calculations will not now go ahead. The Minister cited a single study programme of quantitative and qualitative research with paying and receiving parents that was considered to undermine irredeemably the case for any further consultation, let alone reform.

I believe that this Government are in danger of putting too much weight and responsibility on study respondents, albeit those with so-called “lived experience”, to avoid making difficult reforms. These parents’ views are of course important, but they must be balanced against the considerable body of other evidence, including that provided by the Social Security Advisory Committee in 2019, which demonstrates considerable unfairness and anachronism in the system.

The Select Committee said:

“It is unacceptable that successive governments have failed to update the child maintenance calculation ... This has ultimately led to children receiving less money. Similarly, it is disappointing that no Government has sought to update the legislative framework set down in 1991 and amended in 2000”.


If this Government exonerate themselves from addressing these concerns, the CMS will be yet another area of public service the public has no confidence in. The Select Committee found the proportion of families using the CMS was lower than in 2012, and the proportion of families with no arrangement was higher. If they are abandoning their plans to review calculations, and the Direct Pay reforms are years away, what will the Government do to increase public confidence in the CMS? Also, while the proportion of families in family-based arrangements has risen from 29% in 2012 to 43% in 2024, how will they encourage more, and more durable, family-based arrangements so it is needed by even fewer parents?

Both receiving and paying parents say that support for separated parents to help them maintain family-based arrangements is “unhelpful” and “inadequate”. Many receiving parents are unaware of its existence. The committee concluded that far more support for separated parents was needed, and the Domestic Abuse Commissioner proposed better integration of the CMS with family hubs. Again, support for families early in what is typically a very difficult and confusing separation and child maintenance journey would likely reduce conflict; 30% of parents from one study said that could encourage good working arrangements.

Currently, the CMS does not operate within the family hubs network. The Government’s January 2026 response to the Select Committee report said that where support for separating parents seeking advice on the CMS was not available through a family hub, staff should signpost to other relevant services in the area. Could the Minister give us some examples of the support this is referring to? Apart from programmes such as Reducing Parental Conflict, I am not aware of any new services that have been funded or have sprung up in this area. The Callan review suggested, for example, that courses mandated by family courts for warring couples should be accessible to parents before they get that far.

The Select Committee also recommended siting mediation in family hubs as that can greatly help parents reach durable family-based arrangements. But access to mediation in and through family hubs will not happen just by saying it should. What cross-government work are the DWP, MoJ and DfE doing so that families get this and other help with child maintenance that has simply not existed in the past? How will family hubs enable the child maintenance system to work with other organisations? The April 2026 guidance for family hubs shows many signs of a better government-wide approach, so I am hopeful that the Minister will have good news to share, and I will gladly work with her, through the family hubs network, to make it a reality.

I will end where I began, with the reality that the CMS is grappling primarily with problems not with money but with relationships. The recent DWP research on child maintenance calculations says that

“relational, as well as financial factors are key in understanding non-compliance. For example, there may be a complex two-way relationship between conflict and non-compliance”.

Preventing high levels of non-compliance has never been successfully achieved by any iteration of the UK child maintenance agency. We need to take a different approach, with a much greater emphasis on helping parents avoid entrenched conflict and relationship breakdown in the first place.

Australia and the Nordic countries have family relationship centres all over the country with these specific aims. Australia is looking at our family hubs to learn how to integrate relational support with debt, housing and other services including, crucially, those delivered by the voluntary sector. Are this Government willing to learn from them how we can systematically and comprehensively support families in their relationships before, during and after separation?