Why is this inquiry necessary

The Cross party Work and Pensions Committee say that Child Maintenance Service plays a key role in reducing child poverty, it recognises the concerns over how payments are calculated, and enforcement and complaints from parents about how they have been treated by CMS. 

The Terms of Reference for the inquiry include:

• To what extent has safeguarding been considered in the design and delivery of the Child Maintenance Service (CMS)? How might a systems-based approach to safeguarding support the CMS and people who use it?
  
  
• Are there any changes that could be made to the CMS to make the system less adversarial for parents?

• How can parents be supported to reach and adhere to Family-based agreements?

• If and when a child maintenance agreement breaks down between parents, how might they be supported to find a resolution?

• How adequate is the support provided by the CMS to Paying Parent, Receiving Parents, and victims of domestic abuse? How could this be improved?

• Is the Government’s current approach to calculating Child Maintenance rates appropriate? How should child maintenance rates be calculated?

• How could child maintenance payment rates be calculated to prevent child poverty, and avoid creating poverty for parents?

• How can the CMS ensure it receives all the information it requires from parents to calculate rates?

• How can new legislation, determining Child Maintenance calculations, provide greater flexibility to allow governments to make changes where necessary?

• What are the benefits and drawbacks of the Government’s plans to remove Direct Pay arrangements?

• What support will parents who move from Direct Pay to Collect and Pay require, to enable a smooth transition?

• What are the benefits and drawbacks of the Government’s plans to charge a 20% fee for non-compliant parents?

• What other mechanisms could be used to help improve compliance with the CMS?

• Has the Department made any improvements to how it assesses fraud and error in the child maintenance service?

• Are there any groups of parents who find it particularly difficult to interact with the CMS? For which parents is the system not working?

• How quickly does the CMS respond to queries from parents and Members of Parliament? How might communications be improved?

• How effective is the CMS at complaint handling and complaint resolution

Responses can be submitted online at Call for Evidence – Committees – UK Parliament and must be submitted no later than 4pm on 06.10.25.

The government plans will see all cases managed by CMS, allowing them to better monitor payments and act swiftly where there is non-compliance.  It is estimated the new system could lift a further 20,000 children out of poverty annually.

Both receiving and paying parents will incur a 2% charge, rising to 20% for the paying parent if they do not make the scheduled payment.

Understandably, some paying parents who have successfully managed a direct pay arrangement feel they are unfairly penalised by the new charge.  To address this, the government plans to invest in resources to help parents better understand and set up their own Family-Based Arrangements, where no CMS intervention is needed.

Given the positive outlook, why is there such a mixed reaction from parents?

A major concern is the deep-rooted lack of trust parents have in the child maintenance system. While reforms and adjustments are not new, without meaningful investment in staffing and training, the system will continue to suffer from poor decision-making, costly errors, ineffective communication, and a weak enforcement framework.

Staff morale is another critical issue. Limited resources place enormous strain on employees, and the proposal to transition all cases to a managed system risks exacerbating this pressure. Our own interactions with CMS staff reveal a concerning lack of training—despite being expected to handle the frustrations of parents struggling financially due to flawed calculations.

Even with efforts to simplify the scheme, the calculation process remains overwhelmingly complex for parents. They are expected to understand historic and current income, identify where variations apply, and navigate the exclusions for additional income. On top of that, they must grasp effective dates, supersessions, and revisions. It’s a system that demands expertise and knowledge far beyond what most parents can reasonably be expected to manage.

For parents without the benefit of a cooperative relationship with their ex-partner, the CMS must be more than just a calculator; it must be fair and reliable. Unfortunately, the CMS is often quick to impose collection fees based on its own miscalculations, yet slower to act in cases of clear non-compliance and non-payment.

The new system promises quicker enforcement, stronger oversight, and a more consistent experience for the families who need it most. While our optimism remains low, if these improvements are truly delivered, a 2% fee could represent genuine value for money for parents.