Ministers promised the new statutory child maintenance system would have tougher, faster enforcement than the CSA. They lied.

And they have continued to lie about enforcement ever since.

The Government cherry-picked and misrepresented the recommendations made in Sir David Henshaw’s 2006 report, “Recovering child maintenance: routes to responsibility”. While it repeatedly quoted Sir David Henshaw when justifying fees to use the statutory child maintenance system, it completely ignored his exhortation to get serious about enforcement:

“Child support enforcement has a poor history. Despite the CSA having an extensive range of powers, including the ability to use the courts to imprison non-resident parents who persistently fail to pay, sanctions are not used regularly, and a culture of non-compliance has developed. Enforcement has not been a priority for the CSA and has been considerably under-resourced. This has damaged the Agency’s credibility and led to an unacceptable situation where non-resident parents believe they can ignore the Agency and get away with it.54 This cannot be allowed to continue. While the Agency is taking steps to improve enforcement through its Operational Improvement Plan, including allocating greater resources to the function, there is scope to take further action. To encourage parents to take financial responsibility for their children, the state needs to signal that swift and effective action will be taken when this does not happen.”

In 2006 the Labour Government’s “A New System of Child Maintenance” (page 77) recognized that “historically the Child Support Agency has not used [its enforcement powers] to their fullest effect, and many non-resident parents perceive that non-compliance will not be acted upon.” In 2005-2006, 393 non resident parents received a suspended prison sentence, 34 were actually sent to prison for up to six weeks, and three people were disqualified from driving. (page 78)

In July 2007 the Public Accounts Committee’s report into reforming the Child Support Agency said: “Failure of non-resident parents to pay the maintenance due, however, can cause real hardship and have lasting consequences for parents with care and the children. To date the Agency has not made full use of the range of enforcement powers it has available. Around £3.5 billion of maintenance has not been collected by the Agency, 60% of which is now considered uncollectable. A significant consequence is that anyone considering not paying maintenance knows that they have a good chance of avoiding detection or serious penalty.” (Page 3)

“The Agency’s poor track record in enforcing compliance sends out a message that it is easy to avoid detection by the Agency or serious penalty. At the time of the C&AG’s report, only 19,000 out of the 247,000 cases of complete and partial non- compliance were being dealt with by the Agency’s Enforcement Directorate. The Agency was unable to identify cases where enforcement action had previously been taken. The Agency needs to challenge the existing culture of non-compliance, identifying and focusing on higher risk cases, and prosecuting repeat offenders.” (Page 5)

Child Maintenance and Other Payments Act 2008 Post-legislative Scrutiny - Memorandum to the Work and Pensions Select Committee - Uncommenced powers

On 9 April 2011 Maria Miller told listeners of Radio 4’s Money Box programme that her proposal to charge mothers a £100 initial fee to apply to the Child Maintenance Service, plus up to 12 per cent ongoing administration fees was justified because it would be “a very specialist service” with “strong enforcement powers”.

On 28 November 2011 Lord De Mauley glibly reassured Peers: “I take this opportunity to say that we agree with the last Government that the concept of charging is acceptable, but if people are to be asked to pay they are entitled to ask for a better service. That is why we will radically improve the statutory system with a stronger, more reliable IT system and a strong suite of enforcement measures.”

He promised: “It is unacceptable for non-resident parents to neglect their child maintenance responsibilities and build up arrears, which the Government are determined to tackle. To that end we will take a more robust approach to collection and enforcement in the new scheme and will use all avenues available to us to ensure outstanding arrears are paid and new arrears are not allowed to accrue. We will not give up on cases. Following the introduction of the new scheme, the commission will continue to pursue non-resident parents for any arrears of maintenance that they may owe, which will include arrears from the schemes currently in operation.”

On 25 January 2012 Lord De Mauley promised Peers:

“At the heart of the new scheme will be tough enforcement and collection measures when parents fail to pay maintenance. The Government have developed new processes for identifying those who might not pay and addressing non-payment when it first occurs. The new scheme will also ensure that non-resident parents cannot escape their true responsibilities by refusing to provide us with details on their income. Instead, we will generally access this information from HMRC, which will enable a smoother and faster flow of maintenance to parents with care.”

On 25 April 2012 Maria Miller glibly reassured the Work and Pensions Committee:

“It is absolutely right that the Department should be working as hard as it can with its very significant enforcement powers to secure the sort of payment children need. Anything else would not be acceptable.”

Noel Shanahan predicted a brave new dawn:

“If somebody does not pay their child maintenance now it can take us up to three months before we get hold of them to try to get payments back on track. The new system will enable us to be on their back within 72 hours, chasing them straightaway. We have already started to introduce further powers of enforcement. We get hold of people’s bank accounts and take out the money; we freeze accounts. That accounted for several million pounds in the past year. We get hold of assets. In one particular case, a guy had fought us for years. We found in the past few months that he owned a house. We sold the house, took the best part of £100,000 out of it and paid it back.

The new system has given us the ability to drive efficiency. There are going to be savings. Two thirds of our gross savings over this Spending Review period are from efficiencies. We will drive down operational costs by 30% through this Spending Review period and by 43% by the end of the next Spending Review period. This gives us the opportunity to be more efficient, to do a better job and be slicker at enforcement. My mantra to staff is: as soon as somebody does not pay, get straight on their back. Today’s tools do not help us do that; tomorrow’s tools give us a far better opportunity. I think we have a real change opportunity here to do the best job for the kids for whom we are trying to get money.”

Chair, Harriet Baldwin, asked, sounding mildly appalled: “Are we talking about taking between a fifth and a third of the total amount awarded in fees to cover the acknowledged inefficiencies of the system?”,

Maria Miller suggested: “Perhaps they might choose to use the statutory system if they felt they needed to have tough enforcement powers. That is really what they are paying for. One would hope that people would be able to understand the importance of financial arrangements for their children. It really is the tough enforcement that people would be wanting to pay for.”

On 21 July 2012 Maria Miller told The Independent: "Through better local support services and new incentives to collaborate, our reformed system will put the interests of children and families first. Parents who refuse to take financial responsibility will find themselves dealing with a state maintenance service with much more effective enforcement."

On 24 October 2013 the Department for Work and Pensions submitted written evidence to the Work and Pensions Committee:

“The Government’s chief priority is to ensure more parents pay the child maintenance they owe not only in full, but also on time. Only by the effective prevention and management of arrears can we get more money flowing to children and avoid increasing debts owed by parents for their children.”

“The Child Maintenance Service will take a firmer approach to tackling arrears than the Child Support Agency, minimising the build up of arrears from the outset. Where payments break down the Child Maintenance Service will aim to take action within 72 hours.”

This is the exact opposite of what happens with the Child Maintenance Service. After my case was transferred from the Child Support Agency, it took eleven months and numerous letters of complaint, including two to the Independent Case Examiner, before any enforcement action began on my case.

The Department for Work and Pensions fights tooth and nail to avoid using its enforcement powers.

On 4 February 2014 Lord Kirkwood was sceptical that enforcement would be any more effective under the replacement statutory child maintenance service:

“If we are taking enforcement seriously—it would be the first time since 1993 in my experience — then I think we must make enforcement professional, efficient and workable, otherwise condemning people to paying fees is contrary to natural justice, bad policy, and worst of all, inimical to the interests of the long-term future of many of our impoverished children.”

On 26 February 2014 the Department for Work and Pensions published its “Strategy for the publication of information about the 2012 Scheme administered by the Child Maintenance Service”, promising: “faster enforcement action for those that choose not to pay”. It said:

“The feasibility of publishing enforcement information is currently being determined. We are looking at the possibility of publishing the total number of cases in enforcement each month, the proportion of the entire caseload in enforcement, and a summary of enforcement actions taken, in early 2017.”

On 16 January 2015 Labour MP Helen Goodman asked parliamentary question 221088:

“To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, with reference to the 390 child maintenance service cases noted in Figure 5 of the Report by the National Audit Office on Child Maintenance 2012 Scheme: Early Progress, HC 173, published on 20 June 2014, what legal enforcement action has been taken in those cases; and in how many of those cases child maintenance arrears have been paid in (a) full and (b) part as a result of that action.”

On 21 January 2015 Liberal Democrat Minister Steve Webb answered:

“We are not yet in a position to release full statistics on the 2012 Scheme, administered by the Child Maintenance Service, but when system data become available and fully assured they will be released as part of a managed process, which will be pre-announced and in line with the Code of Practice for Official Statistics.”

On 23 April 2015 the Department for Work and Pensions gave the following answer to a Freedom of Information request:

“Your request

Please would you send me the number of prosecutions undertaken by the CSA against NRPs specifically for 'Diversion of Income' over the last ten years, and their outcome.

Our response

The Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) is responsible for the child maintenance system in Great Britain.

Information on the underlying reasons for prosecutions is not routinely recorded for management information purposes and we estimate that the cost of complying with your request would exceed the appropriate cost limit, which for central Government has been set in Regulations at £600. This represents the estimated cost of one person spending 3.50 working days in determining whether the Department holds the information, and locating, retrieving and extracting the information. Under section 12 of the FOIA the Department is not obliged to comply with your request.”

On 9 October 2015 Labour MP Stephen Doughty asked parliamentary question 11114:

“To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, what recent assessment he has made of Child Support Agency enforcement rates for payment of child maintenance.”

On 14 October 2015 Minister Priti Patel answered:”

The latest published figures show 88% of cases on the 1993 and 2003 schemes and 88% of case groups on the 2012 scheme contributing towards their current maintenance liability.  Where a non-resident parent fails to meet their liabilities, the Child Support Agency has a range of enforcement powers. For example, child maintenance can be taken directly from bank accounts and wages; and the Government has also introduced a new power to disclose non-compliance to credit reference agencies.  The total number of enforcement actions taken by the Agency can be found on page 41 of the Child Support Agency Quarterly Summary of Statistics June 2015 available at https://www.gov.uk/Government/collections/child-support-agency-quarterly-summary-statistics--2

Note how Stephen Doughty’s imprecise wording enabled Priti Patel to avoid mentioning any lack of information on enforcement by Child Maintenance Service.

On 3 February 2016 Conservative MP Antoinette Sandbach asked oral question 093428 in the House of Commons:

“A lone parent in my constituency has described as “appalling” her experience of the Child Maintenance Group. She talked of a lack of communication, being passed from pillar to post, a failure to act on evidence and not progressing with enforcement. Will the Prime Minister arrange for the Secretary of State to meet my constituents to discuss the particular issues around the enforcement of child maintenance when non-resident parents are gaming the system and depriving children of the support to which they are entitled?”

Prime Minister David Cameron replied:

“I am happy to help arrange that meeting. I know that many of us in our own constituency surgeries hear about the behaviour of the non-resident parent and how they give everyone the runaround and do not fulfil their duties by helping to pay for the children for whom they are responsible. As she knows, we introduced a new statutory child maintenance service for parents who are unable to make a family-based arrangement. It should be bringing speedier processing of applications, simpler calculations and faster enforcement action, but I will ensure that she has the meeting that she needs to straighten out that case.”

On 30 March 2016 DWP informed single parent charity Gingerbread that there was no timescale to develop public information on enforcement activity within Child Maintenance Service.

On 20 June 0216 Labour MP Steve McCabe asked a written parliamentary question 41053:

“To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, pursuant to the Answer of 24 May 2016 to Question 37683, on child maintenance arrears, on how many occasions his Department has used each of the enforcement powers referred to in that Answer in each of the last five years.”

On 29 June 2016 Minister Priti Patel answered:

“For the 1993 and 2003 Schemes the information you requested is set out on Page 40 of the Child Support Agency quarterly summary of statistics which can be accessed online at: https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/child-support-agency-quarterly-summary-of-statistics-march-2016.  Information on enforcement for the 2012 scheme could only be provided at disproportionate cost.”

In September 2016 the Child Poverty Action Group submitted written evidence (CHM0072) to the Work and Pensions Committee:

“The system has been simplified for the CMS-administered ‘2012’ scheme.  This may be fine as a principle, but in practice a lot of this appears to be for the convenience of the DWP rather than the benefit of parents and children.

There are still significant questions about the effectiveness of enforcement action, some of which could be addressed by applying greater resources and willingness to use the full force of the powers that already exist.

There is limited information available on whether the CMS effectively and regularly uses the power to make default maintenance decisions if the non-resident is not co-operating, or to exercise its power to impose a criminal sanction for non-co-operation.

Suspended prison sentences and suspended disqualification from driving are significantly more common than actual committals and disqualifications.  However, there is no information to indicate how successful such suspended decisions are in securing payment of arrears.  Following criticism in Karoonian v CMEC and Gibbons v CMEC [2012] EWCA Civ 1379 of some procedures used by the CSA/CMS, the CSA/CMS sought to change procedures but appear to have taken very little such action since (with almost no such action appearing to have been pursued since 2012/13).  Prosecutions for criminal enforcement action (e.g. for misrepresenting evidence/fraud) have also declined very dramatically in recent years.”

On 19 October 2016 Green Party MP Caroline Lucas proposed Early Day Motion 575, which was signed by 97 MPs:

“That this House welcomes the report from the charity Gingerbread, entitled Missing maintenance; notes that when child maintenance goes unpaid by a parent, children lose out; deplores the disastrous record of the Child Support Agency in collecting unpaid child maintenance, which has resulted in almost £4 billion of outstanding arrears; believes that, with nearly half of paying parents in the new child maintenance system owing arrears, the new Child Maintenance Service is already underperforming on its collection of such arrears; and calls on the Government to use the income from collection fees to bring about a substantial improvement in enforcement action over the next three years, with clear annual debt collection targets for both Child Support Agency and Child Maintenance Service debts.”

Several Conservative MPs, including the present Work and Pensions Secretary, Amber Rudd, and current Defence Minister, Tobias Ellwood, posted identical, cut-and-paste, dishonest rebuttals on their websites:

“I can assure you that the Government is doing all it can to ensure the system is fair and parents make an appropriate contribution to their children's upbringing. The Government is committed to pursuing those parents who do not willingly meet their financial responsibilities to their children. 

The Child Maintenance Service (CMS) has a range of effective enforcement powers intended to help ensure all parents fulfil their financial responsibilities towards their children, including taking deductions directly from earnings and bank accounts. When a paying parent defaults on a payment without reasonable justification, the CMS will take appropriate action to recover the missed payment and re-establish compliance. 

I can assure you that the Government is currently considering the recommendations contained in Gingerbread's 'Missing Maintenance' report. For example, in relation to the suggestions the report makes about deductions from joint bank accounts, the Department for Work and Pensions has already started taking steps to implement this power, and ran a consultation this summer on the proposed process. 

I am confident that Ministers are committed to doing everything they can to ensure children receive the support they deserve from their parents.”

On 7 December 2016 Caroline Nokes MP gave evidence to the Work and Pensions Committee, alongside Tom McCormack, Director of Child Maintenance Group in the Department for Work and Pensions. Labour MP Steve McCabe asked Caroline Nokes whether parents could expect the Child Maintenance Service to pursue CSA debts.

Caroline Nokes repeatedly insisted that most of the debt is owed for children who are now in their mid-thirties, or for trifling amounts of under £500, therefore not worthy of tax payer expenditure.

Eventually, when pressed, she lied: “If it is still a child, absolutely. If we are talking about a child under CSA, then absolutely they will.

What we have is a massive range of enforcement powers, which we use relentlessly.”

She went on to boast that: “We have a 35-strong financial investigation unit. As I said, we are increasing the numbers of that because we want to do better. If the impression you have had from other witnesses is that we are not interested, I am telling you that that is not the case. We are… I cannot say, “Nobody ever has their cases investigated”. That is simply not true, otherwise I would not be employing 35 people to look at them, would I?”

The median full time salary of a civil servant is around £23,000. So the £480,000 given to Harry Benson to buy a family farm could have paid for around twenty more investigators.

On 25 January 2017 the Department for Work and Pensions published DWP Child Maintenance Service 2012 Scheme Experimental Statistics Data for August 2013 – November 2016

The volume of caseload in Enforcement has increased steadily since September 2015.

Volume of Caseload in Enforcement - September 2015 to November 2016

The graph shows the volume of caseload in enforcement on the CMS that had an enforcement action ongoing at the end of the month. The figures cover case groups on the caseload with a regular deduction order, lump sum deduction order or liability order enforcement action ongoing.

The volume of the caseload in Enforcement in November 2016 was 3.1%.

Note that there is no mention of prosecutions or committals.

In March 2017 the National Audit Office reported that:

"There are around one million cases with arrears. Most parents who owe arrears do not have enforcement action taken against them.”

On 18 April 2017 Conservative MP Antoinette Sandbach told MPs:

“I have used the Child Support Agency for the last thirteen years and I would liken it to banging my head against a brick wall for most of that time. I also spent four years as a caseworker supporting parents with their cases, particularly with the Child Support Agency, the predecessor to the Child Maintenance Service, due to my personal knowledge of the procedures. My experience is that staff are not properly trained. CMS staff in particular, since the move to the Department for Work and Pensions, have no idea what their enforcement powers are, are extremely reluctant to use them and regularly fail to do so.”

In December 2017 the Department for Work and Pensions published its Child Maintenance: Compliance and Arrears Strategy 2017 Methodology Paper:

“We do not currently publish any statistics on the use of committal powers on CMS but we do publish such statistics for CSA.”

In a letter dated 9 October 2018, Minister Justin Tomlinson lied to Frank Field, Chair of the Work and Pensions Committee:

“You asked if the Department intends to encourage or instruct the Child Maintenance Service (CMS) to take a more consistent and extensive approach to using its enforcement powers.

The CMS already makes good use of the range of available enforcement powers to recover child maintenance arrears and re-establish compliance with on-going maintenance commitments.”

On 30 October 2018 Baroness Sherlock, debating the Child Support (Miscellaneous Amendments) Regulations, commented on the new powers being brought into force:

“In conclusion, we are in a position where compliance rates are stuck at 57%. I am doubtful that the package of powers we are discussing are likely to make all that much difference given that the biggest of them will, in the original calculations, affect only 450 children and bring in £350,000 a year. Alongside that, the Government are planning to write off debts of £3.7 billion, so basically we are talking about 0.01% of the amount that has been written off. Even if it is the higher £840,000 figure, my back-of-an-envelope calculations say that we are still talking about 0.02%. There is quite an imbalance.”