18/04/2017 Westminster Hall

We start with the debate on the Child Maintenance Service. It's good

to see there are so much media interest today in this at

Westminster. Thank you. It's a pleasure to serve under your

chairmanship. I'll also want to thank the committee for giving us

here today the opportunity to discuss this extremely important

affecting families across the UK. My colleagues have to cut short their

Easter weekend to attend today however I've believe the fact they

are present highlights the importance of this debate. Many

constituents have approached my office regarding issues with the

Child Maintenance Service. From their experiences and mine, it is an

extremely frustrating and inefficient service to deal with.

When it was responsible for something as important as financial

support for children and quite often single-parent families, it must

execute its duties properly fulfil it must get it right and this isn't

happening. The child maintenance service is under resourced, unfit

for purpose and failing families across the UK. It has disregarded

historical maintenance arrears, allowing nonresident parents to

renege on their responsibilities by failing to collect current

maintenance and it imposes a tax on parents who desperately require its

services. And it fails to provide a service of a decent standard that

should be expected of any Government agency. When I was writing this

speech, despite the length of time I get to speak, I wasn't thinking

about what issues to speak about. I was thinking about what things I

would have to leave out. As the maintenance system was so rife with

issues. The Child Maintenance Service needs a radical overhaul to

make sure parents and their children can get the support, access to the

support they are entitled to. This support is not optional. Yes, I will

give way. This debate is getting attention in lots of areas at the

moment. I suppose a bit she may want to leave out is those who have

failed to reach an agreement. The Government will say family -based

assessment have increased, but will she go into the detail as to whether

that does show a success or not this current system? I'm not going to

concentrate on that because that's not exactly family -based

arrangements. The report, it doesn't happen in every case, and those who

are out with that scheme I'm going to support and talk about this

morning. This support the Child Maintenance Service gives is not

optional, if the legal right of children and the Child Maintenance

Service is failing to secure children and their parents with

care. Their rights or it is taxing them. To gain access to what is

theirs. Maintenance payments have had, a historic problem with

underpayment, people not paying arrears. To date, the outstanding

arrears for child maintenance stands at an astonishing ?4 billion. This

figure alone shows the extent to which the child support agency and

the child maintenance service are failing people. I should also have

added my thanks to gingerbread, because I am drawing heavily on

their recent report. It is likely to be the case that this does not

actually represent the full picture, as paying parents and a direct paid

are assumed to have paid their maintenance in full unless Child

Maintenance Service is told otherwise. During the transfer

process from CSA to CMS, according to gingerbread, who have been doing

fantastic work to support families, many parents have been pressured

into not transferring their into not transferring their

historical arrears over to the new claim. The DWP calls this a fresh

start, however, no equivalent letter is sent to paying parents to

encourage them to pay off their arrears. In 2013, the UK Government

issued preparing for the future, tackling the past, in which they

outlined their strategy, disregarding past debts, and instead

focusing on the payment of current maintenance. In line with this

strategy, between December 2015 and March 2016, debt collections per

case of dropped from ?35 down to ?22. The DWP is calculated as little

as 12% of CSA debt on both the CSA and CMS systems will actually be

collected. Current arrangements allowing parents to renege on their

responsibilities. Even though these debts were accrued in the past,

these parents should still be held responsible now. Collecting

historical arrears should not mean a trade-off should be made with

current arrears, both are a parody. -- priority. I agree with very much

what you says. Constituent approached me in September 1999, the

father of whose child has steadfastly refused to contribute

anything, he spent a great deal on lawyers in the intervening almost 20

years, paying maintenance, and today he owes ?55,000, of which 15,000 is

owed to the parent of my constituent. Does she agree with

made it absolutely vital that money is collected and the parent is

receiving what is owed to them? He makes an absolutely valid point.

Yes, this is exactly what I'm trying to argue, we should not not chase

arrears full service seems to fly in the face of common sense. It seems

to fly in the face of natural justice. Members of the public and

indeed members of this House may not be aware that during the switch from

CSA to CMS, case history is not transferred. Leading to a loss in a

keynote at knowledge which wastes resources and could allow a parent

to renege on their payments. Despite waiting years for an effective

service, that will practically seek to collect maintenance, these

parents are being forgotten with no options for recourse. If debts are

uncollectible or unlikely to be collected, parents must be made

aware of this. Additionally, if the UK Government is not willing to take

the steps to secure children their rights, then the UK Government must

compensate receiving parents for their arrears. Although the CMS is

focusing on current maintenance, they are also failing in this

regard. Most arrears working related under the CSA however since the

launch of the CMS in 2012, half of paying parents had not been allowed

to accrue arrears. As I've previously said, those in direct

pay, assumed to have paid the full maintenance, but when we consider

70% of CMS cases come under the direct paid compared to just 33% of

CSA cases, the magnitude of the problem and is CMS is likely to be

far larger than the number shown. Just because parent agreed to pay

does not mean that they will fulfil their obligations. Under the CSA,

between January and March 20 and a quarter of paying parents did not

pay the full amount due. Of this number, two thirds paid less than

half, or nothing at all. Demonstrating that priority is to

focus on the payment of current maintenance is not being met. This

Government's current strategy is failing. There are stringent

criteria at which must be fulfilled before CSE dates will be considered

for collection under the Child maintenance service. A parent must

open a CMS case, CSA arrears must be received in the last quarter before

moving to child maintenance service or the payment must explicitly ask

for these arrears to be collected. The Child Maintenance Service

process is extremely difficult to understand and is often not

communicated properly. For example, DWP figures show 17% of those using

direct paid whose payments were stopped, were not aware of payment

could be pursued and similarly, 15% didn't even know about the

collecting and pay service. Shockingly, recent report from pay

plan found over half of single parents didn't even know their child

was eligible for support from their absent parent. Communication with

parents of services available to them and their rights is lacking.

Communication with parents need to be informed. Child Maintenance

Service needs, not only to take action to collect historical

arrears, but make parents aware of their rights and what CMS can do to

assist them. A variation claim, the main tool for parents to ensure

ex-partners's proper income is taken into account is kept secret. A cynic

in me believes this is intentionally withheld to reduce any action being

taken. Taking simple measures such as providing written breakdowns of

arrears, how they were accrued, what options are available to people,

would go a long way to improve parents' interaction with the

service and awareness of their rights. I thank my friend for giving

way and congratulate her on securing this very important debate. Is she

aware that in the Northern Ireland context, up apparently 40 members of

staff who deal with child maintenance are to be laid off and

will find themselves, that department will find itself without

experienced staff when they should be ensuring that money goes from the

absent parent to those children who urgently require it? I thank her for

her contribution. She is absolutely correct and indeed, this ties into

the held UDP agenda of closing offices. I'm going to come on later

to the under resource of this department -- the DWP. Even if

parents don't understand what CMS can do to assist them, there is a

hesitant from CMS to take enforcement action. This is a major

reason why arrears have been allowed to accrue historically. And

presently. Does she agree that, effectively, that deprives resident

parents their rights because they have no other way of enforcing it,

their legal rights to enforce through the courts has been taken

away by the Child Maintenance Service and it leaves them powerless

to be able to pursue what is their right, which is maintenance due to

them for their children. I thank the honourable lady for her intervention

and they have to completely agree, when I went to reply to the

backbencher business committee for this debate, I was aware even there

of the consensus across the House of the lack of action and the failings

of the child maintenance service and this has been reinforced by these

interventions. Variation claims, for example, place the burden of proof

on the parents with care to show that the ex-partners' incomes are

represented as. I've had constituents have had private

investigators or have become private investigators themselves... One

second. ... To prove their ex-partner is lying about their

income. This is not their job. It should be the job of CMS. I thank it

for giving way and congratulate her on bringing this debate to the

House. Does she agree improvements need to be made to further diminish

the ways in which former partners can manipulate and use the system as

a weapon of abuse and control, as was the case with one of my

constituents, who had to prove her ex-partner's financial status. I

thank him for his intervention. Yes, this is at the heart of what I'm

trying to get across here today. This system is not working and, at

the bottom of it all, children are suffering because of it. Both

parents have raised their concerns over the difficulty of raising a

complaint. The new system makes the first complaint and enquiry rather

than a complaint. Parents and staff have to be persistent in escalating

the issue to a complaint, to have it properly investigated. I understand

that CMS can't utilise the enforcement actions available to

them without proper cause, however, I have had numerous constituents

through my door who have not received full and proper payments

from their ex-partners, despite showing evidence to CMS, there is a

severe lack of urgency and instead, parents are required to jump through

hoops to get any sort of action taken and to fight their case. This

demonstrates a lack of understanding of how important it is for parents

with care to receive full and timely payments. It also contributes to a

culture of nonpayment which leads to ironically named paying parents to

not pay at all. Without sounding too matter, the child maintenance

service should strike fear into the hearts of parents, not making their

proper contributions, if CMS took their duties more seriously to

pursue maintenance, then parents would perhaps not be allowed to make

incomplete, late or non-payments. The UK Government has sanctioned

benefit claimants, by supposed overpayment and either by to see

them take an enthusiastic approach in ensuring paying parents actually

pay. A parent must pay the maintenance which represents the

income and a major difference between the CSA and CMS is parents

cannot claim for a variation on the grounds of a notional income.

This has removed a vital option for parents with care to challenge their

ex-partner's claims. Furthermore, non-PAYE income such as dividends

and rental income is not automatically taken into account

when calculating maintenance. Again, I have constituents who know that

their ex-partner is earning large sums from rental income, for

example, that this is not taken into account, allowing parents to

minimise their maintenance payments at the expense of their children. We

have to take action against nonpayment and a change in the rules

if required to ensure that maintenance calculation is

reflecting comes and that wealthier parents with assets in particular

support their children. A closer relationship with HMRC would be

welcomed, especially regarding data sharing. A bolstering of the

financial inclusion unit would also be welcomed. This was in Stewart

Boro investigations of those who are self-employed or of complex

financial arrangements or they pay the right maintenance. It is not

enough to add to parents' arrears but action must be taken to collect

it. The child maintenance services at a crisis point will start so long

as it continues, we are allowing parents to avoid their

responsibilities to their children. It is a common misconception that it

is the receiving parent that is losing out if a parent fails to make

proper payments, but it is the children who are paying the price.

Proper receipts of child maintenance have been shown to lift one in five

families out of poverty. If the UK Government doesn't take proper

action to secure children their rights, then they will be allowing

this to happen. The risk of poverty for children in single-parent

households is almost double that for children in a household with two

parents. It is therefore a vital source of income for these families.

Some single parents are working themselves to exhaustion to provide

for their children while nonresident parents and the child maintenance

service allows them to. The Minister must publish the new maintenance

collection strategy with set targets for collection, a dedicated

enforcement team focused on arrears collection and a collection of

current maintenance and a greater use of enforcement powers. Mr Bowen,

before the process of even coming under the child maintenance system,

a parent must pay a ?20 charge and when they come under collect and

pay, receiving parents are taxed 4% of their payments. Responses from

ministers have revealed that this is to raise money to actually fun to be

maintenance service and also encourage parents to make family

-based arrangements between each other rather than making an

application to CMS as a default option. I was dismayed to find out

that when I tabled a question asking what percentage of those who apply

to the CMS where parents with care and what presenters were nonresident

parents, that these figures are not available. It makes sense to assume

that the vast majority of people who make the initial application are

parents with CARE. Many of these parents will be applying to CMS out

of necessity and will pay the ?20 application fee and be taxed for

percent of the maintenance that is collected simply for collecting

their right. For those who apply to the CSA, for example, one third had

already had a field family -based arrangements. 12 charges may

encourage some families to make family -based arrangements, it can

also deter people from going into the child maintenance system

entirely leaving them entirely without assistance or because. This

is particularly true for people on low incomes who are the people who

require support. Two fifths of receiving parents on direct Paice

said they found the application fee difficult to afford and so too did

half of those are very low incomes. A quarter of receiving parents who

moved from director pay to collect and pay said they found the 4%

collection fee difficult to afford also. Astonishingly, 16% of parents

with an FPA said that being able to afford fees was one reason why they

did not apply to the CMS instead of supporting these families, charges

are taking money out of parents' pockets, food as of children's

mounds and food off their backs all through no fault of their own. Offer

simply accessing their rights. Pushing parents out of the

maintenance system can leave them without any money at all. 29% of

former CSA parents with a CARE said that the application fee was a

factor for not having an arrangement. The 4% collection

charge influence 24% of these same parents. These charges are actively

deterring people from seeking any assistance at all when they most

need it. There is one group in particular that Colts special

attention and sensitivity, that is parents who have been the victims of

domestic abuse or violence. For those who applied to CSA, have had

experienced violence or abuse at the hands of their ex-partner. This is a

substantial group that must be considered with great care. After a

year, around one fifth of receiving parents whose director pay

arrangements had broken down or had not even started, said that domestic

violence was a starter. In addition, 22% of receiving parents said that

domestic violence made it difficult to set up a direct pay arrangements.

This shows that so many of these parents need maintenance services

and they need them to be effective. I appreciate that the Government has

removed the ?20 application fee for these parents, however the same

understanding and approach must be implemented in relation to the 4%

collection charge. These parents cannot be expected to interact in

any shape or form with their abusive ex-partners. For most parents, the

child maintenance service should not be a default starting point, but for

these parents, it absolutely should be. Taking simple steps such as

allowing for a non-eyes direct pay could protect these victims. When we

consider that many parents on low incomes are deterred by charges,

forcing these parents to deal with their ex-partners to save money is a

danger to their security and well-being. And, I should add, often

to those children involved as well. Some of these parents end up not

reporting unpaid maintenance out of fear of reprise attacks or, if they

worsen relations. These parents deserve to be treated with the

utmost dignity and respect. The Government must therefore make

urgent provision for this. Charges can be a barrier for parents and

their children. While I believe parents should seek an FPA if

possible, we should not be excluding those who have tried and failed.

While I appreciate the Government's need to fund this service, they

should not be penalising children. In a worst-case scenario, the 4%

charge should be added onto the 20% charge that nonresident parents in

parrot under collect and pay. They should pay the price for

noncompliance, not their children. Especially if it can be proven that

an F BA is not working or that the paying parent is not making the

contributions that they should be. Gingerbread recommend a means test

should also be implemented to ensure that those who need the service is

the most should not be deterred by the ?20 application fee. Taxing

children and parents, many of which apply to CMS out of necessity due to

low incomes or domestic abuse, is not just. They have a legal right to

the support and the Government should not be skimming off the top

of what can be a vital lifeline. We must therefore see and ends to the

4% tax on maintenance. I don't want to portray all paying parents as

villains. Many pay their support for their children both inside and

outside of the maintenance service. But these CMS service also penalises

them. It is an imperfect system for either parent. By implementing a 25%

threshold on a changing income on paying parents, this can be from

many lower income parents struggling and allow higher income parents to

retain more money that could be used for supporting their children. I

agree that having this threshold provides stability to payments and

ensures that CMS does not incur a large administration costs for

changes in income, however, this must be set at a level that will

allow a more accurate reflection of parents' income. This two, this 25%

rule, must be looked at. CMS sav have also indicated to Gingerbread

that there has been a reluctance to move cases from direct pay to

collect and pay due to the high 20% charge, therefore staff need to

utilise other enforcement measures to ensure proper payment. There must

be a review on these charges to encourage staff to move cases to

collect and pay if need be and to not be deterred by placing higher

charges on the payment of nonresident parents. An issue that

both parents will undoubtedly have had major issues with is actually

dealing with the child maintenance service. This is one complaint every

parents that comes to my office has in common. The main complaint is

that they are passed from pillar to post and every time they called the

CMS, they are giving a new caseworker who has no previous

knowledge of their case, requiring the calling parent to provide

lengthy explanations of what is often complex arrangements within a

complex system. Staff often provide parents with conflicting information

depending on the col handler. One caseworker told a staff member from

my office that due to a lack of resources, oral responses were given

rather than Britain responses. This often leads to contradictory

information being given to parents by different caseworkers. My staff

have even said that it is even difficult for MPs' staff to receive

a written response from the child maintenance service. In one

instance, one of my constituents are crewed thousands of pounds worth of

debts. He wasn't notified of this over the phone and was only informed

in writing several months down the line. However, when letters are

sent, and they still are, they can be misleading. The most ridiculous

issue brought to my attention was that a constituents received a

letter outlining his maintenance for his three children. You can imagine

his surprise or horror, rather, considering he had only ever

fathered two children. I have already outlined that receiving

parents have a lack of awareness as to what options are available to

them to pursue maintenance and staff are reluctant to enforce action.

However, parents who are aware have reported to Gingerbread and my

office that they feel they have to constantly pursue CMS to pursue

their ex-partner. Rather than a game of cat and mouse, it is a case of

dog, cat and mouse. When we look at how much is spent in total easier on

the collection of child maintenance, this is not surprising. From 2013-14

to be forecast projected spending for 2016-17, the total spent on CSA

and CMS has decreased by 21%. This reflects what has been heard from

staff that the service is underfunded and unable to properly

deal with its workload. As a result of per customer service,

satisfaction rates among both groups of parents has dropped significantly

over the years. Dissatisfied would perhaps be an understatement for how

people feel about the child maintenance service. Both parents

are suffering from CMS's administrative and operational

inefficiency which makes any dealings with them unbearable.

Complaints are not taken seriously and communication of rights and

actions are almost nonexistent. I welcome the Government's reviews,

but CMS is rife with problems which require radical overhauls of how it

operates. With ?4 billion of uncollected maintenance and parents

currently being allowed to renege on their current liabilities, the child

maintenance service is failing parents and children. Yes,

implementing arrangements to deter and minimise noncompliance are

welcome, so long as they do not deter parents with CARE. But it is

inescapable, the best way to secure for children and their legal rights

is for the child maintenance service to get in there and to secure it for

them. We need to see the Government taking steps to strengthen

enforcement teams to actually enforce payments and to forge a

closer relationship with HMRC that sees parents' Altschul income

accounted for in maintenance calculations. The UK Government has

taken an approach to wear for that colza self-reliance while shrinking

the welfare state. How better to ensure self-reliance and then to

measure parents pay to support their children?

They are the responsibility of their parents and they must pay their

contributions. The system of charges need urgent reform. It is

unacceptable for parents to turn CMS out of nothing other than necessity.

And then they are taxed for doing so. Children should not lose out on

a single penny, pound or shilling, in my memory, for a parent who does

not comply. Abolishing charges and properly collecting maintenance

would not only benefit parents by receiving their maintenance in full

and on time, it would also be a lifeline to allow low-income

families who would be lifted out of poverty. A culture of nonpayment has

developed. Parents are failing to make full and timely payments

because the Child Maintenance Service is allowing them to. The UK

Government is allowing them to. As Gingerbread have said, children

living in single-parent families are almost twice at the risk of poverty

compared with children of coupled families. Victims and survivors of

domestic abuse should be protected by the UK Government, not punished

financially for their inability to in gauge with their abusive

ex-partner. It is clear that the UK Government remains wedded to

austerity. This is in stark contrast to the efforts of the Scottish

Government's determination to create a conclusive equal Scotland. I call

upon the Minister to follow up on the Gingerbread recommendations. I

won't go through them because I've actually done this already in my

speech, but they are very easy to access and there are not a lot of

them, but they would make a huge difference to parents and

especially, please come make a difference to those children. The

CMS, what they do is insufficient, inefficient and they are incapable.

Our children deserve better. I thank the honourable lady. The question

the House has considered the Child Maintenance Service, there are three

backbenchers trying to catch my eye and frontbenchers really can't start

the windups later than 1230. Thank you. I thank the honourable lady for

calling this debate. I should perhaps put on the record that I

have used the child support agency for the last 13 years and I've had

liking -- I would liken it to bang your head against a brick wall. I

was also a case worker supporting parents particular you were the

Child support agency, the predecessor to the CMS, with their

cases because of my knowledge, my personal knowledge of the

procedures. My experience is staff are not properly trained,

particularly the CMS staff since the move over to DWP, have no idea what

their enforcement powers are. They are extremely reluctant to use them.

They fail to use them regularly, and there is a lack of proper

compensation when mistakes are made by the CMS. I appreciate that the

volumes of complaints to my inbox in relation to CMS' are small, but

that's because 3 million cases are still working under the CSA system

and have not been transferred over to CMS yet. Which, in my experience,

is a blessing in disguise. I know it's not the fault of this minister

and I'd feel very sorry for you this minister because she's taken over a

system which has had systemic failings for years and the fact that

?4 billion worth of arrears are outstanding demonstrates the

catastrophic way in which single parents in this country have been

let down by a system which was supposed to make collections easier.

Now, the honourable lady has outlined very ably some of the key

problems in the recommendations of the Gingerbread report and I've back

to concentrate specifically in relation to avoidance by the

self-employed. As we know from the Chancellor's statement recently, a

vast number of people are moving over to self-employment and that is

a growing group particular amongst nonresident parents. And it makes

the avoidance of child maintenance of that much easier. There are

online forums which provide advice to nonresident parents in how to

avoid child maintenance payments and, quite frankly, the Government

has not stepped up to the plate. It is scandalous that parents, whose

legal rights to maintenance for their children, have been taken away

and given to the state, are finding the state is unwilling or unable to

enforce their rights and, quite frankly, it's not good enough. In my

view, it is discriminatory because it largely operates against women.

75% of single parents are women. And the Government really has to look at

this area again. So I would call for some specific action by the

Minister, in particular, I would echo calls for the lifestyle

inconsistent with earnings. It is absolutely ridiculous to suggest

that a parent who may have separated from their partner 10-13- 15 years

before but have a detailed knowledge of their financial circumstances

and, very often, the only evidence available to be shown to the Child

Maintenance Service is lifestyle inconsistent with earnings and I

have a constituent, for example, who left his wife and set up with

another partner. There was a range Rover, foreign holidays abroad, and

?33,000 worth of arrears. Eventually, after a long court case

and tribunal hearing, the matter had to go through the tribunal, but the

evidence was lifestyle inconsistent with earnings. And it really is

vital that that is reinstated. Secondly, the Government needs to

look at how tax rules are used to disguise assets. In particular,

where someone is self-employed or a director of their own company. And

they make a director 's name into that company, that is an asset which

is owned by them and it means they can take large amounts of money out

of the company but it is not considered to be an asset for the

purposes of child maintenance and that is wrong. That allows abuse of

the system and, quite frankly, is being used a lot. That information

should be available in companies House. It should be available from

HMRC. And, really, it needs to the looked at again. The further

recommendation is that the Government considers giving women

and enforceable right in the courts where there is a threshold of

assets. Where that asset threshold is set then that's a matter for the

Minister and her team to decide.. I would urge you that, where there are

circumstances where there is half ?1 million worth of assets, that case

ought to fall outside CMS. They're not taking into account the family

home, exempt from consideration as part of the assets of the

nonresident parent and it doesn't take much to look through past cases

that have been through the tribunal system where their assets of ?7

million in the family home, inexpensive sports cars, in

high-value items, which simply cannot be taken into account by CMS

because they don't generate an income. But it is a very convenient

shelter and it allows high net worth individuals to avoid paying for

their children. Again, I would say it's rarely important, the women

involved in these cases have no other way of enforcing their rights.

You have taken the rights away from them in court. Really, they need to

be reinstated. Quite frankly, because failing to do so, you've

excluded so many assets from consideration and actually you're

not reflecting the real ability of those nonresident parents to pay for

their children. I referred earlier to staff not knowing their rights.

There is a complete unwillingness from the CMS for example, from the

land Registry, and they would certainly support: location of HMRC

and CMS staff. HMRC should also notify CMS if there is an increase

in nonresident parent's claim for tax relief. If they put on a tax

return and they are claiming up to the tax-free allowance, in terms of

income, that should automatically be notified to CMS and we should have

much more effective data-sharing across Government to unable

enforcement. -- enable enforcement. I could go on for longer, but I

would say that, having been a single mum for eight years, where rifle the

system, having been a lawyer, who thought I could understand and work

the system and I'm a MP, and still, we cannot get it to work, it is

really a scandal and a disgrace that lone parents are being let down so

badly by a system that allows nonresident parents to manipulate

it. So I'm very grateful for this debate because if we are to be

Government that is there for everybody, then we must be

Government that supports those who are the least able to enforce their

rights and the fact their legal rights of been taken away means the

burden and the responsibility on Government is that much greater

because they have no other way of doing it. I know that a judge and

the court, having practised for 13 years or more as a barrister, I know

a judge would look at these things in a very, very different way from

Government and, quite frankly, it is time to give the rights back to

women to take them through the courts or to make sure staff are

properly trained, that they take the action that they need, and that they

enforce inappropriately. I know the Minister has ?3.9 million worth of

arrears outstanding in her constituency. Mine regrettably is

?5.4 million of arrears. I would say to any single parent reading this

debate, any single parent who is looking at this debate, please

contact your MP. Allow us to try to help make the system work for you.

But when CMS does make mistakes it should compensate appropriately. And

the compensation regime for CMS has changed since it moved over to the

DWP. Now, that is wrong. I suspect that we will be seeing some

Parliamentary ombudsman reports in relation to claims against the DWP

because it is unacceptable that where mistakes have been made by the

department, it is the children not have to pay for it. I would say that

there are some simple steps that wouldn't necessarily cost the

Government huge amounts of money that could be taken that would help

parents enforce their rights. Can I thank the honourable lady for

presenting a very, very detailed setting the scene for us. Everyone

is aware of the issues because we have them in our offices every day.

The system is a system which is supposed to help false and very

often we find ourselves in a position where it is seen not to

help. A system to ensure parents who do not have full custody of their

children are still responsible for part of their care and this is a

system which unfortunately is needed as there are those in society who

believe leaving a mother entitles you to leave the child and children.

And this does not need to happen and indeed should never happen so we

have systems in place to try and address these issues which, quite

clearly, highlight the shortcomings of the system. To be fair, there are

some people who come to me with their issues and consult their

problems out. There are occasions when things go right but

unfortunately there are more cases when it does not go right so there's

a system in place to ensure there is a spread of responsibility. It's not

successfully used and the loser is the child. You referred to the

position of a child and the children as well every time, the people we

see. It's also clear the system is in no way addressing all of the

issues that people have and they believe there's a better and more

effective way which be found. She referred to the Gingerbread charity.

I read that report. The Minister is very thorough in the job she does.

They launched the report last June last year and there's millions of

pounds owed to children failing to be collected by the Government. He

mentioned children again who are the most vulnerable in all of this but

surely it is time we take a look at this. It's not the first time

Governments have scrapped systems and put new systems in place to make

them work. We have to think of a vulnerable in this. He's absolutely

right. It's a fun ability of the children and the mother as well. And

the odd occasion, the father, depending what the issues are but

the children should be the focus of our attention. This debate is

focused on that. The report that Gingerbread issued

last year said there were debts piling up in a new system with an

average of ?666 per family. The huge amount of money and could be a

uniform or a lunch might and there must be a way of steam this page and

it being addressed. It took almost ?4 billion worth of arrears

accumulated over the 23 year life span of the transport agency, which

is in the process of being shut down and replaced by a successor, the

child maintenance service, which we hope will learn from the mistakes of

the CSA and be able to deliver a better system. Again, I look to the

Minister to how that better system will be unveiled and how we can

ensure that the parents and children are the ones who get the money when

they should. Yet the Government estimates that only 12% of this

amount is ever likely to be recovered so which ever way you look

at it for a positive response, and for guidance in this, we are well

aware that the Government has already stated that they will not

get all the money so they have all said a line in the sand that they

can't do it and I have to say, that is very disappointing. An

intervention referred to the staff and we know that's DWP, the

initiation and how the system works is devolved, but the rules of CSA

and the rules of child maintenance service are decreed and set by

Westminster here, so the rules and regulations and laws that are set

here and implementation of that, staff are moved about the time. In

my years of dealing with child maintenance issues, I can never

remember speaking to the same person twice. And more often than not,

people fall up and say, they said they would phone me back and they

didn't. How many times have I heard that? Can many times have you heard

it? It is unbelievable how often it happens. Staff are moved about all

the time. There is a father who loses work, become self-employed as

I believe it is referred to... I can remember a few of the top of my mind

who were in a very comfortable position, were earning big money and

his response to his wife and his two children was to say, well, I'm not

going to be self employed any more and I'm going to go live with my

dad. Right away, he ran away from his responsibility and his

maintenance which I believe is wrong. There are those who go on the

dole, those who... And I have nothing against taxi drivers, but

there are some people who take up a job in a taxi which is all cash in

hand and where they can declare what they feel after their expenses to be

their figure but we have lots of people like that as well. I think we

have to look at this. We also have delays in the system. My goodness

me! I have to say, in fairness, in Northern Ireland we have had a

direct call now, contacts with the manager of the system who when you

contact him seems to initiate a response, but what about all the

other people who are not MPs? What about people who are not

councillors? What about the mother who is at her wits' and witty

doesn't have the money to take care of her children? I expect, and I do

expect all members would expect, the same response to those ladies and

those parents and those mothers as there is for us. Gingerbread

evidence suggests that a decreasing effort has been put in from the

Government and meanwhile the new CMS system of incentives and penalties

was supposed to prevent arrears arising in the first place. After

two and a half years of operation, a lot has accumulated. Almost half of

all nonresidents parents and the system have some sort of debt and

this will increase as cases are transferred across the old system.

Over my period of time, I have seen parents, fathers on all occasions, I

have to say, who moved out of the country and got a job elsewhere and

again, I wonder how we can trace those people who are nonresidents in

the United Kingdom. I echo the cry of the Did you read executive when

she said in June, Britain's child maintenance system is contributing

to a culture where it is too many parents think it is optional rather

than obligatory to pay child maintenance. The amount of arrears

is staggering and unacceptable with analysis showing that one in five

families are lifted out of poverty by child painters payments. This is

vital money that parents and their children cannot do without. The

lady, the chief executive, has clearly outlines the issue and where

we are and with the Institute for Fiscal Studies cutlet poverty rates

for single-parent families will double by 2020, it is going to

worse. The child maintenance of children needs to be collected by

the Government, so that is where we are looking to the Minister and the

Government for, to see how best we can do that. I have to say as well,

we also have parents who are separated or divorced who come to a

financial arrangement, an agreement done by two people. It is a good

system because in Ireland, most people have come arrangement which

is equal to what the CSA or the second backwards and, but I have

this frustration, I have to say, Mr Bolan, that sometimes the CSA or are

now the CMS will pursue the people who are making financial arrangement

and pursue them to see if they can get more out of them. They almost

look and easy targets and I find that most frustrating. That is a

continual issue that I get in my office. Just last week, I had a

father in my office who has children from a previous relationship. His

ex-is in a better job than he is, much, much better off financially,

and he doesn't run away from his obligations to support his children,

but there has to be a financial equation done that is fair and

realistic and which can enable everyone to do what they have to do.

Less than half the eligible families receive child maintenance. An

estimated 70% of close CSA cases are expected to have outstanding

rains... Arrears. Communication. Whenever a lady. Looking for her CSA

payments, I expect that department to phone her back. We have to

initiate a system where communication is so important and in

the life that we live in this House as an MP and a member of Parliament,

communication is so much our bread-and-butter, how we get on with

and relate to our constituents and how we can respond to them as well.

I finished with this comment because I'm very conscious of the time.

There are failures that are clear and these must be addressed, so the

rules, regulations, guidelines of Westminster are the ones we have to

look at and how we can change them in a way that the system can work

better whether it be in Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales or England.

I look to the Minister for assurance that these past debts will be

actively sought and there will be changes made to prevent this

occurring. And that we will do better for the 12%. Before I call

the last backbencher, I am going to start the windups now at 1233

because this is a backbench business debate and we want to make sure

backbenchers habitats to speak. To take part in this very important

debate which is a cross-party debate and quite rightly so, because it is

a matter which is of cross-party concern. We all have constituents

who have come to us dealing with ongoing concerns about child

maintenance arrangements. I want to congratulate the member for

Motherwell and Wishaw for securing this debate. In many ways, I should

echo the speech of my honourable friend whose personal knowledge of

this issue and I want to bring to bear my constituents' concerns which

in some ways is a dress rehearsal to my bill tomorrow although events may

prevent that! Nevertheless, I'm sure everyone will want to wait until we

finish this Parliament to be able to submit my bill which does

particularly focus squarely on the issue of justice and equity. I want

to come to the point of principle here will be can all agree because

it is a principle that was quite rightly put up by the Margaret

Thatcher who was a creature of that Government. We want to follow it

through. It was a question of principle of personal

responsibility, recognising that when we have a statutory child

maintenance system and we are recognising as a society that all

parents have continued responsibility for reasonable

contributions towards the upkeep of their children. That is an important

principle and the principle is for all children. Whatever system we

have in place, whatever statutory arrangement, whatever administrative

reasons are given by the Government for convenience, expeditious

reasons, whatever reasons that are given, we must not lose sight of the

overarching principle and we must ensure that we have that ongoing

responsibility to maintain all children. That is all children. It

is focused on the children in this. It is not so much only parents, it

is on the children's whether the parents are employed or

self-employed, there must be an equity and justice for the ongoing

maintenance of children. That is what is at the heart of this debate

and must continue to be at the heart of the Government. As it is now

doing its review. And what we're looking forward to, and I'm not sure

what this is going to after today's news, but we are waiting with bated

breath for the Government to lay the report that was promised in spring,

the report being late to set out what the Government's view is. I

know they have an ongoing five-year review but their 30 month review in

relation to the current system. Everything has come together. The

select committee also has a inquiry, Public account has been waiting to

do more work with this. The spotlight is on this I hope she

feels the heat. It may be the case that previous ministers who came

before Westminster Hall, before parliaments, there were not many

debates about the CSA. It was the main issue. That is not the case

now, but I would not want the Minister to feel in anyway that

there is a lack... That the situation is sorted. Family -based

arrangements are up, 70,000 or so in 2014-15 as I know from the select

committee or written evidence that there is a view that CMS is

performing well. That's seven out of eight are now contributing to their

liability to child maintenance, that things are improving. I would not

want her to sit the go away and say she can move onto every other area

of her brief because this is of real concern because I want to draw

attention to my constituent which amplifies the point I make today. We

have an issue of arrears, so for example, my constituents went

through the old system, CSA, battled hard. When people come to us, they

are at the very end of their tether. They only come to us because they

have the wherewithal, having been through trial and conflict in their

relationship, they are now having to face further trauma and conflict in

relation to trying to get what is the just deserts for their children,

so they eventually, eventually, eventually come to MPs so we only

see a snapshot of the issues that are out there. Many have given up.

The Minister may need to reflect on the issue of the ?20 feet and

whether some have seen their ?20 as more important to put food on the

table rather than trying to seek some maintenance because they have

heard bad stories and they may not have the confidence. Although there

is good news out there, we have two reflect. If we are going to have

this review, there is an impact on the poorest families, we need to

reflect on the impact of the fee. For this particular constituent, she

went to the whole process, when committed to tribunal, eventually

got an assessment which she knew all along. You'll know, effectively be

assessments are being made can be out of step with what they know

which is the lifestyle of the nonresident parent. This is totally

out of step with whether they are contributing anything at. In my

constituent's case, there was ?600,000 of assets with the tribunal

eventually found which plainly needed to be tapped into for the

support of a teenage son and that has now left arrears of ?40,000

which she now asks question, where is that going to come from? Will

that money support her son? What she has told me about and there has been

correspondence with my honourable friend is that the reality is that

the variation grounds that she was able to rely upon have now been

abolished and what she was able to rely upon to get through to the

tribunal and eventually get through that interrogation, she was able to

do that because there was a redress that she was able to get to. That

has been taken away from her and anyone in her position, that Wright

has been taken away as the wit is reliant upon very much, let's say,

the cheap and cheerful system that is here through CMS. It does not

allow and Atchley stymies a redress through the courts which must be

their particularly in high-value cases and complex cases but there is

now a large amount of. She is not permitted to seek that redress. The

reality is that the abolition of the variation grounds which permitted

eight paying parents with no apparent income to be treated as

having a notional income has gone and we have to look at whether that

should be restored because the issue of jurisdiction is relevant because

it is so limited now within the family courts and related to child

maintenance. Dealing with consent orders, dealing with the top

payments and that is only when there is a high income. Where parents

cannot agree, this child maintenance system is the only system to seek

redress. We need to see if there is another

option of constituents like mine being able to have the redress they

need because they are not seeing justice, so when my constituents, in

her case, under the current system, the reality is, for the nonresident

parent, they could legitimately have a zero maintenance liability. From a

?600,000 asset, it would now be madness. It doesn't make sense. It

is woefully unfair. We need to look properly. The situation is that any

review of the current elation, any variation, can take account of

taxable income through data from the HMRC. So that means we are reliant

on the date. The Minister says she's working hand in glove to the select

committee but there's this independent financial investigation

unit, 50 investigators, and she's holding them in on this challenging

area of nonresident parents also on the evidence of that, it's too

little too late, for many who have been through the system and they

don't think it is good enough. What is happening at the moment is the

situation where many parents are having to go on their fraud line,

investigation of whether it's fraud or not, and ministers say

investigators will bridge the gap where it may not be fraudulent but

it is avoiding, seriously, scandalously avoiding but it's

almost too late. The system needs to get the opportunity for redress

rather than the back-end things. I do hope this review will bring

some... I've had the situation for example of retard the debate about

national insurance contributions, and there is people gaining their

income through being self-employed. Traders, financially complex

affairs, from Gingerbread, there's an example of a haulier who had his

tax return assessed for child maintenance liabilities and it was

on a year when he had bought a truck so that truck took pretty much all

his liability having to pay any child maintenance. So the track was

being put before the child. That is a scandal. It is unacceptable. We

must have a system where we don't want people to not be self-employed

but we have to have fairness. We must have fairness for child

maintenance. I look forward to the Government getting this right before

it's too late for many more parents. I want to see the Minister being

able to lead the way on this. In conclusion, time is moving on, the

?20 fee, we need to see how it's impacting on poorer families.

Finally, to reiterate the words of my honourable friend, and the Prime

Minister, we need a child maintenance system which will work

for everyone not just the privileged few. I called Margaret Ferrier.

Thank you, I was going to say you have got young and now you have

someone else in the chair. It's an honour to serve under your

chairmanship. I would like to thank the Member for Motherwell for

securing this very important debate and, like many other members, my

office has been inundated with child maintenance cases at the moment and

I've just to mention the honourable member focused on avoidance by

self-employed parents. She used her experience as a single mum. The

honourable member stated its claim more cases go wrong than right and

also mentioned that CMS seem to be pursuing those who are paying and

not pursuing those who pay nothing, which is a ludicrous situation. The

honourable member stated there must be justice and equity and ongoing

maintenance for parents given the redress they need and they have

concern and he hopes the Minister will focus on the issues and there

is a review of the whole system before it is too late for other

parents, but there appears to be, not only problems as we said with

the system itself, but also with the operation and they would like to

speak about policy to begin with and then highlight some of my

constituent cases. It's clear we've had so many cases highlighted why

honourable members in this debate today that we're all suffering the

same but the are suffering even more than us, so we need to sort this

out. I'm going to give the Minister and overview of what I've see the

problem is to be addressed. Is not only unreasonable to charge single

parents to access their right to support but after the deplorable and

some of these we've heard are survivors of domestic abuse and the

Government has not even attempted to make exemptions for them. System has

real potential to create further distress and it's the position of

myself and my party that the Government needs to remove this

obstacle which faces single parents in order to protect all children

from poverty regardless of their family situation. We need only look

at the statistics to understand the logic in our argument. Children who

live in single-parent families are almost twice as likely to be a risk

of poverty compared to children in coupled families. Brutal cuts due to

a severity combined with a rising living costs means child maintenance

matters even more in order to protect short of poverty. With no

end in sight of a harsh ideological austerity agenda, and living costs

looking set to rise further still due to Brexit, the situation looks

set to worsen still. If the UK Government is not prepared to take

measures such as scrapping child maintenance charges then it cannot

claim to be serious in dealing with child poverty. Contrast this with

Scotland, they continue to prioritise the rights of children.

SNP ministers are bringing forward a child poverty Bill which will

enshrine in legislation targets to reduce child poverty and while we

will strive ambitiously forward, I hope Westminster will not go against

us. The Scottish Government doesn't have the powers over the Child

Maintenance Service and myself and my colleagues urge the UK Government

to follow the SNP's lead. If it is not prepared to do so then please

give us the powers over the Child Maintenance Service and we will do

something about it. Vulnerable families and the rights of the child

must be protected. The Government cannot shy away from the

responsibilities and it must take action to urgently address these

ongoing problems with the Child Maintenance Service which we have

heard all about today. I'm going to reiterate what everybody has said

about Gingerbread's campaign. We support their maintenance matters

campaign and the Government should immediately scrap the ?20

application fee for single parents on low-income. Get rid of the 4%

collection charge and make better provisions to protect domestic abuse

survivors. The charges are grossly unfair to the collecting parent and

in essence punishes them for the other parents noncompliance. The

charges create a barrier to access the statutory service for those in

low incomes who are arguably the most in need of support. DWP's own

evaluation research shows around half those indirect pay and two

fifths of receiving parents with a CSA case closing where on very low

incomes. 4% may not sound like much but when you are on a low income it

really matters. Government ministers should be concerned that a quarter

of receiving parents who have moved from a direct pay to other

arrangement said losing 4% of their maintenance was difficult to afford

and there seem to be major issues with the internal operations of the

service to. Recently, my office as soon a huge spike in the numbers of

CMS cases we receive and from today's debate, we confirmed that

the case for many honourable members who have contributed to this debate

today. My constituents are turning to me today for help as they don't

know who to turn to. Naturally, I'm only too happy to help but I am

dismayed they are having a frustrating time dealing with the

agency directly. Huge part of the problem is when they call they are

speaking to a different advise every time who could be at a call centre

at different locations across the UK. Repeatedly we are told that they

received conflicting information and advice depending on who they speak

to. The service my office has been receiving has also declined and on

two occasions I've had to escalate cases out of sheer frustration. You

would expect by bringing the MP hotline my staff would receive the

appropriate level of service but this has not been the case. We're

also not given responses by e-mail, only by letter and this slows the

entire process down. Why can't we be given summary responses confirming

what has been discussed and disclosed by telephone? I have had

one constituent case for around 18 months now. Louise came to me

because she felt her ex was hiding money from CMS and you can get them

to look into things further. After we got involved they agreed to

escalate the case to the financial investigations unit and initially

she was advised a timescale might be six months and then it went to a

year and so on. Parents and MPs offices understand that this work is

sensitive and secretive but many parents are just left feeling

nothing is happening. Meanwhile, they are left to struggle and not

receiving maintenance payment. Regular contact from their

caseworker is essential here even if it's only to say no update.

Ultimately people want to know they have not been forgotten about. The

service I've received in this case was appalling and my office must

accord about 20 times for an update and never received a call back.

Until we escalated it to a senior level. Two separate constituents

have intimated CMS and tried to push a method when both parents have been

happy with direct pay. And adviser was instructed to do this for the

department to make money from collection fees? Another

constituent, John, came to me after receiving a letter about arrears in

his account. The arrears were extortionate. As were the proposed

monthly payments. Once they got involved, my office asked for a full

breakdown of the account and as John disputed it, and we received the

wrong information from CMS in a telephone call and were told the

arrears were approximately ?700. My case worker called the constituent

to tell him and within five minutes of hanging the phone up, we received

a further call from CMS with a correction added thousands of pounds

to the figure. Understandably, I was angry and asked for a full breakdown

and this took approximately six weeks to arrive. This case is still

ongoing, moving at a glacial pace due to the Child Maintenance

Service. Does this sound like an efficiently run service? It's clear

the system is broken. I think the rise we are seeing and the number of

cases is only the tip of the iceberg. And when my office and my

constituents don't get the service, it impacts on everyone especially

the children. So please, the Minister must act to protect them

and stop the suffering of my and other honourable members'

constituents. Thank you. I would like to pay tribute to the

honourable member for Motherwell for securing this important debate

today. This is absolutely right, parents are separated or divorced,

fulfil their obligations to their children and provide financial

support to them. As the honourable ember for Motherwell mentioned in

her opening speech, child maintenance is financial support for

a child's everyday living costs, paid by one parent to another once

they have separated from one another. It is vital as a source of

income for separated families. Is meant to work by assessing a paying

parents ability to pay, calculating the amount and if necessary

collecting and enforcing payment. However, this system has a number of

failings which is clearly outlined today. It is forcing more and more

children into poverty. Gingerbread, supporting single-parent families,

maintain the governments one size fits all approach for children from

separated families, is putting them at risk. There's real concern CMS,

brought into effect in 2012, prioritises over the interests of

children. The introduction of the three charges of ?20 application

fee, enforcement charges for nonpayment and a collective fee for

those who ask the service to administer the payment is putting

off parents who cannot afford this fee from claiming financial report

their children are entitled to. And collect unpaid, parents must

hand over 20% on top... I will cut that out as I think we've heard it a

lot. These unfair charges will impact survivors of domestic abuse

who are unable to have a family -based arrangement, fear that they

have no option but to use the service as they are frightened, too

frightened, to have a direct link to their abuser. I echo the concerns a

previous speakers and the excellent contribution the member from others

very, both personal and professional experience was clearly outlined many

of the problems today. It is a crucial and callous tax on child

support that ultimately is the children who will lose out on money

intended to support them. Crucially, the application fee can be waived

for domestic valiant victims. Around a third of applicants are given this

exemption but no such exemption exists for the collection service.

It is becoming increasingly clear that CMS has yet to deliver the

modern fit per purpose servers intended by the transition from

child support agency. That system was replaced by CMS because it was

riddled with feelings such as mistakes being made during the

assessment process and poor performance. However, CMS is

performing just as poorly. June in part to care for case management and

lack of information and training for the staff supplying the service ever

parents who continued to hamper performance of the CMS. Parents on

previous child maintenance schemes are only being invited by the

Government to apply to the new scheme. Transfer is not automatic. I

would be grateful of the Minister could explain why that transfer is

not automatic. The recent figures suggest a backlog of 4 billion in

uncollected child maintenance payments. Does the Minister agree

that this is completely unacceptable? I'm sure she does. And

can the Minister outlined what steps the Government is taking to deal

with this backlog? The money is owned by non-resident payments built

up over 22 years with figures showing that 1.2 million resident

parents are old child maintenance. These figures show that the vast

majority of child maintenance money was accumulated under the CSA

scheme. However, if the 93 million has been developed under the child

maintenance services them. The Government has failed to increase

the incentive nonresident parents to take responsibility for their

children and increase the incomes of their children as a consequence. Can

the Minister helped outline exactly how the Government is actively

pursuing unpaid trout maintenance? Will the Government provide

compensation to the families who have been left waiting for their

unpaid maintenance? The National Audit Office said in September 2016,

there were more than 1.1 million cases of arrears of though most were

from the CS a scheme. Since the introduction of the new scheme, the

National auditory office said the department has reduced the number of

enforcement actions it is taking. The Government has stated they are

offering parents a fresh start by suggesting they write off debts to

which their children are legally entitled. These are some of the

poorest children in society, suffering from as a result of

incompetence and cut and enforcement workers and important work, so why

do the Government not restore staffing levels, step up enforcement

and ensure that the new child maintenance service is obliged to

collect outstanding debts? Child maintenance can make a huge

practical difference for single parents. It can help a fuel bills,

buy clothes for children, fund school trips, put food in their

mouths and clothes on their backs. For particular vulnerable families,

including single parent families on benefits, it can also be the

difference between children growing up in poverty and not. The risk of

poverty for children in single-parent households is nearly

twice that as their children in two-parent households. This is

particularly important consent that under this Government, 4 million of

our children in the UK now live in poverty. Child maintenance alone

lifts one fifth of all income single-parent families out of

poverty. Social Security is being cut and child poverty predicted to

dramatically increase, it is more important than ever that children do

not miss out on this vital financial support. Can the Minister please

outline what steps the Government is taking to tackle the increasing

levels of child poverty in the country? Finally, one in four

families in Britain is a single-parent family and a million

and they have families rely on a Government run scheme to ensure they

get the right child maintenance. When maintenance goes under paid, it

is our children who lose out. Increasing the barriers to statutory

support is an ill-advised move. If the Government intends for more

children to benefit from maintenance arrangements, I urge the Government

to do more to make sure that these vulnerable families and children do

not lose out from these changes, but benefit from them. I called the

Minister, Caroline Noakes. It is a pleasure to serve under your

chairmanship. I would like to add my congratulations to the honourable

member for Motherwell and Wishaw for having secured this important

debate. She is totally committed to this issue and I would like to thank

her for the work she has done in raising the profile of the child

maintenance service and for the contribution she made this morning.

I would of course like to thank members on all sides and what struck

me this morning is that this is an issue which certainly transcends

party lines. We have heard from the three main parties in Westminster

and indeed from my friends in Northern Ireland and what I am very

conscious of and I think as my friends in a fuel raise the question

as to whether I felt the heat of this issue. I would like to injure

him on this beautiful spring day, I certainly do feel the heat. Members

have made me feel at this morning, but more importantly than that, much

more importantly than that, I feel the heat of this issue every single

time I open an e-mail from a parent with CARE who is not receiving the

correct amount of maintenance. I also feel it when I receive e-mails

from nonresident parents who are raising concerns about the amount

they have to contribute and whether arrears that have built up are

indeed the correct figure, so yes, I feel the heat, and I also concur

with what I think every single member has said this morning, our

first thought should be for the children. This is not a question of

nonresident parents, parents with CARE, their battles, to be quite

frank, are not of interest to me in comparison to what we feel for those

children who need the support and maintenance from both parents. I

would like to say, and I will say that at the outset, I made a comment

at the select committee which I think was last year now, a very long

time ago it seems, when I was a very new minister to this issue, that I

wanted to hear the cases. I do, because that helps me go to CMS

officials and point out where there have been failings, where we could

do better, and that matters to me. As I have said, it matters that

there should be maintenance following two children in as many

cases as possible and so I said it at the select committee, I will

repeat it again. I welcome receiving e-mails from both parents with CARE

and nonresident parents because I need to know. Although, given this

morning's news, I do not know how much longer I need to know for. I

want to be clear that the responsibility for ensuring child

maintenance is paid on time and in full lies with the pain parent.

Parents who think they have got away with not paying their maintenance as

their children grow up are not cheating the system, they are

treating their own children. The Honourable Lady for Motherwell and

Wishaw spoke of having to think about what she left out when she

composed her contribution this morning. I always think, I wake up

thinking of those children who are not receiving the correct amount of

maintenance and the words of my honourable friend the member of

Enfield Southgate will bring in my ears, that a truck was more

important than paying maintenance to children. The DWP is currently

delivering a copper heads of package of reforms to the system and those

are intended to both encourage and support parents to take

responsibility for paying for their children's upbringing. Where parents

do not meet their responsibilities, the statutory scheme is there to

enforce payments. Honourable members have mentioned repeatedly this

morning, and they are right to do so, the old system, the Child

support agency, which did not provide direct support to parents

and was expensive to run. Members have acknowledged that the bulk of

our readers that have been referred to a crude under the former CSA. The

new system run by the child maintenance system is meant to

address some of the shortcomings of CSA and we have learned from the

mistakes of the past. Where the previous system off and drove a

wedge between parents, the new system is determined to encourage

collaboration at every stage. The evidence that we have shows that

parental collaboration has a direct, positive impact on children's

outcomes such as health, emotional well-being and indeed their academic

attainment. We know that a constructive into parental

relationship, whether parents are together or separated, will improve

the outcomes for children. The new child maintenance options service

act as a gateway to the scheme, ensuring parents are given the

information and support they need to create an arrangement which is right

for them, whether that is a family -based arrangement or a statutory

one. Our agents receive specialist training to help them deal

sensitively with clients and tailored support is delivered by

phone, live web chat and e-mail. The child maintenance options has helped

one quarter of clients to contact them set up family -based agreements

which we know are better for children in the long term and the

number of parents who have made an effective arrangement following

contact with them has increased in the first two quarters of 2016 from

82% to 87%. We know that maintenance arrangements, while important, are

just one of the many issues that parents face when they separate. Our

agents are also able to sign books parents to a wide range of

organisations that can provide specialist support and advice on

issues they may need help with in their relationships. These charges,

of which we have heard this morning, were introduced in 2014 to provide a

further incentive for parents to collaborate and we know that

collaboration works in the best interests of the children. Whilst

this service is primarily funded by the taxpayer, the charges contribute

a small amount, helping to offset some of the costs associated with

providing the service, but it is a small amount, in the region of 10%.

All of these measures are designed to encourage parents who can to make

their own family -based arrangement and it is perhaps inevitable that

the families who end up in the statutory scheme will be the ones

for whom this is the most difficult. I do think it is important to

reflect on this point because parents who can collaborate to do.

Those who are committed to working together seldom come within the

orbit of the CMS. Therefore, it follows that the parents with whom

we have contacts are the ones who are most likely to have conflict, to

have difficulties and it's a truth that as the Honourable member for

Strangford said, family -based arrangements are the ideal solution.

They provide the best outcomes and we do not want parents to have to

come within a statutory scheme. But, of course, we acknowledge that is

not always possible. We continue to use all the tools at our disposal to

maintain compliance and recover arrears, but it is inevitable that

some will accrue. Some parents go to great lengths to avoid their

responsibilities. I think at the end of last year, I've visited our CMS

Centre in Hastings and spoke to the enforcement team and the financial

investigation unit. I was very impressed by their professionalism

and dedication but also struck by how difficult job is. Perhaps it is

inevitable in a buoyant employment market that nonresident parents will

find it easier to change job than where it is the economy not so good.

We have heard from various Honourable members are one of the

significant problems lies with the self-employed and with company

directors and, of course, it is there that we have the biggest

challenges. The financial investigation unit and the

enforcement teams are determined to do what they can, using the powers

that are already available to them. We can at present make deductions

from single held bank accounts, not from joint bank accounts, and are

looking at how we can best use our powers to increase that to joint

bank accounts because I am very conscious that there are some

nonresident parents who will hide assets and income within the bank

accounts of other family members and it is those sorts of abuses that we

desperately need to address and it will form part of our every strategy

which will be publishing later in the spring, notwithstanding my

earlier comment about this morning's announcement. I promised the

Honourable Lady for Motherwell and Wishaw that I would leave her some

time to conclude. I am conscious I have been short of time and you will

see I have a mass of information that I would like the opportunity to

share with all Honourable members. By parting shot to you all is, if we

are to have in the strategy and an enforcement strategy that really

works, we need to be creative. We need to be determined to do it on my

door is always open to members who wish to come forward with new and

innovative ideas as to how we can best make parents take

responsibility for their children. I call Marion Fellows for about 45

seconds! Welder Minister please send her notes, the things she was unable

to give to us, because we all want to know what she may have left. None

of us can say we will be here after the next election, but this issue

will not go away and needs to be addressed.

As many are of the opinion, say aye. I think the ayes habit. Order,

order. Order, order. I Caulker Saint Oswald

to move the motion. It is a pleasure to serve under you, the House has

considered the relationship between considered the relationship between

the Serious Fraud Office and other agencies. This debate because of

concerns investment losses by my constituents and the chair of the

all-party group on income fund. As a new member of the House, I am coming

fresh to an issue many other longer standard people have considered. I

make no apology for that. Also I'm not a lawyer, so I don't intend to

get into legal principles underlying the work of the Serious Fraud

Office. Having participated in a debate on funding, I was interested

to hear talk of the need to make changes to legal frameworks. I thank

the library for the support it has provided, I founded summary helpful

in confirming there is a problem, certainly our perception, possibly

also of the balance of the law. And I quote, the enforcement of field of

financial services is surprisingly complicated. It involves a matrix of

law and rules overseen by different bodies, agencies or regulators. It

often contradicts a common-sense view of what actually is a crime. In

preparing for that debate, I was amazed to learn of what I consider

to be under resourcing of the Serious Fraud Office. ?60 million is

the budget, should we be denoted net? Why should there be an increase

in capacity? In a recent speech, Megan Butler of the Financial

Conduct Authority identified the banking sector alone estimates its

cost at some ?5 million a year. In that context, the annual cost of the

SFL seems remarkably low, and increasing it does seem to be

worthwhile. Some honourable members may have helped put in place a

legislative framework that appears to have so badly failed my

constituents and others caught up in the scandal. A debate on

relationship between the SFO and other agencies may help them

consider whether they view the current situation as satisfactory.

Mr Paisley, when we look at it in detail, we must look at issues in

sequence, we must decide the balance we want to see between the criminal

law and a regular tree framework, and only when that is click can we

allocate responsibility to the relevant agency. I would say two

examples of where the balance is perceived to be wrong. First,

despite the banking sector bringing UK economy to the brink of collapse,

very few individuals have faced sanctions, whether regular tree or

criminal following the 2008 crisis. Second, the relationship between

benchmarks in which billions of pounds, was not until recently a

specific offence. By contrast, and in a crypt mortgage application has

long been classified as mortgage fraud, and many applicants and their

advisers have faced prosecution of such a crime. If law enforcement was

similarly lapse in response to any other explosion of what most of us

regard as crime, there would be outraged. But instead what we are

seeing is an increasing citizen and appeared there is one law for them

and another law for us, and we need to address that cynicism. The former

father of the House did not always see eye to eye with my party.

However, he did leave a great legacy as a parliamentarian. During his

campaign over the sinking of the Belgrano, he highlighted the

principle that small inconsistencies tend to be part of larger

inconsistencies and seemingly small things are part of larger things.

I'm thinking about that issue, it struck me that if this House could

not understand why such a fraudulent enterprise was able to operate for

so long, and its perpetrators to go undetected for so long, we could

have little confidence that the system for regulating financial

services are fit for purpose. Mr Paisley, I make no pretence of

having an answer, by holding this debate I provide the Minister will

have an opportunity to reassure the House that the government thinks it

understands and that it does propose to take steps to prevent a

recurrence. An investigation into the fund is underway and idyllic

forward to the outcome. However, much information is already in the

public domain. In brief, it was an investment vehicle launched in 2008

under the title the guaranteed low risk investment fund. Members of a

certain vintage, like myself, might recall the wily EQ deep cartoons, in

which a coyote bought items. The devices misfired or backfired, so

calling a phone that promise a high rate of return guaranteed low risk

might raise a session and it was just the sort of product sold by

trading. But this phone did not come. The guaranteed low risk front

was fully signed up with a capital grant. Capita describes itself as

UK's leading customer business and professional support organisation.

Indeed, a few years ago, the Ministry of Justice brought Cabot

inti operate a contract at the concerns were raised about the

original operators. Capita is known to sit close to the heart of the

UK's financial services sector. So invested would rightly expect

officers authorising the use of the brand to have a higher version, they

would not expect that name to be allied with an obvious scam. But

unfortunately for investors, the supposedly guaranteed low risk fund

proved no better at performing than a trade rocket and careered out of

control from day one. Four years later, the fund now rebranded hit

the wall, taking the savings of over 1000 investors weathered, with

losses of over ?100 million. Less than a third of which has been

recovered. Mr Paisley, we know the fund careered out of control from

day one because one of the participants said so in the case.

The QC sitting as a deputy judge stated that in his view, passages

within the fund 's information memorandum aware, and I quote,

suggestive of an intention that the fund would lend directly to the

ultimate board work arriving in the loan. However, the evidence given in

court by Michael Davis, at the centre of the fund, was that this

was never the intention. However, they might have been expressed. From

the start, the funds went to a single group of companies.

Immediately they view some of the funds to replace De Groot's past

dodgy investments. Mr pacey, I hope the origin of this fund is the

product of a highly regulated financial services firm, central to

the inquiry. I believe it should also be of interest to the Serious

Fraud Office. If it is not, there must be something seriously wrong

with the body of law and are planning financial services sector.

Without capita, as operator boosting the funds, it may never have got off

the ground, saving a lot of people a great deal of money and distress.

And we do know a lot about the operation, because of whistle-blower

George Catullus. In 2011, shortly after becoming its chief exec 11, he

approached the SFA with clear evidence of Chuter defrauding the

fund. In a recent finding, the complaints Commissioner expressed

doubts about whether at the time the SFA considered whether fraud had

occurred. Indeed the FSA delayed acting on sharing his allegations

for appropriately 18 months, allowing them to read in millions of

pounds more from investors and to pass then to tutor to disappear. The

companies in the group entered administration in 2012 and went into

insolvent liquidation. When the information given by him was passed

on, despite the scale of losses identified by this time, it wasn't

passed to the SFO, it was passed to the City of London Police. Mr

Paisley, it seems the FSA was reluctant to do anything that

flagged up this case as one of fraud. Especially as it had been

allowed to continue for so long under their watch. It is now six

years since Mr Patel is made his report to the FSA. In these

circumstances, the likelihood of any court action against the

participants being challenged on the grounds of delay must be high. When

I look the detail of the agreements between the SFO to cover

circumstances such as this, I was disappointed at what I found. The

SFO's website contains protocols, an agreement with the SAA is not

listed. Their own enforcement Gade makes no reference to fraud or a

relationship would be SFO. In 2014, two other directors were

disqualified for a combined total of 16 years. The insolvency service

cited their failure to the relationship as the key factor in

the failure of the fund. I'm not sure what conclusion could draw

other than that the nature of this relationship, which was fundamental

to the operation and had functioned the nearly four years, was not an

accident. But again, there appears to be no published agreement between

the insolvency service and the SFO, or at least there is not one on

either website. In the case of the insolvency service, there is a

reference in his guidance to the possibility that if an offence may

have been committed, this may result in a report to the appropriate

investigating authority. One of the key event in the light of the fund

came in September 2009, year after the fund was open. Capita stepped

down and was replaced. Surprisingly it seemed this change triggered no

requirement for Jude dividends and no warranty in respect of the

operation of the fund -- due diligence. The departure the fund

and the conflict of interest on its side must have been well known by

that time because one of the early axe blue gate was to issue a new

information memorandum, which apparently brought the terms of the

funds's memorandum into close alignment. One might have expected

the discovery of this discrepancy would have resulted in some action,

other than for them to seek to align the paperwork with a practice they

had inherited. I note that in some areas, system are suspicious

activity report has been established. In 2014 to 15, over

300,000 reports were submitted, a volume of reporting underpinned by

the clear identification that it is a criminal offence to fail to report

knowledge or concerns about money-laundering or if someone may

be gathered money to fund terrorism. It seems the operation became

practice in using funds to make the running costs with elements of the

group's cows been falsified to overstate the assets. As chief

executive, Mr Patel is initiated a protest, including whether it should

declare its insolvency. In his report to the FSA, he highlights

directors continue to draw high salaries and benefits and

consultants establish regular felines, despite being aware of new

funds would been consumed with no plan in place of the group to be

return to stability. Surely in terms of the FSA principles, the

participants should have been obliged to report their knowledge

and concerns. By departing so markedly from the information

memorandum, they had collectively followed into the way of publishing

false information. I can think of no reason why the people who were aware

of this fraud should not have been under an obligation to report to the

SCA or the FSO, that the funds are being handled in a way which did not

match up with the information memorandum. Instead of being met by

confusion, as occurred with the report, the instruction of a formal

mechanism may provide clarity the system needs. And I was already

highlighted, if an ordinary citizen had committed a comparable level of

dishonesty in computing a mortgage application, they would face

investigation with a view to a criminal prosecution. Is it right

that those embedded in our financial services sector should be protected

from such investigations? Or should we ensure early involvement by the

FSO for the police? In conclusion, I want to mention the senior managers

regime was in previous surveys I have decided as a solution to many

of the problems experienced in the sector. Having looked at some of the

consultation materials issued as part of putting the regime in place,

I have doubts that will be the case. The consultation paper on duty of

responsibility but senior managers appear to contain a reference to

fraud and no reference to the FSO. If I have missed it or if it is

buried, I would be happy to have it highlighted, but if I haven't missed

it or it is in there, that the striking as an admission that must

be corrected. I found the discussion paper on the legal function even

more concerning because it opens the prospect of the firm's heads of

legal function being excluded from it. In terms of issues such as the

design of investment and the operation, regulated should not have

any close but. It strikes me we still have some way to go to

properly embed a broad aware approach into the red literary

framework of the financial services sector. Two ways, and I will be here

the Minister's opinions, which can be done would be to properly

resourced the SFO and create a much stronger links between the work of

the SFO. I look forward to hearing the Commons and all these points.

The question is at the House has considered the relationship between

the Serious Fraud Office and other agencies. I call the Solicitor

General. It's a pleasure to serve and your

chairmanship and I congratulate the member for East River ship bringing

forward this debate. I noted the remark she made in the debate that

we held on an associate issue with the FSO in February of this year and

can I pay tribute to her and colleagues for raising what is

undoubtedly a very serious issue that has caused real loss to those

who invested in the cannot scheme. She has listed her concerns and

rightfully reflected the fact that she has already raised these with

the FCA and she will appreciate, of course, that the Financial Conduct

Authority is a separate, independent body and I are not empowered to give

the House to date a commentary about its, but I can say it is still

ongoing. It is a complex one and it is fully appreciated that many