House of Commons · Bill Debate
09 December 2022 · 14 other contributors
Opened by Siobhan Baillie Con Stroud
Summarised by AI from the official record, so it can contain mistakes.
Siobhan Baillie raised concerns about child maintenance service amendment bill - clause 1 (removal of requirement for liability order in certain circumstances) in the House of Commons. Other MPs contributed to the debate.
Key points
MPs spoke in turn to share their views and ask questions. Here's what each person said.
Opened the debate
The amendment aims to improve the recovery of arrears from parents who fail to meet their financial obligations. It seeks to streamline the process by removing the requirement for a liability order, thereby reducing delays and improving efficiency in collecting child maintenance payments. The current system is time-consuming and often takes months to obtain a liability order, causing significant hardship for single parents and their children who rely on these payments.
Emphasises the importance of quick enforcement measures to support families in need. Proposes legislative changes that would allow for quicker and cheaper processes, ensuring more timely collection of child maintenance payments. Cites the financial impact on single parents who rely on these payments to cover basic living expenses.
Asked for an indication of delays currently experienced in obtaining a liability order, highlighting the procedural step that creates delay. Implied support for the amendment's aim to address this issue.
Expressed support for the Bill, suggesting a conversation between lead MP Siobhan Baillie and Sally-Ann Hart (Hastings and Rye) to ensure this Bill dovetails with Hart's domestic abuse-related legislation.
Complements the work of Siobhan Baillie, supporting her amendment due to its coercive measures against non-paying parents. Emphasises the importance of direct pay enforcement mechanisms and highlights personal experience with constituents seeking help in chasing absent or non-compliant parents.
Highlights the disproportionate impact of child maintenance non-payment on women and single-parent families, citing statistics from Gingerbread research and the National Audit Office. Criticises delays in enforcement mechanisms and welcomes the Bill's intention to reduce such delays.
Supports the Bill, recognising that while most relationships involving children maintain financial support voluntarily, a minority face breaches. Emphasises the importance of reducing delays in enforcement to prevent significant arrears, citing an example from his constituency.
Supports the Bill, highlighting its importance in improving the child support system and reducing arrears. Emphasises that parents have a legal responsibility to financially support their children. Discusses the current issues with enforcement, particularly mentioning the difficulties faced by separated families and the high level of arrears. Argues for more effective enforcement measures, supporting the Bill's aim to streamline this process.
Mr. Kruger supports the Bill and emphasises that preventing family breakdown is crucial for child welfare. He cites statistics from the National Audit Office indicating a significant number of families with ineffective arrangements. Mr. Kruger acknowledges the effectiveness of the 2012 reforms but notes ongoing issues, such as non-payments or payments not made in full. He provides examples of constituent cases illustrating both parental frustration and bureaucratic inefficiency within the CMS. He concludes by praising his colleague's efforts and supporting the Government’s stance.
Mr. Evans supports the Bill, highlighting its potential to improve child maintenance compliance. He expresses gratitude towards his colleague for her dedication and notes that about 280,000 children see their parents separate annually, emphasising the importance of legislative measures like this one. Mr. Evans acknowledges the progress made by previous Governments but argues that further action is necessary given current challenges. He supports the DWP's efforts to strengthen enforcement and prevent evasion of financial obligations.
Supports the principle of non-resident parents paying child maintenance and enforcement by the state. Acknowledges the importance of reducing child poverty through maintenance payments but expresses concern over enforcement issues due to pandemic-related challenges. Questions the wide-ranging powers granted to the Secretary of State regarding appeals, seeking reassurance on their use.
The speaker supports the Bill, highlighting its importance in reducing parent conflict and ensuring children receive support from both parents. She emphasised that approximately 140,000 fewer children are living in poverty due to child maintenance payments through CMS, noting a total of £1 billion-worth of support arranged or collected in the past year.
The MP intervened to question why 25% is set as the cut-off for income changes that trigger a CMS review, suggesting lower thresholds could be considered.
He emphasised the need to address the issue of parents prevented from seeing their children and highlighted that efforts should also focus on ensuring access to children in addition to collecting maintenance.
Although briefly mentioned, Matt Rodda raised concerns about administrative efficiency issues with the CMS and universal credit. He supported the Bill as a step towards resolving these challenges.