Official Report 811KB pdf
The final item of business is a members’ business debate on motion S7M-00974, in the name of Steven Bonnar, on child maintenance and protecting children and families in Scotland. The debate will be concluded without any question being put.
Motion debated,
That the Parliament recognises what it considers to be the significant impact that failures within the UK Child Maintenance Service can have on children and families in Scotland; notes the concerns highlighted by the recent BBC Panorama investigation into the operation of the service; acknowledges the experiences of Scottish families who are struggling to secure maintenance payments to which their children are entitled, including those in the Uddingston and Bellshill constituency; notes the belief that children in Scotland should not bear the consequences of failures within a reserved UK system; recognises the Scottish Government's commitment to supporting children and families within its devolved responsibilities, and notes the calls for continued engagement between the Scottish and UK governments to ensure that the experiences and voices of Scottish families are properly reflected in the reform of the Child Maintenance Service and that future reforms better protect children and families across Scotland.
17:42
Child maintenance is a reserved matter, but its impact is anything but reserved. It is felt in homes and communities across Scotland, and ultimately it is children who feel the consequences when the system fails. When the system gets it wrong, the consequences are real. Incorrect calculations can leave families with less money to live on. Prolonged disputes can erode already fragile relationships between separated parents and put strain on new relationships and family life. These are not simply administrative failures—they affect people’s finances, their wellbeing and their trust in the United Kingdom system.
I begin with the experience of one of my constituents, who is with us in the public gallery. Gerry’s dealings with the child maintenance service date back to 2007. Since then, he has spent years just trying to establish what has happened in his case, which raises extraordinary concerns for us all. A child who did not exist was recorded on his claim. How is that even possible? Manual adjustments were then made to his financial records, liabilities were presumed and years were spent in trying to get answers.
I ask colleagues to imagine the impact of suddenly being told, while they are in a new relationship, that they need to pay for another child who they have no knowledge of. The financial implications are obvious, but so too are the implications for building trust in the new relationship with a new partner. Government malpractice on that scale destroys lives and relationships, yet nobody is held accountable.
In Gerry’s case, all of that was followed by years of disputes and attempts to establish what exactly had happened. The potential impact on an individual and on a family is enormous. Even obtaining his own records became a struggle for Gerry, with redactions, parts missing and manual manipulation of his file. That all came to light through a fuller disclosure that was provided only after he complained to the Information Commissioner’s Office.
Ultimately, my constituent was left having to investigate the CMS’s own records to establish what had gone wrong in his case. That should concern us all because, whatever the circumstances of an individual case, people should be able to have confidence that a public service is keeping accurate records, explaining its decisions transparently and providing a meaningful route by which to challenge mistakes when they occur.
My constituent’s experience does not exist in isolation. Organisers working with separated families have raised concerns over many years about administration and malpractice in the child maintenance system. That includes correspondence being lost, different advice being given by different call handlers, and difficulties around the calculation of liabilities and overnight stays, which can mean that a parent may be financially better off by spending less time with their child.
The recent BBC “Panorama” investigation has brought wider concerns about the operations of the child maintenance service into sharp public focus. I recognise that individual cases must be considered on their own evidence—I completely agree with that sentiment. However, when individual casework sits alongside wider concerns about administration, communication, enforcement and redress, it is right that we ask whether the system is working as it should.
I have tried to get answers on my constituent’s behalf. On 18 August, I wrote to ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions for a senior-level intervention in Gerry’s case after he featured in the “Panorama” documentary. I also wrote to the director of the child maintenance service. I asked for a senior review of the case, including the financial records, payments, manual adjustments and handling of Gerry’s subject access request. Given the history of the case, I made it clear that simply sending my constituent back through the same processes that he had already navigated was not acceptable. It is now more than a month since those letters were sent, and I am still waiting for responses from both parties. That raises a wider question about accountability. When a Scottish constituent is dealing with a UK Government service, where does accountability ultimately sit when things go drastically wrong?
That brings me to the wider question that I wish to put on the record. Scotland has developed a significant framework of support for children and families within the powers that are available to the Parliament. We have the Scottish child payment, the best start grant and the best start foods payment, and we have the disability payment for children and other forms of devolved social security. We have 1,140 hours of funded early learning and childcare for all three and four-year-olds and eligible two-year-olds.
Those policies are different in purpose and design, but they recognise something important, which is that supporting children is about not simply one payment or service but all the circumstances in which children grow up, the needs that they have and the support that is available to their families. However, child maintenance sits outside that framework. A Scottish family can interact with Social Security Scotland, Scottish education, Scottish courts and family law and Scottish childcare services, which are all designed to support our children, while the important source of financial support following family separation is being dealt with through a failing UK Government system. When the system fails, the consequences do not stay in Westminster; they arrive at kitchen tables in Scotland.
I was struck by the submission that was made to the Smith commission in 2014 by Families Need Fathers Scotland, which is now known as Shared Parenting Scotland. It proposed that
“child support … should be devolved to Holyrood.”
The organisation argued
“that family policy, legislation and administration should be”
brought closer together to create a more “coherent” and less fragmented approach to supporting families and children. It went on to argue that it was
“fundamentally wrong that child support and family law should”
operate
“on separate, effectively divergent, tracks.”
That submission was made 12 years ago. Considering the problems that families are still facing today, it is now reasonable to ask whether the position deserves to be revisited.
Devolution of the CMS system would not be without challenges, of course. That submission recognised questions around cost and difficulties that could arise when parents live in different parts of the United Kingdom. However, families do not experience issues as separate constitutional issues; they experience them as their family life.
Gerry’s experience should not be the experience of any family trying to navigate child maintenance. No parent should have to spend time investigating a system to find out what has happened in their own case, and no child should bear the financial and emotional consequence when that system fails. That is why I have secured the debate, that is why these issues matter and that is why I hope colleagues will support the motion.
17:50
I thank my colleague Steven Bonnar for bringing this important issue to the chamber.
Child maintenance is a proven lever for reducing child poverty, and getting its delivery right is essential to upholding children’s rights. Non-custodial parents have a moral responsibility to contribute fairly to the financial costs of raising their children. Mr Bonnar has shared with us that he has dealt with cases where constituents have spent years trying to navigate the child maintenance service, hitting delay after delay. That should concern us all.
Sadly, that is also very much the case for my own constituents. For example, one of my constituents had provided the CMS with publicly available evidence about their ex-partner’s employment and income status. The evidence was provided over the course of several years—and the child maintenance was due over that period. My constituent had concerns about benefit and tax fraud, so the case spanned multiple UK governmental agencies: the CMS, the Department for Work and Pensions and HM Revenue and Customs. There seemed to be a complete lack of cross-agency accountability, with no department willing to take the lead to properly investigate and no apparent mechanism for instigating cross-departmental review when agencies’ roles overlapped.
Unsurprisingly, the emotional and financial strain on my constituent was immense. Having contacted the CMS, I received a response that, save for a few personal details about my constituent, was so generic that it could have been sent to any number of individuals. After I replied to detail the effects on my constituent and their children yet again, I received a response suggesting that my constituent could complete an online form to provide more information if they disagreed with departmental policy. That was utterly staggering.
As my colleague Steven Bonnar said, that was lacking in any accountability. Such correspondence is not the hallmark of a UK Government agency that is fit for purpose and responsive to service users’ needs—or, in this instance, to the need to take measures to protect public moneys.
The “Panorama” documentary clearly documented the scale of the issues with the CMS, and it shone much-needed light on the impact on families and children. Since 2012, £790 million of child maintenance has remained unpaid, with the National Audit Office estimating that that amount will hit £1 billion by 2031. One Parent Families Scotland tells us that, if maintenance was paid to all children who currently do not receive what they are entitled to, a total of £200 million would be paid to around 100,000 children across Scotland.
It is very clear that the CMS is a UK Government service that is performing very poorly. However, this is not simply an issue about its key performance indicators. Behind every delay, arbitrary decision or generic response there are children who are missing out.
What the UK Government started in 2012 was an austerity measure dressed up as reform. Trying to minimise statutory support for making and maintaining arrangements has been a failed experiment. It has resulted in the creaking service that we have today, which too often fails to enforce payments or adequately safeguard women and children who experience domestic abuse.
Eradicating child poverty is critically important to the Scottish Government, and our policies are estimated to be keeping 100,000 children out of relative poverty this year.
The child maintenance service is not fit for purpose. Warm words will not put money in parents’ pockets. I support the third sector organisations that support those who are fighting for their just cause with the CMS.
17:55
I thank Steven Bonnar for bringing this debate to the chamber and for raising the horrendous case of his constituent. It made us understand in real terms what the situation is like.
It is right that the Parliament discusses every issue that affects our constituents in Scotland and looks to find solutions here and by working with our United Kingdom colleagues. I note that the motion mentions working with our UK colleagues and the UK Government, and I hope that I can play my part after the debate in doing anything that I can to support that.
As we have heard, child maintenance is money that helps to pay for children’s everyday living costs across families who are divided. The child maintenance service collects and enforces financial support and has an important responsibility in relation to supporting families and ensuring that children’s costs are shared between their parents. As Clare Haughey said, it has an important role to play in Scotland in relation to child poverty and other issues. Steven Bonnar’s speech showed the emotional impact of what is happening, and we have to take that very seriously.
We know that the CMS supports huge numbers of children and processes hundreds of thousands of arrangements. The experiences of those in the BBC investigation are evidence that the system is not working—many people knew that that was the case before the BBC investigation. The system is supposed to deliver for each and every one of its users. When that does not happen, the Government in charge absolutely has to address those shortcomings.
As we have heard, child maintenance is a reserved matter and is managed through reserved arrangements. Therefore, the responsibility for fixing the system ultimately lies with the UK Government, but it is important that we hold the UK Government to account, in the interests of our constituents.
I want to put on the record some of the things that I looked at while I was preparing for the debate and some of the things that we need to press the UK Government on.
It is important to note that the UK Government has recognised that more must be done to deliver a fairer and more trustworthy service. This month, the UK Government confirmed that the child maintenance service is delivering a modernisation programme to improve customer access, efficiency and transparency. Given what the last two speakers have said, it is important that we hold the UK Government to account in that regard.
I am pleased to hear that the current Westminster Government is going to review the CMS. I do not think that anyone in the chamber could argue that it is not beyond time for doing that. Will Carol Mochan commit to working on a cross-party basis to ensure that whatever is put forward by the UK Government is fit for purpose and serves people—mainly women and children—who require to get access to their maintenance?
I thank Clare Haughey for that intervention, as one of the points that I want to make is about cross-party working in this parliamentary session.
The UK Government has committed to doing other things, including improving digital communication and enhancing data sharing. We have heard about some of the replies that members have received, and it seems that not all of the necessary data is available. Identifying where there is non-compliance is extremely important.
The UK Government has confirmed that it will remove direct pay altogether and move to a single, strengthened collect and pay service. That will enable the service to monitor all payments, identify missing or partial payments more quickly and take faster enforcement actions, which I think is an important step. I am not completely familiar with the system, and I have not had a constituent come to me with issues about it. However, from what the previous speakers have said, it seems that the way in which enforcement happens is quite difficult to understand, and people find it hard to navigate the system to find out what is happening.
It is perhaps worth mentioning that the Department for Work and Pensions recently published research, which was commissioned as part of the wider evidence base that is being used to inform the DWP’s review of child maintenance calculations. The research examines the reasons given by paying and receiving parents for why they did not pay or receive the fully calculated amount of maintenance.
I know that I am short of time, so I will finish up. I echo the motion, which calls on the Scottish and UK Governments to continue to engage on this issue. If we want to get it right, we need to have meaningful discussion about that.
18:00
I am going to focus more on the aspect of protecting children and families, as I speak not only as a member of this Parliament but as a divorced mother of four who has lived through the reality of family breakdown.
When my family separated, our priority was simple: stability for our children. At the time, we were living in the Netherlands, where separation is approached largely through mediation rather than adversarial litigation. We practised shared parenting through an arrangement known as nesting, where the children remain in the family home while the parents move between residences. It was not easy, and it will not be right for every family, but it gave our children continuity, routine and security. Most importantly, it allowed both of us parents to remain actively involved in their lives and took maintenance payments out of the question.
The experience taught me that shared parenting should never be about adult entitlement. The starting point must always be with the child—their welfare, their voice, their safety and their right to stable family relationships—because family separation can be profoundly unsettling for the children. They may be adapting to new routines, moving between homes and trying to navigate significant change while maintaining important relationships. However, shared parenting cannot simply be a slogan. It must be practical, flexible, safe and tailored to the individual needs of each child.
Where it is safe and appropriate, children benefit from those meaningful relationships with both parents. Children benefit when parents remain involved in everyday life and when adults communicate respectfully without placing children in the middle of any conflict.
The rights of the child must remain central to every decision, and children should be listened to, supported to understand what is happening and given opportunities to express their views. They should never be asked to choose between parents or carry the burdens of adult disagreements.
Safety must also be non-negotiable, because shared parenting is clearly not appropriate when there is violence, abuse, coercive control, neglect or genuine fear. A child’s right to maintain relationships can never override their right to protection from harm. However, when safety is assured, we should not allow conflict or outdated assumptions to damage important relationships not only with parents but with grandparents, siblings and other trusted adults who provide continuity, reassurance and love.
That is why mediation, parenting plans, counselling, child contact centres and early interventions matter. They help families resolve conflict and keep the focus where it belongs: on the child. However, we must also recognise that disputes following separation are often about more than just contact arrangements. They are frequently about money, as is the focus of the debate.
Child maintenance helps to meet a child’s everyday needs, and both parents remain responsible for those costs, as has been articulated well by Steven Bonnar, Clare Haughey and Carol Mochan. Unfortunately, too many families find that the current child maintenance service does not meet expectations. Too many receiving parents struggle to secure payments to which their children are entitled, and too many paying parents report errors, delays and poor administration.
When the system fails, it is always the children who pay the price. Whatever side of the system they are on, families deserve better, and children should not bear the consequences of failures in a UK-reserved system. Therefore, I support the motion whole-heartedly.
In Scotland, family law, child welfare and decisions about contact and residence are largely devolved, but statutory child maintenance remains reserved. That division creates too much complexity for families, and I believe that there is a strong case for devolving child maintenance to the Scottish Parliament, so that support for children can be considered alongside the wider family justice system. I call on ministers to work towards that.
Ultimately, Scotland must hold two truths together—that children are entitled to safety, stability and protection from adult conflict and that, whenever it is safe and practical, they should be supported to maintain meaningful relationships with both parents and the wider family members who matter to them.
If we are serious about making Scotland the best place in the world in which to grow up, we must ask one simple question whenever families separate: not which adult wins, but what this child needs to feel safe, loved, heard and able to thrive. That is the foundation of shared parenting done well and children’s rights in practice, and it is the standard to which Scotland should aspire.
18:05
I thank Steven Bonnar for securing this important debate, and I thank members who are present in the chamber for their contributions. We have heard personal stories about the impact on families and on children of a system that is failing.
We have heard only a few stories this evening, but I know that failures have impacted thousands and thousands of families for many, many years—as I, personally, have been failed through the system.
In his opening speech, Steven Bonnar mentioned the failures of the CMS, and I am really sorry to hear about the experience of his constituent, Gerry. That is totally unacceptable. Going through the system can be extremely stressful for families; it is a long and emotionally draining process. As all the members who have spoken have mentioned, the question is about who is accountable. No one ever seems to be accountable for what happens.
Members have called for the CMS to be devolved to Scotland, as its functions are reserved to Westminster. The First Minister has previously said in the chamber that there are currently no plans to establish a Scottish child maintenance service. In saying that, the Scottish Government does recognise arguments in favour of an integrated approach to family support, and we acknowledge that the question regarding future devolution merits consideration.
From Carol Mochan’s speech, it was good to hear that the current UK Government has recognised that the system is failing. It is positive to hear that members from across the parties are willing to work together to ensure that any changes deliver for the families and children of Scotland.
It was interesting to hear about Dawn Black’s experience in the Netherlands—about shared parenting and things being done in a totally different way there, and about how beneficial that is for families and for children. There are so many ways in which we can learn from other nations.
The Scottish Government recognises the importance of a child maintenance system that works for the families who need it. Sadly, as we have heard tonight, that is simply not the case for too many. The reality of the current service is highlighted in the important work conducted by One Parent Families Scotland, in partnership with Fife Gingerbread and the Institute for Public Policy Research Scotland. Those organisations engaged with parents with lived experience to understand the challenges that they faced, and their final report, which was published in October last year, sets out recommendations for transformational change that could help improve the financial security of children and lone-parent families.
The scale of what can be achieved is clear. IPPR Scotland estimates that 20,000 Scottish children could be lifted out of relative poverty if families were properly supported to navigate the child maintenance system and to access the money that they are owed.
Responsibility for the child maintenance service rests solely with the UK Government at the moment, and the failings that have been highlighted are that Government’s alone. While the Scottish Government has welcomed the UK Government’s recognition of the need for reform, as set out in the child poverty strategy, the actions that have been committed to fall short of the transformation that stakeholders have called for.
We are not content to sit idly by and point fingers at the failings of Westminster, so the Scottish Government is taking action. This year we are investing more than £270,000 in a new child maintenance project, led by One Parent Families Scotland and Fife Gingerbread. That project is helping to provide information and advice nationally to train front-line advice workers and to deliver specialist advice for families with complex circumstances, including those experiencing domestic abuse.
We are also investing more than £99,000 over the next two years, through the child poverty practice accelerator fund, to build on the innovative work taken forward by Fife Council and Fife Gingerbread. Our investment is enabling learning from that project to be expanded into Edinburgh, which will help to improve the support that is available to families, including by training more financial inclusion and family support workers to feel more confident about discussing child maintenance.
In addition to mitigating the failings of the child maintenance service, we are investing £159 million this year to mitigate the effect of UK Government welfare policies, including the benefit cap, the bedroom tax and the freeze on local housing allowance rates. We have repeatedly called on the UK Government to scrap those cruel policies, and we have again urged the chancellor to take action at the budget next month.
This mitigation forms part of the much broader action that we are taking to drive progress on our defining mission of eradicating child poverty. The “Bringing Hope, Building Futures: Tackling child poverty delivery plan 2026-2031” sets out concrete action to increase families’ incomes, reduce the cost of living, and support children and their families to thrive. That includes investing £40 million to deliver new transport and skills support for parents to help boost their earnings. It includes continued investment in our five family payments, which provide unparalleled financial support to families, and it strengthens them by increasing our Scottish child payment to £40 for children under the age of one. The plan also includes action to tackle the cost of living crisis, including through continued investment in funded early learning and childcare and free school meals.
Our action is making a real difference and is estimated to be keeping 100,000 children out of relative poverty this year. The Scottish Government recognises the significant challenges and failings in the current child maintenance service and the impact that transformational change could have on families across the country. We have repeatedly called on the UK Government to raise its ambition and deliver the change that is needed.
I really welcome this debate. I assure members that we will ensure that learning is shared from the projects that we are funding and that we will work constructively with the UK Government to reflect the experiences of families in Scotland.
Meeting closed at 18:12.
Previous
Decision Time