Child MaintenanceGuide UK
How It Works12 min read3 April 2026

What DWP Told the House of Lords About the CMS - and What They Did Not Say

In March 2025, senior DWP officials gave evidence to the House of Lords Public Services Committee about the Child Maintenance Service. Here is what they said, what the numbers actually show, and where the official story does not match the experience of real parents.

How to read this article: On 19 March 2025, senior DWP officials gave oral evidence to the House of Lords Public Services Committee as part of an inquiry into the Child Maintenance Service. This article summarises what was said. The statements below are those of the DWP witnesses - not independently verified facts. Where the committee pushed back, or where what was said conflicts with the documented experience of parents, we note it. Parliamentary hearings of this kind often produce polished official accounts. The gaps and admissions are frequently more informative than the headlines.

Who was in the room

The witnesses were four senior DWP officials:

  • Simon Hunter - Director of the Child Maintenance Service, responsible for strategy and performance
  • Duncan Gilchrist - Deputy Director for child maintenance policy
  • Elaine Squires - Deputy Director for income, family and disadvantage analysis
  • Chris Smith - Deputy Director for Child Maintenance Delivery Assurance, focused on modernisation

The committee was chaired by Baroness Morris of Yardley. This was the first public session of a wider Lords inquiry into the CMS.

The headline claim: "hugely proud" of modernisation

Simon Hunter opened by describing himself as "hugely proud" of the modernisation journey the CMS has been on. The two main achievements cited were:

  • The 2022 online "Get help arranging child maintenance" tool, which replaced a mandatory 25-to-45-minute telephone call previously handled by G4S
  • Removal of the £20 application fee in February 2024

Chris Smith added that case load has grown by 40% since 2019 - "about twice the growth we were expecting." 98% of applications are now made online. A telephone option still exists for those who cannot use the internet, but there is no in-person service at all.

What to note: Growth in the number of people applying is not the same as the CMS working better for those people. The removal of the £20 application fee was only introduced in 2024 after years of criticism that it acted as a barrier for the receiving parents most in need. It was presented as a modernisation achievement rather than a correction of an obvious problem.

The £682 million in unpaid maintenance

Baroness Pidgeon put it bluntly: "Since 2012 there is £682.1 million in unpaid maintenance and the NAO predicts that will go up to £1 billion by 2031. That does not really sound like a successful service to me."

Simon Hunter responded that there were "a number of data points that could paint a different picture." He did not dispute the figure.

Chris Smith offered context: the £682 million represents "less than 8% of everything we have been responsible for arranging" over the life of the scheme. He also confirmed that debts are never written off: "every single pound of that £682 million - there is a parent somewhere who did not get some money that was owed to them."

On write-off, Duncan Gilchrist confirmed that even on the death of a paying parent, the CMS tries to collect from the estate first. Write-off only happens when the debt becomes "entirely uncollectable."

What to note: The "less than 8%" framing deserves scrutiny. £682 million is nearly £700 million owed to receiving parents - many of them in or near poverty - that was not collected. The NAO projection of £1 billion by 2031 was accepted as correct. Because the CMS does not write off debts, the arrears figure will rise indefinitely. Officials were asked what metric to use instead; Gilchrist suggested "the rate of increase." That is not a metric that puts money in a receiving parent's pocket.

The calculation has not changed since 2008

Lord Shipley asked why some types of income and assets are excluded from the calculation. Duncan Gilchrist gave a candid answer: "The true answer is the income that is included currently is the income that was available electronically to enable an automated calculation to be made in 2008."

He then acknowledged directly: "I probably have to acknowledge that we have not looked at that calculation for a number of years. It was introduced in 2008 and we have not really changed it since."

Work on what maintenance levels "should" look like based on the actual cost of raising a child has been ongoing, but Gilchrist noted it "has yet to bear fruit." No timeline was given for any change to the calculation formula.

What to note: The CMS calculation is 17 years old. It was designed around what HMRC data was digitally accessible in 2008. The modern economy - gig work, dividends, cryptocurrency, complex shareholding structures - was not what the formula was built for. The committee accepted this explanation without pressing on why, after 17 years, no update has been made. Income that falls outside the standard HMRC data feed requires a variation application, which officials confirmed is a rationed resource - meaning not all applications get fully investigated.

Enforcement: the numbers behind the process

Chris Smith walked through the enforcement stages. The key figures given were:

  • 65% of Collect and Pay cases can be enforced through employer deductions or benefit deductions
  • 35% of cases involve people who earn differently and cannot be reached this way
  • Of 750,000 total cases, around 40,000 at any one time are being actively targeted for enforcement
  • Around £1 million per month is collected by accessing bank accounts directly
  • 1,000 to 1,500 cases per month reach the threshold for liability order proceedings (debt over £500 after employer and bank access have failed)
  • About £8 million was collected last year at the point of threatening magistrates court proceedings
  • The bailiff process brings in around £1 million per quarter
  • Around £5 million was collected from people facing the most serious enforcement action over the past year
  • In the 12 months to end of September 2024, more than 300 parents were taken to court with the threat of imprisonment. Two were actually imprisoned. Just over 300 received suspended sentences
What to note: 60% of those in the enforcement pipeline are on or below the lower earnings threshold - they do not have much money, not that they are deliberately evading. The CMS does not record the reasons why people do not pay. Lord Carter of Coles asked for the full "yield curve" of what each enforcement stage generates in collected money; officials agreed to provide this separately rather than answering on the spot.

Liability orders: what officials said - and what they did not

Chris Smith described liability orders as the point at which the CMS "start reaching out to magistrates courts to register that liability in court." He said £8 million was collected "just at the threat of going to the magistrates court" and that 1,500 cases enter "that liability order space" monthly.

The session presented the liability order process as a routine and functioning part of enforcement escalation.

What officials did not address: The committee did not ask - and officials did not volunteer - anything about active High Court judicial review proceedings or research arguing that what the CMS generates as a "Liability Order" is a notification document produced on CMS's own systems, with no corresponding entry on the court file in some cases. Two CMS enforcement officials have been recorded confirming these documents are "memorandums." Debt collection agencies have been returning cases without enforcing. The NAO has identified £29.7 million in incorrectly calculated amounts. None of this was raised. The Lords heard only the DWP's account of a functioning system. See our full article on liability orders for the legal analysis.

Why people are not applying: the "myths" explanation

Duncan Gilchrist argued that a major barrier is "the general reputation that child maintenance has" - myths inherited from the CSA era. He said: "We are in the long shadow of the CSA still."

Chris Smith said it was "a crying shame that families out there could benefit from the support of the Child Maintenance Service but, because of misinformation or poor experiences in the past or any bad press... have failed to do so."

Simon Hunter explicitly asked for "a more balanced narrative out there" - framing better press coverage as something the CMS needs and deserves.

What to note: Describing the problem as "myths" and "bad press" is a specific framing choice. An alternative explanation - that a significant number of people do not use the CMS because it has genuinely failed them or people they know - was not seriously engaged with. The NAO's adverse audit opinion on £29.7 million in incorrectly calculated amounts is not a myth. The £682 million in uncollected arrears is not a myth. The 17-year-old calculation formula is not a myth. Asking for "balanced narrative" is asking for better PR. Those are not the same thing as fixing the problems that generate the negative coverage.

Direct Pay: the case for removal

Duncan Gilchrist gave three reasons the government is considering removing Direct Pay entirely:

  1. Survey evidence suggests "quite a lot of non-compliance" in Direct Pay that cannot be enforced until parents move to Collect and Pay - and moving requires both parents to engage, creating a barrier
  2. The administrative burden on CMS of managing Direct Pay changes is "still significant"
  3. Direct Pay "is not fit for purpose for victims of domestic abuse" because it requires contact between both parents

Lord Shipley noted the consultation had closed six months earlier with no government response. Duncan Gilchrist said it was expected "in the spring." The Chair replied: "I was going to say the answer to that is usually summer."

What to note: Moving everyone from Direct Pay to Collect and Pay means the CMS charges the paying parent an extra 20% and deducts 4% from every payment to the receiving parent. For families currently using Direct Pay without problems, this is a significant increase in cost for no additional benefit to them. Officials described the impact as "effectively cost neutral" for the CMS itself - which is a different calculation to its impact on parents.

Key admissions made during the session

  • No walk-in service: Lord Shipley asked if someone in Newcastle could walk into a jobcentre to see a CMS agent. Chris Smith confirmed this is not possible.
  • No plan for women's centres: Lord Bradley asked about working with women's centres to reach domestic abuse victims. Duncan Gilchrist: "I have to be honest. We do not have a detailed plan at this point."
  • No data on why people do not pay: Chris Smith: "We do not specifically record the reason for non-payment because it is so varied and complex."
  • Variations are rationed: Gilchrist confirmed the variations regime "requires Simon and Chris to put people on to investigation and that, by definition, is a rationed resource." Not every application gets a full investigation.
  • No silver bullet on shared care: Officials said they had consulted internationally and "no one has what they would call a silver bullet" for resolving shared care disputes. The current framework is expected to continue for the foreseeable future.

The prison exchange

Lord Blencathra asked Chris Smith whether people who choose prison over payment do so because they cannot afford to pay, or because "they are so bloody-minded and hate the ex-wife and prefer to go to prison than give her any money."

Chris Smith replied: "I am not going to allow you to put words in my mouth, but it is probably more the latter" - adding that the CMS is required to prove the person has the means to pay before pursuing committal.

Lord Blencathra's response: "I do not mind it being punitive."

What this hearing did and did not cover

The committee heard only from DWP officials in this first session. No paying parents, receiving parents, or independent advocates gave evidence. No one representing people who have experienced incorrect calculations, failed enforcement, or the legal questions around liability orders appeared. The hearing was a DWP account of DWP performance, presented to a committee that had not yet heard the other side.

Further sessions in the inquiry were expected to hear from charities, affected parents, and independent experts.

Source: This article is based on the corrected transcript of oral evidence given to the House of Lords Public Services Committee on 19 March 2025, Session No. 1, Questions 1-10 (Evidence Session reference 15591). Witnesses were Duncan Gilchrist, Elaine Squires, Simon Hunter and Chris Smith of DWP. All quotes are taken directly from the published transcript. Nothing in this article is legal advice.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is the House of Lords Public Services Committee?
It is a select committee of the House of Lords that scrutinises the delivery of public services. In early 2025 it launched an inquiry into the Child Maintenance Service, taking evidence from DWP officials, charities, and affected parents. Select committee hearings are public and transcripts are published on the Parliament website.
Is the £682 million in unpaid maintenance confirmed?
Yes. DWP officials confirmed the figure and did not dispute the NAO projection that it will reach £1 billion by 2031. Chris Smith sought to contextualise it as less than 8% of total maintenance arranged since 2012, but the figure itself was not challenged.
Will the CMS calculation formula change?
Officials confirmed the calculation - introduced in 2008 - is under review. No timeline was given. Duncan Gilchrist said the work on what maintenance should look like based on the actual cost of raising a child 'has yet to bear fruit.'
What is Direct Pay and is it being removed?
Direct Pay is the free arrangement where the CMS calculates the amount and the paying parent transfers it directly to the receiving parent without the CMS handling the money. A government consultation on potentially removing Direct Pay closed in late 2024. A response was expected spring 2025 but had not appeared at the time of this article.
What is the variations regime?
The variations regime allows income beyond what HMRC automatically provides - such as rental income, dividends, or company profits - to be included in the calculation. The receiving parent must apply and provide a reason to believe extra income exists. Officials confirmed investigations are a rationed resource, meaning not every application will be fully pursued.
Were problems with liability orders raised at the hearing?
No. The committee did not raise - and officials did not address - the documented legal questions about whether CMS liability orders are valid court orders. The enforcement process was presented as a functioning escalation pathway. See our separate article on CMS liability orders for the full legal analysis.

Want to know exactly what you'd pay?

Use our free net pay calculator - enter your take-home pay, not gross, for a realistic figure.

Try the Calculator →
Disclaimer: This article provides general information only and is not legal or financial advice. Rules and rates can change - always verify with the official UK government website or seek professional advice.