In 1993, the Government of the day removed the right for single parents to seek maintenance for their children through the courts.  Instead, it provided the infamous Child Support Agency, the purpose of which was to calculate, collect and (if necessary) enforce maintenance assessments from the non-resident parent. 

Parents had little or no control.  If they could not agree, then their only option was to apply to the Agency, which would calculate the amount of maintenance due (according to a hideously complicated and almost wholly incomprehensible formula), regardless of other financial arrangements the parents may have made and without the flexibility of the court system to take individual circumstances into account.  Parents who had been left to rely on the State for support following the departure of the other parent by and large had no choice:  they either applied to the Agency to assess and enforce payment, or their benefits were cut.

 Unpopular with resident and non-resident parents alike, and woefully inadequate, the Agency failed to fulfil its purpose.  By 2007, it was costing the taxpayer £520m to run, but despite the cost it had failed to collect maintenance totalling about £3.7b.  Some amendments had been made along the way (eg simplification of the calculation, recognition in limited circumstances of additional payments made by the non-resident parent towards joint debts and travel costs; power to depart from the statutory formula where, for example, the non-resident parent was living a lifestyle incompatible with his or her declared income), but by 2007 the Agency was in its dying days.

In 2008, the Agency was subsumed into the Child Maintenance and Enforcement Commission (CMEC), which took over responsibility for the functions of the Agency.  According to its annual report (2009/10), CMEC “will not be burdened with the historical problems of the CSA, but the Commission will also continue to improve the existing schemes in the meantime”.  Legislation was passed which changed the formula once again and provided a “gateway” through which parents must pass before they are allowed to apply for an assessment.  The gateway is also referred to as “Options”, but rather than providing genuine choices, it imposes a requirement to agree maintenance with the other parent or at least to take “reasonable steps” to do so.  Parents are to be “supported” in this respect. 

 So far, so good.  Except that only a tiny part of the legislation has come into effect.  The Child Support Agency is still, in reality, lumbering like a wounded beast after its quarry.  The old formulae still apply.  Administrative costs have increased to £572m (although reduced from their 2008/9 high of £605m).  Arrears still stand at about £3.7b.  In its 2011 Green Paper[1], the Government stated that for each £1 of maintenance recovered the cost was 40p, which was not good value for money for the taxpayer.

Even worse news for the taxpayer was the abolition of the old provisions which reduced a recipient’s benefits by £1 for each £1 of maintenance collected.  One of the Agency’s original purposes was to shift responsibility for the financial support of children from the State back to the non-resident parent.  However, we now find the megalithic Child Support Agency, funded by the taxpayer to collect maintenance, working alongside the Department for Work and Pensions – also funded by the taxpayer -  to provide maintenance in addition to benefits.  Thus, those parents who were able to recover maintenance from the non-resident parent were in a significantly better position than those who could not, all at the expense of the taxpayer and – more importantly – leaving at a disadvantage those children whose non-resident parents could not or would not pay.

 Against this backdrop was the news last week that the Lords have rejected the Government’s proposals to charge people to use CMEC.  In fact, these proposals are not new, and appeared originally in the 2008 legislation from which CMEC was born[2].  They are now being discussed as part of the hugely controversial Welfare Reform Bill[3], and it is suggested that the charge should be £100 (£50 for people in receipt of benefits).

 On the face of it, charging people to use the service provided by CMEC appears to be commonsense.  People expect to pay for services.  Why should this be different?

 The Lords objected on the basis that it was unfair to charge lone parents who had tried and failed to get their ex-partners to pay maintenance.  These people, it was argued, are amongst the most vulnerable in society.  Left without support for their children, often reliant on benefits and living on a severely restricted income, they are already at a disadvantage compared to their counterparts who are receiving maintenance in addition to benefits, but who may now be forced to pay for a service which is at best patchy, and at worst wholly unreliable.  Not only this, but in the event that CMEC does manage to recover maintenance, it is proposed that the recipient will be obliged in the future to pay ongoing charges of 7 -12% of any maintenance recovered – a double whammy for the unfortunate families of reluctant payers.

 So, under these proposals, a parent left with the care of the children, and dependant on benefits, would have no choice but to stump up £50 (£20 up front and the balance by instalments, but no doubt a significant proportion of the weekly income nonetheless) before being allowed access to a system which was created to force non-resident parents to support their children.  In these circumstances, if it is reasonable for the parent to pay for the service, it must also be reasonable to expect the service to deliver.  If it cannot deliver, then genuine “options” should be available.

 In these challenging times, it is of course incumbent upon the Government to seek value for money in all things.  It is however difficult to understand the basis upon which the most vulnerable families whose hands (in the words of Barnados’ chief executive) are tied by poverty should be penalised for being forced to use a system which has never been fit for purpose and is even now struggling under the weight of its unfulfilled obligations.