The cap has a disproportionate effect on women and children and can make life impossible for victims of domestic violence
Supreme Court judges have found that the government’s benefit cap fails to comply with the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, which says the interests of the child must be paramount.
Although the Court declined to overturn the controversial policy, which it said was a matter for the political and not the legal arena, three of the five judges said that the cap deprived children of ‘the basic necessities of life’ and made them ‘suffer from a situation which is not of their making and which they themselves can do nothing about’.
The benefit cap, which was introduced in 2013, limits the benefits an out-of-work family can receive to £500 per week. This includes housing benefit and benefits for children, and is applied regardless of family size or circumstances such as rental costs.
The appeal was brought by two single mothers and their children who had fled domestic violence and were threatened with homelessness as a result of the cap. One of the women lives in a two-bedroom flat with her six children, the youngest of whom is four years old. The woman, referred to as Mrs SG, was unable to sustain a job because of the demands of childcare. After rent, the benefits cap left her and her children with £80 per week to live on.
The second woman, Mrs NS, fled violence and sexual abuse with her three children, but found that the benefits cap left her with a shortfall of £50 per week in rent. Although her husband had been ordered to stay away from children, in her desperation Mrs NS was forced to turn to him for money.
The Child Poverty Action Group (CPAG) intervened in the case, providing evidence that the cap has a disproportionate effect on women and children and that the money saved is ‘marginal at best’.
Lady Hale, one of the judges, added that:
“As CPAG point out, the government accepted in its grounds of resistance to the claim that ‘the aim of incentivising claimants to work may be less pertinent for those who are not required to work’ (such as parents with young children)”.
A majority found that the benefits cap did not breach Article 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which prohibits discrimination. This meant that the appeal was dismissed, because the European Convention is incorporated into UK law, while the UN Convention is not. However Lord Carnwath, who provided the crucial swing vote dismissing the appeal, said nevertheless that he hoped the government would consider its compliance with international law in its review of the benefit cap.
Commenting today, Alison Garnham, chief executive of the CPAG, said:
“The women and children involved in this case were escaping horrific abuse. As three of the judges have said: ‘It cannot be in the best interests of the children affected by the cap to deprive them of the means of having adequate food, clothing, warmth and housing’. We hope the Government will listen to the Court and comply with international law on the protection of children.”
Ruby Stockham is a staff writer at Left Foot Forward. Follow her on Twitter
47 Responses to “Benefit cap breaches children’s rights, says Supreme Court”
Kevin Stall
There is already a tax on empty property.
Leon Wolfeson
There is just no longer an exception to council tax for it.
But I am talking about a value tax, perhaps 2% per year.
Guest
You’re “sure” that there are evil scroungers at the gates. That there isn’t enough punishment for the poor, that incomes are too high, blah blah.
Pure propaganda.
Leon Wolfeson
Oh right, so the kids should suffer because you can’t control what people spend in enough detail. Who “knows” if they buy a bottle of wine for their birthday once a year, utterly intolerable in your world!
And the UK’s benefits are illegally low, incidentally.
Kevin Stall
So if the parents spend all the benefits money, it is the government s fault? If the children don’t get enough to eat the government is at fault because they didn’t throw enough money at the parents. Maybe to ensure the children are taken care of and have enough to eat you would prefer the government take the children away for safe keeping?
And for it to be illegal, there would have to be a law setting minimum amounts. You hide your ignorance behind your anonymity. You want a government that takes care of everyone by taking away peoples freedoms. Everyone who disagrees with you must be rich and have shares in the various companies. Sorry to disappoint you but I own no shares in any company and my income is within a free thousands of the people receiving benifits. I am not rich yet live within means. I have earned minimum wage and still manage to live fairly well and lived on a lot less than the people receiving benefits. In fact most of my life I have lived on less than they get. So I know what they get is enough if they live carefully and not waste money on luxuries. My wife and her first husband lived on a lot less with several kids. My wife grew up with a lot less and still had a good childhood. There are a lot of things you can get by without, you don’t need big screen tv’s, or game consoles or smartphones. You do need parents that teach you to learn, live within your means and provide you with a wholesome environment to grow in.