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”
Leon Wolfeson
What complete nonsense. It would lower rents, as more houses would be on the market.
This is a tax on EMPTY housing.
You’re not reading what I type.
Guest
Oh right, so you bring up a chimera of the evil poor, and on the basis of that try and ensure that the parents will NOT have enough cash to feed the kids properly.
YOU are the one talking about taking kids away from parents.
And you’re now denying court rulings. Sad. You lash out, showing your ignorance to the world, as you use your PC bigotry against me, rich man.
You just own a holding company or whatever other tax dodge you use, right – I don’t really care. As you say that illegally low and plummeting benefits are just fine, that abject poverty, soaring homelessness and malnutrition are great.
That you hate people enough to see their being poor as a good thing…as you talk about things which the poor can only dream about. Hungry kids can’t learn properly, regardless of their parents, as you argue that the poor don’t need food and shelter, that again the poor are evil because they don’t have the cash to provide a decent “enviromnment”.
So yes, I’m sure you’re all for taking kids away from the poor because you blame them for being so.
Guest
Oh yes, if you live away from where jobs are, rents are lower. Too many poorer people have jobs, by living in non-slum areas. As you make out that poorer people magically trash houses by being poor, and that income cuts which mean they can’t pay rent are their faults.
You are a bigot against the poor, and your fellow bigots at the DWP who hate the poor and are out to punish them…that they tell the horror stories of how they attack and punish the poor, evidently stories you love and relish.
Sanctions are designed to harm health, you must think they’re brilliant as you sit back and cackle, rich man. As you make excuses for higher rents and bigotry against the poor. You’re a sadist.
Guest
I’m not the one calling for your slave camps and mandatory unpaid work.
Neither do I share your love for parties and secret police.
You’re projecting.
Keep calling for denying the poor food and shelter.
Kevin Stall
Leon, you seem to think that we should support the poor with unlimited funds. The benefits package is sufficient to support their families. They are receiving more than most of the workers. They receive the equivalent of over 30,000 pretax income. Way more than the employees at DWP. Who tend to be AA grade in the offices, making around 20-23,000 a year.
If the parents won’t spend the money they are given on the kids then what should be done? Throw even more money away? If someone on benefits has enough money to go to Spain or elsewhere in Europe they are receiving too much money.