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”
Guest
Keep making up nonsense which shows you have not read my post.
You are claiming that your FRAUDULENT practice is “how business works” – of having tenants in property you are listing as unoccupied. You are claiming you will then charge them, FRAUDULENTLY, the new tax.
That you call a targeted tax, for a specific reason “arbitrary”. as you try and lie about why you’re raising rents, as you claim that I have your greedy nature…
Oh, and thanks for highlighting an offence that should be punishable with giving said tenants the ownership of the property.
ArmandoARogers
…..All time hit leftfootforward. Find Here
Sue Jones
I agree with what you say,entirely. However, because tory framing has worked, to some extent, and we live in a society tat tends to blame individuals for their poverty, at least ointing outthe impact that povery is having on children – considered tobe not responsible for their circumstances – it raises awareness a lttle, too.
Sue Jones
Most people who are currently claiming benefits have worked and paid tax. Including the majority of disabled people, too. The claimants are not the same ones from year to year. However, many experience a revolving door of low paid poor quality, insecure work, and needing to claim when the work ends, and so on. That’s the real “cycle of poverty”. Work isn’t paying, and that is not the fault of those unortunate enough to need to rely on a punitive, exploitative welfare to survive
Dave Stewart
The problem is that by using the same framing as the Tories you are tacitly accepting their narrative that there are deserving and undeserving poor. Children, even I’m sure in the most over the top Tory views, cannot possibly be undeserving. However singly pointing out these obviously “deserving poor” for special consideration accepts that there must also be undeserving poor who do not deserve our help or sympathy. Framing is so incredibly important to how people view politics and specific issues and every effort must be made to challenge distorting framing. The Tories and neolibrals in general have been very very good over the past 30 years at framing political debate. Look at Corbyn, his polices are not extreme left wing, they are more similar to those of Germany or even Britain in the 60s, but now because of this successful framing exercise he is ridiculed for being hard left and all the negative connotations that come along with it.