The UK Supreme Court has dismissed an appeal on the ‘benefits cap’ which limits the social welfare a family can receive to £500 per week – an amount in line with the average earnings of a working household in the UK. It is applied regardless of family size or circumstances such as rental costs. The case was taken by two lone mothers who argued that the cap was unlawful in disproportionately affecting single parents and domestic violence victims, who tend to be women.
One mother, known as SG, was a single mother with six children living in an overcrowded two-bed apartment in London. After rent, the benefits cap left her and her children with £80 a week. The other applicant, NS, had three children with a long history of domestic violence and sexual abuse in her marriage. Living in a two-bed apartment in outer London, she faced a shortfall of £50 in their rent as a result of the cap.
The Court found that the effect of the policy was not compatible with the government’s obligations under Article 3(1) of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC) to treat the best interests of the child as a primary consideration. Quite specifically, the Court stated that the cap deprived the children of “the means of having adequate food, clothing, warmth and housing” and made them “suffer from a situation which is not of their making and which themselves can do nothing about”.
However, a majority of 3-2 held that the policy did not breach Article 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) prohibiting discrimination. As the ECHR forms part of national law under the Human Rights Act 1998, and the UNCRC does not, the appeal was dismissed.
Lord Reed, giving the leading judgment, stated that the question was whether the established indirect discrimination was a proportionate means of meeting legitimate aims. He reasoned that the question of proportionality involved controversial issues of social and economic policy, with major implications for public spending. It was therefore necessary for the Court to give due weight to the considered assessment of democratically-elected institution and should be respected unless manifestly without reasonable foundation. He also stated that many of the issues in the appeal were considered by Parliament before the benefits cap was approved.
Lord Carnwath, also in the majority, added that Article 3(1) UNCRC had no role in justifying discrimination against women as the treatment of the child does not depend on the sex of their parent. He stated that while the Secretary of State failed to show how the cap complies with Article 3(1), it is in the political, rather than the legal, arena that the consequences should be played out.
Latest official figures show 55,000 households had their benefits capped in the UK in the first 20 months of the policy, and 45% of these were in London. A third of families affected had 5 or more children, while 62% were single parents with children.
Click here to read the full decision in R (on the application of SG and others (previously JS and others)) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions.