Supreme Court splits the baby over the benefit cap – Mike Spencer

19 March 2015 by

Money purse - WalletR(on the application of SG and others (previously JS and others)) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions [2015] UKSC 16 – read judgment

The Supreme Court was sharply divided yesterday over whether the benefit cap breaches the Human Rights Act. The controversial cap limits the total amount of benefits an out-of-work family can receive, including housing benefit and benefits for children, to £500 per week. It is applied regardless of family size or circumstances such as rental costs. As a result, lone parents with children in large families are disproportionately affected, both because they are more likely to be hit by the cap and because they are less likely to be able to avoid its effects.

Five judges heard the appeal brought by two single mothers and their children who had fled violent and abusive husbands. Shelter and the Child Poverty Action Group intervened. All the judges agreed that the cap has a disproportionate impact on lone parents, who are overwhelmingly women.

The issue for the Court was whether this put the Government in breach of its obligations under Article 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights (which prohibits discrimination on grounds of sex) and Article 3(1) of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (which requires the Government to treat the best interests of children as a primary consideration in all decisions).

The Court was split three ways. On one side were Lady Hale and Lord Kerr, who both gave strongly worded dissenting judgments. They would have allowed the appeal and declared that the regulations breached Article 14 of the European Convention. In introducing the cap the Government had failed to comply with its obligations under the UN Convention to treat children’s interests as a primary consideration. Lord Kerr 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” (269). Lady Hale noted that the children “suffer from a situation which is none of their making and which they themselves can do nothing about [227].

Seen in this light, the Government’s justification for the discriminatory effects of the cap did not stack up:

Families in work are already better off than those on benefits and so the cap is not necessary in order to achieve fairness between them; saving money cannot be achieved by unjustified discrimination; but the major aim, of incentivising work and changing the benefits culture, has little force in the context of lone parents, whatever the age of their children. Depriving them of the basic means of subsistence cannot be a proportionate means of achieving it.[229]

On the other side were Lords Reed and Hughes. They found that the Government had had the best interests of children in mind when introducing the cap. Further, the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child was not incorporated into UK law and could not be relied upon in a case involving sex discrimination under the Human Rights Act. The courts should not interfere lightly with the decisions of Parliament on issues of socio-economic policy and the Government’s aims were legitimate. Although the short–term savings are a small proportion of the total welfare budget, they nevertheless contribute towards deficit reduction, and the cap is also intended to change behaviour over the longer term.

That left Lord Carnwath to provide the swing vote. He agreed with Lady Hale and Lord Kerr that the Government had not shown compliance with the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. Children’s benefits (such as child benefit and child tax credit) are intended for the children, not the parent:

The cap has the effect that for the first time some children will lose these benefits, for reasons that have nothing to do with their own needs, but are related solely to the circumstances of their parents. [126]

Tantalisingly, Lord Carnwath revealed that his “provisional” view was that this also meant a breach of Article 14 and that the cap was therefore unlawful. However, he changed his mind following post-hearing submissions. While he still thought the UK had not complied with the UN Convention, he agreed with Lord Reed and Lord Hughes on the “narrow” point that it could not be relied on in a case involving sex discrimination under Article 14 of the European Convention.

As a result, the appeal was dismissed by a majority, with Lord Carnwath stating his hope that the Government will reconsider the effect on children when it reviews the cap. The breaches of children’s rights would have to be settled “in the political, rather than the legal arena” [133]. So we end up with what looks like a closely fought but unsatisfactory compromise: a majority found that the benefit cap breaches the UK’s international obligations towards children, but another majority held that it is not unlawful as a matter of domestic law.

Mike Spencer is a solicitor at the Child Poverty Action Group.

Sign up to free human rights updates by email, Facebook, Twitter or RSS

 

6 comments


  1. daveyone1 says:

    Reblogged this on World4Justice : NOW! Lobby Forum..

  2. Andrew says:

    I suppose I will get shot down in flames if I say that this is precisely the sort of question we elect people to decide . . .

  3. […] the existing cap only just survived this week’s human rights challenge in the Supreme Court. Mike Spencer explains more here about the judgement that saw two judges dissent from the majority view and a […]

  4. truthaholics says:

    Reblogged this on | truthaholics and commented:
    Really shows why throwing out the baby with the bathwater ConDems a government.

  5. Jenny H says:

    Is this more promising for disabled people fighting the benefit cap/bedroom tax, seeing as they’d be relying on the UNCRPD in a claim for disability discrimination?

  6. tyelko says:

    And that’s precisely why all this posturing on leaving the ECHR is so abysmal. Without an independent, external arbiter of compliance, a country can easily define itself into compliance with any and all standards – which consequently become meaningless.

Comments are closed.

Welcome to the UKHRB


This blog is run by 1 Crown Office Row barristers' chambers. Subscribe for free updates here. The blog's editorial team is:
Commissioning Editor: Jonathan Metzer
Editorial Team: Rosalind English
Angus McCullough QC David Hart QC
Martin Downs
Jim Duffy

Free email updates


Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog for free and receive weekly notifications of new posts by email.

Subscribe

Categories


Tags


Aarhus Abortion Abu Qatada Abuse Access to justice adoption AI air pollution air travel ALBA Allergy Al Qaeda Amnesty International animal rights Animals anonymity Article 1 Protocol 1 Article 2 article 3 Article 4 article 5 Article 6 Article 8 Article 9 article 10 Article 11 article 13 Article 14 article 263 TFEU Artificial Intelligence Asbestos Assange assisted suicide asylum asylum seekers Australia autism badgers benefits Bill of Rights biotechnology blogging Bloody Sunday brexit Bribery British Waterways Board care homes Catholic Church Catholicism Chagos Islanders Charter of Fundamental Rights child protection Children children's rights China christianity citizenship civil liberties campaigners civil partnerships climate change clinical negligence closed material procedure Coercion Commission on a Bill of Rights common law communications competition confidentiality consent conservation constitution contact order contact tracing contempt of court Control orders Copyright coronavirus coronavirus act 2020 costs costs budgets Court of Protection covid crime criminal law Cybersecurity Damages data protection death penalty defamation DEFRA deportation deprivation of liberty derogations Detention Dignitas diplomacy disability disclosure Discrimination disease divorce DNA domestic violence duty of care ECHR ECtHR Education election Employment Environment Equality Act Equality Act 2010 Ethiopia EU EU Charter of Fundamental Rights EU costs EU law European Convention on Human Rights European Court of Human Rights European Court of Justice evidence extradition extraordinary rendition Facebook Facial Recognition Family Fatal Accidents Fertility FGM Finance foreign criminals foreign office foreign policy France freedom of assembly Freedom of Expression freedom of information freedom of speech Gay marriage gay rights Gaza Gender genetics Germany Google Grenfell Gun Control Health HIV home office Housing HRLA human rights Human Rights Act human rights news Human Rights Watch Huntington's Disease immigration India Indonesia injunction Inquests insurance international law internet inuit Iran Iraq Ireland islam Israel Italy IVF ivory ban Japan joint enterprise judaism judicial review Judicial Review reform Julian Assange jury trial JUSTICE Justice and Security Bill Law Pod UK legal aid legal aid cuts Leveson Inquiry lgbtq liability Libel Liberty Libya lisbon treaty Lithuania local authorities marriage Media and Censorship mental capacity Mental Capacity Act Mental Health military Ministry of Justice modern slavery morocco murder music Muslim nationality national security naturism neuroscience NHS Northern Ireland nuclear challenges nuisance Obituary ouster clauses parental rights parliamentary expenses scandal patents Pensions Personal Injury physician assisted death Piracy Plagiarism planning planning system Poland Police Politics Pope press prison Prisoners prisoner votes Prisons privacy Professional Discipline Property proportionality prosecutions Protection of Freedoms Bill Protest Public/Private public access public authorities public inquiries quarantine Radicalisation rehabilitation Reith Lectures Religion RightsInfo right to die right to family life Right to Privacy right to swim riots Roma Romania round-up Round Up Royals Russia saudi arabia Scotland secrecy secret justice Secret trials sexual offence shamima begum Sikhism Smoking social media social workers South Africa Spain special advocates Sports Standing starvation statelessness stem cells stop and search Strasbourg super injunctions Supreme Court Supreme Court of Canada surrogacy surveillance sweatshops Syria Tax technology Terrorism tort Torture travel treason treaty accession trial by jury TTIP Turkey Twitter UK Ukraine universal credit universal jurisdiction unlawful detention USA US Supreme Court vicarious liability Wales War Crimes Wars Welfare Western Sahara Whistleblowing Wikileaks wildlife wind farms WomenInLaw Worboys wrongful birth YearInReview Zimbabwe

Disclaimer


This blog is maintained for information purposes only. It is not intended to be a source of legal advice and must not be relied upon as such. Blog posts reflect the views and opinions of their individual authors, not of chambers as a whole.

Our privacy policy can be found on our ‘subscribe’ page or by clicking here.

%d bloggers like this: