Single mothers lose benefits cap legal battle
5 Nov 2013:
Judges reject challenge brought by three mothers that policy introduced by Iain Duncan Smith is 'cruel and arbitrary'
Judges reject challenge brought by three mothers that policy introduced by Iain Duncan Smith is 'cruel and arbitrary'
Iain Duncan Smith's
new capping regulations were deemed by some to be 'too parsimonious' but
were not illegal, the judges ruled. Photograph: Andrew Yates/AFP/Getty
Images
Senior judges have rejected an attempt to challenge the lawfulness of the central plank of government's welfare policy.
The policy imposes a £500-a-week cap for couples or lone parents on benefits, including housing benefit, child benefit, and child tax credit, if they do not work enough hours to qualify for working tax credit.
Lawyers acting for three families affected by the cap had argued that it unlawfully discriminates against children and women, particularly those affected by domestic violence.
The claimants' lawyers described the cap as a "cruel and arbitrary" policy that would trap vulnerable women in violent relationships, and would reduce capped household income to a level that would make it it impossible for parents to provide adequate food, clothing and other essentials for their children.
But two high court judges dismissed the claim for a judicial review, ruling that although the cap may be seen by some to be "too parsimonious" it was consistent with a "broad political concept of fairness" outlined by the secretary of state for work and pensions.
Lord Justice Elias and Mr Justice Bean said that the cap was "ultimately a policy issue, and for the reasons we have given we do not think it can be said that the scheme is so manifestly unfair or disproportionate as to justify an interference by the courts".
A spokesman for the Department for Work and Pensions said: "We are very pleased that the court has ruled that the benefit cap complies with the European convention on human rights."
"The benefit cap sets a fair limit to what people can expect to get from the welfare system – so that claimants cannot receive more than £500 a week, the average household earnings."
Rebekah Carrier, a solicitor acting on behalf of the families, said she intended to appeal against the ruling.
She said: "We are disappointed by this judgment. Two of the claimant families had fled domestic violence. The court failed to grapple with the difficulties caused by the way that women seeking a safe space for themselves and their children are charged for their accommodation, including in women's refuges.
"It is shocking that government ministers failed to ensure they were properly informed about how the cap would actually work in practice and the adverse impact on lone parents, victims of domestic violence and children".
Polly Neate, chief executive of Women's Aid charity, said: "No woman should be forced to choose between homelessness and domestic violence, but this decision will present many women with that choice. We urge the government to act swiftly to fulfil its earlier promise to make refuges exempt from the benefit cap, and to ensure there is enough emergency funding available to women fleeing domestic violence."
The three mothers and the youngest child from each family had asked the judges to rule that the cap unlawfully breached the UN convention on the rights of the child and the European convention on human rights, which protects the right to respect home and family life.
One of the claimant mothers, known as "MG", has lived in temporary accommodation in London borough of Hammersmith and Fulham for five years. A Roma with refugee status, she has four children living with her. Under the cap her income reduced to £104.50 a week, or £2.98 per person per day. She is receiving a temporary discretionary payment from the council which tops up her income to £3.38 a week, but she will become destitute when this runs out.
Outside court, she said through an interpreter: "My number one priority in life is my children and the second is to bring them up as proper citizens of this country."
She said that when the temporary help from the council expires "I cannot imagine how I am going to manage".
Another applicant "NS", is a mother of three daughters aged between three and 11 living in Haringey in north London who, the court heard, fled "horrific" sexual and domestic violence and abuse from her husband. The court heard that if she were living with her husband, who receives working tax credit, the cap would not apply, but the judges noted that "no one suggests returning to her husband is a practical proposition in NS's case".
The third mother, "SG", from an Orthodox Jewish family in north London, . She has six children, three of whom are living with her. She has also fled alleged sexual and physical violence.
Carrier said it was expected that the impact of the cap would be most acute in London because of the lack of affordable housing in the capital and high housing benefit costs.
A study of the first four months of the benefit cap in Haringey, published by the Chartered Institute of Housing last month, found it was failing to achieve its aims. It was neither forcing unemployed people to take a job nor saving taxpayers' money.
The study noted "several reports" of women choosing to stay with violent partners with a job, because they believed that if they took the children and left the family home they would be subject to the benefit cap.
COPY http://www.theguardian.com
The policy imposes a £500-a-week cap for couples or lone parents on benefits, including housing benefit, child benefit, and child tax credit, if they do not work enough hours to qualify for working tax credit.
Lawyers acting for three families affected by the cap had argued that it unlawfully discriminates against children and women, particularly those affected by domestic violence.
The claimants' lawyers described the cap as a "cruel and arbitrary" policy that would trap vulnerable women in violent relationships, and would reduce capped household income to a level that would make it it impossible for parents to provide adequate food, clothing and other essentials for their children.
But two high court judges dismissed the claim for a judicial review, ruling that although the cap may be seen by some to be "too parsimonious" it was consistent with a "broad political concept of fairness" outlined by the secretary of state for work and pensions.
Lord Justice Elias and Mr Justice Bean said that the cap was "ultimately a policy issue, and for the reasons we have given we do not think it can be said that the scheme is so manifestly unfair or disproportionate as to justify an interference by the courts".
A spokesman for the Department for Work and Pensions said: "We are very pleased that the court has ruled that the benefit cap complies with the European convention on human rights."
"The benefit cap sets a fair limit to what people can expect to get from the welfare system – so that claimants cannot receive more than £500 a week, the average household earnings."
Rebekah Carrier, a solicitor acting on behalf of the families, said she intended to appeal against the ruling.
She said: "We are disappointed by this judgment. Two of the claimant families had fled domestic violence. The court failed to grapple with the difficulties caused by the way that women seeking a safe space for themselves and their children are charged for their accommodation, including in women's refuges.
"It is shocking that government ministers failed to ensure they were properly informed about how the cap would actually work in practice and the adverse impact on lone parents, victims of domestic violence and children".
Polly Neate, chief executive of Women's Aid charity, said: "No woman should be forced to choose between homelessness and domestic violence, but this decision will present many women with that choice. We urge the government to act swiftly to fulfil its earlier promise to make refuges exempt from the benefit cap, and to ensure there is enough emergency funding available to women fleeing domestic violence."
The three mothers and the youngest child from each family had asked the judges to rule that the cap unlawfully breached the UN convention on the rights of the child and the European convention on human rights, which protects the right to respect home and family life.
One of the claimant mothers, known as "MG", has lived in temporary accommodation in London borough of Hammersmith and Fulham for five years. A Roma with refugee status, she has four children living with her. Under the cap her income reduced to £104.50 a week, or £2.98 per person per day. She is receiving a temporary discretionary payment from the council which tops up her income to £3.38 a week, but she will become destitute when this runs out.
Outside court, she said through an interpreter: "My number one priority in life is my children and the second is to bring them up as proper citizens of this country."
She said that when the temporary help from the council expires "I cannot imagine how I am going to manage".
Another applicant "NS", is a mother of three daughters aged between three and 11 living in Haringey in north London who, the court heard, fled "horrific" sexual and domestic violence and abuse from her husband. The court heard that if she were living with her husband, who receives working tax credit, the cap would not apply, but the judges noted that "no one suggests returning to her husband is a practical proposition in NS's case".
The third mother, "SG", from an Orthodox Jewish family in north London, . She has six children, three of whom are living with her. She has also fled alleged sexual and physical violence.
Carrier said it was expected that the impact of the cap would be most acute in London because of the lack of affordable housing in the capital and high housing benefit costs.
A study of the first four months of the benefit cap in Haringey, published by the Chartered Institute of Housing last month, found it was failing to achieve its aims. It was neither forcing unemployed people to take a job nor saving taxpayers' money.
The study noted "several reports" of women choosing to stay with violent partners with a job, because they believed that if they took the children and left the family home they would be subject to the benefit cap.
COPY http://www.theguardian.com
Nenhum comentário:
Postar um comentário