THE UK Government may be forced to defend its two-child benefit cap in court after an anti-poverty charity won the right to apply for a judicial review.
The Child Poverty Action Group (CPAG) made the legal move against the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions in August.
Yesterday it announced it had been granted permission to apply for a judicial review and take the case to a full hearing.
The policy, which came into force in the spring, means parents can claim certain allowances for only two children – unless third or subsequent children are the result of rape, which must be disclosed to authorities to gain an exemption.
The cap applies to both Universal Credit and child tax credits.
The UK Government has defended the move against strong criticism from family charities, faith organisations and women’s groups, who have branded it discriminatory and impractical.
“Emphasising the change as a shift towards fairness, the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) said it would make sure “those on benefits face the same financial choices around the number of children they can afford as those supporting themselves through work”.
However, CPAG says this is “logically flawed” because seven in ten claimants of tax credits are in work.
Announcing the court challenge, the charity said the two-child limit “unlawfully discriminates against a number of different groups including, but not limited to, children with multiple siblings, large families and those with a religious or moral objection to the use of birth control”.
The charity went on: “It is estimated that more than 250,000 children will be pushed into poverty as a result of this measure by the end of the decade, representing a ten per cent increase in child poverty.
“A similar number of children already living in poverty will fall deeper into poverty.
“Given such a severe impact on child poverty, the policy is in breach of the UK’s obligation under the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child to give primary consideration to the best interests of the child. In these circumstances, the discriminatory treatment cannot be justified.”
Earlier this month the DWP stood by the policy after the story of kinship carer Alyssa Vessey emerged.
The Grimsby mother has been denied the right to claim child tax credits and a maternity grant for her four-month-old son because she received social security payments when looking after her two younger siblings after their mother died.
After the case was raised at Prime Minister’s Questions, the department said exemptions were in place for many families.
The welfare move was first raised in an Autumn statement by then-Chancellor George Osborne in 2015. Glasgow Central MP Alison Thewliss, who first highlighted the so-called rape clause, has fought the change since then.
Reacting to the news from CPAG, she said: “I welcome the work that the Child Poverty Action Group have done to put pressure on the UK Government, following the introduction of the two-child policy earlier this year.
“The majority of the families who are entitled to support are actually in work, the very ‘just about managing’ people who Theresa May claims she wants to help.
“Forcing women whose third child was conceived as a result of rape to relive their past trauma, simply in order to make a claim for benefit, is stigmatising and inhumane.
“UK Government ministers have done everything they can to dodge debate on their toxic two-child policy and the rape clause. I wish CPAG all the best with their judicial review – I hope it finally forces the Tories to see sense and scrap this cruel policy.”
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules here