Two High Court judges yesterday (November 5) dismissed the claims of three single mothers that the Government’s benefit cap is unlawful, although they did agree that it is “too parsimonious”.
Lawyers for the women had argued that the “cruel and arbitrary” policy was “reminiscent of the days of the workhouse”, and was a breach of their human rights.
The benefit cap policy was fully rolled out in August and means that a household’s total benefits are capped at £500 a week for couples and those with children and at £350 a week for single people.
However the lawyers claimed that the cap would trap vulnerable women in violent relationships and would reduce capped household income to a level where it would be impossible to provide enough food and other essentials for their family.
The judges, however, dismissed their claim for a judicial review saying that it was consistent with a “broad political concept of fairness” as outlined by the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions.
Mr Justice Bean and Lord Justice Elias ruled that the cap is “ultimately a policy issue, and so did not think it could be said that the scheme is so manifestly unfair or disproportionate as to justify an interference by the courts.
The Government is understandably pleased with the judges’ decision, with a Department for Work and Pensions spokesman saying that it was very pleased that the court has ruled that the benefit cap complies with the European Convention on Human Rights.
However, a solicitor acting on behalf of the women said she intended to appeal against the ruling. Meanwhile, a study carried out in Haringey on the first four months of the cap found that it was failing to achieve its aims and was neither forcing unemployed people into taking jobs nor saving taxpayers money.