Latest news with #universalcredit
BBC News
6 days ago
- General
- BBC News
Mothers lose two-child benefit cap 'rape clause' case
Two women who conceived their eldest children when they were in abusive relationships have lost a legal challenge to rules around the so-called "rape clause" to the two-child benefit non-consensual conception exception allows universal credit (UC) recipients to claim benefits for more than two children - but only if the third or subsequent children were conceived mothers brought legal action against the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP), saying the rules breached their human rights.A DWP spokesperson said victims of rape and coercion should be treated with "dignity and respect" but the court decision was about how the policy was being implemented. The policy leaves some women unable to use the exception if their first two children are conceived in rape but they have further children in consensual relationships.A previous hearing at Leeds Administrative Court heard both women were young and vulnerable when they began relationships in their teens and first became Monaghan KC, representing the women, said both were subject to regular violence and first woman conceived her two eldest children through rape and was told she could not claim the benefit for her third and fourth children, both of whom were conceived consensually in a later long-term was initially paid the child element of UC for the third child, but this was later cancelled, after the fourth child was second woman, a mother of six, was subjected to domestic abuse and violent and coercive behaviour by former partners with whom she had Monaghan said she had older children in care and two living with her, but then one of the older children returned to her was refused an exception to the two-child limit under these "ordering provisions".The Child Poverty Action Group (CPAG), which provided the women's legal representation, said that while the first woman was eventually granted an exception for her youngest child, she went for years said this amounted to thousands of pounds of support which will not be backdated. Mrs Justice Collins Rice said the two women were survivors of "appalling relationship abuse" which involved "sustained physical, sexual and psychological violence".But she also said their argument is part of the "intensely controversial" political debate about the two-child benefit said the issue must be resolved in the "political arena" and "the forum of public opinion". Ms Collins Rice concluded: "It is also a question with potential resonances in family law more generally... it is a political law reform question."Responding to the judgment, the first woman said the decision was "disappointing" but that she would "keep going and fight this to the end"."All of my choices were taken away from me for years by my abuser before I fled," she said."I've fought hard to get on with my life for me and my kids."Claire Hall, the CPAG solicitor who represented the women, said the organisation would look to appeal the said that "in the meantime all eyes are on the government which has the chance to do the right thing and abolish the inhumane two-child limit in the autumn child poverty strategy".The DWP spokesperson said: "Violence against woman and girls is a national emergency - and our mission is to halve it within a decade."This policy will be considered along with all other levers including social security reform by the Child Poverty Taskforce and the Child Poverty Strategy will be published in the autumn." Listen to highlights from West Yorkshire on BBC Sounds, catch up with the latest episode of Look North.
The Guardian
6 days ago
- The Guardian
Women who conceived in abusive relationships lose legal challenge over benefits ‘rape clause'
Two women who conceived their eldest children while they were in violent and controlling relationships have lost a legal challenge to the rules around the two-child benefit cap. A high court judge said the accounts of the abuse the women faced when they were 'vulnerable girls barely out of childhood' were 'chilling'. But in a judgment delivered on Friday, Justice Collins Rice said it was for politicians to settle the matter, not the courts. The women, and campaigners who support them, said they were disappointed but would fight on to have universal credit rules changed. The two mothers, identified only as LMN and EFG, launched a challenge to the rules around the so-called rape clause in universal credit claims at a court in Leeds in June. The two-child cap for universal credit claims has exceptions to cover a limited number of circumstances, including if a child is conceived nonconsensually. But the court heard how this only applies to third or subsequent children, leaving some women unable to utilise this exception if, for example, their first two children are conceived after rape but they have further children in consensual relationships. The women, whose claim was against the Department for Work and Pensions. were supported by the Child Poverty Action Group (CPAG), which describes the benefit rules as 'inhumane'. The judge said the two women endured abusive relationships that included rape. 'They are chilling accounts of appalling domestic abuse,' she said. 'Vulnerable girls barely out of childhood themselves caught in toxic relationships, or repeating cycles of such relationships, in which their personal, reproductive and family autonomy is acutely compromised by the physical, sexual and emotional violence of controlling perpetrators.' She said the women were 'among the most harmed and vulnerable' members of society while as mothers they were 'making an important and valuable' contribution to it. The judge said CPAG had brought a legal challenge to the two-child cap before. 'That made its way to the supreme court, which, in 2021, firmly returned the matter to the political realm.' She said she had reached the same place as the supreme court did before, saying it was 'a policy question dealing in social, economic, moral and ethical subject matter' and a 'political law-reform question'. The judge added: 'The law does not compel a government, or a parliament, to provide the answer the claimants seek. This claim is dismissed accordingly.' In a statement after the ruling, the mother named EFG said: 'All of my choices were taken away from me for years by my abuser before I fled. I've fought hard to get on with my life for me and my kids. But the two-child limit makes it more difficult. 'The government says that the exceptions are to protect people who – like me – didn't have a choice about the number of kids in their family, but the rape clause doesn't do that. The rules need to change to protect families like mine. The result today is disappointing but I will keep going and fight this to the end.' The other mother, LMN, said: 'I want to keep going with the case as I feel like it's against my human rights. When my oldest came back to live with me from care and before I got the exception for my youngest, we had to survive on less money. That stopped me doing things with the children – I never planned on having the children but that's not their fault.' Claire Hall, a solicitor at CPAG who represented the women, said they would look at appealing against the decision, but in the meantime, 'all eyes are on the government which has the chance to do the right thing and abolish the inhumane two-child limit in the autumn child poverty strategy'. Hall added: 'Our clients have provided their children with safe and loving home environments but the rules have failed to protect them and their children from the impacts of the two-child limit.'
The Independent
6 days ago
- Business
- The Independent
Martin Lewis' charity says DWP is ‘more aggressive than banks' in clawing back debt
The Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) is carrying out 'aggressive and rapid' debt collection practices which are more severe than most banks, a charity founded by Martin Lewis has claimed. The Money and Mental Health (MMH) Policy Institute says that the way the DWP treats people who are overpaid benefits is 'harsh', and risks putting vulnerable claimants at risk. Benefit overpayments occur when someone is paid more by the DWP than they are entitled to, most often because of a change in their circumstances or due to a an error by the department. While these overpayments can accumulate over the course of many months without the claimants' knowledge, the DWP can rapidly begin taking payment within weeks of spotting the issue. Agents can then directly deduct 15 per cent of someone's monthly universal credit payment to recoup these overpayments. This can be a significant loss of income, MMH argues, with 15 per cent equating to a deduction of around £60 a month for a single adult aged 25 and over. Meanwhile, commercial lenders would need to go through the courts to recoup debts, in a process which could take months. Ahead of an expansion of the DWP's debt recovery powers, researchers from MMH argue that its powers should be reformed to be more manageable for those on low incomes. The Public Authorities (Fraud, Error and Recovery) Bill currently passing through Parliament will give the DWP more ways to recover debt, including forcing banks to share account holders' transactions, and being able to make direct deductions even from people no longer on benefits. The charity also argues that many people are unaware they are able to call the DWP to try to negotiate an affordable repayment plan. This process could be brought more in line with consumer laws they add, with creditors like banks and energy companies required by regulation to engage with people who owe money. The charity, which carried out research into the issue, said one person commented: 'Having money deducted from my benefits has made it difficult for me to make ends meet and some days I have been not eating because I can't afford to, which is leaving my mental health in tatters.' The charity also said that debt management standards guidance on how to protect people in vulnerable circumstances from harm, including people with mental health problems, should be strengthened for all government departments. MMH chief executive, Helen Undy, said: 'When people are paid more in Universal Credit than they are entitled to, it's often through no fault of their own, and sometimes the first they know of it is when the government takes sudden and brutal steps to claw those payments back. 'Many people we work with are already running out of money for food before the end of the month, suddenly taking £60 from what they have left plunges them into further financial hardship and needless distress.' Ms Undy adds that the charity would 'like to see better standards applied across all government debt collection,' adding: 'It cannot be right that the state is lagging far behind the standards that consumer creditors have to meet in treating people fairly and with respect if they fall behind on payments.' A DWP spokesperson said: 'While we would urge people to report a change in circumstances to avoid falling into debt, we understand debts do occur and will always support those struggling with repayments to agree affordable plans. 'We have introduced a new Fair Repayment Rate, which caps debt repayments made in Universal Credit at 15%, allowing 1.2 million households to keep more of their Universal Credit. 'Our new Fraud Bill will help us to identify overpayments at the earliest stage so we can help prevent people falling into debt, and to do so in a way that is fair and proportionate.'
The Independent
15-07-2025
- Business
- The Independent
What does the universal credit immigration data show?
Figures have been published for the first time showing the immigration status of people on universal credit, with around one in six likely to be foreign nationals – a proportion that has remained broadly similar in recent years. A total of 7.9 million people were receiving universal credit (UC) as of June 2025, up from 6.8 million a year earlier, according to the Department for Work & Pensions. The vast majority of current claimants are people who live or work in the UK without any immigration restrictions: British and Irish nationals, plus those who have right of abode in the country. Some 6.6 million people were in this category in June, making up 83.6% of all claimants. This is a higher proportion than a year earlier (82.5%) as well as being a jump of one million from 5.6 million. The next largest proportion are people who have a right to live in the UK under the EU Settlement Scheme. These accounted for 9.7% of all claimants in June 2025, down from 10.7% a year earlier, though the number of people in this category rose slightly from 732,107 to 770,379. Some 2.7% of claimants were classed as having indefinite leave to remain in the UK, separate from the EU Settlement Scheme, up from 2.2% a year earlier. This status gives people the right to live, work and study in the UK for as long as they like and apply for benefits if they are eligible. Some 211,090 people were in this category, up from 150,838 in June 2024. The proportion of claimants who had refugee status was 1.5%, down from 1.6%, though the number rose slightly from 111,011 to 118,749. The percentage in the UK for humanitarian reasons was unchanged year-on-year at 0.7%, with the number up slightly from 51,146 to 54,156. In addition, there was a fall in both the number and proportion of claimants classed as having limited leave to remain, or temporary immigration status, from 1.3% (86,129) to 1.0% (75,267). Overall, people from outside the Common Travel Area of UK and Ireland accounted for 15.6% of UC claimants in June 2025, down from 16.5% in June 2024. This covers the five categories of the EU Settlement Scheme, humanitarian status, refugee status, indefinite leave to remain and limited leave to remain. The number of claimants across these categories increased from 1.1 million to 1.2 million year on year, up by nearly a tenth. But the total number of UC claimants rose by a faster rate, up by nearly a sixth, from 6.8 million to 7.9 million. This is why the proportion of claimants from outside the Common Travel Area shrank year-on-year, from 16.5% to 15.6%, even though the number of these claimants rose. With 83.6% of claimants in June 2025 from inside the Common Travel Area and 15.6% from outside, the remaining 0.8% either had no immigration status recorded (0.4%) or were classed as 'other' (0.4%), such as people no longer receiving UC payments or ineligible partners of an eligible UC claimant. These percentages have changed only slightly in recent years. The proportion of claimants from the Common Travel Area of the UK and Ireland stood at 82.9% three years ago in June 2022, 82.4% in June 2023, 82.5% in June 2024 and 83.6% in June of this year. The proportion from outside the Common Travel Area was 16.2% in June 2022, 16.7% in June 2023, 16.5% in June 2024 and 15.6% in June 2025.
Times
15-07-2025
- Politics
- Times
Almost half on universal credit are not required to seek work
Almost half of people on Britain's main working-age benefit are not required to look for work, with figures also revealing for the first time that more than a million foreigners are claiming universal credit. There are now 7.9 million people in Britain claiming the benefit — of whom, 3.6 million have no work requirements, 2.2 million are in work, 1.6 million are searching for work and half a million are preparing for work. Experts said that the figures showed how a system designed for the unemployed was struggling to cope with the rise in long-term sickness, as ministers' attempts to reform the system were watered down after a revolt by Labour MPs. A new political row immediately erupted over figures showing that 16 per cent of claimants are not British citizens. The biggest group, comprising almost 10 per cent of universal credit claimants and more than a quarter of a million people, are EU citizens granted settled status after Brexit. There are also more than 200,000 people from other countries with indefinite leave to remain and more than 100,000 refugees. In total, 1.26 million people are claiming under non-UK immigration status, with 1.06 million recorded as having an overseas nationality. Most of the non-British citizens who are claiming are not in work and Nigel Farage, the Reform UK leader, told The Times: '738,000 migrants on universal credit are unemployed. These figures go completely against the lie we have been told for 25 years that all immigration is positive because they work and contribute to society. And nearly all of it took place under the Conservatives.' However, Chris Philp, the shadow home secretary, said the 'staggering' figures were 'clear proof that the Labour government has lost control of our welfare system'. The Tories are planning to ban foreign citizens from claiming and Philp said: 'Universal credit should be reserved for UK citizens only. This is about fairness, responsibility and protecting support for those who've contributed to this country. We're calling on Keir Starmer to stop the drift and take action. British taxpayers should not be working hard to subsidise immigrants many of whom have only recently arrived.' However, the 41 per cent of foreign citizens in work is higher than the 34 per cent of overall claimants. Alex Clegg, of the Resolution Foundation think tank, said: 'That's probably because proportionally immigrants are more likely to be in work, more like to be of working age and be here to work. 'They are people who are working on low incomes or people in a temporary situation who have lost their job or got ill and are still likely to be people who have worked — those who aren't working might have been working last month.' He said that there were 'quite clear rules about who could claim benefits based on immigration status' and added: 'No one who is here illegally can claim and it's only people with long-term immigration status, who can work and have the same relation to the labour market as British citizens do, and refugees.' Clegg argued that 'expecting people to work and pay taxes and contribute and then not giving people social security support is quite unprecedented'. He added that a big rise in the number of claimants with no work requirement in part reflected the long-term sick being moved onto universal credit from other benefits. 'There's been a real increase over the past few years,' he said. Clegg added: 'When you've got a benefit system designed around conditional rules and almost half the people on it are exempt from those rules, there are questions about how you adapt the system. 'Universal credit was very effective as an unemployment benefit — the smooth work incentives, the push of conditionality and the pull of employment support. That was very relevant in 2010 but it's looking like the labour market challenge has shifted to health and disability.' Ministers are halving the incapacity benefit element of universal credit to £50 a week, although only for new claimants after a backbench revolt, while increasing the standard rate. Clegg said there was a logic to 'rebalancing' the system to improve work incentives, but said 'a straight halving is a little bit quick'. A government spokeswoman said: 'People in the UK illegally, with no immigration status, cannot receive universal credit, and have no access to public funds. But we want to tighten up the system by doubling the current length of time it takes to apply once legal status is awarded, from five to 10 years, as part of a new contribution-based model to settlement. We inherited a broken welfare system and spiralling, unsustainable benefits bill. We're acting to reform the system, including tightening these sorts of rules.'
