This article is from the source 'bbc' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-31937871

The article has changed 3 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 0 Version 1
Benefits cap: Single mothers lose court challenge Benefits cap: Single mothers lose court challenge
(about 3 hours later)
Two single mothers have lost their Supreme Court challenge against cutbacks in the benefits system.Two single mothers have lost their Supreme Court challenge against cutbacks in the benefits system.
The women, who had both been victims of domestic violence, had argued the cap had a discriminatory effect on women, especially those seeking to escape violent partners.The women, who had both been victims of domestic violence, had argued the cap had a discriminatory effect on women, especially those seeking to escape violent partners.
But the court ruled by a 3-2 majority that the government's benefit cap regulations were not unlawful.But the court ruled by a 3-2 majority that the government's benefit cap regulations were not unlawful.
Work and Pensions Secretary Iain Duncan Smith said he was "delighted".Work and Pensions Secretary Iain Duncan Smith said he was "delighted".
The Supreme Court decision upholds a Court of Appeal ruling that the capping measures were lawful.The Supreme Court decision upholds a Court of Appeal ruling that the capping measures were lawful.
'Right and fair''Right and fair'
The benefit cap limits the amount of benefits a household can receive to £500 a week for couples and £350 a week for households of a single adult.The benefit cap limits the amount of benefits a household can receive to £500 a week for couples and £350 a week for households of a single adult.
Lord Reed, giving the lead judgment, said he accepted that the cap was "a proportionate means" of meeting legitimate government aims including reducing the deficit and incentivising parents to find work.Lord Reed, giving the lead judgment, said he accepted that the cap was "a proportionate means" of meeting legitimate government aims including reducing the deficit and incentivising parents to find work.
But Lady Hale - one of the dissenting judges - ruled that the government had failed to take proper account of "the best interests of the children".But Lady Hale - one of the dissenting judges - ruled that the government had failed to take proper account of "the best interests of the children".
Mr Duncan Smith said: "I am delighted that the country's highest court has agreed with this government and overwhelming public opinion that the benefit cap is right and fair.Mr Duncan Smith said: "I am delighted that the country's highest court has agreed with this government and overwhelming public opinion that the benefit cap is right and fair.
"I am proud to say that it is one of the most significant reforms we've implemented over the past five years."I am proud to say that it is one of the most significant reforms we've implemented over the past five years.
"The benefit cap is encouraging people to change their behaviour and motivating them to find work.""The benefit cap is encouraging people to change their behaviour and motivating them to find work."
The Child Poverty Action Group said that, although a majority of the judges upheld the cap as lawful, a majority also criticised it for breaching the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC). Although a majority of the judges upheld the cap as lawful, there was criticism from some of them that it was not in line with the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC).
However, Lord Carnwath said "it is in the political, rather than the legal, arena that the consequences should be played out".
The majority also agreed that it was not the function of the courts to determine how much public expenditure should be devoted to welfare benefits.
Chief executive Alison Garnham said: "The women and children involved in this case were escaping horrific abuse.Chief executive Alison Garnham said: "The women and children involved in this case were escaping horrific abuse.
"As three of the judges have 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."As three of the judges have 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.
"We hope the Government will listen to the court and comply with international law on the protection of children.""We hope the Government will listen to the court and comply with international law on the protection of children."