CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;CHAMBER;ENG — 17 mars 2026

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s665E407E { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s34DFC730 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s780F5245 { border:0.75pt solid #000000; clear:both } .sE77B86B8 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; padding-top:1pt; padding-right:4pt; padding-left:4pt } .sEB972D3E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; padding-right:4pt; padding-left:4pt } .s55E5497F { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:center; padding-right:4pt; padding-left:4pt; padding-bottom:1pt; font-size:10pt } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s2E932ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:11pt } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .s3AAE10DF { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s3CA22BA { font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s28F0D84C { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:11.67pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:6.78pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .sDA7B489D { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:15pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:3.45pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s743F3A55 { margin-right:0pt; margin-left:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s879C130D { margin-left:7.05pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-weight:bold; text-transform:none } .s5E8F5A28 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:25.5pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s9D48DD53 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .sEADEC9F9 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:36pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .sDECD9755 { margin-left:11.67pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:6.78pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .sAE6FB95D { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:32.01pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:1.99pt; font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sB25A0399 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:24.84pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:0.66pt; font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s807BA660 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:24.16pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:1.34pt; font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s2044A09A { margin-left:6.51pt; margin-bottom:6pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:1.99pt; font-weight:normal; font-style:italic } .sF121C248 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:43.1pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s8F902927 { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:28.35pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .sECF8538A { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s3A692EA6 { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:center; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sF54F3725 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:42.55pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sDBC81028 { width:4.83pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s65DDED6B { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:42.55pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s7AE800C3 { width:4.28pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s55F67FD3 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:51.05pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; line-height:113%; font-size:10pt } .s3970C00F { width:8.17pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sCD82236A { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:51.05pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; line-height:113%; font-size:10pt } .s320E5A8E { width:5.95pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sD051EF8 { width:3.72pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s4196892D { width:3.17pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sFABD3260 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:62.35pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-19.8pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s16F6432D { width:7.9pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sFF8BF293 { width:8.05pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sBD165FDE { width:5.39pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s695E2BCF { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:62.35pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-19.8pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sA6765C01 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:62.35pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-11.3pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sFA550501 { width:6.3pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s3CAF9CA4 { width:8.72pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s448F0C15 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:18pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-18pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .sD11CFAB7 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:15.01pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify; padding-left:1.99pt; font-family:Arial } .sFBC99493 { font-style:italic } .s2D9C6089 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s69DCC830 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sC986E16F { font-family:Arial; color:#ffffff } .s58277305 { width:28.55pt; display:inline-block } .sB81C5FD1 { width:141.42pt; display:inline-block } .s5A65B3DC { width:46.56pt; display:inline-block } .s44B8752F { width:177.11pt; display:inline-block }     SECOND SECTION CASE OF D.A. AND R.A. v. THE UNITED KINGDOM (Application no. 46692/19)       JUDGMENT   Art 14 (+ Art 1 P1 and/or Art 8) • Discrimination   • Other status • Non-exemption of lone parents with children under the age of two from the scope of a revised monetary cap on the total amount of annual welfare benefits households may receive • Lack of entitlement to free childcare for lone parents with children under the age of two constituting a considerable additional barrier to being able to work a 16-hour week which would exempt them from the revised benefit cap • Applicant cohorts, namely lone parents of children under the age of two and children under the age of two with lone parents, in a significantly different situation compared to the generality of those subject to the revised benefit cap • In case-circumstances, Government not required to show “very weighty reasons” for their failure to treat the applicant cohorts differently • “Manifestly without reasonable foundation” standard may be applied outside context of corrective transitional measures where a respondent State was not required to show “very weighty reasons” to justify a difference in treatment or a failure to treat differently • Revised benefit cap subjected to considerable legislative and judicial scrutiny at domestic level with regard given to its impact on households with young children and the best interests of the child • Other childcare-related State support available to applicant cohorts at the relevant time • Revised benefit cap not “manifestly without reasonable foundation” and within wide margin of appreciation   Prepared by the Registry. Does not bind the Court.   STRASBOURG 17 March 2026   This judgment will become final in the circumstances set out in Article 44 § 2 of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of D.A. and R.A. v. the United Kingdom, The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of:   Arnfinn Bårdsen , President ,   Saadet Yüksel,   Péter Paczolay,   Oddný Mjöll Arnardóttir,   Gediminas Sagatys,   Stéphane Pisani,   Hugh Mercer , judges , and Andrea Tamietti, Section Registrar , Having regard to: the application (no.   46692/19) against the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland lodged with the Court under Article   34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by two British nationals, D.A. (“the first applicant”) and R.A. (“the second applicant”) (together, “the applicants”), on 29 August 2019; the decision to give notice to the United Kingdom Government (“the Government”) of the complaints concerning Article   14 of the Convention read in conjunction with Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 and/or Article 8 of the Convention; the decision not to have the applicants’ names disclosed; the parties’ observations; Having deliberated in private on 10 February 2026, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date: INTRODUCTION 1.     The application concerns the Government’s policy of imposing a monetary cap on the total amount of welfare benefits households may receive per year. The applicants, a mother and her child, complained that the Government’s failure to exempt lone parents with children under the age of two from the scope of the cap constituted unlawful discrimination within the meaning of Article   14 of the Convention, read in conjunction with Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 and/or Article   8 of the Convention. THE FACTS 2.     The applicants were born in 1992 and 2017 respectively and live in Radlett. They were granted legal aid and were represented by Ms R. Carrier (Miles and Partners), a lawyer practising in London. 3.     The Government were represented by their Agent, Mr J. Gaughan, of the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office. 4.     The facts of the case may be summarised as follows. BACKGROUND TO THE CASE 5.     In April 2013, the Government introduced secondary legislation imposing a cap of 26,000 British pounds (“GBP”) per annum on the total amount of welfare benefits households other than those comprising a sole adult could receive (see paragraphs 24-25 below) (“the original benefit cap”). The cap did not apply to lone parents if the lone parent claiming benefits worked at least 16 hours per week (see paragraph 25 below). 6.     In March 2016, the Government introduced primary legislation reducing the benefit cap to GBP   23,000 per annum for households other than those comprising a sole adult in London and GBP   20,000 for such households outside of London (see paragraph 27 below) (“the revised benefit cap”). The revised benefit cap was brought into effect on 7   November 2016. Lone parents who worked at least 16 hours per week continued to be exempt from the cap (see paragraph 28 below). 7 .     At the time the present application was lodged, the Government offered free childcare in respect of all children aged three and four years old and certain children aged two years old (see paragraphs 40-41 below). The Government did not offer free childcare in respect of children under the age of two years old. Children were required to enter full-time education when they attained five years of age (see paragraph 42 below). 8.     The first applicant is the mother of the second applicant, who was born in June 2017. Between June 2017 and June 2019, the first applicant was therefore the lone parent of a child under the age of two years old and was subject to the revised benefit cap. The first applicant was not entitled to any free childcare in respect of the second applicant during this period (see paragraph 7 above) and therefore contends that it was unduly difficult for her to work the 16 hours per week necessary to exempt herself from the revised benefit cap. THE DOMESTIC PROCEEDINGS Proceedings before the Administrative Court 9 .     On 24 January 2017, a number of individuals including the first applicant issued a claim for judicial review. They argued (among other things) that: (i) the application of the revised benefit cap to lone parents of children under the age of two – who, because of their caring responsibilities, found it unduly difficult to work the 16 hours per week necessary to exempt themselves from the revised benefit cap – constituted unlawful discrimination contrary to Article   14 of the Convention read with Article   8 and/or Article   1 of Protocol No.   1; and (ii) the application of the revised benefit cap to children under the age of two with lone parents constituted unlawful discrimination contrary to Article   14 of the Convention read with Article   8 of the Convention. The first applicant did not have a child under the age of two at the time the claim was brought, but was due to (and did) give birth later that year. 10.     On 22 June 2017, the Administrative Court found in favour of the claimants on both grounds ( R (DA and others) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions [2017] EWHC 1446 (Admin)). Mr Justice Collins concluded that, although the aims pursued by the benefit cuts were legitimate, evidence showed that the revised benefit cap was capable of causing real damage to individuals such as the claimants who found it impossible to comply with the work requirement because of their caring responsibilities. 11.     The Government appealed the judgment of the Administrative Court to the Court of Appeal. Proceedings before the Court of Appeal 12.     On 15 March 2018, the Court of Appeal (by a majority of two to one) allowed the Government’s appeal ( R (DA and others) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions [2018] EWCA Civ 504). Sir Patrick Elias, delivering the main judgment, rejected the submission that there were obvious and significant differences which marked out the cohort of lone parents with children under the age of two from other lone parents. He therefore found that no discrimination arose from the failure to exempt lone parents with children under the age of two from the application of the revised benefit cap. The judge observed that, in any event, it would not have been possible to say that discrimination against the parent claimants’ cohort was unjustified or “manifestly without reasonable foundation”. The judge did not accept that presenting the children as claimants in their own right added anything of substance to the discrimination claims brought by their parents. 13.     The claimants, including the first applicant, appealed the judgment of the Court of Appeal to the Supreme Court. Proceedings before the Supreme Court 14 .     The Supreme Court heard the first applicant’s (and her co-claimants’) appeal (“the D.A. case”) jointly with another (“the D.S. case”). In the D.S.   case, the claimants had alleged that the revised benefit cap discriminated unlawfully against lone parents and the children of lone parents. 15 .     On 15 May 2019, the Supreme Court (by a majority of five to two) dismissed both appeals, finding that there had been no Convention-related discrimination ( R (on the application of DA and others) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, R (on the application of DS and others) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions [2019] UKSC 21). The reasoning of the Justices, in so far as relevant to the D.A. case, may be summarised as follows. 16 .     Lord Wilson, delivering the main judgment (with whom Lord Hodge agreed), concluded that the appellant cohorts had a “status” on the ground of which they could seek to complain under Article   14 of discrimination in the enjoyment of their substantive Convention rights. He also considered that the appellant cohorts were in a relevantly different situation from all others subject to the revised benefit cap such that the failure to exempt them from the cap required justification: “51.     There is clear prima facie evidence that ... the DA and the DS cohorts are in a relevantly different situation from those others who have been treated similarly to them by their common subjection to the revised cap. For it appears (a)     that, in the case of a lone parent of a child below school age, in particular of a child below the age of two, it is contrary to the interests both of herself, of her child and of the family as a whole that she should in effect be constrained to work also outside the home; (b)     that, by the conditions which it has attached to the receipt of income support, the government has itself decided that it is contrary to their interests; (c)     that, irrespective of whether it is contrary to their interests for her to be so constrained, the extra difficulty, beyond that faced by others subjected to the cap, which confronts such parents in finding not only suitable work but also suitable childcare is plain; (d)     that, in the case of a child aged under two, the absence of any free childcare further increases that difficulty; (e)     that the incidence of failure of those represented by the DA and the DS cohorts to escape the cap, namely in the case of the wider DS cohort 54%, and in the case of the narrower DA cohort 25%, of all those who suffer it, demonstrates its disproportionate impact upon them; and (f)     that, while the effect of the cap on all households who suffer it is to reduce their income below the poverty line, poverty has a disproportionate effect on the young children within these cohorts, stunting major aspects of their development in the long term as well as in the short term.” 17 .     Lord Wilson considered that the court’s assessment of whether the adverse effects of rules for entitlement to welfare benefits were justified was to be undertaken by reference to whether they were “manifestly without reasonable foundation”. Pertinent to this inquiry was whether, in setting the terms of the revised benefit cap, the Government had breached Article   3.1 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (“UNCRC”) (see paragraph   61 below). For Lord Wilson, Article   3.1 UNCRC was relevant to the Convention rights of both the children and lone parents concerned by the appeals: “76.     Insofar as in the present appeals the children themselves claim a violation of rights of their own under article   14, taken with article   8, their rights should be construed in the light of the UNCRC as an international convention which identifies the level of consideration which should have been given to their interests before subjecting their households to the revised cap. 77.     But can the lone parents themselves also claim that their own rights under article   14, taken with article   8, must be construed in the light of the provision in the UNCRC for consideration of their children’s interests? The interests of the lone parents in play in the present appeals are indistinguishable from the interests of their children below school age. Their claim is as parents: so, without their children, it would not exist. Indeed their claim is as lone parents: so responsibility for their children in effect rests solely upon them. And their claim is to defend furtherance of their family life from the effects of a cap on benefits specifically computed by reference to the needs of their children and themselves taken together. ...” 18.     However, following an analysis of the parliamentary materials explaining the background to the Government’s decision and in particular the Government’s policy objectives (including a number of the materials referred to at paragraphs 30-38 below), Lord Wilson concluded – “[b]y a narrow margin” – that the Government did not breach Article   3.1 UNCRC by subjecting the appellant cohorts to the revised benefit cap. Lord Wilson also concluded that the Government’s decision to treat the appellant cohorts similarly to all others subject to the revised benefit cap was not “manifestly without reasonable foundation”, considering in particular the Government’s belief that there were better long-term outcomes for children who lived in working households, and the Government’s provision of Discretionary Housing Payments to address particular hardship (see paragraphs   44-46 below). 19.     Lord Carnwath (with whom Lord Reed and Lord Hughes agreed) was similarly of the view that the appeal should be dismissed on the basis that the approach adopted by the Government was not “manifestly without reasonable foundation”. He considered that, in circumstances where the claims in question fell within the ambit of Article   8 so as to engage the issue of discrimination under Article   14, the “best interests” principle under Article   3.1 UNCRC was potentially relevant. The judge was also content to assume for the purposes of the appeal that the appellants satisfied the “status” requirement, but was unable to reach a concluded view on the matter in the absence of directly relevant authority from this Court: “108.     I must accept ... that in R (Stott) v Secretary of State for Justice the majority of this court adopted a relatively broad view of the concept of “status”. On that basis I would agree that “lone parents” can properly be regarded as having a status within the Thlimmenos principle. In agreement with Lord Hodge, I am much more doubtful as to the appropriateness of the other narrower forms of status relied on in this case ... However, in the absence of any directly relevant Strasbourg authority on these points, it is difficult to reach a concluded view. Like Lord Hodge I am content to assume for present purposes that the “status” requirement is satisfied in respect of each such group.” 20.     Lord Hodge (with whom Lord Hughes agreed) agreed with Lord   Wilson that the appeals should be dismissed for the reasons provided. He agreed with Lord Carnwath’s view on justification and the application of the “manifestly without reasonable foundation” standard. While Lord Hodge was content to assume that the appellants had the required “status” to mount a challenge under Article   14 of the Convention, he shared Lord Carnwath’s doubts on this issue. 21.     Lady Hale (dissenting) agreed with Lord Wilson that “lone parent” constituted a status within the meaning of Article   14, and that it could be sub ‑ divided according to the ages of the lone parent’s child. She also agreed with Lord Wilson that the appellant cohorts were in a relevantly different situation from others subject to the revised benefit cap. However, Lady Hale considered that the revised benefit cap was not suitable to achieving any of its declared aims and that, even if it were, the Government had failed to strike a fair balance between the interests of the community on the one hand and the interests of the children concerned and their parents on the other. In particular, Lady Hale was of the view that there was little or no evidence that proper account had been taken of the effect of the revised benefit cap on the welfare of children in lone parent families. 22 .     Lord Kerr (dissenting) agreed with Lord Wilson that the appellants had the requisite status to advance claims under Article   14 and that there was clear prima facie evidence that the appellants were in a relevantly different situation from others subject to the revised benefit cap. However, the judge considered that the “manifestly without reasonable foundation” test should not be applied domestically and that it ought only be applied when considering whether a measure pursued a “legitimate aim” as opposed to whether a measure was “proportionate”. Lord Kerr concluded that the Government had failed in this case to carry out a proper weighing of the particular interests of the appellant cohorts against the objectives of the revised benefit cap, as the Government were required to do under Article   3.1 UNCRC. RELEVANT LEGAL FRAMEWORK AND PRACTICE DOMESTIC LAW AND PRACTICE The Government’s welfare reforms 23 .     In March 2012, the Government enacted the Welfare Reform Act   2012 (“the 2012 Act”). The 2012 Act introduced a new integrated working ‑ age benefit called “Universal Credit” to replace six separate pre ‑ existing benefits including working tax credit. The 2012 Act contained provisions allowing for a phased transition from the pre-existing benefits to Universal Credit. The original benefit cap 24 .     Sections 96 and 97 of the 2012 Act enabled regulations to be introduced imposing a cap on the welfare benefits to which a single person or couple was entitled. Pursuant to these provisions, the Government adopted the Benefit Cap (Housing Benefit) Regulations 2012 (Statutory Instrument no.   2012/2994) (“the 2012 Regulations”), which amended a previous set of regulations – the Housing Benefit Regulations 2006 (Statutory Instrument no.   2006/213) (“the 2006 Regulations”) – so as to provide that, if a household’s total entitlement to specified welfare benefits exceeded an annual limit, the household’s entitlement should be capped at that limit (regulation 75A of the 2006 Regulations). The annual limit stipulated for households other than those comprising a sole adult was GBP   26,000 (regulation 75G of the 2006 Regulations). This cap – the original benefit cap – came into force on 15 April 2013. An equivalent cap was set for recipients of Universal Credit (see regulation 79 of the Universal Credit Regulations 2013 (Statutory Instrument no.   2013/376) (“the 2013 Regulations”)). 25 .     The 2006 Regulations, as amended by the 2012 Regulations, provided for certain exemptions to the original benefit cap. Under regulation 75E of the 2006 Regulations, the benefit cap did not apply to those entitled to working tax credit. A lone parent was entitled to working tax credit if, among other things, she or he undertook work for at least 16 hours each week (regulation 4(1) of the Working Tax Credit (Entitlement and Maximum Rate) Regulations 2002 (Statutory Instrument no.   2002/2005) (“the 2002 Regulations”)). Similarly, the benefit cap did not apply to an award of Universal Credit (which was introduced to replace working tax credit: see paragraph   23 above) where a household met an earnings threshold based on 16   hours work at the National Minimum Wage (see regulation 82 of the 2013   Regulations). Under regulation 75F of the 2006 Regulations and regulation 83 of the 2013 Regulations, those in receipt of certain benefits such as industrial injuries benefits were exempted from the benefit cap. 26 .     A claim challenging the application of the original benefit cap was brought domestically in 2013 by the mothers and youngest children of three lone parent families. They argued (among other things) that the cap discriminated against women contrary to Article   14 of the Convention read with Article   8 and/or Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 to the Convention. On 18   March 2015, the Supreme Court (by a majority of three to two) found no violation of the Convention and dismissed the claimants’ appeal ( R (on the application of SG and others (previously JS and others)) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions [2015] UKSC 16). The revised benefit cap 27 .     The revised benefit cap was introduced by the Welfare Reform and Work Act 2016 (“the 2016 Act”). The 2016 Act amended the 2012 Act so as to reduce the annual limit for the receipt of welfare benefits to GBP   23,000 for households other than those comprising a sole adult in Greater London and GBP   20,000 for such households outside of Greater London (section   96(5A) of the 2012 Act). The revised cap was brought into effect on 7   November 2016 by the Benefit Cap (Housing Benefit and Universal Credit) (Amendment) Regulations 2016 (Statutory Instrument no.   2016/909) (“the 2016 Benefit Cap Regulations”). 28 .     The exemptions provided for by regulations 75E and 75F of the 2006   Regulations and regulations 82 and 83 of the 2013 Regulations (see paragraph 25 above) continued to apply in relation to the revised benefit cap, meaning that households would not be subject to the cap if they worked at least 16   hours per week. In addition, the 2016 Benefit Cap Regulations amended regulation 75F of the 2006 Regulations and regulation 83 of the 2013   Regulations to exempt those in receipt of a Carer’s or Guardian’s Allowance from the revised benefit cap. 29.     As summarised above (see paragraphs 9-22), proceedings were brought domestically regarding the compatibility of the revised benefit cap – in so far as it applied to lone parents, the children of lone parents, lone parents of children under the age of two and children under the age of two with lone parents – with the Convention. On 15 May 2019, the Supreme Court (by a majority of five to two) found no violation of the Convention and dismissed the claimants’ appeals (see paragraphs   14-22 above). Parliamentary consideration of the benefit cap 30 .     Both the original benefit cap and the revised benefit cap were subject to parliamentary consideration prior to being enacted as law. Parliamentarians had regard to, among other things, the impact of the benefit cap on households with young children. The original benefit cap 31.     On 16 February 2011 the Welfare Reform Bill, which included provision for the original benefit cap, was introduced into Parliament. 32.     On 17 May 2011 a Member of Parliament (“MP”) proposed an amendment to exempt households from the cap if childcare costs outweighed earnings, referring in particular to lone parents with several children including children under the age of five. The Government opposed the amendment, which was withdrawn by the MP. 33.     On 21 November 2011 a member of the House of Lords tabled amendments focusing on households with children, including one exempting lone parents with children under the age of five from the ambit of the benefit cap. The amendment was opposed by the Government and was ultimately not pressed upon. The revised benefit cap 34 .     On 9 July 2015 the Welfare Reform and Work Bill (“the 2015 Bill”), which included provision for the revised benefit cap, was introduced into Parliament. 35 .     On 8 September 2015 the Government published a memorandum on the 2015 Bill addressed to the Joint Committee on Human Rights (a   committee of 12 members appointed from both Houses of Parliament who scrutinise every Government Bill for compatibility with human rights). The memorandum asserted (among other things) that the Government had considered their proposed reduction of the benefit cap by reference to their obligations under Article   3 UNCRC: “77.     In relation to clauses 7 and 8 (reduction of the benefit cap), ... the Government has fully considered its obligations under the UNCRC, and in particular article   3 (the duty to treat the best interests of the child as a primary consideration) ... . The Government considers that £20,000 and £23,000 is a sufficient amount for families to live on many working households earn less than this. The best interests of children overall is to have parents in work and work remains the surest route out of poverty. Children in workless families are three times as likely to be in relative poverty, than families where at least one parent works. The cap has been proven to encourage movement into work. Evidence shows that capped households are 41% more likely to go into work after a year than similar uncapped households so reducing the cap further will encourage more people into work. The savings afforded to the Government by reducing spending on welfare will allow the Government to protect expenditure on education, childcare and health and the improvements to the overall economic situation will have a positive impact on children and their best interests.” 36 .     On 10 and 15 September 2015 a number of stakeholder organisations made representations to the Public Bill Committee of the House of Commons (a committee set up specifically to examine the details of the 2015 Bill) in respect of the revised benefit cap and lone parents with young children. Gingerbread, a charity for lone parent families, emphasised that a significant proportion of those subject to the original benefit cap were lone parents of children under the age of two who faced particular difficulties in moving into work because of (among other things) the unavailability of childcare support: “Over 60% of people capped so far have been single parents; 70% of them have children under five and 34% have children under two ... the younger the child is when the parent is capped, the harder it is for them to get into work ... we really also need to be looking at the contradiction between the benefit cap and the conditionality policy that exists. ... If you are capping up to 20,000 single parents who have children under two, there is no childcare support available for that group at present. There is also ... a real shortage of childcare available, so there are really clear reasons why that group of single parents will not be able to go into work. [The Government’s] research, again, has shown that where those people who are capped do not find work, it is likely that 40,000   more children would be pushed into poverty. When we are looking at the benefit cap we need to look at the circumstances of the family and the age of the child ...” 37 .     On 17 September 2015 an MP tabled an amendment before the Public Bill Committee exempting persons responsible for the care of children under the age of two from the application of the revised benefit cap. The MP referred to the evidence that had been heard the previous week and argued that the original benefit cap had overwhelmingly applied to people who were recognised within the benefits system itself as being unable to work, including single mothers unable to work because childcare represented a substantial barrier to employment. However, the committee rejected the proposed amendment by ten votes to five. 38 .     Between November 2015 and February 2016 the House of Lords considered the revised benefit cap in debates and in committee. The impact of the cap on lone parents with young children was raised on multiple occasions, and several related amendments were proposed. These included amendments to exclude child-related benefits from the cap and to exclude women in late pregnancy and responsible carers of children under the age of nine months from the cap. The first of these proposed amendments was rejected; the second was withdrawn. In response to the concerns raised, the Government emphasised that the cap increased work incentives, that it promoted fairness, and that additional funds had been allocated in the form of Discretionary Housing Payments (see paragraphs 44-46 below) to provide extra support for households affected by the cap and to assist in hard cases such as those involving parents with young children. Contemporaneous State support 39.     Welfare support provided by the Government to the parents of young children (among others) as at the time the present application was lodged may be summarised as follows. Free childcare 40 .     The Government offered up to 15 hours per week of free childcare, for 38 weeks per year, for all children aged three and four years old (see section 7(1) of the Childcare Act 2006 (“the 2006 Act”) and regulations   3-4 of the Local Authority (Duty to Secure Early Years Provision Free of Charge) Regulations 2014 (Statutory Instrument no.   2014/2147) (“the 2014 Regulations”)). From September 2017, this entitlement was extended to 30   hours per week of free childcare, for 38 weeks per year, for eligible working parents of children aged three and four years old (see section 1 of the Childcare Act 2016 and regulation 3 of the Childcare (Early Years Provision Free of Charge) (Extended Entitlement) Regulations 2016 (Statutory Instrument no.   2016/1257) (“the 2016 Childcare Regulations”)). Working parents were eligible for free childcare if (among other things) they were in “qualifying paid work”; that is, their expected income attained a threshold assessed by reference to (among other things) the amount a person earning the National Minimum Wage would be paid for 16 hours of work per week (see regulations 2 and 5 of the 2016 Childcare Regulations). 41 .     The Government also offered free childcare of up to 15 hours per week, for 38 weeks per year, in respect of certain children aged two years old in families in receipt of specified benefits (see, inter alia , section 7(1) of the 2006 Act and regulations 3-4 of the 2014 Regulations). 42 .     Under sections 7 and 8 of the Education Act 1996, children were required to enter full-time education when they attained five years of age. Support with childcare costs 43 .     The Government provided support with childcare costs at the time the present application was lodged. Lone parents in receipt of working tax credit (i.e. who worked at least 16 hours per week) could apply for help with their childcare costs and could recover up to 70% of eligible childcare costs up to a certain limit (see section 12 of the Tax Credits Act 2002 and regulation 20(2) of the 2002 Regulations). Lone parents in receipt of Universal Credit (which was introduced to replace working tax credit: see paragraph   23 above) who were either in paid work or had an offer of paid work could apply for help with their childcare costs regardless of the precise number of hours worked and could recover up to 85% of eligible childcare costs up to a certain limit (see regulations 32 and 34(1) of the 2013 Regulations). Discretionary Housing Payments 44 .     Under section 69 of the Child Support, Pensions and Social Security Act 2000 and the Discretionary Financial Assistance Regulations 2001 (Statutory Instrument no.   2001/1167) (“the 2001 Regulations”), the Government through their local authorities had the ability to provide Discretionary Housing Payments (“DHPs”) to assist claimants who were in receipt of either Housing Benefit or Universal Credit and who appeared to the relevant authority to require some further financial assistance in order to meet housing costs (regulation 2(1) of the 2001 Regulations). 45 .     Following the introduction of the original benefit cap in 2013, the Government began allocating DHP funding to support claimants subject to the benefit cap. The Government increased DHP funding for benefit cap claimants in Great Britain from GBP   25 million in the financial year 2015 ‑ 2016 to GBP 40 million in the financial year 2016-2017. DHP funding was further increased to GBP   67.5 million in the financial year 2017-2018 for benefit cap claimants in England and Wales (DHPs having been fully devolved in Scotland from 2017). For the financial years 2018-2019 and 2019-2020, DHP funding for benefit cap claimants in England and Wales was GBP   54 million. 46 .     As provided by regulation 2(2) of the 2001 Regulations, local authorities had discretion as to whether to make DHPs in a particular case, the amount of the payments and the duration for which they were made. By the time of the Supreme Court’s judgment of 15 May 2019, the Government’s DHP guidance manual included within a list of possible recipients a household which “contains ... a child ... under two years of age where childcare is a barrier to getting work”. Flexible Support Fund 47.     In April 2011, the Government introduced a “Flexible Support Fund” which was available to those who worked less than 16 hours per week and parents ineligible for free childcare. The Flexible Support Fund could be used to assist with childcare costs and was administered by Jobcentre Plus on a discretionary basis. Inquiry of the House of Commons Work and Pensions Select Committee The Select Committee Report 48 .     In February 2017, the House of Commons Work and Pensions Select Committee (a committee responsible for reviewing the policies and spending of the Government’s Department for Work and Pensions) (“the Select Committee”) commenced an inquiry into the benefit cap following concerns about how the cap was working in practice and the impact it was having on claimants. The Select Committee’s initial inquiry could not continue because of the 2017 General Election. The inquiry was re-launched in September 2018 and culminated in a report published by the Select Committee on 12   March 2019 (“the Select Committee Report”). 49 .     The Select Committee Report assessed the performance of the benefit cap against the three aims the Government advanced to justify its imposition: restoring fairness to the benefit system by ensuring non-working families did not receive more in benefits than working families received from going to work; making financial savings; and encouraging more people to work. The Select Committee Report concluded that the cap’s performance against all three aims was “disappointing at best”. It found that the fairness justification did not stand up to scrutiny because the cap failed to account for the benefits that in-work families could receive and, in any event, in-work families were already better off than similar non-working families even without the cap. In addition, it was not clear to the Select Committee that the cap was saving money: the savings claimed by the Government included only the money taken from households’ benefit income, a significant proportion of which would be handed back to local authorities – mainly through DHPs – to support capped claimants. 50 .     In relation to the aim of incentivising work, the Select Committee Report found that the vast majority of claimants did not move into work because of the benefit cap. The Government’s own evaluation of the original benefit cap showed that capped households were only 4.7 percentage points more likely to move into work compared to similar uncapped households. However, the Government repeatedly stated that the same evaluation found that capped households were 41% more likely to move into employment than similar uncapped households. While both figures were technically correct (the 41% figure being the relative increase in people moving into employment; the 4.7% figure being the absolute increase in people moving into employment), referring only to the larger figure risked giving the impression that the increase was much larger than it really was. The Select Committee suggested that the number of households moving into work as a result of the benefit cap was so low because most people who were capped, including lone parents with young children, had already been assessed by the Government as not being required to seek work because they faced major barriers to doing so. 51.     As regards the impact of the benefit cap on claimants, the Select Committee Report found that the benefit cap disproportionately affected households who faced barriers to moving into employment and who were therefore not required to look for work in order to claim benefits. The Select Committee identified childcare as one such barrier to working, noting that the Government only provided free childcare in respect of children aged two and above. The Select Committee Report also referred to evidence from Child Poverty Action Group identifying children as the “main losers” from the benefit cap and citing research from the Public Policy Institute apparently showing that the benefit cap would lead to 200,000 more children living in severe poverty. 52 .     The Select Committee Report called for a full audit of the benefit cap policy to be undertaken by the Government and made a number of specific recommendations. Among other things, the Select Committee recommended that the cap only be applied to claimants the Government expected to be actively looking for work in order to receive benefits (not, for example, single mothers with newborn babies), the child element (among other elements) of a claimant’s Universal Credit award be excluded from the application of the cap, and the Government no longer cite the relative increase (41%) in capped households moving into work without making clear that the absolute increase was only 4.7%. The Government’s response to the Select Committee Report 53 .     The Government published their response to the Select Committee Report on 15 May 2019. As to the aims of the benefit cap, they maintained that the policy restored fairness between those receiving out-of-work benefits and taxpayers in employment, and stated that the cap imposed a reasonable limit on the total amount a household could receive in welfare benefits to promote a fair and healthy society and maintain public confidence in the welfare system. The Government also maintained that the benefit cap provided an incentive to move into work. 54.     As regards the impact of the benefit cap on claimants, the Government noted that capped households may see an improvement in their finances as a result of working any number of hours, even if their earnings were below the threshold to exempt the household from the cap. The Government also asserted that work substantially reduced the chances of poverty. The Government noted that certain households were exempted from the cap and that additional support continued to be available to those who were subject to the cap through the provision of DHPs. The Government outlined changes being introduced to make childcare less of a burden for working families: Jobcentres had been reminded that the Flexible Support Fund should be used to assist eligible claimants with their transition into work by providing grants to cover up-front childcare costs; changes had been made to the Flexible Support Fund to align it more closely with Universal Credit; and work was being undertaken to increase work coaches’ understanding and promotion of the childcare support offered by the Government. 55 .     As to the Select Committee’s recommendations outlined at paragraph   52 above, the Government did not accept the recommendation to apply the cap only to claimants required to actively look for work in order to receive benefits. The Government noted that the original aims of the benefit cap policy went beyond work incentives, and asserted that the fact claimants may not be required to look for work in order to receive benefits did not mean they should not be encouraged to work or to prepare for work. The Government were also unable to accept the Select Committee’s recommendation that the child element (among other elements) of a claimant’s Universal Credit award be excluded from the application of the cap, contending that Universal Credit was a unitary concept that did not allow for certain elements to be ring-fenced. The Government accepted the Select Committee’s recommendation that the 41% and 4.7% increase figures be quoted alongside each other. The Government noted that the 41% statistic was important as it highlighted that the employment rate for households in-scope for the previous cap was very low before the cap was introduced in April 2013 and it significantly increased following implementation of the cap, on top of that observed for the counterfactual, comparison group. Subsequent developments 56.     On 1 April 2023, the Benefit Cap (Annual Limit) (Amendment) Regulations 2023 (Statutory Instrument no.   2023/335) came into effect, which amended the benefit cap to GBP   25,323 for households other than those comprising a sole adult in Greater London and GBP   22,020 for such households outside of Greater London. 57 .     On 1 April 2024, the Government introduced in England 15 hours per week of free childcare for eligible working parents of children aged two years old (see the Childcare (Free of Charge for Working Parents) (England) Regulations 2022 (Statutory Instrument no.   2022/1134) (“the 2022 R