Esther McVey receives judicial slapdown over two-child benefit cap

Esther McVey: Her department is as irrational as she appears to be in this image.

Ms McVey should be thanking her stars that the ruling applies to ‘kinship’ carers and has nothing to do with the so-called ‘rape clause’ that restricts child benefits to the first two children – unless a further child is the result of a sex crime.

This case makes the irrationality of the Department for Work and Pensions clear, though; there is no good reason to provide benefits for more than two children only if it is the third child receiving ‘kinship’ care.

But a legal hearing in the High Court had to take place in order to demonstrate this to the DWP.

It shows that the restrictions placed on benefit claimants are bizarre and arbitrary. There is no good reason for them.

That goes for the ‘rape clause’ too. It should be scrapped – along with Ms McVey’s tenure as Work and Pensions Secretary and, to be honest, the rest of the DWP.

The government’s policy of denying financial support to carers who fall foul of the two-child limit on benefit entitlements is perverse and unlawful, a high court judge has ruled.

Growing numbers of young carers who voluntarily agree to look after younger relatives, in order to prevent them being taken into care, have been denied thousands of pounds in benefit support when they decide to have a child of their own.

Although ministers had promised that kinship carers would not be hit by the two-child limit, in practice the exemption was only available to carers who had children first and then become guardian to a third child, not the other way around.

Mr Justice Ouseley said this defeated the purpose of the exemption, which was “to encourage, or at least avoid discouraging, a family from looking after a child who would otherwise be in local authority care”.

Making the exemption available only if the cared-for child was not the first or second child was, he said, “not rationally connected with the purposes of the legislation, and indeed it is in conflict with them”.

Source: High court rules in favour of carers over two-child benefits cap | Society | The Guardian

Vox Political needs your help!
If you want to support this site
but don’t want to give your money to advertisers)
you can make a one-off donation here:

Donate Button with Credit Cards

Here are four ways to be sure you’re among the first to know what’s going on.

1) Register with us by clicking on ‘Subscribe’ (in the left margin). You can then receive notifications of every new article that is posted here.

2) Follow VP on Twitter @VoxPolitical

3) Like the Facebook page at

Join the Vox Political Facebook page.

4) You could even make Vox Political your homepage at

And do share with your family and friends – so they don’t miss out!

If you have appreciated this article, don’t forget to share it using the buttons at the bottom of this page. Politics is about everybody – so let’s try to get everybody involved!

Buy Vox Political books so we can continue
fighting for the facts.

The Livingstone Presumption is now available
in either print or eBook format here:

HWG PrintHWG eBook

Health Warning: Government! is now available
in either print or eBook format here:

HWG PrintHWG eBook

The first collection, Strong Words and Hard Times,
is still available in either print or eBook format here:


3 thoughts on “Esther McVey receives judicial slapdown over two-child benefit cap

  1. aunty1960

    Totally unrealistic when it comes to real life.

    People have sex, they get pregnant and have babies, those babies need to be looked after, not be excluded from support and care

  2. Dez

    God it makes me ill trying to deal with the constant nit picking of this Con Government in their never ending attack on the soft targets of Society…..rather than deal with their own kind tax scams and avoidance schemes which they promised to tackle….yeahhh!

Comments are closed.