Legal action

Challenging the ‘two-child limit’ rule

Published: 9 July 2021

Last updated: 9 July 2021

What countries does this apply to?

Case details

Protected Characteristic Sex
Types of equality claim Direct discrimination
Court or tribunal Supreme Court
Decision has to be followed in England, Scotland, Wales
Law applies in England, Scotland, Wales
Case state Concluded
Our involvement Intervention (section 30 of the Equality Act 2006)
Outcome Judgment
Areas of life Living standards

Case name: R (on the application of SC and CB and their children) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions

The Welfare Reform and Work Act 2016 provides that child tax credit and its replacement universal credit will not be payable to any 3rd or subsequent children in a family born after 6th April 2017 (subject to some exceptions). This is known as the ‘two child rule’.

SC and CB each had a baby after 6th April 2017 and do not receive any tax credits for those children.

Almost one million children are affected by the two child rule. It is estimated that as a direct result of the rule 300,000 children will be pushed into poverty and that by 2021/2 more than half of households with three or more children will be living in poverty.

Why we were involved

We are concerned about the disproportionate impact of this policy on children and women.

In our report to the United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child in 2020, we recommended that the UK Government scrap the two child rule.

What we did

We used our power to intervene in this case, which is when we provide specialist advice or evidence to the court. We previously intervened in lower courts and intervened again in the Supreme Court. We made submissions about how the law applies to the complex issues in the case.

What happened

The Court held that the “two child rule” was justified and dismissed the appeals.

It held that the policy raised a presumption of discrimination against women and against children in households with more than two children that the Government was required to justify. However, in this case Parliament had decided where the balance should be struck between the interests of children and their parents in receiving support from the state, on the one hand, and the interests of the community as a whole on the other.

The policy was made be a democratically elected Government to fulfil an election promise, following debate in Parliament. The Court held there was no basis, consistent with the separation of powers under our constitution, on which the courts could properly overturn Parliament’s judgment that the measure was an appropriate means of achieving its aims.

Who will benefit

Although this case was unsuccessful, it raised important issues. We continue to have concerns about the impact of the policy on the affected women and children. The Claimants are considering taking the matter to the European Court of Human Rights.

Date of hearing

20 October 2020

Date concluded

9 July 2021

Page updates

Advice and support

If you think you might have been treated unfairly and want further advice, you can contact the Equality Advisory and Support Service (EASS).

The EASS is an independent advice service, not operated by the Equality and Human Rights Commission.

Phone: 0808 800 0082
 

Or email using the contact form on the EASS website.
phone icon

Call the EASS on:

0808 800 0082