The Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) has just won a court case. It is one which will now set a staggering precedent. Because it effectively means the DWP can ignore benefit claimants’ human rights when it comes to the welfare state.

Precedent setting

Back in November 2016, Jacqueline and Jayson Carmichael successfully beat the government in court over the so-called “bedroom tax”. They argued the tax was discriminatory under the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), as Jacqueline cannot share a bedroom with her husband because of her impairments. And the court agreed, setting a precedent for other claimants.

The DWP challenged the decision, but lost.

But as politics.co.uk reported, it was back in court in February. The DWP was using the Carmichaels’ case to try and stop tribunal judges using the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) to rule in favour of benefit claimants. Essentially, it’s saying that, if people claim it has broken human rights laws, this evidence will not be admissible under tribunals. And on Tuesday 20 March, a court agreed, ruling that benefit claimants can only argue against the DWP on human rights grounds in the High Court, not at tribunal level.

Ignoring human rights

In practice, the decision means that claimants who appeal benefit decisions will no longer be able to claim the DWP has breached any articles of the ECHR; for example, Article 14, the right to protection from discrimination. And as the Mirror reported:

Lawyers also suggested the ruling may also have serious implications for employment and immigration tribunals.

As I wrote at the time of the court hearing in February:

In January, the government was again found to have violated disabled people’s “basic” human rights. But this time under a ‘counterpart‘ treaty to the ECHR – the very laws the DWP is trying to stop people using. The report said the government had violated the European Social Charter by making benefit payments ‘manifestly inadequate’. That is, the DWP was not giving people enough money to live on; leaving them in poverty. It also said that the UK government must “urgently” reform “the benefit sanctions scheme”. So, it’s little wonder that the DWP is trying to stop people using the ECHR, when it has breached legislation used alongside it.

Angry reactions to the DWP

Social media reacted angrily on 20 March:

https://twitter.com/andrewweeden/status/976099065799806976

DWP prevention of people 'relying' on the human rights act.

If that doesn't say enough about why this government should be removed, then nothing will. — Jack LaMorte (@LamorteJack) March 20, 2018

And as one person pointed out, the DWP has effectively changed legislation without parliamentary approval:

You're allowed human rights, but DWP policy trumps them in the lower courts. Even when it hasn't been voted on by MPs and is just secondary legislation. — Rob Gershon (@Simplicitly) March 20, 2018

The DWP says…

A DWP spokesperson told The Canary:

This case related to constitutional questions on the remedy a tribunal may give where a breach of human rights is established, and we are pleased the Court of Appeal agreed that it’s for the Government to amend relevant regulations to provide a remedy. Since 2014, we have given local authorities £60m a year in Discretionary Housing Payments for people affected by the Removal of the Spare Room Subsidy who need extra help.

Damning. Just damning.

The judge said that the Carmichaels have the right to appeal. But Jayson Carmichael told politics.co.uk:

It’s been so stressful for us, we might decide that we’ve just had enough and that it’s time for somebody else to take up the fight…

It is a damning indictment of the government that two people it’s supposed to support feel beaten down by it. It’s even more damning that the DWP has the audacity to try and block human rights laws being used against it. And it’s scandalous that a supposedly independent court agrees with it.

Get Involved!

– Support Disabled People Against Cuts (DPAC), fighting for disabled people’s rights.

Featured image via UK government/Wikimedia and Dan Perry/Flickr </s> Appeal judges have ruled that a Scottish court has to properly examine claims that the UK should be able to unilaterally abandon Brexit without permission from other EU member states.

A panel of three judges led by Scotland’s most senior judge, Lord Carloway, the lord president, said the cross-party group of politicians behind the case had raised a point “of great importance” that had to be fully heard.

The group, which includes Labour, Scottish Green party, Scottish National party and Liberal Democrat politicians, wants the European court of justice to issue a definitive ruling on whether the UK can unilaterally withdraw its article 50 letter which triggered the Brexit process.

They say UK government ministers and the European commission are wrong to insist that the article 50 process can only be abandoned if all the other 27 EU member states agree. They argue that EU treaties make no mention of that condition.

The group, whose members include MSPs from Holyrood, Westminster MPs and two MEPs, need the permission of a Scottish court to send the case to the European court.

The appeal hearing at the court of session, Scotland’s civil court, was arranged after another judge, Lord Doherty, had thrown out the group’s initial application for an interim hearing of the case for a referral to the European court.

The appeal hearing ruled Doherty was wrong to claim the issue was hypothetical and academic since the UK government had insisted it had no intention of abandoning Brexit and so far there was no evidence parties at Westminster would block it.

Carloway said that raised significant problems for the petitioners because the statements so far by UK ministers on whether article 50 could be unilaterally withdrawn were ambiguous.

Even so, in a legal victory for the petitioners, Carloway said they were right to argue that the Westminster parliament was sovereign.

“The issue of whether it is legally possible to revoke the notice of withdrawal is one of great importance,” he said. “After all, if parliament is to be regarded as sovereign, the government’s position on the legality of revoking the notice may not be decisive.”
The Department for Work and Pensions wins a court case holding that benefits claimants cannot raise arguments based on the European Convention on Human Rights at tribunals, and must instead go via the High Court.