The welfare secretary, Iain Duncan Smith, unlawfully discriminated against disabled people by failing to exempt their carers from the benefit cap, a high court judge has ruled.
Mr Justice Collins said the government's decision to apply the cap to full-time carers for adult relatives had created serious financial hardship for them, forced many to give up caring for loved ones, and loaded extra costs on to the NHS and care services.
The benefit cap, which limits working-age unemployed people to £500 a week in benefits, was introduced by the government on the basis that it sent a strong message to so-called workless families that they had to try harder to get a job.
The court ruled that the two carers who brought the case - and who were caring for upwards of 35 hours a week - were effectively in work even though they were in receipt of benefits, and therefore should be exempt from the cap.
Collins said: "To describe a household where care was being provided for at least 35 hours a week as 'workless' was somewhat offensive. To care for a seriously disabled person is difficult and burdensome and could properly be regarded as work." The court ruled that the government had breached article 14 of the European convention on human rights.
Laywers acting for the secretary of state had argued that unpaid carers should be treated as unemployed people who should have to make the same choices as anyone else about whether to work or cut their living costs. But Collins said those providing full-time care could not be in full-time work unless they gave up or cut back significantly on their caring responsibilities.
Unpaid carers made "a huge contribution to society" and saved the taxpayer the equivalent of £119bn a year, he said. Were carers forced to give up their role, taxpayer-funded services would have to spend huge amounts providing the care instead.
The judge said the government should exempt these carers because "the cost to public funds if the cap is to be maintained is likely to outweigh to a significant extent the cost of granting the exemption".
The court heard that the benefit cap affects approximately 1,400 people in receipt of carer's allowance. Up to a quarter of previously full-time carers had stopped or reduced their hours as a result of the cap being imposed.
Collins ruled that by applying the cap to unpaid family carers the secretary of state had unlawfully discriminated against seriously disabled people, because it meant they would no longer receive care from a trusted family member or relation.
He said: "For many it matters deeply that they are cared for by a family member. Thus there is adverse treatment since, although care can be provided by others, the loss of a trusted carer can be devastating".
The solicitor for the families, Rebekah Carrier, said: "My clients have been hit by the benefit cap because they are disabled or they provide essential care to their disabled relatives. They are not skivers, they are strivers. They provide full-time care and save the state money."
A Department for Work and Pensions spokesperson said: "We are pleased that the court agrees that the benefit cap pursues a legitimate and lawful aim. The government values the important role of carers in society, and 98% are unaffected by the cap. We are considering the judgment and will respond in due course."
The case was brought by two families affected by the cap. In both instances an adult relative was providing essential full-time care to an elderly and disabled grandmother.
One of the claimants, Ashley Hurley, 26, who cares for her grandmother Mary Jarrett, 72, in Peckham, south-east London, said the cap had been a nightmare. She said: "I had understood that the benefit cap was meant to encourage people to work and to address the problem of children growing up in workless families. I do not understand why it should apply to me as I do work, looking after my grandmother."
If she stopped caring, the state would have pick up the tab for her grandmother's care, she said: "I do not feel that I would be able to allow this to happen, and I do not understand why the government would think it was better for the state to care for my grandmother instead of her own family."
Heléna Herklots, chief executive of Carers UK, which supplied evidence to the court in support of the challenge, said: "Subjecting those who provide unpaid care to the benefit cap is unfair, counterproductive and inconsistent with the government's stated aims for the policy. We hope the government accepts the high court's decision and brings forward new regulations to give all carers equal rights."
The ruling is the second this year to criticise the benefit cap. In March the supreme court found that although the cap was legal, it left claimants unable to house, feed or clothe their family and was therefore in breach of the UK's obligations on international human rights.
I wrote on Syria last week that I was "mystified by those who've already made their minds up with cast-iron certainty on either side". That's still the case despite, and probably because of, the eruption of passions leading up to and beyond Wednesday's vote. The UK is, after all, already involved in military action against Isis in Iraq. Sure, extending those airstrikes to Syria represents an intensification and, like any bombing campaign, requires serious consideration. But that is a question not of basic morality (if it were there should have been an equally strenuous efforts to cease attacks in Iraq) but of likely effectiveness.
And that, of course, is the known unknown of this week's debate. None of us truthfully knows what will be the consequences of extending the campaign to Syria; just as we don't know what might have happened if MPs had voted against action. There is no possibility of a controlled experiment which allows us to pose the counterfactual. All we are left with is our own opinion: which of the options facing us is most likely to result in fewest deaths? Ultimately, it's as utilitarian a decision as that.
Which is why I get fed up with simplistic shroud-wavers shouting "blood on your hands" at those who support intervention. Innocent people are dying every day in this conflict, and further deaths are plotted daily by Isis, so delaying further this supposed "rush to war" will also directly lead to fresh casualties. See, we can all indulge this moral blackmail arms-race - but it gets us nowhere. Decisions like these are shades-of-grey. I respect opinions on both sides of the divide on Syria, but most especially those honest enough to recognise they may be wrong.
The worm's turned
Moderate, reasoned, polite discourse: that's my kind of politics. But it's not everyone's, I know, so hey, let a thousand flowers bloom (as John McDonnell would say). Anger can have its place in politics. To be clear, no MP should be subjected to personal abuse, let alone intimidation or threats of violence. But I don't like the vogue for bracketing that unacceptable nonsense with "threats of deselection", itself an entirely legitimate form of accountability. Personally, I think those Labour members apparently wanting to get rid of Walthamstow MP Stella Creasy because she voted for action in Syria are bonkers. But it's their perfect right to be bonkers. And the Labour moderates have scant moral authority on this one. After all, for two decades they mobilised against left-wingers, sometimes in quite shoddy fashion: Tony Blair successfully fixed Labour's mayoral selection to deny Ken Livingstone from running on his party's ticket; while Neil Kinnock got Coventry's Dave Nellist expelled from the party on the flimsiest pretext. Now the shoe is on the other foot it's not surprising if it's still got a taste for kicking.
Still time for Tim
Tim Farron has had some stick from a few Lib Dem activists over his Syria stance. It impressed me, though. Not just his speech, praised by the Guardian as one of the ten best and credited by Newsnight's Allegra Stratton with persuading many Labour MPs to vote to extend airstrikes, though it was certainly heartfelt and passionate. But also his evident willingness to take a decision he knew would be controversial with some of his most ardent supporters because he believed on the basis of the evidence he had seen that it was the right thing to do. There are still too many people who I think underestimate Tim, who reckon (perhaps because of his relentless chirpiness) that he lacks that certain something which denotes a leader. He's proven some of those doubters wrong this week, for which much kudos.
* I loved the question Tim Farron was recently asked by a primary school pupil: "Have you met the Queen?" "Yes," answers Tim. "Does she smell?" came back the supplementary. Apparently, says Tim, the only possible answer to that is "Fragrant". That snippet from last night's Russell Howard's Good News (BBC3), available on iPlayer here (starts about 15:45 mins in).
What have the immigrants ever done for us?
'Osborne reliant on rising immigration levels to achieve budget surplus' it was revealed this week. I say revealed, but it's long been known. In 2012, the Office for Budget Responsibility noted that '… if net inward migration were cut to zero over the next five decades, the scale of the public austerity facing Britain would need to be three times larger, at £46bn.' The Tories often parade as the free market party, yet there is no surer guarantee of getting a Tory conference to cheer than to commit to state-imposed controls of the labour market. The reality is that not only do incoming migrant workers plug gaps in our own labour market, benefiting British businesses and helping offset the negative impact of the UK's ageing population, but migrant entrepreneurs also create thousands of jobs. In short, they put in to this country far, far more than they take out.
That may be the reality, but too few voters believe it. It's one reason I'm attracted to the idea, first proposed by the think-tank British Future, that we create an 'Immigration Fund', hypothecating the financial gains from increased migration to directly manage some of the pressures communities and their services face as a consequence of new arrivals. It is necessary, but not sufficient, simply to defend immigration from the scare-mongering of Ukip and the Tories. We need also to show we have fresh ideas which can respond directly to voters' concerns.
Premium-tastic
File this under 'surprising, not surprising'. A survey for the National Audit Office, conducted earlier this year but published this week, shows just 37 per cent of parents have heard of the Pupil Premium, the Lib Dem policy which targeted extra money to the poorest pupils to help schools close the attainment gap. I mentioned on Twitter my disappointment that a policy I view as one of the most progressive government policies in the last decade doesn't have greater awareness, and the general response was "We're surprised it's that high". A fair point, it seems. My consolation is that the Pupil Premium - which this year will provide the average primary school with an extra £91,000 and secondaries with an additional £214,000 - has been safeguarded by education secretary Nicky Morgan for this parliament. Hopefully, over the next five years we'll see it translate into better educational prospects for disadvantaged children and young people. And if parents notice why that's happening, that's a bonus.
Last word…
Kudos to Labour's new MP for Oldham West, Jim McMahon, elected on an increased share of the vote. I'm not sure how much it tells us about Jeremy Corbyn's leadership, though. Especially in a week when I've discovered I am, after all, a Bennite.