Welfare Reform and Work Bill
Committee Stage: Clauses 11 and 12
House of Lords
7th December 2015
For more information please contact:
Parliamentary lead: Rebecca Thomas 020 7832 7853
rebecca.thomas@equalityhumanrights.com
Legal lead: Joanna Owen 020 7832 7811
joanna.owen@equalityhumanrights.com
1
1. Introduction
The Equality and Human Rights Commission welcomes the aim of the
Welfare Reform and Work Bill to encourage and help more people into
work (where they can, and are able to), in the context of the
Government's commitments to reduce the deficit and reform the welfare
system. However, we have concerns that some of the measures in the
Bill could exacerbate, rather than reduce, existing inequalities.
In summary, we are concerned that
 Clauses 11 and 12 will have a detrimental effect on the living
standards of low-income families with more than two children, and
could raise concerns about the UK Government’s compliance with
international human rights instruments.
 The proposed changes may have a disproportionate negative
impact on people from particular ethnic or religious groups.
 The impact assessments and human rights memorandum which
accompany the Bill do not assess the effect of the Bill on equality
and human rights in sufficient detail to enable proper scrutiny of
the legislation.
 Without proper consideration of the impact of the multiple welfare
reform changes on people with particular protected characteristics
- such as race or disability - the disadvantage currently
experienced by people in some groups is likely to be compounded.
2. Clauses 11 and 12
Clauses 11 and 12 propose to limit entitlement to child tax credits (CTC)
or the child element of universal credit (UC) to the first two children in a
household. Parents will not be able to claim for any third (or subsequent)
child born on or after 6 April 2017. If the child is disabled, parents will be
able to claim the Disabled Child Element of CTC, but not the additional
child element.
Commission’s recommendation
Support the motions that Clauses 11 and 12 should not stand part of the
Bill.
Clause 11 – Changes to child tax credit
BARONESS SHERLOCK
LORD McKENZIE OF LUTON
2
The above-named Lords give notice of their intention to oppose the
Question that Clause 11 stand part of the Bill.
Clause 12 – Changes to child element of universal credit
BARONESS SHERLOCK
LORD McKENZIE OF LUTON
The above-named Lords give notice of their intention to oppose the
Question that Clause 12 stand part of the Bill.
Effect
These motions would mean that the provisions changing child tax credits
and the child element of universal credit would be removed from the Bill.
Our analysis
In our briefing for Second Reading we noted the Bill’s significant
relevance to the UK's obligations under national and international human
rights law.
The Commission is concerned that Clauses 11 and 12 will have a
detrimental effect on the living standards of low-income families with
more than two children, and could raise concerns about the UK
Government’s implementation of Articles 3, 26 and 27 of the Convention
on the Rights of the Child, Articles 7 and 28 of the Convention on the
Rights of Persons with Disabilities, and Articles 2, 3 and 9 of the
International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (see
Annex 1). While retention of the Disabled Child Element for third or
subsequent children is welcome, introducing a two-child limit for CTC or
UC is not, in our analysis, in the best interests of any child or low-income
family.
We are also concerned that the proposed changes may have a
disproportionate negative impact on people from particular ethnic or
religious groups. ONS data1 shows that some ethnic groups and
families with a particular religion or belief2 have larger families than
1http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahU
KEwi8sOTvusLJAhVBoRoKHavuCvkQFggdMAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ons.gov.uk%2Fons%2F
about-ons%2Fbusiness-transparency%2Ffreedom-of-information%2Fwhat-can-irequest%2Fpublished-ad-hoc-data%2Fpop%2Fmay-2014%2Ffamilies-with-dependent-children-byfamily-type--no-of-children--ethnic-group.xls&usg=AFQjCNHiXwoQ1bHGpEZYjM7j0vRL45EYMQ
2http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/about-ons/business-transparency/freedom-of-information/what-can-irequest/published-ad-hoc-data/census/ethnicity/ct0546-2011-census.xls
3
others. This may put the Government at risk of breaching Articles 2 and
5(e)(iv) of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of
Racial Discrimination.
The Commission is also concerned that the impact assessments and
human rights memorandum which accompany the Bill do not assess the
effect of the Bill on equality and human rights in sufficient detail to
enable proper scrutiny of the legislation.
Section 149 of the Equality Act 2010 imposes a public sector equality
duty (PSED) requiring Government Departments and Ministers to have
due regard to the need to eliminate unlawful discrimination, advance
equality of opportunity and foster good relations (the three aims of the
PSED). This is an ongoing duty which applies throughout the policymaking process, from the development of options and draft proposals
through to legislation and implementation.
The Commission wrote to the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions
asking him to set out his Department’s plans to improve the detail and
analysis of the measures in the Bill, and offering our support to assist in
this. In his response, the Secretary of State said that the Government
had used ‘the most robust analysis available to give a good assessment
of… the impact of the reforms contained in the Welfare Reform and
Work Bill’.3
However, the analysis in the Welfare Reform and Work Bill: Impact
Assessment of Tax Credits and Universal Credit, changes to Child
Element and Family Element4 fails to demonstrate proper consideration
of the effect of Clauses 11 and 12 on any of the three aims of the PSED.
Nor is it clear how the impact of the proposals will be monitored and
tackled if adverse impact is identified during implementation.
The impact assessment suggests that the proposal should incentivise
families to have only two children if they cannot afford to have more, but
there is no evidence provided to support this assumption (e.g. research
on previous similar policy initiatives in the UK or overseas).
In the section of the impact assessment marked 'impact on protected
groups' (page 6), the document notes that ethnic minorities may be
adversely impacted by the policy. However, the Government has
provided no further information about which ethnic minority communities
are most likely to be affected; nor has it undertaken any analysis to
examine the reasons why they are more likely to be affected, or
3
http://www.equalityhumanrights.com/sites/default/files/uploads/documents/Parli_Briefings/2015-1013%20SoS%20to%20R%20Hilsenrath%20-%20EHRC.PDF
4 http://www.parliament.uk/documents/impact-assessments/IA15-006E.pdf
4
explained how this disproportionate adverse impact is justified or could
be mitigated.
The impact assessment makes no reference at all to the protected
characteristic of religion or belief, but in our analysis the policy could
have an adverse impact on some religious groups, in particular those for
whom family planning may be against their religious teachings. This
may mean that children in some religious communities are more likely to
be brought up in poverty.
While the impact assessment seeks to quantify the savings that are
likely to be made as a result of these and related measures, it does not
attempt to assess the aggregate effect of these multiple changes on
people with particular protected characteristics. This could mean that
people in groups who are already disadvantaged will be further
disadvantaged, running the risk of compounding entrenched
disadvantage, opening up wider inequalities and undermining cohesive
communities. In our report Is Britain Fairer?5 we noted evidence from a
variety of sources6 suggesting that the Government’s welfare reforms
were having a disproportionately negative impact on certain groups,
such as disabled people, women and ethnic minorities.
Until the Government shows that it has properly considered the potential
impact of these proposals on equality, and how any adverse effects can
be mitigated, as required by section 149 of the Equality Act 2010, we
recommend that Parliamentarians vote to oppose the Question that
Clauses 11 and 12 stand part of the Bill.
About the Equality and Human Right Commission
The Equality and Human Rights Commission is a statutory body
established under the Equality Act 2006. It operates independently to
encourage equality and diversity, eliminate unlawful discrimination, and
protect and promote human rights. It contributes to making and keeping
Britain a fair society in which everyone, regardless of background, has
an equal opportunity to fulfil their potential. The Commission enforces
equality legislation on age, disability, gender reassignment, marriage
and civil partnership, pregnancy and maternity, race, religion or belief,
sex and sexual orientation. It encourages compliance with the Human
Rights Act 1998 and is accredited by the UN as an ‘A status’ National
Human Rights Institution.
5http://www.equalityhumanrights.com/about-us/our-work/key-projects/britain-fairer/supporting-
evidence/standard-living-domain
6 http://www.equalityhumanrights.com/publication/research-report-94-cumulative-impact-assessment
5
Find out more about the Commission’s work at:
www.equalityhumanrights.com
6