If Chancellor Rachel Reeves scraps the two-child limit in her upcoming budget, survivors like Maria will no longer face barbaric ‘rape clause’
When the two-child limit came into effect in the UK on April 6 2017, it included a barbaric footnote.
A special exemption – which quickly became known as the ‘rape clause‘ – where women must ‘prove’ their child had been conceived as a result of ‘non-consensual sex’ to avoid having their benefits cut. For women like Maria, who became pregnant with her third child after a sexual assault, the two-child policy and its rape clause has meant she has been repeatedly forced to recount the attack to different DWP staff – even after being diagnosed with PTSD and severe anxiety.
“If the two-child benefit cap was removed, then I would not have to prove that I am entitled to support under the ‘rape clause’ and repeatedly recount my traumatic experiences to a stranger at the DWP,” Maria, whose name has been changed, says. “I was promised support and protection after everything I went through. Instead, I’ve been retraumatised again and again. I’ve had to fight for payments I’m entitled to by explaining the sexual assault to strangers and deal with male staff despite my repeated requests to only be in contact with female staff. Each time this happens, it sends me back to the trauma I suffered and threatens to undo the progress I have fought so hard to make to move on with my life.”
The Mirror has been campaigning against the two-child limit since it was first announced in Tory Chancellor George Osborne’s 2015 Budget. The policy was applied to child tax credits, which were being phased out and replaced with Universal Credit (UC). And would now apply to the ‘child element’ of the new UC. To claim the “non-consensual conception” exemption, a survivor must provide evidence from an approved ‘third-party professional’, such as a doctor or social worker as well as to recount her assault to the DWP.
Maria’s experiences of having to do this – again and again – were so re-traumatising that in 2021 she brought a discrimination claim against the DWP. In the claim she said that after her pleas for a home visit were refused, she was forced to attend a job centre in snowy weather with her baby where she was denied access to a private waiting space. She said had to wait outside in distress, facing the prospect of an interview with a male staff member despite assurances she would be able to speak to a woman.
Her bravery in taking on the DWP eventually led to the department committing to make reasonable adjustments reflecting her disability and needs as a survivor of sexual abuse. These included assigning a ‘single point of contact’ and ensuring sensitive information was recorded on the UC system so that it would not have to be repeated. Relying on these commitments, Maria agreed to settle her discrimination claim.
Yet four years on, Maria says the DWP has failed to uphold its promises, and her lawyers are now bringing a Judicial Review in an attempt to force the department to do so. “The DWP told me they would make sure this never happened again — but they have gone back on that promise,” she says. “They need to take accountability for what has happened and finally take action to prevent people in my situation from being retraumatised and made to feel that they don’t matter.”
Maria says DWP staff claimed that they had no record of the reasonable adjustments in place, and her case continues to be handled by multiple staff, including male advisers. And she says she is still regularly being asked to repeat the traumatic details of her sexual assault.
“My biggest concern is that this is not just happening to me but to other people who may not feel able to repeatedly challenge how they are being treated in the way I have,” Maria says. After, she says, a Jobcentre staff member told her the DWP’s systems don’t allow for a permanent note to be attached to her file or for a ‘single point of contact’ to be guaranteed, she instructed Leigh Day’s Carolin Ott to send a pre-action protocol letter for judicial review.
The legal challenge argues the DWP’s failure to maintain a single point of contact and properly record her circumstances breaches her rights under the Equality Act 2010 and the Human Rights Act 1998 and constitutes a breach of a legitimate expectation. It also raises concerns about the DWP’s use of automated processes that prevent staff from making reasonable adjustments for vulnerable benefits claimants.
“The DWP made a clear commitment to support our client and ensure she would not be forced to relive her trauma,” Leigh Day senior associate solicitor Carolin Ott, who represents Maria together with solicitor Claire Powell, says. “That commitment has not been honoured. Instead, she says she has been subjected to further distress and discrimination due to systemic flaws in the DWP’s automated systems. “This legal challenge seeks to hold the DWP accountable and push for meaningful change in how vulnerable claimants, including survivors of sexual assault like our client, are treated.”
A DWP spokesperson said: “Victims of rape and coercion should always be treated with dignity and respect and we recognise the sensitive nature of this case, as well as the concerns raised about exemptions to the two-child limit. The Child Poverty Taskforce is reviewing this policy alongside wider measures to tackle the structural and root causes of child poverty, and we will publish an ambitious strategy in the coming weeks.”
Solicitor Clare Powell, also part of Maria’s legal team, says: “The two child benefit cap forces women like our client to recount horrific events and re-traumatises them in circumstances where they are simply trying to access the support they are entitled to for their children.
“Our client’s case exposes wider concerns with the treatment of sexual violence survivors by the DWP, and it is clear more needs to be done to protect and support survivors, who should not have to resort to legal challenges to assert their rights”.
Rachel Reeves’ Budget on 26 Nov must ‘Scrap the Cap’. Ending the two-child limit would also end the sadistic rape clause.
These families also need the cap to be scrapped
Thea Jaffe, 40, lives in North London and is a lone parent to three children. Despite having a skilled job, she says the two-child limit is pushing them in to poverty.
“When Rachel Reeves when talks about a fiscal black hole – I know what that’s like, it’s my life. When my 10-year-old started nursery in 2016, it was £52 per day. In 2023, a place was £81 per day, now it’s £100. Raising children alone happens for so many reasons – people get ill, break up, pass away, behave badly. It isn’t always people making a choice, things happen to people. Are mothers being forced to stay in bad relationships or rush into new ones to make ends meet? The cap saves the government £3.5 billion but the indirect cost of children growing up in poverty is £40 billion. The cost of having one child has tripled since the cap came in. I’m a ninja with the Lidl plus app, but I’ve still had to use the food bank. It’s taking a toll on my mental health. I feel like I’m a broken human right now. It’s the system that’s failing, not parents.”
Nicole Parkinson, 30, a former healthcare worker from Manchester, is a mum-of-five. Her husband works as a security supervisor.
“I left my job because of childcare costs, and managing pick-up and drop-offs. I’ve worked since I was 13. I missed out on a lot with my 11-year-old because I was always working night shifts. We don’t qualify for free nursery for my youngest and by the time I’d paid extra for him to be in nursery for me to work, I wouldn’t be left with much. My friend pays £570 a month for her daughter to go three times a week. My son goes once a week to interact with other children his age. Things are hard, we’ve had to visit food banks. I’m wearing the same clothes I have done for 10 years. Some months we are living penny to penny.”
Lian Nzungu has three daughters, aged 9, 15 and 19. Her youngest child is disabled. The family live in Sneinton, Nottingham.
“I’m living on benefits and it is very hard, some days I don’t have anything to eat, just one meal. I need good food because I have diabetes and I’m on a lot of medication. I get Universal Credit, but it would be so helpful if the cap was lifted. The Government doesn’t realise how hard it is to survive. I get no help. I go to Food Banks but getting food is hard, you need referrals. The Government needs to help families with disabled and small children.”