Apparently a group of private Christian schools are launching a judicial review against that government’s decision to impose VAT on school fees. They are arguing that they are being discriminated against because of their beliefs. One of the parties to the case says:
As Christians, we believe that it is our duty as parents to raise our children in line with our beliefs,’ said claimant Stephen White, whose four children attend Bradford Christian School. ‘This policy denies us this right and choice and must be challenged.’”
This is frankly nonsense. First, the imposition of tax onto fees is not a denial of rights. Those who are privileged enough to be able to choose to pay out on the luxury of private education, a luxury most of us do not have should be aware that costs can go up for all kinds of reasons. Indeed, they must have known that a Labour Government with this kind of intent was likely for the past few years. Once you enter the private market you have to be ready that costs may go up.
Secondly given that many Christians feel under no obligation to withdraw their children from state education and do not believe that they are being prevented from bringing up their children as they choose fit, it seems unlikely that a court could reasonably conclude that Christians are being discriminated against.
Without any trace of irony, one of the parties to the JR argues that many of their clients are not privileged and are even on Universal Credit. Apart from the ethical implications of influence those on low pay and benefits to spend out on school fees, note the bizarre juxtaposition. We don’t want the state involved in our family life whilst we are more than happy for the state to be the primary provider for our family.
The reality is that around the world believers face real persecution and here in the UK there are those who suffer actual discrimination. This case is an ungodly insult to those who genuinely suffer persecution and discrimination. It should not be entertained.
—
I’ve decided to add a footnote because I’ve received correspondence asking me if it is fair for me to comment on the basis of an article without having studied the area of law in detail or seeing the particular submissions.
In response., I think it is worth remembering that it is the article in EN and press releases from Christian Concern that have been made publicly available and that those articles are intended to persuade Evangelical Christians. It is wholly legitimate for Christians to respond publicly to what has been presented to them and to determining whether or not we support this kind of action being taken.
As for the legal arguments. Well I’ve no desire to get into disputes about the extent to which who has studied what. My law degree is nearly 30 years old and so yes, there will be areas of law where my knowledge is well out of date and plenty where I’ve forgotten much. Although the primary change with the ECHR has been its incorporation into domestic law, the Convention is the same document we studied all those years ago.
My point in the article is not really about whether or not a case might be won. I’m sure on the right day, like Bradford City getting to the League Cup final, it is possible. However, my point is that the attempt by Christians to present themselves as discriminated against is unhelpful and unhealthy. At the same time you will pick up that I’m not at all convinced that it stands much chance legally.
That’s because when it came to the question of VAT on school fees, previous historic arguments have been of a different nature to the one focused on here. As well as rights around religious discrimination, there are specific rights to an education. There have been cases around this and those include recognising that this should include private as well as public education. The point being that there should be a diversity of options available. Now some have opined, that taxation might in some way restrict provision of private education. Such opinions date back 40 years and I’m not sure whether they were reasonable at the time but context is everything. They seem to be limited to opinions given by Lord Pannick who in the early 80s wouid have been a youngish Barrister. I’m not convinced that in today’s context, especially with wider provision on offer that the argument that VAT somehow limits access to education holds. Furthermore Pannick’s presumption back in the 80s that the true intent of Labour policy was to abolish private education completely. There is a significant difference between overall intent at that time and now. Additionally, there is a difference between advising on potential hypothetical implications for an opposition policy and an actual government decision.
Finally, on that point, I must reiterate that a Barrister’s personal opinion is not a legal ruling. Judges can, and often do,disagree with Lord Pannick.
However, the argument being made is that VAT on Public School fees is discriminatory. Most people will assume that this means that the Government intended specifically to target Christians because of their beliefs and practices. This is obviously not the case here. If anything they wanted to target those they considered to be wealthy.
In law though, there is the concept of indirect discrimination where the intent is not to target people but it is reasonably forseeable that the impact would fall disproportionately on a group. This has often been used in order to strengthen women’s rights in the workplace. For example, limiting full rights to full time employees disproportionately affects women because a lot of part time workers are mothers returning from maternity leave. I would be intrigued to see how the lawyers are attempting to make that case here but I still struggle to see how it could be considered such.
Faithroots 