The family tax credit has existed in one form or another for some time - it is a tax credit given to working families for each child that they have. It has been considerably extended by the present Labour government into the current Working for Families package that they champion.
There is an interesting legal challenge against it at the moment by the Child Poverty Action (CPAG) group, who argue that it breaches the Human Rights Act, because it discriminates against those children whose families did not qualify (generally because they were beneficaries).
Leaving aside whether or not the family tax credit or Working for Families is a good idea, this legal challenge seems to be nothing more than a publicity stunt. Regardless of what the Human Rights Act says, Parliament can legislate whatever it wants (a principle of Parliamentary Sovereignty is that Parliament cannot bind its successor). Working for Families, and presumably the family tax credit preceeding it, were enabled by legislation. The Humans Right Act does not overall them. CPAG may be able to get a decision stating that it is discriminatory, but the court's decision could not overall the Working for Families legislation.
Besides, of course it discriminates. But so does the unemployment benefit! You have to unemployed (among other requirements) to receive it. I have a job, and so do not qualify.
The family tax credit and Working for Families are intended for working families with children. They necessarily discriminate against all other groups. All benefits and tax credits are in some way disciminatory unless they are universal.
The CPAG would better spend their time and money lobbying the government to increase benefits rather than try and challenge the legislation in court - then they might actually see some results.ericsson benni
There is an interesting legal challenge against it at the moment by the Child Poverty Action (CPAG) group, who argue that it breaches the Human Rights Act, because it discriminates against those children whose families did not qualify (generally because they were beneficaries).
Leaving aside whether or not the family tax credit or Working for Families is a good idea, this legal challenge seems to be nothing more than a publicity stunt. Regardless of what the Human Rights Act says, Parliament can legislate whatever it wants (a principle of Parliamentary Sovereignty is that Parliament cannot bind its successor). Working for Families, and presumably the family tax credit preceeding it, were enabled by legislation. The Humans Right Act does not overall them. CPAG may be able to get a decision stating that it is discriminatory, but the court's decision could not overall the Working for Families legislation.
Besides, of course it discriminates. But so does the unemployment benefit! You have to unemployed (among other requirements) to receive it. I have a job, and so do not qualify.
The family tax credit and Working for Families are intended for working families with children. They necessarily discriminate against all other groups. All benefits and tax credits are in some way disciminatory unless they are universal.
The CPAG would better spend their time and money lobbying the government to increase benefits rather than try and challenge the legislation in court - then they might actually see some results.ericsson benni
Comments
Good points. I suppose if they could argue that such a programme's limits on such freedoms were not demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society then they might have a case. That's one heck of a barrow to push though, considering the number of other "discriminatory" enactments we have which are considered consistent with the BoRA (I think it was tried with the Marriage Act a decade ago or so, wasn't it?). My guess is they will get a judgement saying it is discriminatory, but that this is not necessarily a "bad" thing. All the Govt needs to do is point out other discriminatory acts and CPAG are effectively back to square one. I doubt they will gain one supporter for more welfare for "bums with kids" either.ericsson benni
Regardless of what the Human Rights Act says, Parliament can legislate whatever it wants (a principle of Parliamentary Sovereignty is that Parliament cannot bind its successor).ericsson benni
There may be a question of proceedure tied up in there somewhere. Parliament may not have adequately repealed whichever provisions prevent such a law.ericsson benni
But, in general, your argument leads to the conclusion that for parliament there is no rule of law. Which is possibly true in a one-chamber, no-constitution type system... but not something we should be holding up as ideal.ericsson benni
I'm definitely not holding up our current system as ideal (as you may have gathered from some of my other posts on our system of government). I'm simply stating what the position is right now. Parliament can overrule any act it likes with the exception of the few parts of acts that are entrenched.ericsson benni
However, neither the Bill of Rights Act nor the Human Rights Act are entrenched in any way, and parts of them can be overridden by simple majority in Parliament.ericsson benni