Is Judaism a race or a religion?

Now the courts begin to decide

On the face of it, yesterday's verdict by the UK Supreme Court that JFS (formerly the Jewish Free School) in north London was guilty of illegal discrimination in refusing entry to pupils whose mothers it did not consider to be "properly" Jewish seems a good one. As I wrote before about this case, the decision hinged on whether the Chief Rabbi's office recognised a potential pupil's mother as Jewish -- which means, specifically, Orthodox Jewish. Doesn't it seem immediately fair that those whose mothers are Reform, Liberal or Progressive Jews should be able to go to this very well-regarded institution as well?

Those who dislike the idea of faith schools altogether have also taken cheer from this ruling, on the grounds that they find any kind of religious entrance criteria to be odious and discriminatory. But we do now find ourselves in the curious situation that Muslim and Catholic schools might have a greater ability to determine eligibility than JFS does in future. No one expects Catholic schools, for instance, to give equal priority to the children of churchgoing Anglicans. But this decision certainly seems to force JFS -- an Orthodox school -- to be more open to other branches of Judaism.

A further complication is that the case was fought on the basis of ethnic, not religious, discrimination (which is why I don't take seriously Ed Balls's suggestion that this ruling may threaten the admissions criteria of all faith schools, which is how the Telegraph and the Mail rather alarmistly chose to report the news of the decision). JFS, it is said, excluded children it did not consider ethnically Jewish, because, according to Halachic law, that status belongs only to those with Orthodox Jewish mothers.

As the New York Times put it, in its much less hysterical report:

"One thing is clear about the matrilineal test; it is a test of ethnic origin," Lord Phillips, president of the court, said in his majority opinion. Under the law, he said, "By definition, discrimination that is based upon that test is discrimination on racial grounds."

The Catholic Education Service has already hit back at the ruling, saying:

What constitutes membership of a faith group or a religious denomination should be a matter for that faith or denomination to determine. That any other authority should deem to do this in place of the faith group, or for a body outside the faith group to claim that its decision as to what constitutes membership has priority, is a sad and undermining state of affairs.

But it also adds: "It is important, whilst noting our sympathy for our Jewish brothers and sisters, to remind that the judgment should not impact on Catholic schools. This is because the definition of being Catholic is clearly based on baptism and not on any ethnic or other factors."

Note those last few words, "ethnic or other factors". The argument that Jews constitute an ethnic group under the Race Relations Act 1976 and the Public Order Act 1986 was an important factor in a trial in Leeds this year, in which two men were convicted of inciting racial hatred against Jews. (I should add that while the anti-Semitic nature of the material they published is not in question, they are appealing the convictions on other grounds.)

An expert witness called to make that case, Professor Dan Cohn-Sherbok, is a liberal-minded man, a distinguished academic and a Reform rabbi. It is not in his nature to want to discriminate against anybody, still less to act in any way contrary to the preservation and good health of the Jewish community. Nonetheless, it seems to me that if a body of case law builds up, suggesting that Jewishness should be considered a matter of ethnicity, there might come to be a problem with having any Jewish schools at all.

The New York Times also quoted David Lightman, a JFS old boy whose family has been affected by the school's admissions policy. " 'God can work it out,' Lightman said. 'He's a big boy; he's been around for a long time. He can decide who's Jewish and who isn't.' " Much as one might wish to agree with him, the Supreme Court ruling means that it is no longer just up to God or the Chief Rabbi. The law is now having its say in this question, too -- and that is something everyone involved, ultimately, may rue.

Sholto Byrnes is a Contributing Editor to the New Statesman
Show Hide image

Q&A: What are tax credits and how do they work?

All you need to know about the government's plan to cut tax credits.

What are tax credits?

Tax credits are payments made regularly by the state into bank accounts to support families with children, or those who are in low-paid jobs. There are two types of tax credit: the working tax credit and the child tax credit.

What are they for?

To redistribute income to those less able to get by, or to provide for their children, on what they earn.

Are they similar to tax relief?

No. They don’t have much to do with tax. They’re more of a welfare thing. You don’t need to be a taxpayer to receive tax credits. It’s just that, unlike other benefits, they are based on the tax year and paid via the tax office.

Who is eligible?

Anyone aged over 16 (for child tax credits) and over 25 (for working tax credits) who normally lives in the UK can apply for them, depending on their income, the hours they work, whether they have a disability, and whether they pay for childcare.

What are their circumstances?

The more you earn, the less you are likely to receive. Single claimants must work at least 16 hours a week. Let’s take a full-time worker: if you work at least 30 hours a week, you are generally eligible for working tax credits if you earn less than £13,253 a year (if you’re single and don’t have children), or less than £18,023 (jointly as part of a couple without children but working at least 30 hours a week).

And for families?

A family with children and an income below about £32,200 can claim child tax credit. It used to be that the more children you have, the more you are eligible to receive – but George Osborne in his most recent Budget has limited child tax credit to two children.

How much money do you receive?

Again, this depends on your circumstances. The basic payment for a single claimant, or a joint claim by a couple, of working tax credits is £1,940 for the tax year. You can then receive extra, depending on your circumstances. For example, single parents can receive up to an additional £2,010, on top of the basic £1,940 payment; people who work more than 30 hours a week can receive up to an extra £810; and disabled workers up to £2,970. The average award of tax credit is £6,340 per year. Child tax credit claimants get £545 per year as a flat payment, plus £2,780 per child.

How many people claim tax credits?

About 4.5m people – the vast majority of these people (around 4m) have children.

How much does it cost the taxpayer?

The estimation is that they will cost the government £30bn in April 2015/16. That’s around 14 per cent of the £220bn welfare budget, which the Tories have pledged to cut by £12bn.

Who introduced this system?

New Labour. Gordon Brown, when he was Chancellor, developed tax credits in his first term. The system as we know it was established in April 2003.

Why did they do this?

To lift working people out of poverty, and to remove the disincentives to work believed to have been inculcated by welfare. The tax credit system made it more attractive for people depending on benefits to work, and gave those in low-paid jobs a helping hand.

Did it work?

Yes. Tax credits’ biggest achievement was lifting a record number of children out of poverty since the war. The proportion of children living below the poverty line fell from 35 per cent in 1998/9 to 19 per cent in 2012/13.

So what’s the problem?

Well, it’s a bit of a weird system in that it lets companies pay wages that are too low to live on without the state supplementing them. Many also criticise tax credits for allowing the minimum wage – also brought in by New Labour – to stagnate (ie. not keep up with the rate of inflation). David Cameron has called the system of taxing low earners and then handing them some money back via tax credits a “ridiculous merry-go-round”.

Then it’s a good thing to scrap them?

It would be fine if all those low earners and families struggling to get by would be given support in place of tax credits – a living wage, for example.

And that’s why the Tories are introducing a living wage...

That’s what they call it. But it’s not. The Chancellor announced in his most recent Budget a new minimum wage of £7.20 an hour for over-25s, rising to £9 by 2020. He called this the “national living wage” – it’s not, because the current living wage (which is calculated by the Living Wage Foundation, and currently non-compulsory) is already £9.15 in London and £7.85 in the rest of the country.

Will people be better off?

No. Quite the reverse. The IFS has said this slightly higher national minimum wage will not compensate working families who will be subjected to tax credit cuts; it is arithmetically impossible. The IFS director, Paul Johnson, commented: “Unequivocally, tax credit recipients in work will be made worse off by the measures in the Budget on average.” It has been calculated that 3.2m low-paid workers will have their pay packets cut by an average of £1,350 a year.

Could the government change its policy to avoid this?

The Prime Minister and his frontbenchers have been pretty stubborn about pushing on with the plan. In spite of criticism from all angles – the IFS, campaigners, Labour, The Sun – Cameron has ruled out a review of the policy in the Autumn Statement, which is on 25 November. But there is an alternative. The chair of parliament’s Work & Pensions Select Committee and Labour MP Frank Field has proposed what he calls a “cost neutral” tweak to the tax credit cuts.

How would this alternative work?

Currently, if your income is less than £6,420, you will receive the maximum amount of tax credits. That threshold is called the gross income threshold. Field wants to introduce a second gross income threshold of £13,100 (what you earn if you work 35 hours a week on minimum wage). Those earning a salary between those two thresholds would have their tax credits reduced at a slower rate on whatever they earn above £6,420 up to £13,100. The percentage of what you earn above the basic threshold that is deducted from your tax credits is called the taper rate, and it is currently at 41 per cent. In contrast to this plan, the Tories want to halve the income threshold to £3,850 a year and increase the taper rate to 48 per cent once you hit that threshold, which basically means you lose more tax credits, faster, the more you earn.

When will the tax credit cuts come in?

They will be imposed from April next year, barring a u-turn.

Anoosh Chakelian is deputy web editor at the New Statesman.