Judges deny students claim but declare government failed to properly assess equality implications
Two teenagers who took the government to the high court claiming that the near-trebling of tuition fees this year breached their human rights have lost their case.
Callum Hurley and Katy Moore, who were both 17 when the case began in November, argued that raising fees to up to £9,000 a year from this autumn contravened human rights and equality legislation.
But Mr Justice King and Lord Justice Elias ruled that the government had acted legally.
However, they accepted that some students would be discouraged from applying to university because of higher fees and said it was too soon to tell whether the poorest would be deterred.
The judges said the government's analysis of equality issues was inadequate and failed to comply with public sector equality duties. This means the government did not give due regard to disabled students and those from ethnic minorities.
The teenagers were represented by Sam Jacobs of Public Interest Lawyers. Jacobs argued that there were two grounds for bringing the case. Firstly, the rise in fees was in breach of the right to education protected in the Human Rights Act 1998. That right does not guarantee free higher education, but it does place curbs on steps that limit access to higher education, he argued.
Secondly, he also said the government had failed to give "due regard" to promoting equality of opportunity as required under the Race Relations, Sex Discrimination and Disability Discrimination Acts.
Women, disabled people and ethnic minority graduates tend to earn less over their lifetime than male, non-disabled, white graduates, Jacobs said.
Tessa Gregory, from Public Interest Lawyers, said the law firm would press the government to "perform its duties in a conscientious way and ensure the impact of higher fees is properly and robustly analysed".
The decision to treble fees was a "major policy change affecting the life chances of a generation of students and billions of pounds of public expenditure", according to the documents outlining the claimants' argument. "Such a decision should not have been taken without the appropriate degree of rigorous attention to equality."
Speaking outside the court, Moore said she was very pleased with the outcome, adding: "For the court to recognise the government's actions as unlawful is a great achievement. It shows that it is possible to challenge decisions made by our government that have damaging effects on the future of our society."
The teenagers said they would both go to university.
The Department for Business, Innovation and Skills said: "We are pleased the court rejected outright the suggestion that our student finance reforms breach students' human rights.
"The court recognised the consultation and analysis we carried out. It also recognised the extensive debate which took place, both inside and outside parliament, on how those from disadvantaged backgrounds can be encouraged to enter higher education.
"Accordingly, the court has not agreed the claimants' request to quash the regulations, which set out tuition fee limits. This means that students and universities have the certainty to plan for the next academic year, and the government's higher education policies remain the same."
In a statement, Public Interest Lawyers said: "In its ruling the court made a clear declaration that the government, when it passed the regulations increasing tuition fees, failed to comply with its public sector equality duties.
"It found that the government's analysis on equality issues was inadequate. That the court made this finding in relation to such a key plank of the government's higher education policy cannot but reflect badly on these rushed reforms.
"Whilst our clients are disappointed that the court chose not to quash the regulations, they are pleased with the recognition that the government failed in its duties to properly think through the equality implications of its decision."
Comments