To ask if anyone is clued up on the challenge this week to VAT on school fees?

I thought the point about VAT on university fees was simply a risk pointed out - namely, that if the courts hold that only taxing private education is a breach as it is being singled out, then the Labour Party could face the choice of having to either tax all forms of education or none. And most of the posters on here agree on the fact that university fees should not be subject to VAT.

People who are pro VAT simply believe that private education is a commodity and non essential, but philosophically that makes zero sense because all children are entitled to an essential education, as a human right. Having to move children out of schools would be a breach. Determining what is non essential is complex. Those kids all sit their GCSEs too, the parents should not be penalised because of the way the education is funded. If there were a tax, it certainly should never have been on the essential part of education.

That's the strangest argument I've ever seen for adding VAT on to University Fees. The costs are already a hurdle so let's make it higher? I would have hoped that someone who has worked in education for 25+ years would have a more compassionate perspective.

The poorest pupils are already not going to uni, they are pursuing other options eg Apprenticeships because their parents can't afford to top them up at uni. Labour increasing tuition fees will do nothing to widen participation.
I have worked in FE/tertiary education for over 25 years, I am fully aware of the situation.

Yes, that reminds me actually …your lack of mentioning the great French white wine blight of the mid nineteenth century hasn’t gone unnoticed on this education VAT legal case thread.

Seems like someone has been on the vino a bit early tonight.

There is caring about something that affects one's child and then there is expecting others to care as much as they do. Two very different things.

I think the gist is that you don't believe on tax on education but, if VAT is imposed, it should be on private nurseries and universities as well. So, if your group is suffering, so should others.

However, the glaring difference is that there is no private/state choice for university. Therefore there would be no opt out of VAT other than not being able to pursue tertiary education at all. This would mean that the poorest students probably would not go to university, particularly when they are already faced with crippling levels of interest on student debt. I feel strongly that should not happen despite the fact that my own DC have a privileged background.

Maybe just best accept that different people are passionate about different things and that's okay.

Perhaps there’s other threads hyper focused on other education issues?

I must say, your lack of mentioning the plight of loggerhead turtles in the Indian Ocean on this thread suggests you aren’t nearly so bothered about environmental issues.

Of course I care about something that affects my child, what sort of parent would I be if I didn't?
I also care that this is a divisive, inconsistent policy that is being sold under false premise and goes against fundamentally accepted principles of education.
I have explained my previous comment, you have ignored that

Says the poster who was saying upthread (quote) "If you want to tax education then do it fairly ie private nurseries + universities." That speaks volumes.

You and others clearly care very, very much about that which affects you directly.

No, that's your prejudice for thinking that

The hyperfocus on this particular issue by some on here suggests that they themselves aren't nearly so bothered about other education related issues. You know the ones where they don't have skin in the game. It cuts both ways for sure.

Of course that's their prerogative but (once again) others are perfectly entitled to have different priorities which are equally valid.

Yes I think people with no skin in the game are forgetting this can have a huge negative impact on actual real children, just not their children obviously.

Leaving out ECHR, this is a deliberate and targeted policy to make children's (all be it minority of U.K. children) lives harder. It could potentially be devastating and life changing for some vulnerable children and parents deserve at least some genuine reasons why this is happening. The very dubious financial on the back of a fag packet logic that looks to raise barely anything (if not be a net cost) and abstract vague references to equality simply aren’t good enough justification for most parents. What are the pros of this decisive policy and do they even come close to outweighing the so very very many cons?

I think that for parents who are facing pulling their kids out of schools in which they are happy and settled there aren't many more important issues. Especially for those in GCSE or Alevel years

Understood, now what does this have to do with implementing an education tax and forcing kids out of schools?

Surely they can’t be seen to deliberately delay

Whatever anyone’s views on VAT, LAs deliberately delay by acting unlawfully day in day out in relation to SEN. There are no serious repercussions for that behaviour now.

A bit of perspective that education is much wider than the single issue of VAT on school fees? You can not support the policy and find other issues more concerning, you know. Or maybe you don't.

Thanks, now what does this have to do with implementing an education tax and forcing kids out of schools?

@AuntyBumBum - the problem is the Government has an incentive to delay so I am not sure about the no repercussions/damages. Surely they can’t be seen to deliberately delay and enrich? That is a fundamental principle of common law.

“And call me naive, but among the many improvements after the election is that we now have a government that respects the rule of law, not one that sees it as an inconvenience to be subverted, so I am very confident that they will comply with any court rulings.”

@AuntyBumBum - thank you. I think that is right as regards international conventions (like Chagos and as regards Israel), but there were some question marks over inconsistencies last summer and hence the two tier Keir etc and some worse offenders were released etc to lock up some hate crime speech etc. so we will have to see.

Okay Tiger Mum.

For many of us this isn’t about an anti VAT agenda you know?! It’s about playing with children’s lives to further your own political agenda and career and it’s abhorrent, and it’s even worse when vulnerable kids are involved. Furthermore, we also massively object with undermining the HR Act which directly mirrors the Convention and just are full on fed up with parties trying to move us away from anything European. And just generally fed up with the anti elitism for the sake of it, when in reality it simply translates to poorer people getting even poorer. As the very rich always have options elsewhere anyway. It’s the full on self harm this country seems to be exercising that annoys us.

Legally the position would be as I described a few days ago on the thread:

The change proposed involves amending primary legislation to remove the VAT exemption. That needs an Act of Parliament. Currently the proposal is in clauses 47-49 of the Finance Bill - the budget.
If Parliament passes the legislation, but the courts subsequently decide that the policy is not compatible with the right to education then they can issue a "declaration of incompatibility" under s.4 HRA. That declaration does not invalidate the legislation itself though (s.4(6)) - ie it does not restore the VAT exemption. The provision removing the exemption remains good law until parliament amends it (which can happen rapidly via a fast-track procedure - s.10).
In other words the government would not have broken the law (certainly not domestic UK law) and anyone left out of pocket doesn't have any other remedy I'm afraid.
(There's no right under the HRA to any sort of interim/temporary declaration, and it wouldn't serve any purpose. The courts have no power to make injunctions or orders against an Act of Parliament - in our constitution Acts trump everything else.)

The government could in theory amend the UK HRA, but that would not prevent a ruling from the Court of Human Rights against them which would be the next step. And call me naive, but among the many improvements after the election is that we now have a government that respects the rule of law, not one that sees it as an inconvenience to be subverted, so I am very confident that they will comply with any court rulings.

Do some posters on this thread have such tunnel vision that they can't appreciate someone having a priority that is bigger than VAT on school fees? The poster wasn't loosely associating it. She was bringing a sense of perspective, which many would agree is much needed. And what's with the "yes yes you are a wonderful person"? If you want to raise the subject of virtue signalling, there is plenty of it on this thread about SEN. I sometimes wonder how many were so passionate about the plight of SEN kids before it suited their anti-VAT agenda.

As far as I'm aware nobody said it did. I believe the poster was saying that WP is where her passion lies. There is nothing wrong with that at all.