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

[feesss]

we went to look round a school this morning and we obviously asked about VAT and the lady showing us round said there has been a challenge this week so it may not happen? Is anyone aware of this? I can’t see much online about it?

When was the last time a manifesto pledge was scrapped ?

Two days ago.

I really hope you are right. I read your posts and think great

But then I read the other pp and think Labour will push through and maybe go ahead anyway and it's disappointing

I guess we'll see. I hope you're right though!

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cly4leklk3qo.amp

many would argue that the answer to your question is less than 2 days ago.

That is literally what the legal challenge is about ie reversing the policy.
They have scrapped other manifesto pledges

The markets and Moody's are giving Labour a tough time over the budget anyway. They may have to change stuff to avoid being pummelled by debt costs

You're hardly going to instruct a newly qualified barrister to take on the government though, are you?There is one chance to defeat this, so the ISC will throw everything they have at this, including instructing the barristers with the best chance of winning. Surely this is just common sense.

There’s a fuck lot of levels between a newly qualified barrister and Lord whatsisface wjo’s fees are between £5k and £10k PER hour … the man who defended Bojo over partygate.

And no, you probably aren’t, but my point was the fact that these schools are absolutely MINTED businesses that charge a lot of money to educate the kids of the wealthy.
and rather than do anything to help out those parents they’re choosing to sue the government to protect their money and privilege. Not sure that’s going to win the hearts and minds of the nation.

Why would that matter? Hardly anyone is aware of this case anyway

If it overturns a very poor policy then great

There are plenty of good arguments in favour of the government’s policy on VAT on independent schools.

That isn’t one of them.

It’s the ISC who are taking legal action, not the schools themselves.

Ffs sake, no, most of these schools are not "absolutely minted". Far far from it. Again, clueless assumptions based on a tiny visible fraction of these schools.

The schools aren't paying the legal challenge, the ISC are

these schools are absolutely MINTED businesses

If they’re minted businesses then Labour would be getting the corporation tax as they already do from the PS that actually are businesses!

rather than do anything to help out those parents they’re choosing to sue the government

What an odd way to look at the situation, a legal action wouldn’t be required to protect the best interests of the children if the Government wasn’t actively trying to harm them.

And no, you probably aren’t, but my point was the fact that these schools are absolutely MINTED businesses that charge a lot of money to educate the kids of the wealthy.

What a load of tosh

I haven't read all the earlier posts, and last time I looked I could not see that barristers opinions had been posted anywhere, but as I understand it the hopes are pinned on Arts 14 and Art 2, Prot 1 - that charging VAT on school fees and not those for nurseries or universities will lead to unlawful age discrimination (Art 14) in the way the right to education (Art 2) is provided.

I would say this is a pretty flimsy argument. You can get lawyers to cook up clever sounding submissions for just about anything if you pay them, and given the commercial interests at stake it must be worth a throw for the schools, but I don't think that this has much chance of flying as unlawful discrimination.

That’s part of it, age discrimination essentially. The other part is seeking to limit education in-line with parents philosophical choices in contradiction of ECHR through taxation. This is coming from the angle of faith, all girls/boys, SEN, small class sizes and specialist schools such as art, music, sports etc.

‘The schools aren't paying the legal challenge, the ISC are’

Funded by… any guesses??

Thanks @Mrsbabbecho . It will be interesting to see the skeleton arguments if/when they get posted, but I can't see it working out myself.

The VAT clearly discriminates on an age basis, but I think the government won't find it hard to provide an objective justification for that, especially because a wide margin of appreciation is given when the state justifies its measures on social or economic grounds: the test is whether the policy is “manifestly without reasonable foundation” which is a high threshold to meet.

I'd be doubtful that there even is discrimination, lawful or otherwise, on the second basis. Presumably VAT will be applied to fees on single-sex or religious schools just the same as to mixed and secular schools. But even ignoring that, the same high-threshold test would apply.

The 2nd part isn’t really a discrimination argument, it’s
‘the State shall respect the right of parents to ensure such education and teaching in conformity with their own religious and philosophical convictions.’
Its here where the case is very strong, I’d say it’s undeniable that this is exactly what the policy does and was designed to do,

Hehe @Lookslikemeemaw - Bojo only hired Pannick AFTER he realised how good he was when he fought against PM and gave them hell in the Brexit Gina Miller cases.

The Labour Party should have hired Pannick first. Conflict of interest now when you are asleep at the wheel.

www.blackstonechambers.com/barristers/lord-pannick-kc/

are people really thick enough to think that the ISC aren’t funded by private schools???
it is a LOBBY group run by and funded by 7 other associations of independent schools.

But schools aren't paying VAT, it is the parents who will be paying!
The cost of VAT will be 500-1000 times the cost of the legal challenge

Will you please stop referring to clueless assumptions (presumably mine!). I was stating what is the reality in the big name schools I know (personally) in London and the South East. Just because that reality is different from what you know in a more rural area does not mean that it does not exist. And for anyone who thinks that state schools are just as well equipped, I suggest you look at the websites of schools. Just a random example, not one of the big hitters, this is Cranleigh in Surrey's website "Alongside our 10 grass pitches for rugby, cricket and football, we benefit from the Woodland Fitness Centre which houses Strength and Conditioning, Trevor Abbot Sports Centre, 25-metre swimming pool, nine-hole golf course, equestrian centre, 13 cricket nets and an outdoor bubble for winter practice, eight netball courts, squash courts, six fives courts and an outdoor education centre." These types of schools are in abundance whether you choose to believe it or not.

Ok thanks, @Mrsbabbecho, definitely would be very interesting to see the what they're using to support that line of argument, but I'd still be doubtful that they'll get far.

Ignoring any Art 14 discrimination it's not entirely clear that VAT interferes with the Art 2 right to plurality of education. The schools would have to show that the VAT imposition curtails the right to such an extent as to "impair its very essence and deprive it of its effectiveness". Given that schooling is still available, just 20% more expensive, I can't see that working out.

But even if they can show an Art 2 interference it's a qualified right and I think the government won't have too much trouble in establishing a legitimate aim (again given the wide margin of appreciation here).

Interested to see who the government appoint against Pannick.
Presumably someone who’ll
take private schools to task on the annual well above inflation fee increases they’ve imposed on their customers for decades, shine a light on exactly what goes on in religious schools, gives accurate figures on how much fees actually cost, how much schools do or don’t do to warrant charity status, how much they spend on building projects and ‘status’ facilities as opposed to things that genuinely benefit pupils, how they protect their brands by sweeping any scandals under the carpet… and on and on.

It’s all going to come out in court and it’ll be fascinating…