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?

This is so weird.

The ISC represents independent schools. That’s what it’s for. Like unions represent their members, the AA represents motorists, the CBI represents industry, the NHS Confederation represents NHS Trusts, etc etc.

What is your problem with any of that?

I get that you’re opposed to private schooling - many people are - but why are you so obsessed with the idea of representative bodies?

“Not really their job to point to the obvious, is it?
They do a report on the finances of various situations. That’s it.”

Actualky, I disagree with this. If we do financial due diligence in the private sector we are obliged to point out the obvious like legal risk and then state that we are not qualified to comment on the substance. But it has to be pointed out and caveated.
Plus I didn’t see anything in the OBR pointing out the risk of insolvency of some private schools which are on the margin and possible further impact on leavers in the sector. They are hiding behind behaviour pretending people actually have a conscious choice when many don’t and won’t. They have pointed out very clearly that employer NI will depress salaries so they should have gone further on private schools. It’s like they are too scared to say much due to how blatantly and entirely political rather than financial this whole policy is. It’s pretty shocking and as bad as the Tories.

‘Actually, I disagree with this’

I would expect nothing less. Still, facts are facts

@Lookslikemeemaw - you disagree that the OBR’s role should be proper financial due diligence?

The margin of appreciation on education is around the governance, not outright interference in making it impossible for some students to continue their education in-line with their parents philosophical or religious views. The ISC case centres on some (around 40%) of the 35000 children (estimated by the Government) to be forced out of private sector not being able to continue with their faith, sex segregated, specialist, SEN education. I can’t see any possible way it is not successful, it’s literally what the policy is doing even going by the Governments own analysis.

Lord Pannick could be on hard times and simply trying to make a few quid to keep his head above water as mumsnet legal experts claim or he could be an expert in this area publicly stating there is a good chance this is illegal under ECHR. For good chance, read is.

Well as he previously gave Labour advice on this ie that they couldn't do it, and they accepted his advice at the time, I know which side I'm landing on!
The irony that the lawyer they paid to advise them 10 years ago, but now ignored his advice, is the lawyer heading the challenge against them is quite ironic. Alanis Morrisette level irony

Nice, they should play the song as they go in

Your post led me to google the past advice and I landed on this blog, interesting on detail

https://www.counselmagazine.co.uk/articles/abolishing-private-schools-and-redistributing-their-assets-social-justice-at-the-expense-of-human-rights

Summary
In sum, by reference to the Convention and its jurisprudence, whilst the Labour motion most recently passed may be compatible with the Labour Party’s pledge on ‘social justice’, it is frankly incompatible with the right to education and plurality of choice in education as guaranteed by A2P1 and the right of peaceful enjoyment of possessions protected under A1P1. Put another way, it is plurality not ‘social justice’ in education that is the core guarantee conferred by A2P1 and it is plurality, not ‘social justice’ which ‘is essential for the preservation of the “democratic society” as conceived by the Convention’. None of this means that the removal of social injustice and inequalities are not laudable objectives for the Labour Party to pursue in the best interests of society as a whole. But in the educational sphere, the means by which those objectives are sought to be achieved must be compatible with the guarantee of freedom of choice in education in the Convention.
This article also appears on the 1 Crown Office Row human rights blog:

ukhumanrightsblog.com
Jeremy Hyam QC is a barrister at 1 Crown Office Row. He specialises in public and administrative law, civil liberties and human rights as well as professional, particularly clinical, negligence, discipline and environmental law.

‘The ISC represents independent schools. That’s what it’s for. Like unions represent their members, the AA represents motorists, the CBI represents industry, the NHS Confederation represents NHS Trusts, etc etc.
What is your problem with any of that?
’

none whatsoever until parents start quoting their ‘facts’ or claiming that it’s the ISC but not ‘schools’ trying to wiggle out of VAT rules -
same thing.

No one said ISC was trying to wiggle out of anything. I said that the ISC was funding the legal challenge. Stop twisting things

Interesting! This article is about Labour's 2019 policy, which was much more radical under Corbyn - abolition of private schools and confiscation of assets, which would be a clear breach of various articles. The author is rather less confident about the unlawfulness of imposing VAT, which is where I think the schools are going to struggle to show an interference with Art 2, never mind a disproportionate one. The Article does not provide any real analysis of that.

I don't think that Pannick has written an opinion since 1987? (And again that was advising that abolition would be unlawful, and was addressed to the schools, not to Labour).

@AuntyBumBum

Who funds the ISC?

Lord Pannick’s reiterated his view on the unlawfulness of imposing VAT on school fees publicly since the formulation of this government’s policy when in opposition. I haven’t seen a published version of his fully reasoned opinion since the one he and Lord Lester prepared for the ISC in the 1980s. The context then was of a different and more extreme anti-independent education policy. But the authorities are likely, IMO, to make the argument in respect of dissuasive tax policy on education stronger than it was then.

Of course that doesn’t make the opinion right in the sense that the courts will ultimately vindicate it. And I agree - and have said on this thread - that I think it faces formidable obstacles. But it’s at least strongly arguable.

Dan Neidle’s view isn’t terribly relevant. Neidle knows tax law, not ECHR-based public law. This isn’t about tax schedules or statutory construction. Tax lawyers tend to come undone quickly when they’re outside the mechanical application of enactments.

Agree - it was just a twisted populist vote winner. Taxing vapes does not grab the hard of thinking in the same way.

It would be nice if grammars were more widespread. Fewer people would feel the need to go private then. Labour destroyed every one within 50 miles of here decades ago.

Well some posters seem to view them as inferior options. The poster in question said they hated the fact that they have had to move their DC to a grammar and hope the VAT policy is dropped so that they can be moved back to private. I was intrigued as to what was so hate inspiring about the grammar alternative.

The thing about grammars is that they obviously only cater for the very bright. They may be a workable alternative for some but one of mine wouldn't get into one (even if we had them here). What mine need more than anything is the small size, the visibility that comes with that and the freedom the school has to manage kids with EBSA etc in the way that works for them, rather than worrying about LA guidelines etc. Grammars don't offer that. They're fine if the reason you use private is for academic stretching or to avoid those who don't value education but as has been discussed often, there are myriad reasons why. And to a pp upthread who said that noone needs private, that state is a perfectly fine option, I'm afraid that simply isn't true in many cases. As I said upthread, I beggar myself to keep paying the fees because it is the only option they can cope with. It's not a luxury education, it's the one they can tolerate.

Can you stop assuming that people who disagree with you are ‘hard of thinking’. I’m well educated (Doctorate level) and used private education for a few years as it was the best thing for DC at that time. Now use state provision.

And.

I work with families from all parts of the community from the privileged to the under privileged. I see the inequality and the struggle. I see first hand how impossible it can be for people to get out of the trap of poverty.

I fully support the tax. I’m not ignorant or stupid. I just don’t agree that it’s going to have a significantly negative impact on anyone other than a tiny tiny proportion of people.

I fully support any policy that seeks to lessen the vast and obscene inequality in this country.

Is it ‘the answer’ to this? No, of course not. Is it a perfect policy? No, of course not. Is it fair? Yes, mostly it is, IMO, because those being asked to pay more can, on the whole, easily afford to. Will they fight it? Yes, of course. Anyone with privilege being asked to give some of it up will fight it, it’s human nature.

Will vast swathes of private education facilities close? NO! They will find savings if need be. They will adapt. And those with wealth tend to be fans of free markets and unfettered capitalism. Well, here you go. If the schools can’t tolerate a little bit of instability then they are not viable businesses. That is capitalism for you.

Will there be some children with special educational needs that experience some uncertainty and disruption? Yes. Will there be a period of adaptation where things are less certain and changes need to be made at a societal, school and individual level? Yes. But that’s life. Things change, we adapt. And in this case we are talking about the very well resourced few, whom I’m sure will cope.

This legal challenge will hopefully highlight gaps in educational provision for children with SEND but other than that it smacks of spoilt toddler and I feel embarrassed.

I spoke to a friend who still uses private Ed and it was so hard to allow her space to moan about it. She chooses to work part time but could easily up her hours. DC are out all day at school and clubs. She could easily get a promotion. They are probably the least well off in the group of parents I keep in touch with. The rest could cover the extra just by taking one less holiday a year (most have several) or selling a couple of assets of which they have many.

I feel embarrassed seeing the turmoil they are all in when there are people dealing with actual, real life issues. Children in Gaza for example. Children in this country living in abject poverty. Parents working two jobs just to make ends meet. I feel like telling them to ‘get a grip’ but I’m far too polite.

But here I can say it with safety of anonymity ‘Get a bloody grip!’

Private schools. They fund it. Its an association of 7 other private school associations that acts as a lobbying group on behalf of private schools.

Why does a doctorate not make you hard of thinking with respect to this? It doesn’t make you well educated expect in that particularly field, which could be about history or art, rocks on the moon or toe nails.

All that you have said above does not support that you can critically analyse this policy, esp “think of the people in Gaza”! So you know one parent who works part time and other that’ multiple holidays - it’s hardly research is it? But I am sure you know that with your doctorate level of study.

This legal challenge will hopefully highlight gaps in educational provision for children with SEND but other than that it smacks of spoilt toddler and I feel embarrassed

Of course they should challenge it! It is not a mostly perfectly policy. It’s most disingenuous and not based on any critical analysis but is just a people pleaser. They are already asking those that pay extra to pay more, their premise being it will provide extra money for extra state school teachers, free school meals etc - it won’t and it won’t get those stuck in poverty out.

Things change, we adapt Indeed - those that have reasonable wealth will be fine and those in poverty will remain so with this policy.
Your naivety is astounding.

Is there any left wing policy no matter how ridiculous where criticism isn’t met with nonsense virtue signalling, ‘equality’, ‘think of the starving children’ , ‘privilege’ etc. Its not an argument for anything and it doesn’t wash, explain how taxing education and removing education choice in the U.K. helps children in Gaza.

In the same way as unions are lobby groups for state teachers

Exactly. For some reason anti-VAT posters seem to think that anything from the ISC is accurate, unbiased and worth listening to…
but it has one reason for existence- to protect the private school system at all costs.

@Orchidzombiewatch well my two kids are in the tiny minority. I'm a SP who works full time and they are in private as their MH and SEN were failed by state. But I'll just get a grip because it's only a few.

If this policy was actually going to materially improve the state system id accept your argument but it won't. It's been earmarked for 6000 extra teachers which don't exist. I'm one. I know the sector. But thanks for telling me my kids' don't matter as they're the tiny minority.

There are numerous ways this could have been done better..gradual introduction at points of entry for instance, would would have avoided settled kids having to leave.

Or, as Starmer's school did, exempt any kids already at the school and just bring it in for new starters.
He got an independent education for £0
Strange how Labour like their leaders to be educated in independent sector but they hate the concept of independent schools. Champagne socialists the lot of them

So we can disregard any opinion from a vested interest. Including the government’s and its supporters’.