Labour’s private school tax raid ‘likely illegal’

[Zizzagaaaaaww]

Thought some may like to read this article

archive.ph/i1XD3

Sir Keir Starmer’s planned VAT raid on private schools is likely to breach human rights law, The Telegraph can reveal.
The Labour leader risks falling foul of European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) law <a class="break-all" href="https://archive.ph/o/i1XD3/www.telegraph.co.uk/money/tax/labour-private-school-tax-moronic-policy/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">over his party’s flagship policy, one of Britain’s top constitutional and human rights lawyers has warned.
Lord Pannick, who has taken on some of the UK’s most high-profile court cases, backed legal advice warning that making private schools subject to VAT was likely to breach ECHR law.
He told The Telegraph: “It would be strongly arguable that for a new government to impose VAT on independent schools would breach the right to education.

“That is because all other educational services will remain exempt from VAT and the charging of VAT on independent schools alone is designed to impede private education, and will have that effect.”

The KC and crossbench peer said that the Labour policy risked breaching two articles in the ECHR which protect the right to education.
He referred to legal advice written in response to Labour policies as far back as the early 1980s, when the country’s most senior lawyers warned that plans to end tax exemptions for private schools or abolish the institutions altogether would likely breach international human rights law to which Britain is signed up.
Previous leaders of the party have floated the idea of taxing private schools as part of plans to integrate them into the state sector. Under former party leader Michael Foot, the Labour manifesto of 1983 pledged to “charge VAT on the fees paid to [private] schools”.
The policy to abolish the schools was eventually shot down by senior lawyers, who argued it could be at odds with the ECHR and spoke specifically about the risk of imposing VAT.
While Sir Keir has ruled out abolishing private schools, he plans to force the institutions to pay business rates and 20pc VAT on tuition fees.
In an unearthed legal opinion from 1987, seen by The Telegraph, the late Lord Lester and Lord Pannick, prominent human rights lawyers, concluded a government “could not lawfully prohibit fee-paying, independent education or remove the benefits of charitable status or impose VAT in respect of such education” while a member of the court.
A foreword to the opinion written in 1991 by Lord Scarman, who served as a Law Lord in the precursor to the Supreme Court, said it would “encourage a challenge which could be mounted by taking the argument to the [ECHR]… if ever a government should seek to abolish or discriminate against [private schools]”.
The opinion was jointly written by Lord Lester and Lord Pannick as advice for the Independent Schools Council (ISC) and later published in its journal. Lord Pannick confirmed his belief that the argument still stands today.

It was issued in January then. The draft was 22 nd December, full one mid Jan.

Its all a terrible blur. I remember trying to ring round places before Xmas with the council screeching at me that we had 14 days and Christmas didn’t count. So we had about 5 days and everywhere was closed.

But she was in education by end of Jan.

It really won't cost the state more overall, even if an appeal is needed in every case of the people who actually apply - and many won't. It isn't actually true that most EHCP applications go to appeal, and in any event the fact that local authorities wrongly refuse to assess or to issue EHCPs is a wholly separate issue.

So what? Why keep banging on to reply to a point that wasn't made?

The big difference with your example is the state doesn’t benefit to the tune of 8k per annum per child from each household who upgrades their bathroom.

Parents can and should take steps to keep local authorities to the statutory deadlines, it isn't difficult with a threat of judicial review.

If the state school cannot provide for a child's SEN within standard mainstream resources, then the child would meet the criteria for an EHCP. If the evidence shows that they need a small private school then it will be named in the EHCP and paid for. If parents don't choose to go through that process, they accept that they will be paying fees and can't really complain about inequality.

The net result of all the resulting costs of this policy when added together will cost the state more.

It is not just the SEN issue but also reduced income tax from those choosing state instead of private, drop in tax every time an overseas student takes a UK students place etc.

The net result will be a cost to the state

Given that wages have stagnated, and assets (such as property) continue to rise in value, surely ‘fair’ would be looking at taxing wealth rather than raising income tax.

I agree that it’s a divisive policy. It has a ring of Brexit Bus about it - a lean into populism.

I would rather Labour had the balls to look at other forms of taxation.

Yes, they all fall under the EU’s ‘no taxation on education’ policy and are exempt in member states.

You are correct that UK could now add sales tax to any or all of these. No party is however advocating that as a policy.

And no-one has a crystal ball to see further in to the future. But as Starmer chose to use the language of ‘closing a loophole’ for this policy, then I think it’s perfectly possible and logical to close all their services covered by this ‘loophole’. Salami tactics? Who knows - once the principle has gone, the rest is just detail, timing and the rate applied

I really feel for the families who have already given their notice.

though I do feel it was a bit premature.

the schools shouldn't have put the fees up yet, so I don't see why people have done it, unless, I suppose, they got accepted at a reasonable state school?

Private schools normally ask for a term’s notice, so some parents will have jumped ship to avoid any potential increase

@timetobegin

There are families struggling to the fees, people who have HAD to move their children to private schools because they have needs the state is not meeting.

Special needs
severe bullying
anxiety/school refusal

there are so many reasons.

the parents ARE 'paying their way' and saving the state around £7000 per year, per child.

children WILL be harmed being moved to a x school that cannot meet their needs.

The private school are not all Eton like.

But don't let the truth get in your way.

Me too Lawrie I couldn’t agree with you more. Happy to pay more tax for decent services and to have a stable healthy country again. I’ve voted Labour all my life, am scared and horrified by this populist Tory shitshow we are now in and I do not want the Labour Party following suit. It’s absolutely Labour’s Brexit Bus promise.

@crumblingschools

yes, I know that, that's why I said the schools won't (shouldn't) have increased their fees yet anyway. Even IF Labour get in & even if they find a way to do it (little thing like breaking the law) parents are still going to have time to hand their notice in before the second term of the school year.

maybe they just want them to start the new school at the start of the school year.

i still think it's jumping the gun

But if they thought the increase was going to happen in September they would need to have handed in their notice by end of Easter term and if increase was to happen at beginning of Sorrnubv term they need to hand their notice in by end of Summer term

I have experience of the situations you describe but you surely can’t think it right that this is happening? If children are being failed in state schools that is what we should be changing not allowing businesses to avoid vat because their “business” is education and thus hiding the issue. What about the parents who CAN’T afford to escape the system as you describe. I personally think some private/public schools are excellent and some dire but I think they should be an option, I just believe they are businesses and should pay VAT like the rest of us.

But @timetobegin why aren’t Labour etc saying what they are going to do to ensure state schools are fit for purpose and children aren’t being failed. This policy isn’t going to help and in fact will probably put more children into the failing system

It's very telling that KS who is a lawyer and supposedly keen on accuracy and facts keeps describing it as a 'tax break' for private schools. This isn't accurate nor factual. And hardly anyone has challenged him on it in interviews (that I've seen/heard) where he's said it.

Not only that; he’s described it as tax breaks “for private schools”, seemingly oblivious to the fact that VAT on fees will be payable by parents, not the schools.

Absolutely. It's all part of why the public are lapping it up - the rhetoric the LP is using stinks of divisive tactics. No-one thinks to question whether private schools get a tax break, we don't need to cos we all hate them already.

Would also be very interesting to know if he voted at the 2019 Labour annual conference to abolish private schools since he claims that's not part of his long-term agenda. The vote passed but I imagine the voting record is private?

Yeah I’m still waiting for my 5k state contribution for my bathroom renovation.

I can’t find any information on his opinion on it, but the media reported that Rayner (the deputy leader) and Reeves (the shadow chancellor) both supported the plan to abolish private schools. Reeves has also said that she wants fewer children educated at selective schools and wants fewer children educated at grammar schools.

Raynor is extremely vocal about wanting to abolish private schools. Videos of her laughing gleefully when it is raised. That's what is driving this policy, her spite.