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.

I’m afraid that is just nonsense maths.

To suggest I’ll end up paying a similar albeit deferred level of tax shows a gross naivety regarding tax planning.

I can guarantee you I would be paying huge amounts less tax over my lifetime if I don’t use private schools.

You might as well have stated that getting 45% tax relief on pension contributions is worth nothing. That would be an equally as ridiculous statement.

Why specifically boarding schools when the ones closing have all been prep schools?

But if parents who have already made that choice are priced out as a direct consequence of this policy then their choice has been taken away.

This is reasonably foreseeable as a result of the policy. I'm not sure of the position for people who never start or who can't afford it in the first place, but there is certainly an issue for those priced out.

Many parents at private school would not send their children to boarding schools. Parents often have strong views on boarding.

Come on, you can’t be that naive. The fact that Labour always link private schools to state schools funding is simply base level politics for gullible people to go along with a harmful ideological proposal that will decrease spending per head and close schools harming children. People paying for their kids education saves the tax payer at least 4.5 billion a year, it’s win win. If you agree with the ideology then fine, but don’t pretend it’s not about making children change to state schools by pricing the parents out or making the schools unviable so they close.

Why specifically boarding schools when the ones closing have all been prep schools?

Not all prep schools: Alton school has gone and that's a through school.

But it’s not an aim to close down schools?

It really is. The Labour Party voted to abolish private schools in 2019. Vocal supporters of this included Rayner and Reeves. When the deputy leader and shadow chancellor have both expressed their hatred for the sector, and have publicly said they should be abolished, it’s quite clear that any change is aimed at destroying the sector.

Quite. And the discussion on money lost doesn't even take into account inward investment. Starmer bangs on about wealth creation and growth. But private education is a huge factor in encouraging wealthy international families to move here. Even if they don't then live here and pay tax here (and plenty do), they visit frequently, and spend money here. Ditto with universities. Students paying overseas uni fees literally stop the sector collapsing.

Private education is a successful, wealth creating sector that helps to raise the profile of the UK internationally and attracts overseas wealth. It's very short-sighted to seek to damage that.

Exactly. It only gets traction because it taps into emotion rather than sense

Damaging a successful sector is incredibly poor policy

Ah, another pointless thread.

You know what? I'm more concerned by the massive increase under the Tory's in families in serious Poverty than the whining wealthy who talk about cutting back on luxury things like holidays as if it's some dreadful hardship.

They're not the ones relying on food banks to feed their children, and having to choose between buying food and paying their rent and utility bills.

So forgive me if I don't shed a tear for you and still vote Labour. 🤨

It’s a shame that Labour don’t seem to agree with you. VAT on private school fees is one of their main policies. They talk about that far more than important matters such as poverty. VAT on school fees isn’t going to make a difference with that. Even the IFS have said it’s a tiny amount of money which will make no real difference to public services.

I think a lot of the concern on threads like these is coming from teachers and parents of children at state school as well, because this money they have stated they'll raise from VAT has been promised to 3 different places (free breakfasts, 6500 teachers and the creation of 3300 new nurseries) and is the only money that has been promised to improving education and is an absolute drop in the ocean of what's needed. Whether you agree with the policy or not it's not fit for purpose because it's far too little. If you ignore both breakfasts and creating a huge number of nurseries, only look at it as providing 6500 new teachers, that's the equivalent of 1/3 of a teacher per school (but the reality is it's just going to be swallowed by unfunded teachers pension changes as I understand it? I'm a little less sure on this bit though) with absolutely no funding towards increased SEN provision, TAs, equipment etc. 1/3 of a teacher per school isn't going to improve much! Our local secondary hasn't had a permenant maths teacher for year 7 or 8 this whole year, and it's 7 form entry so they need a heck of a lot more than 1/3 of a teacher. A friend of mine works in a state secondary about 15 miles away and they have now advertised 4 times for a science teacher without a single applicant and this is not the only teacher post that's sat empty at their school. Teachers need a lot more support and funding to be able to deliver adequately. This policy whether it works or doesn't (and there is a lot of arguement about exactly how much it will realistically generate) is marginal even at the very best estimate to the money they need to actually improve things, but they've thrown a shiny bone to distract people from the fact that there is no realistic plan to improve schools or the NHS which are issues a lot of people feel strongly about. I've voted labour my entire life but I really don't have a clue how they're actually planning to improve education for anyone.

Is the non existent NET revenue raised from the policy now also being used to erase poverty? it’s a wonder no other country has introduced a 20% education tax given how it solves so many issues.

But an awful lot of us are not asking you to shed a tear for us. We're asking you to recognise that this is a totally incoherent policy which is a mere distraction from the actual problems in state education (and may actually make things worse). And that Labour are using it as a means of glossing over the fact that they have no concrete plan for education, and quite possibly no money to fund any changes either. Of course this isn't going to stop you voting Labour (though it will stop me). But I do hope that, once they get in and start debating this in detail, they may then (with the election safely under their belt) realise that it's a bad policy and drop it. If that does happen, the problem is that they are left with no plan for education whatsoever.

There is a big difference between market reactions to unexpected events and a government deliberately introducing a policy in spite of the reasonably foreseeable harm it risks doing.

I think that's the danger here though. So many people form opinions based on their subjective experience. We've already been waiting nearly two years for an EHCP for our son, who hovers just around threshold for needing one, but only because we (as parents) work really hard to try and prevent him falling further behind. SEND provision in our LA is so bad that central government were required to step in and intervene. You were fortunate to live in an area that processed the application that quickly. How easy it is to get the EHCP is a postcode lottery and not therefore an appropriate measure of actual need.

And don't forget the input VAT that private schools will be able to reclaim - backdated for at least 4 years.

The Treasury will be writing some very big cheques to Eton and Harrow when that comes due.

That poster didn’t actually get an EHCP within 20 weeks because she had to appeal, but unless you are waiting for Tribunal/have appealed, which I appreciate you may, you don’t need to wait 2 years for an EHCP. You can request an EHCNA yourself. Then the process is governed by statutory timescales. If the LA breaches these timescales, you can force them to act, via judicial review if necessary (although most don’t get that far because the threat or a pre-action letter mostly works).

Incorrect.

There are 5 private universities in the UK. University of Buckingham for a starter.

It only results in school closures if the school is already teetering on the brink, in which case the school will probably close anyway irrespective of VAT. That's simply commercial reality, nothing to do with disliking anyone. Private schools close on a fairly regular basis for that reason.

That choice has already been taken away from the vast majority of the population. It isn't a breach of human rights.

The law is the same in every postcode. It may take time when, as in your case, your child is hovering around the threshold so that you have to deal with refusals and appeal, but that's a different issue.

Look, I can see from your posts that your mind is already made up so I'm not going to try and change it. From my point of view, I do sincerely believe there is a potential human rights issue when a policy is deliberately pursued which risks interrupting the education of a child who is settled in a particular setting. Given the debatable public benefit of doing that (i.e. not much revenue and highly uncertain behavioural changes) my opinion is that the risk isn't worth it.

The law is the same everywhere but the efficacy of the LA is not and time is a luxury many don't have.