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.

You really think the constant ramming down posters' throats of the same tired and self-interested messages (not just you) is purity of thought? Not sure if you mean moralistic or original but what I read on here is neither.

To be fair, lads, there is an undeniable benefit to the working class from watching you all shit your pants at having to pay a tax which will by definition overwhelmingly affect the top decile of households. Very enjoyable. Obliged to you.

hollow collective concern for state schools from private school parents

You are saying that our concerns are not pure enough so are not valid.

Glad you are enjoying it!

If my concerns prove to be wrong and Labour manage to improve state schools and also not trash our economy - resulting in a bright future for us all - then I will be genuinely delighted.

There have been big challenges in the state sector for years and all of a sudden private school parents on MN are so invested in its future. Could it possibly be because it fits their wider narrative? I don't believe the exodus to state will be anything like the hyperbolic predictions of some on here but I guess we will just have to wait and see.

There are serious problems in many areas which the state is responsible for. You can't worry about them all. You certainly can't campaign for them all.

That doesn't make our concern false when a policy comes in which will seriously impact us and will also harm state education. It isn't zero-sum. And we can care about both.

We try to point out all the harms: knowing that whilst some people will immediately see the overall harm, other people will have empathy only for certain children (eg those with SEN) and other people again will only care if they can see harm to themselves.

There are multiple different consequences to the policy, which will resonate with different people. That doesn't make any of those consequences untrue.

As you say, we'll see. I'll be delighted if I'm wrong.

Of course be concerned for your own DD, just don't expect everyone else to be.

But this is exactly what you are accusing PS parents of doing - not being concerned about other children.

There seems to be a double standard here:

"Why don't private school parents care about state education more and why aren't they thinking about children from the most deprived backgrounds?"

"Why should we care about private school/rich children?"

Seems like you feel only some children are worthy of care - and those whose parents are better off, more aspirational are not in that category.

@OhCrumbsWhereNow you've missed the fact that the key word in what I wrote is "expect". I am not saying people shouldn't care by choice about the posters DD and other private school DC. I am saying it shouldn't be demanded that they do. The tone of some private school parents on here is demanding that people be concerned for their DC. Otherwise the 'politics of envy' 'race to the bottom' etc. slights come out. That is what I object to. The tone deafness is quite astounding. Some are simply lamenting and expecting empathy for the horror of their DC risking having to attend schools that 93% of the children in the country attend. I find it quite breathtaking to behold.

Others in the anti VAT tribe are quite confident to openly say they will sabotage state schools by applying for places that they don't even need when other children do need those places. That is abhorrent irrespective of context. Then there are others who choose to minimise the fact that it is happening - all hot air, prove it or it didn't happen, anger boiling over, not real intent etc. etc. etc. That doesn't look too good either.

So forgive people for concluding that collectively the group of parents complaining about VAT on here are probably doing their cause more harm than good because their posts are so repetitive and their tone so entitled that any empathy other people started out will is being chipped away.

I am not sure where you got the following slogans but they are certainly not mine.

"Why should we care about private school/rich children?"

Seems like you feel only some children are worthy of care - and those whose parents are better off, more aspirational are not in that category.

You seem to be assuming that I must have children in state school, must be envious and not very affluent. By extension I must be bitter and envious. It is intentional that I haven't stated my own situation because everything seems to be weaponised on here. Your assumptions are wrong in every category.

I am very familiar with private schools environment and most parents are nothing like the caricatures painted on these threads. Most will stay and absorb the extra cost and the minority who can't may ask the schools for some help in fee phasing or consider quietly switching their child at a strategic point in their education. Surely it doesn't all have to all be so divisive, dramatic and nasty.

If you are worried about this topic becoming divisive, dramatic and nasty, then maybe don't enter a thread with an accusation that private school parents are faking their concerns and then proceed with personal insults.

If you think the objections are about 'expecting empathy for the horror of their DC risking having to attend schools that 93% of the children in the country attend' then you have understood nothing.

"Surely it doesn't all have to all be so divisive, dramatic and nasty"
That's a bit rich coming from you! You have dismissed the concerns of indi parents, used personal insults and perpetuated the divisive tone!

But is it legal to add VAT? That is one question.
Other questions must include - but there are others I am sure.

1. Will state boarding schools also have VAT applied to the things they charge for
2. All day state schools make some charges. Will it be fair/legal if VAT is not added. Dinners, breakfast clubs, outings and trips, music lessons
3. Will VAT apply to those myriad of “private” educational activities from football schools, music schools, holiday clubs, faith groups, tutoring schools
4. Private schools when VAT added - will that apply to their breakfast clubs, outings, trips, support to other schools? (Ie use of their swimming pool or science labs to a state school?) Dinners, Saturday schools which use their facilities but the pupils don’t attend Mon-Friday.
5. Private Nursery?
6. Private university?
7. And all those issues with extra support and disability. Currently private schools don’t necessarily ask for those detailed assessments which take local authorities years to complete - they just get on with it. Will that change? If large sums of VAT are saved I guess it will inevitably make more work for LAs.

What will be legal? What will be unfair?

The proponents of this VAT policy on private education (ages 4-18), state it is simple, legal and will make money (over 1 billion annually) to be used to improve the state education sector.

The opponents deny some or all of the above. For different reasons and to the denials are complex and for different reasons.

However, for the proposition to work it has to fulfil what the proponents are stating. That much we have to agree on. It is a question of “beyond reasonable doubt” to be honest.

So @Avarcas I am asking you, would you be happy to put your professional neck on the line if you were a King’s Counsel and opine that:
beyond reasonable doubt, VAT on private education will be legal (simple VAT notice amendment), simple to implement and will make money (over 1 billion annually) to be used to improve state education (the latter being within the executive’s control). No exclusions allowed for the Human Rights Act by the way.

One would assume the Labour Party have already sought such advice? Or perhaps not? It would be great to know.

Too bad that you don't like that I disagree with the very obvious hyperbole and scaremongering by a minority on this topic. It is interesting that if people don't agree with you then they must be incapable of understanding. So personal insults are only allowed to go one way? Let's be clear, I understand perfectly what you are trying to say and I fundamentally disagree.

This topic all became divisive, dramatic and nasty some time ago. For me, a nadir is that some will stoop to requesting state school places they don't need which will damage children who do. Have you got anything to say about that?

you don't like that I disagree

I don't mind that you disagree with my opinions. If you have a new insight into the topic, I'll be very happy to hear it. This particular thread is about the legality of the policy - anything to say about that?

I mind you being rude and aggressive towards me.

There was nothing negative towards you in my first post (you were already accusatory, although generally - not directed at an individual yet) and then you answered with this:

Maybe best just to write in plain English and drop the bewildering nutter analogies?

What is crystal clear is that your problem is solely the consequences for your own daughter. Any other anticipated collateral damage is just useful ammunition for your cause.

You were rude about my writing and accused me personally of lying. So you were the one who started the aggression and personal insults.

I'm not surprised that's not how you remember it - since that fits with your biased misrepresentation about how this topic is discussed by each side - but luckily in this case you can read back on this page.

a nadir is that some will stoop to requesting state school places they don't need which will damage children who do. Have you got anything to say about that?

You already know my opinion on this, since you quoted it. It would be a wrong thing for someone to do, but I don't believe that people are doing it in any significant nimbers. At most a handful of idiots. I'm not responsible for everyone in this country who shares my opinion that VAT is harmful. We're not a single homogeneous group or a political party.

Are you taking responsibility for all the thoroughly nasty things which people who support VAT have said? Oh wait, you probably can't remember there being any.

What makes you think that people are doing this in any significant numbers? Do you have any evidence to share? Not ranty messages: actual facts about places requested but not taken up - maybe from a freedom of information request from a council. No? So you're just making assumptions, based on your own biases and disdain.

Incidentally, what's your opinion on the 'Just Stop Oil' protests?

Personally, I think they are misguided. I understand and - to a certain degree - agree with their aims, but their direct action is very disruptive - probably sometimes seriously harmful - and likely counter-productive.

Do you think anyone who cares about and writes about climate change is responsible for the 'Just Stop Oil' direct action, and the harm it causes? (Because they share their concerns.) Or only the protestors themselves?

Do you think that people shouldn't talk about climate change, because of the harms 'Just Stop Oil' cause?

Then considering the 'Just Stop Oil' protestors themselves: do you think the harm they cause means their concerns over climate change are invalid?

Same when refugees come here having gone to many safe countries. Unfortunately, they still cry human rights so there you are.

Are they not human then ?

What makes you think that people are not doing this in any significant numbers? Do you have any evidence to share? Not ranty messages: actual facts about places requested but not taken up - maybe from a freedom of information request from a council. No? So you're just making assumptions, based on your own biases and disdain.

? Relevance to the topic. None.

You're really not very good at seeing equivalences, are you?

1.There's a pretty big group of people who are concerned about climate change and would like the government to take certain actions to address it.
Equivalent to
There's a pretty big group of people who are concerned the government adding VAT to education and would like them not to.

2.A very small proportion of those are taking direct action: 'Just Stop Oil'
Equivalent to
A very small proportion of those are taking direct action: requesting a school space they don't want from the council.

I see no reason to think otherwise. And the onus is on people saying that this action is significant to prove it.

3.Personally, I think 'Just Stop Oil' are misguided. I agree that climate change is a problem but their direct action is very disruptive - probably sometimes seriously harmful - and likely counter-productive
Equivalent to
Personally, I think people requesting a school space they don't want from the council are misguided. I agree that VAT on education is a problem but their direct action would be very disruptive - probably sometimes seriously harmful - and likely counter-productive

4.Most people don't conflate the people expressing concern over climate change and writing about it with the direct action of 'Just Stop Oil' activists
if you agree with that for climate change:
Why are you conflating the people expressing concern over VAT on education and writing about it with the direct action of activists requesting a school space they don't want from the council?

It's logically the same.

5.Most people recognise the dangers of climate change are real despite harms caused by the direct action of 'Just Stop Oil' activists.
if you agree with that for climate change:
Why are you saying that any harms caused by the direct action of activists requesting a school space they don't want from the council have any bearing at all on whether the policy is a real problem or not?

It's logically the same.

Might be of a bit long-winded explanation - which you've complained about before - but you did ask why it's relevant. Hope it helps your comprehension.

The burden of proof is on you.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof_(philosophy)

I have an Oxford degree. I really do not need your validation for my intelligence. There is nothing wrong with my comprehension. I am really not interested in your ramblings although your fixation and aggression are quite comical. I can see I've touched a nerve with you. I wonder why.

You wonder why? Must be the unprovoked personal attack on me you made in your second comment on this thread.

I don't need any external validation of my opinion on someone.

Well why does it bother you so much then? 😂