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.

Asks the person whose only contribution to this thread has been personal attacks.

Still no opinion on the legality of the proposed policy?

Strawberry’s post about equivalenves has put you in your place. I am not Oxford educated and even I can see this. Stop with your barrage of insults and answer the questions put to you.

Maybe when you answer my question how you can be so sure that only a small minority of parents are asking for school places they don't need.

@Avarcas i also find you quite aggressive and mean spirited in your comments towards posters. You also are quite selective in your responses, ignoring anyone who posts something counter to your narrative and selectively bullying some like @strawberrybubblegum who try to engage you in a rational manner.

your attitude seems to be ‘why can’t you all be civil and agree with me’ and interpret any sort of difference of perspective on exceptionally literal and personal terms. I feel like there is something else going on in your life that you are devoting so much time and energy into putting other people down.

Without data, how can you be sure that it isn’t?

a number of parents are enquiring about school places who might not NEED them imminently - that is different from applying for a place. If I were concerned about my school or my personal finances, investigating alternatives would be a logical step. I might or might not move my children on the basis of the response, and I also might use that data to inform future schooling decisions at key transition points, which might be years in the future.

I have no idea how many private parents are applying for places they don’t intend to take up, and neither do you. In discussions with other parents, I don’t see it happening at all, but that doesn’t mean it never does. What I do see is lots of parents taking a closer look at local state provision, which is a completely rational response to a policy that might disrupt school and family finance.

Thanks, @Labraradabrador - that's very clear and sensible - and stops the silly playground-style impasse on who needs to prove their position first.

I'm willing to accept that I don't know, although like you I haven't heard anything to make me think it's happening. Presumably we'll find out in due course, when councils can tell us what they experience.

Now, back to the actual thread topic, which was about whether the policy is illegal.

It seems it might well be, and that it would probably be beneficial for it to be challenged in court. I have no idea how that would happen though!

They are as well as the kids in private schools so leave the kids alone.

if you read the comment was in response to someone saying they could use state school so not human rights were violated. Same when refugees can ask for help in the first safe country but rather cross many to come here.

I think the Oxford degree comment goes a long way to explaining your superior attitude in these comments.

How ridiculous and off the mark to call out bullying yet there is a pile-on by all the usual suspects just because someone dares to criticise the hollowness of the scaremongering around this topic. You would do well to reread all the personal attacks from the harbingers of doom posse and reassess what constitutes bullying. I hope you get the VAT you deserve.

Scaremongering? 10 DC in DDs years group have had the 1 term notice handed in last week. Extrapolate that across the country and it most certainly isn't scaremongering.
You support VAT fair enough but you have been dismissive, occasionally rude and certainly condescending.
All along I've said that this policy will be decided in court and so far that's the direction of travel. You can dismiss the arguments against it as much as you like but the reality is that there are currently 1000s of genuinely anxious parents, not enough state places in the areas they are needed and a significant number of new EHCP applications going through the system.

The VAT hasn't been applied yet and won't be for at least a year, so why is it relevant that anecdotally, 10 children are moving schools? It's nearly the end of the school year, I'm sure plenty of children move schools for all sorts of reasons.

The policy will change behaviour earlier than that as it’s quite hard to shift sectors

You need to give notice and find a state place. They know it’s coming so will make decisions in line with that.

Because you have to give a term's notice + fees. Parents can't afford to sit and wait to see what Labour decides, they need to start the process now hence behaviour change.

This must be really tough. However I know a huge amount of parents who pay fees across all year groups in many different parts of country and they aren't shifting. I suspect that the offering at this particular school isn't seen as worth the potential extra fees. The smaller more unpopular schools with a less appealing product are going to be affected most sadly. Everyone I know is making it work with cut backs in other areas so as not to move children mid education.

It is a rural school serving local cohorts in the NE. A fab school but just not the wealth of other areas so many families are maxed out with current fees and 20% tips them over, nothing to do with what the school offers. 500 pupils Yr 7-13 + 150 at Prep so not tiny but also not overly large.

I am so sorry to hear this. I suspect others will follow, these smaller schools have been at risk for years as the big name schools have upped their offerings so much, and I know of people who have done extensive accounts research etc before picking the smaller schools expecting issues down the line. I hope your child finds happiness in their new setting.

Interesting analysis here

inews.co.uk/news/education/nine-reasons-taxing-private-school-fees-not-straightforward-3158472

These are the same things we have been saying from Day 1. Maybe if Labour had agreed to speak to the Indy sector.....They don't care how hard or how much it costs to implement. They will do it even if it brings in £0.

This is so unbelievably spiteful. I hope you have a lovely evening.

@Avarcas “I have an Oxford degree. I really do not need your validation for my intelligence.”

Seriously?!

You are completely out of touch. You are name dropping an elite uni that has a way of arguing that is totally detached from the common person on the street. It is a uni that dresses up in gowns and performs posh rituals.

You might as well come on here and say you are an Etonian in a tail suit and listen to me!

How can you, with your elite education, argue against elite private schools? The sheer hypocrisy is truly astounding, and also somewhat hilarious. Actually, go listen to yourself.

You know what, @Tabtopcurtains , rather than get upset at the spite I'm going to take that at face value, even though I know it wasn't meant that way.

I think we deserve a government who takes good care of the taxes we entrust them with. Who researches and analyses every policy they propose with carefully attention to its effectiveness and consequences. Who funds public services adequately and responsibly: with due care to ensure the funds are used effectively. Who doesn't penalise 'public enemies' with punitive taxes or indulge in ideology.

I don't really agree with many of Joseph de Maistre's ideas: including the quote that 'In a democracy people get the leaders they deserve'. I think it's too simplistic.

But I do think that in a democracy we all have a responsibility to hold our government to account: not only at the ballot box, but throughout their term. I'm taking Avarcas comment as a reminder of that personal responsibility.

I'm so sorry to hear that @twistyizzy. 10 is a huge number to lose from a year in a school that size. You must be so worried about viability. Have you spoken to the school about it at all?

You've spoken about your school before, and it sounds like such a lovely school, filling a genuine gap in the community. I remember you saying that it had a far higher than average number of students with SEN: who had struggled in the state system but thrive in your nurturing school. I really hope it manages to stay open.

@Tabtopcurtains - just realised (too late to edit!) you might think I mistook Avarcas comment as being yours - that's not why I tagged you! I tagged you because I thought you might like to reframe Avarcas comment in the same way.

Thank you. At the moment no danger of closing but they also take a % of overseas pupils so I wouldn't be surprised if they now start increasing that %. Of course that's not a bad thing in of itself as it broadens ethnic diversity, but it will be detrimental to those local pupils who are now priced out (many of whom you correctly remember are SEN). The school made it clear before the election that it would reduce bursaries (24% are on bursaries) and before the end of term we received that in written confirmation. From Sept 2025 no new bursaries will be awarded for new entrants, only existing awards will be honoured. Scholarships reduced from music, art, academic and sport down to academic and sport plus the number available in each of those has been halved.
VAT is a nasty, spiteful policy and I will never vote Labour again in my life.