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 not a lawyer, I have no idea whether a legal challenge along these lines might be successful. But I would be glad to see a challenge - and actually, so should those who are in favour of the policy. The whole point about things like the EHCR is that they sit above the whims and vagaries of politics in order to protect key principles. The underlying principle of removing the tax exemption for education would be a fundamental, societal change, with the potential to open the door to much wider impacts than Etonian parents paying a few extra grand. It can only be a good thing if someone a bit more impartial than Keir Starmer gets to decide this.

They were not generally in favour of long lock downs or school closures so I would be surprised if they ever cheered them on.

Children will not be “harmed” by changing schools or their parents paying there way. The law is there to serve the people not the other way around. Honestly just grow up, pay your way and get on with it. There are families struggling to eat and keep roofs over there heads.

True. That was more popular on mn than in The Telegraph

To be fair some of the other things he's said/done have been quite nincompoop-ish so if the cap fits......

As others have pointed out, that is irrelevant to the legal argument. Legality won't hinge on ideology. There is already a test case that Labour previously accepted the verdict on, now they are choosing to ignore it.

Yes there are a few

Such a ridiculous and uninformed post.

@twistyizzy I think we’ll just have to disagree on that one. Honestly if the country wants to adjust its tax laws it will. The law is not written in stone and it serves the people. Change will come and you will adjust.

Or it won't. Or it will at a much greater cost that the money it brings in

Or it won't. Or it will at a much greater cost that the money it brings in

I doubt it will cost more than the revenue it brings it’s a fairly hefty whack year on year and it’s the right thing to do so I think we will all just adjust.

Except it will. The "fair whack" is based on overly optimistic assumptions and was before Labour exempted state boarding schools and children with EHCPs. There has been a rush to get EHCPs in place (which costs the state money each time) and that will reduce the income even further (over 100,000 SEN DC in indi schools). The authors of THE IFS report admit they were overly optimistic and by the time Labour have exempted military families and % of DC leaving indi schools has impacted, the net income is likely to be £0. That's before the cost of legal challenges.

Hmm we will see!
Surely there are more guaranteed ways to fund the state education.

The principle has to be tested so that if and when further VAT exemptions on education are removed e.g university fees or nursery fees, there's an accepted argument for doing so.

That's why we have such systems which sit above politics and people who view issues through very narrow lenses and emotions.

No one is preventing the right or education by taxing the services provided by choosing an independent one.

You have free education on offer to everyone in the UK.

I'd be very surprised if a KC as good as Starmer has just not notice d a piece of legislation.

The irony of course being that if we hadn't Brexit it probably couldn't be done as EU law doesn't allow tax on education.

I think you start from the premise of doing what is right and fair and do the work to make that happen. Change always makes people anxious but it will be good. It isn’t emotional or tunnel visioned to do the right thing.

Hasn't this been shown to be a wildly popular policy? Therefore I'd assume that Labour will put a huge amount of effort into making it happen.

What's the phrase? To the privileged, equality feels like oppression?

“Pay your way” for what? The benefit on this policy is minuscule relative to the budget deficit, that is ignoring all the other social costs. It’s a policy announced to generate votes, and is politics of envy. This type of politics is dangerous at best, because it polarises an already polarised society even further. You have a government-to-be that puts labels on people; defining what is “elite”, what is not, what is “working class” what is not, and then stick a target on certain people’s backs, having positioned themselves as a government for the working classes. It turns society against each other as opposed to trying to bring people together, as good leaders do.

I agree. Labour have badly misrepresented this policy to gain support.

Family A earn 100k and have 1 child at private school

Family B earn 100k and have 3 children at state schools

Why should Family A pay more tax. In most other countries they would pay less due to income tax relief as a result of using private schools.

If we want to raise more money for state schools then I struggle to see why doing so through income tax changes isn’t by far the most appropriate way of doing it. It would still mean private school parents subsidise the state sector but would also in Labour’s own words ensure that “those with the broadest shoulders bear the heaviest burden”.

How is it equality when other forms of education aren't taxed?

@Charlie2121 because that wouldn't be a vote winner

No one disagrees with that. I don't think anyone disagrees that state schools need fixing, just that this isn't the best policy to achieve that

Because you’re outnumbered by voters who want someone else to pay

The policy “generates votes” because most people think it’s a good idea. Your assumption that those who support it are all envious “working class” wanting to pull down the “elite” is silly at best. If you want to send your children to be educated in private or public schools that’s a perfectly valid choice but imo asking the country to wave vat on those businesses isn’t reasonable and the votes will show that.