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.

Well quite apart from the nasty wording of the op what the fuck is a “tax raid”? Such ridiculously pejorative language.

You've not given me a reason to think you've considered the actual impact on families and the turmoil it will cause. Of course, that's your prerogative. Perhaps it's because, on principle, you agree with the tax and in your mind that outweighs all else? It's a valid stance, but not one I agree with, especially if it prevents engagement with understanding the unintended consequences. I'm not saying you don't understand or that you are unkind, only that you've not convinced me that you have thought this through from multiple angles. To me, you come across as having a principle and sticking to it and therefore perhaps don't feel the need to challenge your own views.

To some extent it plays into a much wider debate about what tax is for - is it to raise revenue or is it to encourage a particular behaviour, or some other reason? As this policy is likely to fail on the revenue raising, or at best hardly make a difference, then there must be another justification to run the risk of it causing a whole raft of unintended consequences and hurting children. Just branding all private school offerings as luxury is an over simplification in my mind. Some offerings are. Some just provide an alternative to the national curriculum or a different approach to teaching, e.g Steiner schools. I also don't accept the view that these schools are businesses when in the majority of cases there are no shareholders or private investors. They are perhaps run in a commercially savvy way, but they're not making investors rich.

It’s possible for both sides of a discussion to be rational. I don’t think it’s irrational to want your children to stay in at the school you’ve chosen and not to have to forgo other activities to find an extra, say, £3000 a year to maintain your status quo. I also don’t think it’s irrational to think it’s the right course of action. I would imagine the focus will be firmly on fee paying schools with charity status to earn that status too.

It’s broader than just children being moved, which is an obvious issue

The other posts outline that

Agree, but in this instance, I think there is a far more compelling argument for broadening access to private education to take pressure off the state and allow it to come up to the same standard. If more people who could afford private education went for it, then the government would have fiscal room to increase spending per pupil on those who remain in state schools.

I don’t think it will cause the “turmoil” you describe and find the fear mongering about the horrors of changing schools, or the horrors of state education fairly ridiculous. A little resilience and an ability to navigate life isn’t lacking in most families and not all change is bad. I think you underestimate yourselves and your children if you think this is going to be too hard and must be a disaster and I think things being hard is not a reason to avoid them. The idea that the revenue generated is too small to be helpful yet also too big to be paid by the most affluent is ridiculous. Time to be part of making things work for all.

It's already causing turmoil for me and my family, so to dismiss it as ridiculous is frankly insulting.

It's easy to accept the collateral damage when it doesn't affect you.

It can easily be non beneficial funding wise and damaging to a small group

Plus wider negative impact

Well presumably the way to avoid turmoil is to make a plan about how you as a family are going to manage the change and implement it. Honestly far bigger things are likely to happen in your lives than having to pay more or change schools. Thats reality not dismissive.

I don’t agree that you or yours will be “damaged” by changing schools and everyone will be affected. What do you plan to do and what is your fear in all of this?

"Would breach the right to education"

Only education that you are choosing as there is state education freely available to all.
I'm not clever enough to know the ins and outs of this, but I find it offensive that people are cross about this when there are children starving.

So you think that the 60% of people who haven't enjoyed a 3-4year period in their adult life focused entirely on their own personal development in an area of their choice - which may substantially increase their lifetime earnings - should pay for that amazing privilege for those who have?

That's the result if university grants come out of general taxation.

Student loans are just a graduate tax, where you eventually pay back the cost of your degree if you earn enough.

The government already gives bursaries to encourage people to study subjects such as teaching which are needed by the country and have a shortage of applicants. That's much more effective than a blanket subsidy.

(And if your aim is that you just want to give £30k to more deprived young people, at least let them choose what the most effective use of that money is for them - don't make it contingent on them studying at university)

Yes I think it was a better system and better for the country.

@timetobegin
The idea that the revenue generated is too small to be helpful yet also too big to be paid by the most affluent is ridiculous

But it's obviously because the cost to be paid is borne by the parents of only 7% of children, and the revenue is spread between 93% of children.

If you were to personally give every state school child £1, it would cost you £10million.

Is £1 too small to be helpful?
Is £10million too big for you to pay?

It's the same logic.

Even without any costs and inefficiencies, giving £10 to each state school student would cost a parent with 2 kids at private £260.

And of course, it's much, much less efficient than that. Especially when some kids move from private to state: and that extra cost to the state very quickly offsets most of the money the remaining parents pay.

Edited for a mistake. 1p per child would cost you personally £100,000. £1 per child would cost you personally £10million. I think either illustrates the point, so take your pick.

Why?

The very most optimistic predictions of how much the policy will raise is £1.6billion.

That's costing the average private school parent £4000 per year per child. So £8000 if they have 2 kids.

Shared out between the 10million state school kids, that gives each state school child £160.

And that's assuming not many kids move to state.

If 5% of kids move, you get half the net revenue (once you've allowed for costs) So it still costs the private school parents £4000 (or £8000 if they have 2 kids). But each state school child benefits by £80.

If 10% of kids move, the costs completely take up the £4000 (or £8000) from each remaining private school parent. Each state school child gets £0.

You don't need to believe it because it's not your judgement to make, but to dismiss my concerns when I know my children and what we went through to finally get to a point where they are both happy is not really on. My fear is that someone else's ideology will tear apart the plans we already made. You seem ok with that but I won't accept that forcing this decision on anyone is necessary. This could be handled in a much better way with less disruption by phasing in etc. The way it's being imposed is unnecessarily brutal.

I don't know what I plan to do because I don't know what the school will pass on or when it will kick in. Moving them is absolute last resort, so I don't want to jump too soon, but if 20% is added in January then it will be inevitable. It's not inevitable they would have to leave if it comes in later, although it would be a stretch. My best plan at the moment is to boost my income any way I can and hope the timing works out, but that's easier said than done and is causing the sleepless nights and turmoil I was refering to. Basically, it's a wait and see approach, but it's extraordinary stressful to live through, especially when people seem to enjoy telling you they don't give a fuck.

My fear is that someone else's ideology will tear apart the plans we already made. You seem ok with that but I won't accept that forcing this decision on anyone is necessary.
I’m not sure what you mean by being ok with changing circumstances. Things change all the time. People have change their plans and adapt to the changing landscape of their life. There has been much discussion of this. What ARE your plans? What is your fear? Maybe focusing on how to make it work for your family would allow you to see the bigger picture.

I updated the previous post to include the plans. Yes, change happens. However, this is entirely as a result of a political decision and it can therefore be done in a better or worse way. I'm saying that if it has to happen then it should be done in the least disruptive way, not put families through this level of stress. Surely you can see that?

You’ve said state schools “can be very good indeed” for SEN students. I don’t disagree, and if you’ve had the incredibly fortune experience of having a local school and LA that provide sufficient support to your child at no cost to you I am genuinely pleased for you and your child.

However, it is not an unusual situation for parents to move their child to a private school after experiencing state schooling that is not “very good indeed” for their child. Perhaps their child’s needs are harder for a school to meet than the needs of your child, or perhaps the local school/LA is not as well resourced.

What do you suggest these parents do if their child has gone from struggling in state to thriving in private but they cannot afford the 20% increase? Do you genuinely think it is right to tell parents that their only choice is to pull them out of their current setting and re-enroll them in a school that has already failed them? Some of these children will have genuine trauma from their experiences at state school.

Out of curiosity, do you also support VAT being added to other “luxury” education products such as private academic tutoring, after school music or arts classes, etc?

I think anyone would understand what a 20% tax or wage cut for example might do and the stress it would involve. Even more so if whatever was happening related to their dc

This ideology just makes people very keen for a low benefit policy. I’m sorry to see you’re impacted by the politics of it. It’s those who are in the same situation as you who are bearing the brunt of a poor policy.

https://www.isc.co.uk/media/uukn4r3i/isc_census_2024_15may24.pdf

111154 with SEN, a 8% increase. Ableism? This is a human rights issue.

4 out of 10 from a minority ethnic background - completely reflects society as a whole on the ethnicity front.

Half of schools have less than 285 pupils, 1/4 less than 153 pupils. There are over 100,000 in these potentially non viable schools which may be decimated by the taxation.

There are also Jewish and Muslim schools in the private sector. Good luck with that one in the current climate. Another potential human rights issue.

Only 97 schools have 1000 pupils or more so just 7% of the private schools are probably those that the Labour Party are actually out to get!

And now please go ahead and tell me on the facts and figures alone that this is a great idea?

200,000 pupils with SEN or in small unviable schools potentially (probably some overlap between the two but because the Labour Party have FAILED to engaged with the sector they are going into this very blindly and naively).

So the Tories spent hundreds of millions on Rwanda and we should just accept this vanity project which will cost us too from Labour?

@strawberrybubblegum
Even without any costs and inefficiencies, giving £10 to each state school student would cost a parent with 2 kids at private £260.
that’s interesting, are you saying that the average 20% of £3000 before inefficiencies would result in (10*3000/260) £115 per student in state school?!!!

There is a whole specific table on SEN and the 22000 kids with social, emotional and mental health issues that the Labour Party are potentially willing to throw under the bus? Because it would be so good for kids like this to have to move schools and also go through the family stress of an unprecedented tax hike not seen anywhere worldwide except in Greece, where it failed utterly.