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.

@timetobegin

I really don’t think many people advocate for the NHS to outsource provision

Sure, it would be great if the NHS could perform all the care. But using outsourced provision results in shorter waiting times and better population health than the state can achieve alone. That's why the NHS do it.

In the case of education, it would result in greater educational investment in UK kids - who are going to be competing in the world-wide economy - than the state can achieve alone.

Yes some people see your stance as a nirvana and some as a nightmare. Most NHS employees would prefer investment in their provision as would most teachers in state schools.

it’s a huge difference in attitude that we need to address.
Were you keen on privatisation of rail and utilities? How do you feel it’s panned out?

@timetobegin

All children should be accommodated in state schools.

Why?

Because all children deserve an education. Which children do you think shouldn’t have that option?😱

Privatisation of rail and utilities was always going to fail, because in each region the provider has a monopoly. (Much like you want state provision to have)

Customers get better outcomes when there are multiple providers, which results in both competition and diversity of offering.

I’ve said multiple times that I support the existence of fee paying schools, as I support them paying VAT.

The government tried to introduce competition in education by allowing parents to give preferences for state schools, but the options are too limited (due to entrance criteria) for it to really work.

But you are appalled at the idea of the state giving vouchers which could be used at private schools as well as state - even though that would remove the gulf between the two sectors.

I don’t think it’s an attempt to introduce competition, more an attempt to get as many people as possible where they’d like to be.

Yes I think it’s an appalling idea.

Why should all children be accommodated only in state schools? Why should the government not allow state funding to follow them to private schools?

Put it another way. You've acknowledged that there are different systems, some of which have better results than others. Why do you dislike systems where the government allows funding to follow the children to private schools?

God this is exhausting. I’m perfectly happy for you to want a voucher system for education or PIP or health or anything else. I would like robust state provision of education for ALL children and a fully functioning NHS.

Yes, it is exhausting. You're happy for me to want a voucher system for these services. You're just not happy for me to have it in this country.

Do you believe a voucher system for these services is incompatible with robust state provision?

I’m sure most state school teachers would prefer investment in state schools — unfortunately I don’t know any state school teachers (and I know quite a few) that think this policy will make any meaningful difference to their students or school.

Perhaps no one’s mentioned the £200 per student. I mean there are a thousand odd students in most schools. I’m pretty sure if you’ve been paying for extra this and extra that out of your own pocket, then £200,000 extra per annum for your school would be extremely welcome.

Except you won't get £200,000. You'll get half a teacher and an unstaffed breakfast club.

But they don't get the extra cash. That £200 was merely what it would work out at in terms of the money raised IF, and only if, there isn't a big percentage moving.

The money is apparently being spent on 6,500 teachers, free breakfast clubs and mental health professionals. But where they are finding 6,500 teachers (which isn't even 1 extra per school) or 25,000+ mental health professionals... or indeed the staff to run these free breakfast clubs is a mystery.

There's no pot of cash coming the way of the SLT.

I think you underestimate how big an impact 6500 teachers could have. State schools tend to get a lot more out of every £ than private. Anyway it really doesn’t matter because there is a huge appetite for this move among the people who ARE the country. Like Brexit if you don’t like it that’s unfortunate but it’s happened. It’s called Democracy, they teach about it most schools.

Which if your children are hungry is a fairly big deal.

Why would vouchers following those children to whichever school they chose - including a private school - prevent other children from getting an education?

That doesn't follow in any way.

Off topic but I don't really understand how we can both have rising childhood overweight and obesity rates (particularly in children from less advantaged areas) AND an epidemic of childhood coming to school hungry. Obviously there are neglected, underweight children which is terrible (and where teachers should be informing social services) but I just can't reconcile the need for universal breakfast provision with the escalating childhood obesity crisis nationwide.

One patient having a hip operation at a private hospital (with the private fee persuading the surgeon to do an extra shift) doesn't prevent another patient having a knee operation in their local NHS hospital.

Sure, it would cost less if the hip patient had to wait a year for 'their turn'. But there's huge reduction in quality of life and productivity in the meantime.

Likewise, one student getting their state education entitlement voucher and taking it to a private school which has been topped up by their parents doesn't stop another student getting their education in a state school with our existing state teachers.

Sure it would cost less if the private student was excluded from state funding, but the middle income student who is then excluded from extra education (which their parents would happily have provided) will cost the UK long term in a global economy.

People complain that the gulf in spending between state and private means that there's a 2-tier system, and the children who have benefited from so much extra education get better academic results than they would have in state (hence the contextual University offers) and are disproportionately represented in higher status jobs.

A 2-tier system is an unavoidable side-effect of not letting students take their state funding with them. If you're going to forfeit £7k of state funding, that's only worthwhile if you're providing much, much more. It's not worth it for a £1k boost (which might pay for a TA in primary, or an extra maths class allowing more differentiation in secondary)

But if you were allowed to take the state funding with you, then many more parents would be willing to supplement their child's education by a more modest amount (as they already do with extracurriculars). This doesn't take anything away from children getting state provision. It just means that more children can get a slightly better education. The continuum would prevent a 2-tier system.

There are 29,161 schools in the UK, employing 641,840 teachers. Even if all 6500 teachers can be recruited, that's 1 extra teacher for every 5 schools. And given that there are 2000 unfilled teaching vacancies, I think that's optimistic.

It's called populism, not democracy.

Not sure whether they teach about it in schools, but they should.