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 do not believe for one minute that is the norm.

A belief for which you have about as much justification as the PP.

if anecdote is the order of the day

I live in London and have not seen or heard about this type of abuse. However, I work with and know several people who live and lived in urban areas and semi-rural areas outside of London who tell me that they did, and their DC current do, experience it. Though the schools in question were local day schools, not top boarding schools.

Nobody is saying it doesn’t happen, they’re saying they haven’t heard of incidents or experienced them themselves.

The schools didn’t (in my case) and don’t (in my children’s case) actively do anything to help, there’s nothing they can do! They remind the pupils to behave respectfully at all times when wearing uniform outside the school gates and to just ignore it. It’s what we’ve come to expect which is probably why you don’t hear about it happening much. In my case it was in a rural city with only 2 private schools, both fairly modest (certainly not big names) but being an all girl’s school probably didn’t help.

There is clearly a lack of anything more than anecdote for this kind of thing so people form their beliefs on their own experiences and of others they know. It just so happens that I am basing mine on the experiences of probably around 100 people (around 20 just taking siblings and their own offspring) as well as my own direct experience. Still anecdata of course but quite a decent sample all the same and spanning quite a breadth of areas and types of area. I am quite comfortable that justifies my own belief.

Yes, I specifically said that I am not saying it doesn't happen but I don't believe it to be the norm.

I am quite comfortable that justifies my own belief.

I strongly suspect that PP is just as comfortable in their belief. You pointed out that their belief is based on anecdata. I'm just clarifying that yours is as well. As for me, I don't claim to understand how prevalent this is beyond that it does happen but it doesn't happen to all private school students.

In doing so though, you are minimising and being dismissive of those who have experienced it.

No not minimising or dismissing but offering a different experience. Many people who attend public schools families have done so for generations. More so in boys schools and more so in schools that are well established. Parents are past students and cousins and siblings increase transparency. Of course there are children this has happened to as there are children who experience bullying or abuse in school. It isn’t denying that to offer your own experience.

I’m not saying you’re outright denying it, but you are minimising it.. by questioning my anecdata, you are inferring that it doesn’t really happen. Stating you have based your own opinion on 100 people who have never complained about it suggests that you think it’s made up. You said: ‘Two areas are not really representative of the whole of the UK’. This is minimising.

Like I said up thread, many many private school pupils are used to it and take it as par for the course, so may not even mention that it happened. Doesn’t mean it doesn’t.

And again it does happen and nobody has suggested you made it up. Trying to silence other contributors isn’t a great look.

And again, I’m not saying you’re denying it, but you are minimising it. I didn’t even bring it up first, a PP did.. I was just supporting with my own experience when pp’s experience was questioned.

yes and I was balancing that support with my own experience as was @BasketsandBunnies .

I grow weary of this. I accept your experience and have my own.

I am allowed to have my own beliefs as you are allowed to have yours. Please respect that instead of finding fault with it.

Exactly. It is a forum not an echo chamber.

With respect, I disagree. A lot of the big schools do a lot more charitable and partnership work than is actually needed to justify their charitable status. They would be able to reduce this considerably and still remain charities.

As for job losses, your argument about people easily finding jobs in other schools might hold up if the people who are going to lose their jobs are Maths and Physics teachers. But they won't be - because those are the core areas that private schools will need to maintain. It will be the Latin teachers, the German teachers, the bassoon teachers, the drama technicians, the grounds and building staff etc etc. Best of luck to them finding jobs in the local underfunded state school.

I was jeered at just for grammar uniform as have most of my dc. I have heard it happens with comps in te same town too.
I do fear ex-indie school kids starting at comps will get 7 bells kicked out of them, not necessarily just metaphorically!

So it’s ok for your beliefs to trump the opposing ones of people who have a negative experience of a situation? Ok.

This is exactly why it would be a good idea for fee paying students to spend time in state education, because I really don’t think state educated children will beat up your children for turning up at school.

Oh for goodness sake, no one is saying that my views trump yours but they are equally as valid.

You don’t need to clarify that mine is based on anecdata. If you read my post, I stated that very clearly.

How would it breach the right to education? Everyone can access state education.

Well you know, unless they're disabled and no one gives a shit about their human rights then.....

It's not a right to education, it's a right not to have the government interfere with a parent's choice to arrange education for their child in accordance with their religious or philosophical beliefs. The tax is coercive on parents who have made a choice of a particular school but would be priced out by this tax.

They’d be in exactly the same position as anyone else who can’t afford fee paying schools.

It's not the same. This is state interference. That isn't.