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.

Like the tax on alcohol or cigarettes or tax on petrol is “state interference”? You send your children to school in the uk, so these are the rules. When you purchase education to 18 you will be expected to pay tax on it. If you can’t afford it the state will guarantee a school place for your child.

And if there was an EHRC right to damage your health, those would.also be illegal.

But there isn't: only an EHRC right to education.

Is it a right to education without VAT? I’m not sure what your point is? Do you feel that paying more violates equality or your human rights and if so how?

Yes, because the effect is to add so much to the fees that it will amount to coercion in some cases. Then when you think about the fact that it won't be evenly spread and is likely to disproportionally affect children with SENor religious minorities and the fact that it only applies to children of a certain age, (all of which are protected characteristics) there is an indirect discrimination issue as well. Why do you think Starmer, Philipson etc try to deny that there is this effect on children having to move schools or that it's overblown? It's because if they accept it, then they also gave to accept the above.

@timetobegin I get it - you are so convinced that this policy is right and fair, that you can't see the other angles. I can understand how some feel that this is a righteous tax, but it's actually just asking a very small section of society to disproportionately pay for the state's failure in educational policy. And it's not based on their ability to pay, but on them having made an educational choice. Yes it's a service, but it's exempt from VAT for a reason. It would be less risky and more fair to ask the most affluent to pay more or to ask everyone to share the burden. It comes back to my earlier point that it depends on your view of the purpose of tax. Your justification for supporting the policy is that the schools are businesses making profits, which just isn't factually correct. Plus, even if that was the case, the VAT is paid by the parents. Saying the schools don't have to pass the cost on is all well and good, but politicians can't rule on that, so again they are trying to coerce it. You also think that all children should spend some time in state school, but ECHR says that's not your choice (or the state's) to make - it's up to the parents. Basically what your view comes down to seems to be a belief that it's the right thing to do, but based on flawed assumptions. In all the time we've exchanged messages you've not brought any new reasoning to support your view and not actually countered points raised by others. As such, I will probably stop engaging now as it all seems a bit pointless.

This was always thought to be illegal and was always going to be fought in tn4 courts, a lengthy legal battle. It was revealed as soon as Labour said it was their policy. Starmer is a lawyer, he knew full well it wouldn’t fly, just couldn’t remove it as so many were salivating over it. Just another political play .

Starmer is a lawyer and he is no fool. He has taken a calculated view on this or he would never have included it in the manifesto. There are plenty of other things he could have done to appease the left of the party instead. He knows what he is doing. I think it is more a question of the timing of getting through the red tape than if it will happen. It will happen.

@Amatueuragonyaunt i think you are right the interaction between you and I is fairly pointless. You spend an enormous amount of time telling me/the thread what I think. Ridiculous statements like You also think that all children should spend some time in state school, but ECHR says that's not your choice (or the state's) to make - it's up to the parents. I think it would be better if all children got to eat healthy food, travel and be safe but that too is beyond my control. It doesn’t stop me thinking it’s a good idea. Obviously I think vat on fee paying schools is a good idea. It’s a different point of view to yours and not made lightly or in ignorance, which seems to be the only reasons you and others on this thread can conceive.
I hope it happens swiftly and that everyone readjusts to the change as best they can.

No person shall be denied the right to education. In the exercise of any functions which it assumes in relation to education and to teaching, the State shall respect the right of parents to ensure such education and teaching in conformity with their own religious and philosophical convictions.

I fail to see how vat on private school fees (a luxury) breaches this. As said anyone can access state education.

@timetobegin it's a shame because if your reasoning has the depth you claim, it would have been nice to hear it, but there you go. It will in the end be determined by minds far superior to ours.

It will in the end be determined by minds far superior to ours.

I think that's a little optimistic.

Yes of course silly little women that we are.

🙄

I really hope this isn’t an attitude your parents paid to instill. FFS

I'm expressing my skepticism that the decision makers have minds far superior to those on this thread. Are you criticizing my arrogance?

I just got an email from Kent County council stating there are 6400 out of county applicants sitting the Kent grammar test this September.
All this policy leads to is a massive middle class scramble for the best state school
places, grammar, catchment, faith or other type of academy selection, increased tutoring etc.
The SEN kids in the private sector whose parents are having to pay up for quieter spaces are the real victims.
The true elite is happy because dim
but rich now has less of a competition for selective private. Many elite kids are very clever too, of course, but families often want all kids in the same schools so lowering the competition helps the elite.

It is a really shortsighted and stupid policy. And it will definitely cost the taxpayer in the long run (jobs will have to be cut). But as long as they get to swing those ideological swords a bit into thin air and get a stab at a few middle class SEN kids and working class SEN kids whose parents are busting a gut… or a few working class business owners who dared to get above their station and send their kids to privaat … mission achieved right?

Private school parents already save the tax payer 4 billion a year. They are definitely being discriminated against for their educational choices. I am not sure having angry sharp elbowed parents back by force will be successful and easy, but we shall see how this pans out. Competitive people don’t just suddenly chill out- they take their competition with them, wherever they go.

To all those who are gleeful that some ex private school kids will end up in the worst state schools, I am pretty sure they will find a way around that somehow by using sibling priority at transition points, appealing etc I bet it will be the poorest kids that end up losing out by not getting into good schools, as usual.

Yes sorry I tried to come back and correct I meant this about the post you responded to, ikwim but lost signal and then forgot. Apologies @user149799568

Some children with Sen will find state schools far better at supporting them and attitudes to their challenges than fee paying alternatives. Certainly I know of several children who have flourished in these circumstances.

The government get rid of the Kents grammar school altogether seems to be one of the solutions?

@OvertutoredMum - I think that is down to the councils in Kent and as far as I know grammar schools are popular in Kent. There are a few new Labour MPs jotted around Kent now and if their party imposes a top down policy that is unpopular locally, this may well cost them their seat in the next election.
It’s the same with VAT on private schools- if it is a mess and Labour lose the next election, then presumably the Tories will get rid of it. I mean Starmer ditched the 600 million or more spent on Rwanda scheme pretty much day 1 too.

I doubt either will cause labour the next election, there are way more bigger issues. Just like the Tory didn't bother to reverse the Grammar schools that were abolished as it is unpopular and no upside.

I just got an email from Kent County council stating there are 6400 out of county applicants sitting the Kent grammar test this September.

@Araminta1003 do you have any more context for that number in terms of how it compares with previous years? So is 6400 not atypical when compared with previous years, or it is a really quite significant jump?

This article is quite interesting and includes a table with successful (as opposed to total) out of county applicants to Kent Grammars. The upper limit numbers showed a slight decline in 2023 as compared with 2022; 757 vs 836. Again with the limitation that it is only two years data. It will be interesting to see whether the numbers increase considerably for September 2024 start, and again for the 2025 intake.

https://www.kentonline.co.uk/dartford/news/number-of-out-of-county-pupils-taking-kent-grammar-school-pl-288902/

@boys3 - nobody can make absolute statements as the grammars themselves can change their admissions criteria from year to year and admit more out of county, inner/outer area and also further down in Kent last year and I think even in Bexley, they did not have enough local kids actually pass the test in some areas.
In addition, kids can sit the test in September, get results in October and as long as they move to Kent by a date stipulated in early December they are then “locals”.
The numbers have gone up.

The numbers have gone up.

and we can give that an indicative context. Which takling the two years pre-pandemic is around a 20% increase. I don't think we can categorically say that 20% will therefore be moving from private to state as a result of the VAT application. However if memory serves if I have read that a 10% movement removes any perceived financial benefit from this policy then this admittedly indicative figure for Kent would cast yet more doubt on it.

Cards on table whilst I'm very pleased to see a Labour government, taxing education would not be top of my policy list.

With dodgy maths like that, it’s really not surprising that you approve of the policy.

This policy is obviously causing a lot of anxiety for parents/teachers as well as some self righteous glee from our less successful bitter members of society. People need to remember that this policy is NOT going to be implemented and never was, Starmer will begin praising the ECHR over the coming months to make it easier to drop this policy the moment of the first legal challenge. I would stop worrying about this, but don’t forget this episode and what some of our less fortunate/capable countrymen think of our children the next time you get a chance to vote.

What a rude, arrogant and bitter post. It's categorically not true that everyone who is not against the policy is unsuccessful, incapable and bitter. I am educated, successful and privately educated and I am okay with the policy, as are many of my friends paying school fees. These tropes are wearing very thin and people are getting so bored of it all.