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.

It's THEIR way not THERE way, same with THEIR heads not THERE heads. I suspect if this is the standard, your point on harm is moot. But good try!

@OhButWhy yes you are right, there/their mistakes are annoying. You see, there will still be ways you can put others down and feel superior. All is not lost.

Why have they chosen January 25?

If kids move across to state after the autumn census in early October, the state schools get no funding for those pupils for the remainder of the 24/25 academic year! This is madness! I think they have to be made to promise state schools emergency funding for this.

Add in the fact that all the rich have prepaid for years anyway (and substantial lost income tax revenue), it’s a mess.

I really hope there will be a full inquiry into the ramifications of this type of policy after the event. I bet the Tories would do that.

I feel for all parents who have to move their kids. Check when you local authority closes their waiting lists. Our is 31.7 so reapply 1.8!

Because it’s too difficult to
instigate in terms of timescale by September.

All the decent state schools will be full in October.

Why does a policy supported by the majority of the country need an investigation?

Why does a policy supported by the majority of the country need an investigation?

Where it's a poorly thought-out policy which loses money instead of raising it... particularly where if it doesn't raise revenue (and is instead ideological) then that breaches EHRC human rights which we are still signed up to.

Lockdowns were supported by the majority of the country too, but were detrimental to the mental health and academic prospects of children. A majority of the country also voted for Brexit. Just because the majority support it does not mean it's sensible.

May be the people saying the policy is supported by the majority care to proof this? I know people who voted for Labour and are against this policy. It will be shelved soon enough and for good I hope.

True. You still need to look at the outcomes

Many ignored children would be hit harder by lockdowns and were very keen on here or that this is supposed to end up with 6,500 more teachers

If it doesn’t do what Labour are selling it in as then it should be looked at

They sound like they are not very against this policy then, but relaxed enough to vote for a party committed to this policy.

Why do people use breaching European Convention of Human Rights as some kind of trump card? Nobody in their right minds thinks that the purpose of human rights legislation is to give people a right to pay for private education without VAT….

What is the actual legal status of this announcement? Do schools pass on the info about new legal requirements they’re all on holiday for another month? Is there a clear public document about it?

Stopping governments from removing plurality of education is absolutely the purpose of that right.

What do you think the purpose is??

If the policy raises significant revenue, it can be argued that restricting plurality of education isn't the intention of the policy, and it's just a side effect.

If it loses money, it becomes obvious that reducing private education is the purpose of the policy, and it's a continuation of previous policy to close private schools.

Just a reminder:

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.

There are clear public documents her e- the draft new law https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/66a7a1f8a3c2a28abb50d8c1/Private_Schools_Draft_Legislation_-DIGITAL.pdf
24 pages of technical notes https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/66a7a1bdce1fd0da7b592eb6/Technical_Note-DIGITAL.pdf (it applies from Reception year of the class where you turn 5 in the academic year, not classes below that) and there is a 5 page explanatory note here https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/66a7a23c0808eaf43b50d8db/Private_Schools_EN-FINAL-_DIGITAL.pdf

It is possible it will be subject to judicial review particularly if breaches human rights which Labour seem very keen to be used for all kinds of things these days and also breaches EU law but Labour has the benefit of Brexit so can ignore the fact the EU thinks all education is a moral good and not subject to VAT.

The U.K. is nowhere near removing plurality of education. We have home-schooling, church schools, grammar schools, academies, free schools, private schools with considerable flexibility: parents have choices over school arrangements for their children.

There is a world of difference between actually making private schools illegal (which would be really regressive and would restrict plurality of education) and changing their VAT status, such that they become more expensive by say 20 per cent or whatever - this latter thing strikes me as a particularly weak legal argument. Rightly, in a democracy, it should be parliament that decides whether private schools are subject to VAT rather than courts (on some spurious human rights grounds) and we just had an election. I voted for the Tories, but the Labour Party have a clear mandate for this policy.

A government can have a popular mandate for a policy, but the policy still be illegal. That's pretty much the point of signing up to EHCR.

If they had added a 300% tax on only Jewish schools - supposedly to cover additional security costs, even though security didn't cost that much - do you think that would be legal/OK? I don't think it would be, even if it was popular and in their manifesto.

In the end, I don't think anyone knows whether this policy is legal or not. It's likely to be tried in court. And then even if it's found illegal, we'll see what the government do. They can do what they like, of course, including leaving the convention on human rights. We'll see.

“Because it’s too difficult to
instigate in terms of timescale by September.

All the decent state schools will be full in October.

Why does a policy supported by the majority of the country need an investigation?“

I think surely they always had to give private school parents a term’s notice so they can serve notice to their private school before the start of term, if they have to leave?

Surely nobody is going to disagree though that state schools if they end up having to take loads of extra kids from the private sector, that those kids need to be fully funded? I mean if we are talking 50000 kids? I don’t know what the figures are going to be, nobody those, but we cannot promise a 5.5% fully funded teacher pay rise and at the same time incite a ton of kids to move to the state sector and not potentially fund that properly?

Supported by the majority of the country? Please evidence that, Christ even labour isn’t supported by the majority of the country. Only 20 percent voted for them. So I doubt this policy Is supported even more. Happy to be proven wrong though, so back it up.

Because it is in breach of the EHRC.
Education is to be free of tax. They forced Greece to stop their tax.
What happens now is the interesting bit. Will this be challenged in court and by whom?
What kind of mess will special needs schools get into?
How big will the increase in home schooling be?
How much real money will be raised?
What will be the collateral damage?
What will be the unexpected consequences?
How much will house prices rise around good schools?

Is there an upper limit?

I would so so love this to be illegal

I bet the illegal part will be the bit that benefits the richest, aka prepayments before 29 July 2024. Rather than protecting SEN children.

School dinners are not VATable, what about eg. Luxury in-house boarding meals by a private in-house chef? That must cost a bomb. I doubt they can VAT one and not the other.

Childcare not VATable but extracurricular sport is VATable in a private school? So private school charges parent £10 to sit in a room for an hour is not VATable but if they run on a field “instructed” by a coach is VATable? Who exactly is going to police this?
It is acknowledged that charging VAT on the childcare element would indeed be illegal. But it is also unfair on kids whose parents work long hours and pay a lot of tax to be stuck in a room doing nothing?

I haven’t yet seen a human right lawyer other than aold assessment by Lord Pannick that thinks that this is illegal and going to breach human rights. It does appear to be clutching at straws slightly. Especially since we already have a ruling on the fact that local authorities only have the responsibility to provide an education not an education of the parent’s choice. And it’s not like they are banning private schools. A few unviable ones with precarious finances might go bust sooner than they would have done.

There are several dodgy points though:

The Government is “confident” that the state sector can accommodate extra pupils (4.8 of the technical notes) and reference to the IFS of 40000 pupils (and acknowledgement in the footnotes that it could be 90000?). Where is the factual evidence? There cannot be any as it is behavioural changes which nobody can predict. There is zero acknowledgement of regional variance. If a ton of private school parents do move now, how can the OBR possibly sign off on this one in good faith?

Exempting state boarding but not private boarding. Welfare services vs after school cross country club? Not in the best interests of children? How is boarding not childcare? When some LAs send foster children to boarding school? I do not understand it legally. Is there any case law?

The whole SEN question is a problem.

Some wishy washy thing to appease military families. Is this safe for us as a country?

Tutoring all academic subjects not being exempt? That is directly benefitting another industry? And as it could be seen as competition to private schools, what are the implications?

The technical notes sound politically written to me.