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.

Suspect they won't be finding a cure for cancer if they're currently in those schools that are struggling so badly to recruit science teachers that entire year groups are having a class en mass rather than individual classes.

In a couple of schools where relative's DC are, the only kids that are passing sciences are those where the parents are forking out for weekly tutoring... and not just in the run up to GCSE, this is in Y9, Y10 and Y11.

It's a disgrace. State schools aren't free. Parents are working hard to pay their taxes and not getting what they're paying for. The government needs to find a source of proper funding rather than diverting people's anger onto the tiny private sector.

Does anyone know if there will be any legal action commencing on this? I can’t find any concrete information.

Also, if the small private schools can’t sustain themselves and close, have those reliant on this policy to improve state schools, considered that the money won’t raise 1.5bn or so anticipated in at the very least the medium to long term? How much will Eton, Harrow and the top tier crème de la creme private schools bring in if they are the only ones still standing in future? Year on year this ‘pot’ will dwindle while small schools may unfortunately have to close, and in the meanwhile the government have potentially contributed to destroying an entire sector.

Regardless of pro or against, the finances are unlikely to stack up in the medium to long run. It doesn’t make sense.

Furthermore, if teaching isn’t made more attractive as a career in any event, I think it is an entire fantasy of recruiting 6,500 more teachers, notwithstanding I do not believe this policy will achieve the finances it claims to.

It’s embarrassing this is a flagship policy. Bigger fish to fry in the UK right now, but no, let’s destroy what is good, and ignore the stuff that does need fixing. So disappointing.

What I find so irritating is that people who almost militantly beat the equality drum when it comes to education, seem to have no problem with inequality in other areas of life. Nobody's getting cross that some people aspire to live in a nicer house, or go on a nicer holiday, or eat nicer food, or place their granny in a nicer care home, or send their child to drama school on Saturdays. Yet these are all things that create tiers within society, which separate us, which improve aspiration and outcomes for those who can afford it. I could understand it if the people arguing in favour of this policy were also arguing that it's unfair that people use their money to buy themselves and their families a better life in other ways - but they don't - only the true socialists on the left.

But if you buy a more expensive house or holiday etc, you DO pay tax on those choices. This policy just does the same.

How is VAT breaching the right to education but extortionate school fees aren't?

Er no, it's "You have to pay VAT on clothes from GAP but not on clothes you've been given for free".

There’s no VAT on children’s clothes from anywhere.

But not in such a stark way. Any tax there is, is much more progressive. It's not a case of no tax on Butlins but 20% on a five star resort. There's no tax on care homes, or children's weekend activities.

blah, I don't know. It is possible. It takes quite a while to build up a case and I think for judicial review first a long initial claim letter needs to be sent so I would imagine that would be the first stage. Also if it might fail then it would be pointless to bring it so that would need to be assessed first. If those suing are concerned about paying the state's legal costs if the case is lost then insurance would need to be arranged for that too which can be vastly expensive for big cases.

We're talking about wrap around care ans clubs at the moment.

More no tax on hanging out at your local beach/forest/national park but a fair sack on longhaul flights. Or no road tax for electric vehicles but lots for massive petrol guzzlers

Children's clothes aren't a good comparator anyhow, as they are not EU-wide exempt. Rates charged on them vary between countries, depending on historic practice (eg Sweden with a headline rate of 25% charges 6%)

They've never been exempt in UK either; they're zero-rated. That is not the same thing - it means that children's clothes are within the scope of VAT, but certain counties are allowed to zero-rate them (unlike tampon tax, where a different minimum applied, again for historic reasons)

That is not the norm in the the state sector. It is easy to give examples of the worst. I am sure you could find equally bad examples in the private sector.

If it were the norm, how do you explain that over 70% of UK medical school students have been state school educated. It is extremely competitive to secure a medical school place with ridiculously difficult entrance exams in which you need to be achieving very high scores just to be selected for interview. Do you really think that if state schools were as you describe that these students would be offered medical school places on merit, in many cases over privately educated students? They wouldn't. There is no reason at all why it wouldn't be a state educated DC who could be finding a cure for cancer in the future. Why do some posters assume that you need to be paying for private school for that to be a possibility? Sounds like the private school PR machines have been working their magic.

It is documented that some state schools are struggling to recruit science teachers. For secondary experiments in eg Chemistry and some in Physics you need enough staff for it to be safe! It is an actual safety issue in some schools, either lacking in enough space, staff or behavioural problems with students which make certain experiments not possible.
Just swotting the textbook is never the same. For real life future scientists, the experiments and labs etc are important.
For disclosure, our local boys grammar has amazing science teachers and science labs. And they send a ton on to uni to study those subjects.

Of course it might be a state educated person who discovers a cure for cancer. But what's the argument for disincentivising parents paying for it? If education is a public good, then surely the more of it there is, the better? This is our future.

Typically a traumatised displaced child in my LEA would be a Syrian or Ukrainian refugee having fled a war zone or maybe a child who has had to flee their home and live elsewhere due to domestic violence. Are you saying that being displaced from a private school will carry that gravitas with an appeal panel? And if the exodus numbers are as you claim, do you really think that would mean having to admit only one extra pupil to a sought after school? This seems to be a contradiction. If schools are full, they are full and parents may have to consider less high performing schools that don't have long waiting lists.

State schools are not given for free. We are taxed to pay for education and healthcare.

Yet your were suggesting that state provision was inadequate to set a child up for going on to discover the elusive cure for cancer and that you were giving a child a better chance of doing that if you pay for a private school. I can assure you first hand that we have hugely competent doctors and scientists coming from the state sector. No need to worry about that.

I'm talking about what is currently happening. I have no issues with state education in general - I chose it for my own child as the best fit for her - but there are massive issues with recruitment and post-Covid problems where entire cohorts were forgotten and not taught the basics while all the attention was on the exam years. Next year's Y11s probably the worst affected as they were never a priority, didn't get normal secondary transition and missed a big chunk of KS3.

One of DD's cousins has only had a teacher for Physics for around 6 lessons in the whole of Y10. Biology no teacher for the entire summer term in Y10. No science teachers at at all in Y9. Child has target grades of 8... she'll be lucky to even pass.

A couple of children are doing well in the class - turns out they have 1-2-1 tutoring in sciences every weekend. This is an Ofsted Outstanding and highly sought after school.

Cousin in a different school has lecture-theatre style classes with entire year group as they can't recruit.

@BasketsandBunnies - pretty sure I can find some recent research proving how disruptive it is for children, mentally speaking, to have to move schools at secondary level and leave their school community behind. There was recent research coming out of Denmark that is very pertinent in that regard.

I have several friends who have managed to get their DCs into grammar schools via appeal panels despite not making the exact grade for various reasons. You just have to build a solid case. And going via subjects like Latin, German, Music, Japanese (whatever) to a high level is a proven way of doing it.

This policy will fuel SEN challenges and other in the state education sector. People have been saying this all along. It really should not come as a big surprise. Entirely reasonably foreseeable and the Government should have planned for it, just like the expect private school parents to have “planned”.

a) grammar schools are technically state.
b) high grades are not that hard to achieve if your school does easier exam boards - state schools do this often, selective private not so much.
c) heavily tutored ethnic communities.
d) official positive discrimination in favour of state pupils.

Still not 93:7 but 70:30 which tells a lot.

I would entirely expect they cheered on many things at their crowded, boozy parties while people were separated from their families and died alone.

Grammar schools aren’t just technically state they ARE state schools. Though u suppose there may be private schools that have chosen to call themselves “grammar”. In my area there is little movement in the grammar school population so they won’t be an option for January for anyone. If your child is in y5 of prep and ready for the exam they might swing it for next September but otherwise you’d be looking at whatever state offering there are near you.

So let's be clear. Are you saying children having to leave their private school is up there with the trauma of displaced refugee children from war zones or those fleeing the violence of their father and that an appeals panel would view those appeals as such? That was the specific point I made regarding what would be the kind of circumstances that would be considered traumatic displacement in my LEA. Special needs cases aside, I think most people would consider that to be on a different level.