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.

Well @BasketsandBunnies - a state school appeal panel may have to take parental mental health issues due to Government policy into account too and the impact on the child. So not sure calling people unhinged achieves what you are hoping it to achieve.

It's bad taste to go about insulting people on the internet.

DC1 went through three state schools and a grammar so I know the system well enough to comment on the state of it. I'm a single parent too and we're by no means affluent so can you please stop lecturing me on the unfair advantages we have. DC2 is talented and has been working incredibly hard for five years to get a scholarship - only to be robbed of it by the gov, just like another pp's child who's in ballet vocational school on a scholarship. It's even harder for them because there is no state school that teaches ballet so they cannot move her anywhere! But hey ho, it's elitist to be talented and work hard.

Your comments are totally misplaced.

Do you mean public school in the current definition ie Eton et al? Or are you using the term public school to mean all independent schools as this is incorrect.

State grammar schools, often defended by some parents as providing exclusive state-funded education. Most lack better teaching resources compared to comprehensive schools. And primarily difference lies in the intake. Many studies have found that there is little effect on students academic attainment in that cohorts, most "benefits" is actually a self-fulfilling prophecies. And it also created a social division to the detriment to other state schools.

Arf at “tall poppy syndrome”, your assumption that the VAT positive on this thread are looking up is laughable.

@twistyizzy I think the difference between public and private is well understood (particularly by posters on this thread). I mentioned public as the impact of that education is better documented. I would imagine there are equally damaged private school educated adults, but public sufficed.

The SEN/vocational music/ballet school stuff is completely unforgivable and would be easily fixed by not including vocational schools in any of this and excluding all specialist SEN schools.
I think the reason they are included in the preliminary drafting is so that eg an Eton cannot argue it is a specialist music school as well or a school with lots of DC with dyslexia cannot argue that they are a specialist SEN school. It is possible though that for some kids Eton is acting as a specialist music school - those in full music scholarships. And I assume that is what they are trying to avoid. They know full well that Millfield is producing Olympic athletes as well and offering them full scholarships.

The holiday club exclusions are very strange. I am again assuming that someone somewhere thought private schools would add extra curricular on at the end of term and just call it a holiday club. Or would start a business of doing expensive holiday clubs to try and compensate for the VAT and try and make money out of state school pupils using their facilities in the holidays. However, somehow somewhere these schools will have to make money and cut bursaries.

So I am wondering whether the preliminary drafting is meant as a negotiation point so that the vocational ballet schools are eventually excluded and they can say they did listen?

@OvertutoredMum I'm not a fan of grammar schools.

Perhaps if you’d had a broader experience of education you might be able to comprehend that not everyone wants the same things as you, nor envies your choices?

But public are only a small % of the Indy sector and there is a huge gap between the main public schools and most local indy schools. Public schools won't feel much impact of VAT, the local indy schools will, and are.

Yes @twistyizzy public schools tend to attract more affluent or privileged families. They of course can weather a storm more easily. It’s surely not news that different people have different resources and life experiences?

Same. And we do have a broad experience of education

All I said is that you do not understand widening participation and outreach programmes. If you did, you wouldn’t be making such comments. No insult intended. I meant ignorant in the true definition of the word.

I called nobody unhinged. I would not do that. I said the posts were. Big difference. If you want to read the context of my comment maybe you should read the full thread.

I asked you a question which you repeatedly choose not to answer? Are you saying the trauma of having to leave a private school is on a par with being displaced from a war zone or your home because of a violent father and that appeals panels will consider it to be similar? I would say it is stressful but on a different level completely from that, unless specific and severe special needs are being unmet as a result of displacement, but that is a wholly different scenario.

I'm sorry but I do understand those programmes because income-wise we have been eligible for them for years, much more than a high earning medical professional family would be. So it's laughable for me to listen to your lectures 😂

We chose grammar and specialist routes anyway so won't be obstructing state pupils access, don't worry. We are "elitist" through and through 🤣 (Labour hate grammars too) - and no doubt we will be squeezed more and more, much to the delight of the "non-elitist" people.

I'm a member of the Labour party too - though I guess I'll stop paying. Can't afford it now 🤣

“Specifically, children who move once between ages 10 to 15 are 41% more likely to be diagnosed with depression than those who don't move. And if a child moves twice or more between the ages of 10 and 15, the risk rises to around 61%. This is a stronger effect than growing up in a deprived neighbourhood.”

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2024/07/240717120958.htm

As to the detriment of having to move area on mental health (due to Government interventions). So if you cannot afford the VAT and kids need to go to a local school and you need to appeal, I think this study could prove helpful.

:He said: "We know there are a number of factors which lead to a person being diagnosed with a mental illness. However, this is the first evidence to suggest that moving to a new neighbourhood during childhood is among them, and we believe the numbers we are seeing could be the tip of the iceberg. During those formative years, children are building their social networks through school, sports groups or other activities. Each time they have to adapt to something new it can be disruptive, so we potentially need to find new ways to help people overcome those challenges."”

“Professor Sabel added: "This study emphasises the importance of global policies which enable and support settled childhoods, but ones that take into account regional and cultural identities.”

It is also important for military families whose children may be in boarding schools or any children with SEN who may be displaced by VAT on their schools.

It is current research showing that moving children is detrimental to their mental health. It applies to rich and poor children, across the spectrum.

They’re talking about moving house not schools though aren’t they? The vast majority of schools don’t run all the way through to 18, so most uk children have “moved once” (IF we are even talking about educational setting) for example when going from primary/prep to secondary. I think the children will adapt as they do to holiday clubs, boarding, holidays, changing years etc. I think reading these posts that parents have very little idea what state schools are like.

Interestingly it is often the other way around. Grammar schools came first - fees to pay and many bursaries for bright kids. And then direct grants - local authorities paid full fees for say 25% of pupils - and often more particularly if there was a neighbouring closeby council. Then direct grants were axed by government. Many grammar schools could not survive and became part of the public sector - I guess that is when Starmer’s school became public. And of course their names remain - some still with an exam entry and some became comprehensive. I also think when academies were invented grammar schools liked their independence and became academies. Many may not select at 11 - because their local authority does not allow it - but they select for sixth form.
So grammars were all “private” - and then many forced unwillingly into being state schools.
What goes around comes around!

I thought grammars existed for the academic and secondary moderns for the less so. Decisions as to which you went to was at 11+ and that they then progressed to the situation we have today.

@timetobegin - many English children change school only once at 11. Then stay until at least 16, many stay on at the same school until 18 (area dependent).
That report shows that disruption is bad for mental health. Moving schools and the community around a school is included in that. If you have to move schools, then staying as local as possible would be better for a DC.

The point is that time and time again on these threads the proponents minimise the disruption caused to children who have to move schools. And that is not OK. It’s incredibly disruptive for children’s mental health to have to move schools, especially if they were happy in that school.
The fact that it happens to poor children when kicked out of eg housing does not mean it won’t effect richer children displaced from their private schools due to Government policy. And where they are already vulnerable (SEN) or military etc it’s really very mean of a Government to do that to children, especially if there is no financial case to balance those detriments out. There is no financial case here- we know that because it is predicated on human behaviour which is unknowable.