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.

They will certainly be applying which costs the state time and money. More time and money than VAT

Private education is a luxury, it should be taxed.

That’s not true. I’m far from being an expert of EHCP however it is reasonable to suggest that the entire cohort of 100,000 SEN children in private schools will at least submit an application. Whether they get a favourable outcome or not isn’t really the point. The issue is that the local authorities will have 100,000 claims to assess. They struggle now dealing with a tiny fraction of that amount. Imposing a tax on a child with special needs simply because their local authority wasn’t resourced to deal with their claim is not going to play out well politically.

Family A is not paying more tax. It is simply no longer receiving the benefit of a particular tax exemption.

You could put your argument another way: family A earns £100K a year, they decide to do up their bathroom. Family B earns £100K a year and decides not to do up their bathroom. Why should family A have to pay more tax by virtue of having to pay VAT on the builders', electricians' and plumbers' bills when family B don't have to pay that tax?

You could also argue "Why should family A pay more for their child's education?" The answer obviously is: because that is their choice. The same applies if the fees get a bit more expensive.

It is not always a luxury. Regardless of that VAT has nothing to do with luxury products and services.

For the millionth time, VAT isn't a luxury tax.

Because you've opted out of equality by taking your child out of free state education.

Not paying VAT on something doesn’t constitute an exemption. To suggest otherwise is a myth Labour has promoted to gain acceptance for the policy. No country in the world taxes education. Most give income tax relief to parents who use private schools so they do indeed pay less tax than others on similar salaries who use state schools.

I think this is a great policy, and if one looks at the response to it outside mumsnet it is very popular. A vote winner even.

I think we need to examine why it is so popular (it can't all be envy/ class war fanatics) and move on from there.

Access to great education is a fundamental human right. Our children should be rewarded in life based on their own skills and abilities not on an accident of birth and location.

It's going take a really long time to resolve but it is possible. My view is ban all selective schools of any sort (church/ private/ grammar) except those that cater to EHCP level SEND needs. That's not going to happen any time soon but in the mean time I genuinely believe that wasting energy on debating the ins and out of this VAT policy is a waste of time. We've got to look at why the policy is so popular with so many and address these reasons.

Let's talk about the existing inequalities in state education which make many parents choose independent school:

• exorbitant house prices around catchment areas of good state schools
• grammar schools
• wealthy cohorts at the best state schools
• some state schools have amazing sports/drama/arts facilities whilst others have no options for these subjects at GCSE
• some state schools have stable teaching staff with great behaviour, others have multiple vacancies which they can't full and successions of temporary staff teaching Yr 10+11

Why aren't Labour taking about addressing these existing inequalities to ensure ALL state schools are fantastic?

The policy is popular because people don’t understand the full economic impact and like the idea of any new tax that they themselves will never have to pay.

Taxation for others is always a vote winner.

@IFollowRivers even if it ends up costing money rather than generating it? How will that help the already underfunded, crumbling state education sector

It doesn't take several years. By law the process takes 20 weeks. There are cases where it takes longer because of appeals, but that will still be the case for any new applications.

Costing money over what period? I believe the IFS have costed the policy and given it the go ahead but even if they hadn't I'm talking about long term change.

We live in a very broken society with the gap between have and have not growing daily. The key to closing that gap in the long term is improving the quality of and access to great education.

This is a start.

Imposing a tax on a child with special needs simply because their local authority wasn’t resourced to deal with their claim is not going to play out well politically.

Not meeting the needs of children with special needs because their local authority/school wasn't resourced to deal with them certainly hasn't played out well politically with those outside the private school sector.

@Charlie2121 you are implying that a large percentage of the UK population are stupid and self seeking. This comes from the same territory as implying that only those who send their children to private schools are truly hard working.

It is possible to believe in an idea even if you yourself are going to be impacted.

The IFS wrote a report which they now admit was overly optimistic and didn't take into account the numbers of SEN.
Labour have done none of their own costings. They didn't realise they had to exempt state boarding schools (where the parebts pay 10-20k per year).
2 subsequent reports have identified several holes in the IFS report.
The IFS have now come back to say that Labour's plans won't improve the state sector.

The expected income once all the exemptions have been put in place + cost of administration (plus now potential costs of legal challenges) is around £0. How will that improve state schools?

Oh the joy I had reading this yesterday!

The legal opinion Labour sought years ago was from a highly prominent lawyer, who quite rightly, advised this policy would be unlawful. Before judging, read the lawyer's opinion.

Given the venom so many people clearly have against private schools (based on many stereotypes might I add), this made my day!

Looks like our little Tarquins might be able to stay in their school after all. Brilliant!

Where is the evidence for that? In particular, where is the evidence that each of those children would qualify for an EHCP, and that any EHCP granted would name the private schools?

Not wrong.

I referred to specialist SEN schools, not independent schools.

They've said that children with EHCPs will be exempt

If schools close due to loss of student numbers, then kids with EHCP at indies will be back in mainstream anyway.

EHCP don't exist in Scotland. Some sen independent schools have a balance of ehcps and fee payers to keep viable.
Some non sen independents take pupils with ehcps or children who would qualify and are viable because of the other students.
Noone is explaining how having an ehcp helps a child whose school folds, what happens in Scotland etc. This is why it's so frustrating.

It doesn't matter, the point is that parents are already applying. Most EHCPs aren't awarded first attempt anyway, they more than likely go to appeal and are awarded at that stage. This all costs time and money. So even if the EHCP isn't awarded the process will have cost the state more than the income from VAT per pupil that applies.

Particularly when it seems to have been Lord Pannick that gave the opinion.

I would be surprised if any school thinking they would challenge this in court didn’t seek their own legal advice before starting it. Some schools with money to burn might try it but it would be a bit surprising if any school whose financial position was precarious decided to pay for a case where the chance of them winning is virtually 0.

That is only a small % of indi schools. Most SEN DC in indi sector are in non-specialist schools