VAT on school fees - High Court Challenge.

[EverythingAllatOnceAllTheTime]

Labour’s plan to impose VAT on private school fees in January faces a High Court legal challenge over claims it breaches human rights law.

Lawyers have written to HM Treasury arguing the policy discriminates against special needs children and has threatened court action if it is not dropped.

Showtime…

I don’t understand this either. Why are we expecting only private school parents to fund state school improvements, many of whom are scrimping to afford existing fees? They anre not even using the state system. What about multi millionaires who are using the state system? Shouldn’t they have to pay a penny more?

I am not pretending the thresholds don’t exist. Misinformation such as “not diagnosed with autism and therefore not specifically SEN” puts parents off pursuing support. I support parents of disabled children and a large part of that is unpicking myths they have been told such as not SEN without a diagnosis, no EHCP without a diagnosis, no DLA without a diagnosis, 2 APDR cycles needed for an EHCP, mental health difficulties are not considered a SEN.

A diagnosis can help but it is not necessary. DLA and EHCPs are based on needs, not diagnosis.

Most DC do not have SEN.

I agree. The government are already planning to use NHS money to fund treatment at private hospitals to ease waiting lists so they clearly don’t have an ideological opposition to using taxpayer money in the private sector.

My point was clumsily worded but valid. There are kids with all kinds of difficulties, struggles and traits that won't be recognised as having SEN or diagnosed with a specific condition. They will be denied an ECHP and DLA because they won't meet the thresholds and yet the state school offering in their area can often fail to meet their needs.

My point is you don't need to be registered as SEN to actually have specific needs that the state sector can't or won't cater for. This is incredibly common. Why should any VAT exemption only apply to those kids that meet the mythical 'SEN' threshold and not any kid that would have their needs met better in a private school? Why are some people so desperate to deny these kids this for some false notion that this will raise money for the state sector (which it probably won't) or that not meeting the needs of these kids is a victory for equality because other kids aren't getting their needs met too? Surely a kind and empathetic society would want more kids needs met rather than less?

Yes, that would be fair.

Unfortunately, since the entirely sensible solution of education funding following the child would cost the state significantly more than screwing as much money as they can out of private school parents, they're not going to do it.

Very much agree. Why be motivated to do this to other dc

When you break it down it's crazy. If you pay to educate your children privately then often you will be a higher rate tax payer and potentially one of the minority of the population that is a net contributor to public finances. You forfeit your child's right to a state education and save the state £8k a year. Labour say that this isn't enough and you should be paying 20% VAT on school fees to further subsidise those who have taken up their place at a state school. It is actually bonkers!

Surely it would make more sense to tax those actually using the service they want to improve?

@AboutVattime

It is impossible to define private education successfully as a "luxury" by any metric that I can bring to mind. Not least because there is a demonstrably greater difference between the best and worst state schools - due to house prices and geography - than there is between educational sectors. I am reasonably sure that most families from Middlesbrough would regard The London Oratory or The Camden School for Girls as luxuries.

You should also know that the best universities are more socially segregated than private schools, so the "opportunity for all" argument, which seems to be the basis for your thesis, certainly fails.

The legal definition of SEN is not mythical. It is set out in law. Just because DC’s struggles/difficulties/traits aren’t recognised by the school or LA as meeting the legal definition doesn’t mean the struggles/difficulties/traits don’t actually meet the legal definition. LAs, schools, DWP often act unlawfully. A child whose struggles/difficulties/traits mean they cannot have their additional needs catered for in state does meet the legal definition of having SEN.

I have not posted I want to ‘deny these kids this’ so I’m not sure why you are aiming that part at me.

I know - if a wealthy individual uses a private maternity hospital in just think "great,one less to burden the NHS". But if someone wealthy uses state education (usually in a great catchment area) they trest it like a badge of honour - "how wonderful am I using state education?". No, not really, when you can easily pay for it.

Not enough make someone else pay that goes down well with many

Aus system in pp is good, but look how we vote, we prefer to take away from dc.

Politically we've chosen to increase the state burden.

Another successful thread for @EverythingAllatOnceAllTheTime and the continued effort to discredit the government. Read further than MN you will see that this legal challenge is very likely to fail. Interesting that posters seem quite squarely behind it..Nice to see all this support for parents with SN children - not seen it before but then anything not to pay increased fees. I have to battle the local authority to get support for a child that the independent sector wouldn't even consider - a bit of anxiety or dyslexia maybe but no more than that which is why many parents who choose an independent school for the small classes will not get an EHCP and wouldn't even try. If you can pay the fees - pay the increase.

Just because you can pay the fees doesn't mean you can pay an extra 20% with very little notice.

What do you not understand about that?

..... "a bit of anxiety or dyslexia".

Lovely.

I don't have any 'mates' on the thread. I read posts at face value regardless of who it's from. 😬

I think @redwinechocolateandsnacks post sums up what I mean about the SEN definition (apparently anxiety and dyslexia are not SEN enough for them) and the desperation of some to deny kids the opportunity to have their needs met better.

@Janedoe82

"That won’t be the case as the birth rate is falling. State schools can accommodate the extra children which will offset the extra money.
Also it is unlikely to cost anywhere near that figure to implement. HMRC have said they already have the measures in place to do it."

Firstly pupil protections matter more than birth rates (which doesn't take into consideration immigration).

Secondly whilst primary school pupil protections have fallen very slightly, secondary school pupils have increased very slightly. So overall there is very little change in the number of pupils certainly for the next 5 years. Beyond which nobody really knows:

www.nfer.ac.uk/blogs/just-a-little-drop-pupil-numbers-are-falling-slower-than-previous-expectations/

Also you seem to have misunderstood how implementing this tax would be cost more than it raises. Whilst you are correct that from an HMRC perspective it won't cost that much to apply VAT to private school fees. The point I am making is that if 15% or more private school pupils leave for state schools then the introduction of VAT on private school fees will cost more to the taxpayer than it raises in tax revenue.

So again given that no one knows what the net fiscal result will be for say 4 years, then hypothetically if the introduction of VAT on private school fees ended up costing the taxpayer more than it raised in tax revenue would you still support it?

That doesn't stack up. There are loads of things people pay for that they couldn't if it increased.

It's basic economic reality

I didn't suggest banning anything.

If you can pay the fees - pay the increase

But it's not an increase, is it? Whilst it will cost private school parents money, it's in no way an increase in fees. It's not driven by the school.

It's a ideologically-motivated, populist government attack on a small, unpopular group of people, which is unlikely to net the government any money, and is in fact likely to cost the state. Lose-lose.

Anxiety (to the point state school cannot meet needs) and dyslexia meet the legal definition of SEN.

If DC reasonably require (and have evidence to support that) small (which needs to be quantified) class sizes to meet their SEN then they meet the legal threshold for an EHCP. Although they will probably have to appeal at least once.

Also it would drive competition between state schools. Good state schools would get more money, bad state schools would get less money.

We don't want competition between schools, we want them all to be a decent standard. 🫣

I think I'm out when the discussion reaches the point where you call parents of children with dyslexia and anxiety idiots and then blame them for it.