PS VAT - international reaction

[AlbionLass]

France and Germany attack UK plan to levy VAT on international school fees
Proposal to impose value added tax in the Budget risks damaging diplomatic ties, ambassadors say.

France and Germany have hit out at Sir Keir Starmer’s plan to levy value added tax on private school fees, saying the policy risks forcing hundreds of children out of international schools and damaging diplomatic relations with the UK.

I wonder how this will square with wanting to be closer to the EU?

I've always been very in favour of us remaining in the ECHR but my thinking now is that if it can't protect our children from a vindictive government, then what the hell is the point of it.

If the courts find in favour of the claimants that it is a breach of human rights - and any such finding will take many months - then if the government says, “ok, we will work on amending the legislation so we can be compatible with the ECHR rules”, I don’t see what an appeal to the ECHR would do at that stage.

I assume (though ready to be corrected by a lawyer) that the government would have a grace period to devise any necessary scheme eg VAT refunds for children with severe SEN or whatever it might be before the ECHR would listen to a case.

A declaration of incompatibility does not force the government to change the legislation at all, and certainly does not force them to do so within a particular time frame. It would obviously be politically difficult for a government to refuse to do anything, but there is nothing in the Human Rights Act that forces the government to act (although it does give the government powers to amend legislation quickly). Until the legislation is changed, it remains in force and the courts will enforce it notwithstanding the declaration of incompatibility.

If the claim has succeeded in the Supreme Court, an appeal to the ECHR would not be possible. They will only intervene if the case is referred to them by the UK courts or the claimant has lost.

@prh47bridge - if they lose in the High Court they can go to the ECHR? Pending CA and Supreme Court appeals? Is that not what happened in Rwanda? And they were right to do so, because they won in the Supreme Court unanimously.

Sure, but the political fallout would be significant.

That wasn’t my point.

As per my post, I was picturing a scenario where the government did intend to make amendments, but needed time to do so.

In respect of political fallout: Labour has a majority of 156 and was elected with this policy in its manifesto. I truly don’t think there would be political fallout if (and that is a big if) the policy gets some tweaks in the future.

These international schools - together with other cultural initiatives - are a vital part of the diplomatic network and efforts - similar to the work achieved by the British Council. They are also partly funded by their respective governments.

so yes, imposing VAT on private schools, is a cause for diplomatic concern especially when these schools are also embroiled into this policy.

I disagree.

If this policy gets torpedoed, Labour will appear naive, as well as vindictive.

Appear to who?

They do not appear naive or vindictive to me, and I’m a private school parent. They are right at the start of their parliamentary term and by the time of the next GE, this will be a footnote, however it unfolds. Many private school parents would never vote Labour anyway. I just don’t think it will be a “fallout causing” issue.

The fees for the German school are £10k a year at the moment. So £12k after VAT. This is half the amount you’d pay for a standard nursery school in Richmond (£24k a year for 5 days). The parents will easily be able to afford this increase as they already get a bargain . May I point out the starting salary for a primary school teacher in Berlin is £60k. How much is a diplomat on, I wonder?

Again, I disagree.

They have promised 6,500 new state school teachers on this - predicated on the GBP 1.3-1.5 bn they have forecast will be raised. There will be fall-out if a legal challenge is successful.

I am also a PS parent, and I think its vindictive, so we are 1-1.
Your PS parent Labour assertion kind of negates your argument that its not vindictive btw.

No, that is not what happened in the Rwanda case. That only got to the ECHR because the relevant legislation allows the government to remove people from the UK even though there are ongoing legal proceedings. Reference to the ECHR was therefore necessary to prevent people being removed to Rwanda before the legal processes had completed.

The substantive case never got to the ECHR because the UK courts ruled against the government. You cannot go to the ECHR pending appeals. You must exhaust the UK's appeal system first.

“Your PS parent Labour assertion kind of negates your argument that its not vindictive btw.”

No, it doesn’t. It was a demographic point about how political fallout (ie losing votes) was unlikely to be substantive because the demographic probably skews more Conservative than the average group of 35-55 year old parents.

It isn’t “vindictive” to implement policies that impact one group more than another. I think that’s a really odd word to use about political decisions. But YMMV.

Have a great afternoon.

Unsurprisingly there is no human right to get private education free from VAT. Rightly, this is a political decision and one that we as a country voted for in a recent general election. Don’t like this? Vote differently next time round. This is how democracy is meant to work.

“No, that is not what happened in the Rwanda case. That only got to the ECHR because the relevant legislation allows the government to remove people from the UK even though there are ongoing legal proceedings. Reference to the ECHR was therefore necessary to prevent people being removed to Rwanda before the legal processes had completed.”

It is the same threat for some children with EBSA. We have one child in the wider family who tried to commit suicide multiple times during state schooling. After a period of time at home doing nothing the parents eventually found a private school that he would attend. If he were forced into state schooling again it would be a threat to his life. So tell me the courts are just going to accept that homeschooling/dumped at home is a safe option for children? 2.1 per cent of children that is 1 in 50 are now persistently absent.

So tell me the courts are just going to accept that homeschooling/dumped at home is a safe option for children?

I know I’m going to regret this… but the courts can only do what is in their jurisdiction to do.

If this isn’t in their jurisdiction then they just cannot grant such an injunction to pause this policy.

Why are you so convinced that they can and will?

Following your logic - a democracy includes, or should include, a functioning legal system, which in this case permits a legal challenge to the imposition of VAT on private school fees.

Should the challenge succeed, and you don’t like the result, well….

The challenge is not going to succeed.

My teenagers used to respond similarly, when they had lost an argument.

I have been in a number of high profile arbitrations, and allow me to tell you that ‘litigation risk’ is real.

This - in fact - before the vat - my general guidance to state school parents thinking of private for high school was to find a good state high school and spend the money you save on private school fees on tutors and a better house in the right catchment.

You brought up that parents should pay VAT on school fees as if we were tax dodging hence the opening of the discussion on actual people who do dodge tax ..

It’s not only diplomats, well paid families that use the French and German schools ..

Could you quote where on this thread I have said this? Me, not any other poster?

To my recollection, I have said nothing on this (or any other) thread about tax dodging.

I paid school fees without VAT before VAT was applicable and I will pay the VAT from Jan now it is applicable. I don’t consider anyone is a “tax dodger” for not paying a tax that didn’t apply previously - that would make no sense.

I haven’t lost an argument. I have no idea what your argument is: you said that democracies should have functioning legal systems, and of course I agree with that.

But my broader point is that pretending that this is somehow a human rights matter is absurd. This really gives human rights a bad name. Human rights are really for fundamental entitlements that all humans deserve, like free speech and a fair trial. Not like being able to go to a private school without paying VAT! Which is exactly why this should be a political matter decided as part of the political process.

As for litigation risk: there is already litigation. I consider the claim to be very weak indeed - I worked as a lawyer for two decades.

Being permitted to educate your child the way you consider appropriate (at your own expense) rather than the government's choice is a human right for the child.

It's a negative right, rather than a positive one. Just like the right to family life.

So the government isn't required to provide you with a family, but may not prevent you from having one. Eg by having a policy for many years to oulaw marriage, and then later (when told that isn't legal) instead imposing a punitive tax on weddings which won't raise any money but will make marriage impossible for some people. (Some people of course already didn't choose to get married, or couldn't afford it).

Same for education.

It is breaching human rights. This is the point of human rights law, to prevent governments from doing harmful things to unpopular people deliberately to harm them/take away something they have a human right to - rather than proportionate harm in order to govern the country well (eg a tax actually raising money).

I expect human rights law to protect our own citizens as well, not only others. I won't continue to support it if it doesn't.