Whitehall “braced for private schools collapse” 3

[ICouldBeVioletSky]

Starting a third thread to discuss impact of VAT on private school fees, as the topic looks likely to run (and run). Though probably best to finish off the second thread before posting here, thx.

@skippydawg - you will be able to read the Court’s judgment in just a few weeks I would have thought, explaining the legal issues. The court date is 1-3 April.

It has been explained to you, sorry you don't understand but that's why it currently in court

It’s also a breach of human rights for you, the Government is limiting the education choices for your children. Nobody is trying to take anything from you by defending your right to choose the education of your children, if anything it’s the opposite. I don’t understand the animosity.

If the government banned marriage and cohabitation, would that be a breach of the human right to family life only for the people who had a partner, or also for single people?

Do you think that because there are many single people who can't marry, then if the government deliberately prevents people who do have a partner from marrying, then that somehow isn't a breach to their right to family life: simply because not everyone has a partner and can get married?

I don’t know about the Scotland claims but the English ones are being brought on behalf of SEN children, children at religious schools and also girls schools, as well as single parents (overwhelmingly women).

This is on the basis that the imposition of VAT has a disproportionate effect on those groups and is therefore indirectly discriminatory on the grounds of disability, religion and sex, and an infringement of the Article 14 right to education under the ECHR.

They are also making the wider argument mentioned by PP that it is incompatible with the right to education guaranteed by Article 2 of the First Protocol of the ECHR.

HTH.

But the addition of vat isn't stopping you accessing education completely is it?

I don't see the human rights argument. But I am sure the people bringing the case have been well advised so there must be one. I look forward to reading the judgement when it comes.

So imagine that rather than banning marriage entirely (as Labour tried to ban private schools previously), they just increased the marriage fee from £68.50 to £10,000. It doesn't stop you getting married completely, but it's an additional barrier added by the government.

If it actually cost the state £10,000 to perform the ceremony, then that might be reasonable and not breach human rights

But if it actually cost the state £68.50, but they had chosen to bump the cost up to £10,000 in order to discourage marriage because they don't like it, then that would be breaching human rights.

If people of a certain religion couldn't start a family without being married, then that would give a case for discrimination - since the government's deliberate and unjustified decision to make getting married harder affects them (as a group) more.

Likewise if the government only gave carers benefit to spouses not partners - since that would mean a bigger impact on disabled people.

But if there was still an option to get married for £68.50 - but a the price of a "better" wedding was increased to £10,000, would that still be a breach of human rights?

I also wonder - given the disproportionate rise in private school fees vs inflation / salaries over a long period of time - whether a rise in fees is only unlawful if it arises directly from a Government policy (VAT) but not if it arises due to a school’s choice?

And exactly where that leaves fee rises that are claimed to be due to eg rises in National Insurance (ie indirectly due to Government policy)?

Equally, to what degree the ‘unlawfulness’ is mitigated by eg the ability for schools to claim back VAT on capital projects, or indeed choose not to raise fees but instead make economies (as state schools have had to do for years)?

Yes, since the human right is specifically to be allowed to give your children an education which you choose, not be forced to have the government-provided one.

An equivalent might be if you can have the £68.50 wedding, but only to a spouse selected by the state.

However, that right to an education of choice is not absolute, is it? A school that raises its fees for any reason denies some parents their ‘right’ to access it at the previous cost. Is the loss of this right only relevant if the change in fees is due to the choice of a school to pass on the cost of VAT (and not relevant if the loss of choice is for any other reason, including other taxation)?

It’s state interference that is covered by ECHR.

Raising fees to reflect costs, or even to create a different product (aimed at richer people) would be fine.

It's a bit of a nonsense to imagine the private school sector deliberately raising their fees in order to restrict access, as the government is deliberately doing. That makes no sense.

Schools don't choose to pass on VAT, by the way. That's deliberately misleading language from Labour.

They are now required by law to collect VAT at 20%.

They can of course choose to reduce the cost of their service, if they don’t think the market will bear a higher price. But then they obviously have less money to deliver their product.. But still even then, they have to charge VAT at 20%.

But when the state says that a special school of choice (or state school of choice) does not have space for your child and admitting them is prejudicial to the effective education of others, is that not also ‘state interference in choice’?

If the state raises NI and so private schools have to raise fees, is that ‘state interference in choice’?

If a state body responsible for safeguarding or child welfare visits a setting and declares it unfit, is that ‘state interference in choice’?

Where does the line lie? What does, and does not, constitute ‘reasonable interference’?

And - one more time - it's a negative right.

No one - not the government, not any school - is required to give you the education of your choice.

The government is specifically forbidden from preventing it (which includes deliberately making it harder, not only a 100% ban)

That genuinely makes no sense as a distinction.

If a parent chooses school A, and the state says ‘no’, they are ‘preventing’ that choice, surely?

But when the state says that a special school of choice (or state school of choice) does not have space for your child and admitting them is prejudicial to the effective education of others, is that not also ‘state interference in choice’?

The government is not required to provide the education of your choice. The ECHR devotes quite a few paragraphs to making that clear.

If the state raises NI and so private schools have to raise fees, is that ‘state interference in choice’?

It's for the courts to decide.

But I'd suggest that an NI change affecting all businesses is quite different to a new tax which is so targetted that e.g boarding provided by state schools is not taxed, but the exact same boarding service provided by private schools is. Same for paid extracurriculars.

Especially when Labour recently tried to ban the sector which they are now targeting so precisely. Personally I think that makes their intent quite clear.

If a state body responsible for safeguarding or child welfare visits a setting and declares it unfit, is that ‘state interference in choice’?
The ECHR rights are very clear about this. There are multiple rights to balance. The child's right to an adequate education overrides the parent's right to choose their education. So if the parent's choice of education isn't adequate, then the state is permitted to refuse it. However so long as the parent's education is adequate, the parents take precedence over the state. Again, there are quite a few paragraphs making that clear.

What does, and does not, constitute ‘reasonable interference’?

That's for the courts to decide.

Unless someone here is an expert in human rights law it is kinda pointless to debate whether it ‘makes sense’ to a layman, clearly the case has some merit, otherwise it would not be taken up and the government would not have tried to delay the hearing.

If the government is providing school A, they are permitted to choose not to provide it.

Important to remember that the Education Acts do not mention parental choice but parental preference.

Yes, since the human right is specifically to be allowed to give your children an education which you choose, not be forced to have the government-provided one.

An equivalent might be if you can have the £68.50 wedding, but only to a spouse selected by the state

The majority of the population are forced to choose state school and always have been

Most independent schools are non profit and offer bursaries. Short of forcing teachers to work for free and giving lessons in tents, I really don’t know what you are asking for.