Parents and private schools lose High Court case against VAT on fees

Parents and private schools have lost their legal battle against VAT on fees in the High Court.
The judgment on Friday dismissed the arguments made by three separate groups that the new government policy discriminated against children with special educational needs, among others.
The ruling said the tax, which was part of Labour's general election manifesto, was proportionate in its aim to raise money for state schools.
The Independent Schools Council (ISC) said it was disappointed by the ruling which came after a three-day hearing in April.
At least one claimant said they would appeal and the ISC pledged to continue to hold the government to account over the tax.
The Treasury, Department for Education and HMRC were named in the application for a judicial review which claimed VAT on fees was discriminatory and a breach of human rights law.
Nearly 20 families and faith schools had joined forces with the ISC to challenge the policy, saying it was unfair to parents wanting a faith school or single-sex education, or those who had children with special educational needs but did not have an education health and care plan.
Schools and parents were surprised when the tax was introduced in January rather than at the start of the next academic year.
The government repeatedly said it would raise at least £1.6 billion a year which would be ploughed back into state schools, including paying for 6,500 more teachers. But Sir Keir Starmer was widely criticised on Thursday for saying on social media that the VAT windfall would fund new housing.
Both sides had appointed leading barristers. The barristers used by the government to argue their case had all attended private schools.
In their ruling, the judges said the policy may have a discriminatory effect on children with special needs who do not have a Education, Health and Care Plan (EHCP), a legally enforceable document setting out what support they require.
But to create an exemption, the judges added, would be unfair to the 1.1 million children with SEN in the state sector as less money would be raised to help them.
Referring to parents who brought the claim, the ruling said: 'Not every decision to impose tax gives rise to a deprivation or interference with the possessions of the person who will end up paying it. None of the parents in this case are obliged to continue to send their children to private schools, and it is therefore doubtful whether the challenged measure interferes with a 'possession' of theirs.'
Families had relied on an argument that the tax breached their right to education under the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) and was also discriminatory.
Parents bringing the claim included those wanting single-sex education, foreign language education such as French lycées and Christian, Muslim and Charedi Jewish families.
But the ruling said the convention did not require the state to facilitate one child's access to a private school, even if the parents' reason for preferring a private school is a religious one.
Education Not Taxation, a private school parent lobby group, had hoped the ruling would lead to the overturning of the VAT policy altogether, although the judicial review would have had no legal force.
It said: 'While we are disappointed in the overall outcome of the challenge, we are grateful that the court recognised that imposing VAT on school fees will have a disproportionately prejudicial effect on pupils with SEN but no education health and care plan (EHCP), and therefore that the government's measure discriminates against them.'
It claimed the court ruling supported its argument that VAT on education violated the human rights of vulnerable children, adding: 'Labour have consistently demanded respect for the European Convention of Human Rights and we expect them to think hard about what these senior judges have said — does their concern for human rights not extend to these rights for children as well? We will continue to highlight the harms caused by taxing education.'
Sophie Kemp, head of public law at Kingsley Napley, representing the claimants, said: 'Both the government and the court recognised [it] had a discriminatory impact on children at religious schools as well as significant impact on children with SEN. The court felt that it was not able to interfere because of the leeway it must give to parliament. Unfortunately, this doesn't help the claimants, who must now weigh their options.'
Christian claimants, supported by the Christian Legal Centre, said they planned to appeal against the judgment.
Sir James Eadie, for the government, said during the hearing that raising funds was the primary objective of the policy and that parliament was aware that some people would no longer be able to afford private school fees once VAT was added.
He told the court: 'It is revenue raising for a purpose. To help fund the government's priorities for education and young people, including investing in state education.'
Julie Robinson, chief executive of the ISC, said: 'This is an unprecedented tax on education and it was right that its compatibility with human rights law was tested. We would like to thank the claimants who shared their stories on key issues: special educational needs and disabilities, faith schools, bilingual provision and girls-only education.
'The ISC is carefully considering the court's judgment and next steps. We will continue to work to ensure the government is held to account over the negative impact this tax on education is having across independent and state schools.'
In December last year, the chancellor, Rachel Reeves, said: 'Every single penny of that money will go into our state schools to ensure every child gets the best start in life, and that is so often through being able to recruit and retain the best teachers.'
Starmer wrote on X this week: ''In the budget last year, my government made the tough but fair decision to apply VAT to private schools.
'The Tories opposed it. Reform opposed it. Today, because of that choice, we have announced the largest investment in affordable housing in a generation.'

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Learn with AIFact CheckingText to SpeechAI Summary

Related Articles

The Independent

14 minutes ago

• The Independent

Hope for end to ‘cruel experiment' of indefinite jail terms that have seen phone thieves trapped for up to 20 years

Desperate prisoners who have been trapped in jail for up to 20 years for minor offences such as stealing a mobile phone could finally get a release date under landmark new proposals. Britain's leading justice experts have issued a string of recommendations to finally end the 'cruel experiment' of imprisonment for public protection (IPP) jail terms, which have left inmates languishing in prison for up to 22 times longer than their original sentence. A panel led by Lord John Thomas, who was once Britain's most senior judge, convened by the Howard League for Penal Reform, will urge the government on Monday to take 'long overdue' action to restore hope to 2,614 inmates still trapped under the outlawed jail terms, which have been described as a 'monstrous blot' on our justice system. IPP jail terms were abolished in 2012, but not retrospectively, leaving those already jailed incarcerated indefinitely. Victims of the scandal, whose tragic cases have been highlighted by The Independent, include Leroy Douglas, who has served almost 20 years for stealing a mobile phone; Thomas White, 42, who set himself alight in his cell and has served 13 years for stealing a phone; and Abdullahi Suleman, 41, who is still inside 19 years after he was jailed for a laptop robbery. Successive governments have refused justice committee recommendations to resentence them, despite recognising the jail term was a mistake. At least 94 IPP prisoners have taken their lives in custody as they lost hope of being freed, with a further 37 self-inflicted deaths among those released but left living in fear of being hauled back to jail indefinitely for minor breaches of strict licence conditions. On Monday, the expert panel will set out six recommendations to the Ministry of Justice to finally give those languishing in prison a release date and end the cycle of recall. Lord Thomas told The Independent: 'We must not go on perpetuating this injustice.' The proposals would see: Every IPP prisoner given a release date at their next review by the Parole Board within a two-year window, with plans to prepare them to be safely freed Decisions to recall IPP prisoners only made as a last resort, with independent scrutiny by a district judge or senior parole board member Mental health aftercare support for every released IPP prisoner, in recognition of the harms caused by the sentence The government has said ministers will 'carefully consider' the recommendations. In the 25-page report, due to be presented at an event in parliament, Lord Thomas warns: 'It is long overdue for those whose lives continue to be blighted by this sentence to be released from its clutches. 'There are only two options given the government's rejection of resentencing: (1) do nothing new and let those subject to IPPs continue with the real risk that many will languish in prison until they die; or (2) adopt our proposals. 'Our proposals provide a route to ending this grave injustice while protecting the public.' The member of the House of Lords, who served as lord chief justice from 2013 to 2017, believes the 'practical solutions' could be the last chance to help those on the jail term, which has been condemned as 'psychological torture' by the UN. Despite agreeing that the sentences are a 'terrible stain', Labour's prisons minister James Timpson has repeatedly said the government will not resentence IPP prisoners because it would result in serious offenders being released automatically without licensed supervision. Instead, the government has urged prisoners to work towards release by the Parole Board through the refreshed IPP Action Plan. However, Lord Thomas believes the measure is 'not enough' and it will leave some desperate inmates stuck in prison for the rest of their lives. He said it is 'absolutely clear' that without action, many will resign themselves to lifelong institutionalisation or take their own lives. Urging the state to take responsibility for its own mistakes, he insisted 'enough is enough', noting that if these prisoners had committed their crime a day after the sentence was abolished, they would have long been freed. 'It is time to address this problem in the way we have set out, which produces justice and minimises risk as much as possible,' added the judge, who last year backed The Independent's campaign to review IPP sentences. Andrea Coomber KC, chief executive of the Howard League, described the jail term as a 'cruel experiment' that has been perpetrated upon these prisoners by accident. Even the architect of the flawed 99-year sentence, Labour's former home secretary David Blunkett, has described it as the 'biggest regret' of his career. 'I spend a lot of time visiting people in prisons, I have met people who aren't engaged in IPP forums, who have given up hope,' Ms Coomber told The Independent. 'They have settled into the idea that they are going to die in prison. That is a monstrous blot on our justice system that people would feel that justice has let them down that much.' By ensuring they would get a release date, those prisoners would re-engage with the Parole Board and the steps for their rehabilitation, she added. 'Fundamentally, it will be a way to restore hope to people who have lost all hope, while protecting the public,' she said. It will also have the 'happy side effect' of freeing up a lot of prison places as the government grapples with an overcrowding crisis, she added. In April, The Independent revealed that incarcerating IPP inmates cost taxpayers £145m in 2024, on top of an estimated £1.6bn spent since the sentence was abolished. Any cost to implementing the changes would be 'more than covered' by the savings of releasing them, the report said. Other proposals from the panel, which also comprised a retired High Court judge and vice-chair of the Parole Board, leading forensic psychiatrists, clinical psychologists, legal experts and a former IPP prisoner, would see those handed indeterminate sentences when they were children (known as DPP jail terms) given a release date within one year of their parole review. They have also called for an enhanced process for people to appeal their IPP sentence, the right for annual licence termination reviews in the community and the ability for IPP jail terms to become 'spent' after an appropriate period. Currently, those who serve an IPP sentence must disclose information about their conviction for life, which can be 'hugely stigmatising' as they try to rebuild their lives and find work, Ms Coomber said. Campaigner Shirley DeBono, whose son Shaun Lloyd has spent 14 years behind bars after multiple recalls for stealing a mobile phone in 2005, welcomed the proposed measures. 'I think it's a great idea. I urge Shabana Mahmood [justice secretary] and James Timpson to take the proposals on,' said the mother, who co-founded the IPP Committee in Action. A spokesperson for the United Group for Reform of IPP (Ungripp) said that while it will always push for a full resentencing process, it supports the measures. 'We hope that the government will seriously consider these alternatives and give back some hope to those who are in prison either on recall or who have never been released,' they added. A Ministry of Justice spokesperson said: 'It is right that IPP sentences were abolished, and we will carefully consider the recommendations in this report. 'We are determined to make progress towards safe and sustainable releases for those in prison, but not in any way that undermines public protection.'

Times

18 minutes ago

• Times

Cost of damage by Palestine Action could hit £55m

Activists from Palestine Action are feared to have cost the government and firms making equipment for the British military as much as £55 million. In a five-year campaign Palestine Action has conducted 356 attacks on sites across the UK, culminating in a raid on RAF Brize Norton last week in which two Voyager aircraft were damaged. The attacks have cost the defence industry at least £30 million, according to evidence submitted to the government by several firms that have been affected. But it is also feared that one engine of a plane attacked at Brize Norton is damaged beyond repair and could cost £25 million to replace. While the extent of the damage is still being investigated, it is feared that red paint sprayed in to the turbine of the engine may mean it cannot be safely used again. Other costs are believed to cover repairs to warehouses, research facilities and factories, lost working time from the disruption, and the extra security the firms have been forced to invest in to ward off criminal activity by Palestine Action. The firms have also warned the Ministry of Defence that the group's activities have now extended to smaller firms in their supply chains, which will struggle to afford extra security and repairs. Yvette Cooper, the home secretary, is set to proscribe Palestine Action on Monday, but an influential group of peers wants the law toughened to make it easier for the police to stop all kinds of 'organisations which cause destruction'. There have been growing concerns about the ability of the police to combat extreme protest groups such as Palestine Action. Lord Walney, the government's former extremism adviser, will table an amendment to the Crime and Policing Bill, which is currently making its way through the House of Lords, to give the police more powers to stop the activities of groups such as Extinction Rebellion and Youth Demand. An investigation by The Sunday Times in March revealed how activists had switched between protest groups which were also sharing tactics. If implemented the new law would restrict a group's ability to fundraise and its right to assembly in the UK. It could stop them posting on social media and live-streaming actions that they take. An extreme protest group would be defined as an organisation which routinely uses criminal tactics to try to achieve its aims. Although Palestine Action will be proscribed under existing terror laws, Walney's peers believe a new legal mechanism is required to tackle extreme political, environmental and animal rights groups 'who fall just below the threshold of being terrorist organisations'. His 'criminal protest proscription' amendment would represent a major overhaul in how such groups are policed in the UK. Walney plans to table the amendment to the Crime and Policing Bill, which has reached the House of Lords, in coming weeks. 'The police need new powers to be able to tackle and disrupt extreme protest groups like Palestine Action, who have been allowed to cause mayhem and destruction for the past five years,' Walney said. 'Many of these groups fall just below the threshold required to be considered a terrorist organisation. We need a new mechanism to help police disrupt these extreme protests which are causing real harm to hundreds of businesses across the country.' • Melanie Phillips: Palestine Action is a terrorist group, so ban it His proposal is expected to have support from up to 42 peers who have this weekend signed a letter sent to Cooper asking for a meeting to discuss how to 'prevent or disrupt further attacks'. The letter, signed by peers including Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale, a former assistant head of MI6; Baroness Berger, a prominent Jewish peer; Lord Evans of Sealand, a former Labour general secretary; and Lord Cryer, the former chairman of the parliamentary Labour party, says that Palestine Action has been allowed to carry out a 'sustained aggressive broad campaign that undermines the rule of law and Britain's national security'. Research by The Sunday Times reveals there have been 356 direct actions on British-based defence and engineering firms, banks, insurance companies, estate agents and property companies, accountancy firms, universities and local government buildings owing to alleged links to Israel. Some 118 Palestine Action activists were convicted of criminal offences between 2020 and 2024 for attacks on British-based companies linked to Israel, with 33 found not guilty of offences at trial. There are 17 trials continuing relating to direct action protests by Palestine Action. John Healey, the defence secretary, said he was 'really disturbed' by the breach of RAF Brize Norton and has ordered an investigation and wider security review. Counterterrorism police officers are investigating the incident, with Thames Valley police and the Ministry of Defence police. A Palestine Action spokesman said: 'Despite publicly condemning the Israeli government, Britain continues to send military cargo, fly spyplanes over Gaza and refuel US and Israeli fighter jets.'

Times

18 minutes ago

• Times

The Chinese are opening London's priciest hotel – with a US twist

Donald Trump presents himself as the great dealmaker, a man who gets the best properties at the best locations for the best price, especially when it comes to opening hotels, like his Washington hotel. Radha Arora is about to put one over on him — in his own embassy. 'This is the best hotel, with the best address, in the No 1 city on the planet,' the president of Rosewood Hotels & Resorts said last week as he walked into the former US embassy on Grosvenor Square in London's Mayfair — soon to be the Chancery Rosewood hotel. The hotel, which will open in August, is the most expensive to be built in London: the £1 billion budget works out at £7 million for each of the 144 suites, which come with butler service. The 'cheapest' suite is £1,500 a night, and the two penthouse suites — named after British monarchs so loved by Trump, Elizabeth and Charles — will go for about £60,000 a night. Trump can only dream of such regal connections and rates.