Private school families lost their challenge to Labour’s tax on fees yesterday – but judges still branded the measure ‘discriminatory’.
The judgment by the High Court said the 20 per cent VAT would have a ‘disproportionately prejudicial effect’ on pupils with special needs.
However, it also ruled Parliament still had the right to impose such a decision. Yesterday, the Boarding Schools Association said it was a ‘sad day’ for vulnerable pupils, adding: ‘There are no winners here.’ At least one of the claimants now plans to appeal.
Paul Conrathe, solicitor at SinclairsLaw which represented a group of special educational needs parents, Education Not Discrimination, said ‘the Government should hang its head in shame’.
There was anger over the Government’s insistence during the case that the tax would benefit state schools. This week it suggested that the money will now pay for housing.
VAT on school fees was introduced on January 1, having been pledged in Labour’s manifesto. The claim against it was brought by three groups of families and some private schools. They aimed to have the tax declared ‘incompatible’ with human rights laws.
Yesterday’s judgment, by Dame Victoria Sharp, Lord Justice Newey and Mr Justice Chamberlain, agreed that the tax was ‘discriminatory’ against pupils with special educational needs. It also interfered with their right to an education under the European Convention on Human Rights, they said.
Teachers, parents and pupils protest outside the Royal Courts of Justice in London over the private school fees VAT policy
Nearly 20 families and several faith schools are bringing legal action against the Treasury, claiming the new VAT on fees is discriminatory and a breach of human rights law
There was anger over the Government’s insistence during the case that the tax would benefit state schools
‘If the imposition of VAT makes the fees unaffordable, there is a significant risk that the state school to which they transfer will not provide adequately for their needs,’ they added. ‘The measure will have a disproportionately prejudicial effect on them.’
However, they concluded Parliament had a ‘broad margin of discretion in deciding how to balance the interests of those adversely affected against the interests of others who may gain from public provision funded by the money it will raise’.
Many parents of special educational needs children pay fees because private schools offer better pastoral care. The Government said the court had confirmed its legislation was ‘compatible with its human rights obligations’.
