Labour’s initiative to apply VAT on private school fees has met legal opposition for potential human rights violations, focusing on its impact on children with special educational needs and disabilities (SEND).
- Legal experts argue the new VAT could exclude SEND students from private education due to increased fees, overburdening the already strained state sector.
- Sinclairslaw’s challenge, representing a single parent and her SEND child, claims a breach of the European Convention on Human Rights.
- The VAT exemption for children with Education and Health Care Plans (EHCP) covers only a small fraction of SEND students, facing criticism for its limited scope and bureaucratic hurdles.
- Further legal challenges may arise, including from military families and faith schools, with Labour defending its proposal on fiscal grounds.
Labour’s proposal to implement VAT on private school fees from January has sparked a significant legal challenge, spearheaded by Sinclairslaw, on grounds of discriminating against children with special educational needs and disabilities (SEND). According to the legal team, the imposition of VAT could make private education unaffordable for families of SEND children, forcing them out of institutions that cater to their needs. This displacement is expected to place additional strain on state schools, which are already struggling to meet the complex demands of these students.
Paul Conrathe, a senior consultant solicitor at Sinclairslaw, has openly criticised the government’s move, describing it as a ‘punitive tax’ which he believes will severely affect the welfare and education of SEND children and violate their human rights. Conrathe highlighted the government’s lack of consideration for how these policies would impact vulnerable children: ‘It is remarkable that the Government is pressing ahead with this punitive tax that will have a devastating impact upon the education and welfare of children with special needs’.
The legal challenge invokes Article 2 of Protocol 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights, asserting that the right to education must remain inviolate and that the additional financial burden contradicts principles of non-discrimination outlined in Article 14. The case, brought on behalf of a single mother and her daughter, is intended as a test case that could potentially halt Labour’s VAT plans if successful.
Labour maintains that children possessing an Education and Health Care Plan (EHCP) will not be subjected to the VAT. Nevertheless, this assurance has been met with scepticism, as fewer than 8,000 out of 111,000 SEND pupils in private education have such plans. The arduous process of obtaining an EHCP, plagued by local council backlogs, can span up to two years, exacerbating the concerns over bureaucratic delays.
The legal effort is amplified by Sinclairslaw’s plans to launch a crowdfunding campaign to sustain the lawsuit costs, potentially reaching several hundred thousand pounds. Conrathe stresses the grassroots support of this initiative, contrasting it against assumptions of elitist backing: ‘We are launching a crowdfunder because this case is not backed by some rich person who went to Eton or Harrow, this case will be funded by the great British public.’ Further potential legal claims may emerge from military families and faith-based school attendees, adding to the complexities of the proposed policy’s implementation.
The high court challenge against Labour’s VAT proposal underscores significant concerns over its implications on the rights and education of SEND children.
