Challenge to VAT on Private School Fees Takes Center Stage in High Court
Parents argue VAT adds financial burdens that discriminate against children with special educational needs.
The High Court is currently hearing legal arguments regarding the imposition of VAT on private school fees, a policy put forward by the Labour party, which families argue constitutes a breach of human rights.
The plaintiffs, two parents with children who have special educational needs (SEN), claim that the VAT disproportionately affects children, particularly those with autism and other conditions not adequately supported by state schools.
Jeremy Hyam KC, representing the families, explained that the increased fees from the addition of VAT—estimated at 20%—could displace approximately 35,000 children with SEN into an already overstretched state education system.
Hyam provided evidence suggesting that many of these children would be unable to receive the necessary support in mainstream schools compared to their peers without SEN.
During the proceedings, Lord Pannick KC, also representing the families, recounted a specific case involving an autistic child whose ability to thrive in an independent school was compromised.
The family utilized disability living allowance payments to cover tuition, but the hike in fees brought on by the VAT could force them back to a state primary school, which had previously been unsuitable for their child's educational needs.
In defense of the VAT policy, James Eadie KC, representing the Treasury, HMRC, and the Department for Education, noted that local authorities have the responsibility to fund the education of children with SEN under an Education Health and Care Plan (EHCP).
He emphasized that over 1 million children with special needs attend mainstream schools in England without such plans.
The VAT policy extending to private schools in Wales, Scotland, and Northern Ireland—in regions with varying provisions for special needs—further complicates matters.
Bruno Quintavalle, representing parents of students at four private Christian schools, criticized the VAT initiative as poorly considered, asserting it places undue burdens on families who prefer not to send their children to state institutions.
Stephen White, a father with children enrolled at Bradford Christian School, openly challenged the policy after stating that families in his community contribute financially to private education, alleviating costs faced by the state.
Eadie countered by stating that while parental convictions regarding education should be respected, these convictions do not mandate state funding or tax exemptions for private education.
He highlighted that the Labour party's proposal to exhaust the VAT exemption is projected to raise up to £1.7 billion annually.
The court is currently deliberating the validity of these arguments, with the hearing led by Dame Victoria Sharp, Lord Justice Newey, and Mr. Justice Chamberlain.
A decision is anticipated to follow the conclusion of the arguments on Thursday.
The plaintiffs, two parents with children who have special educational needs (SEN), claim that the VAT disproportionately affects children, particularly those with autism and other conditions not adequately supported by state schools.
Jeremy Hyam KC, representing the families, explained that the increased fees from the addition of VAT—estimated at 20%—could displace approximately 35,000 children with SEN into an already overstretched state education system.
Hyam provided evidence suggesting that many of these children would be unable to receive the necessary support in mainstream schools compared to their peers without SEN.
During the proceedings, Lord Pannick KC, also representing the families, recounted a specific case involving an autistic child whose ability to thrive in an independent school was compromised.
The family utilized disability living allowance payments to cover tuition, but the hike in fees brought on by the VAT could force them back to a state primary school, which had previously been unsuitable for their child's educational needs.
In defense of the VAT policy, James Eadie KC, representing the Treasury, HMRC, and the Department for Education, noted that local authorities have the responsibility to fund the education of children with SEN under an Education Health and Care Plan (EHCP).
He emphasized that over 1 million children with special needs attend mainstream schools in England without such plans.
The VAT policy extending to private schools in Wales, Scotland, and Northern Ireland—in regions with varying provisions for special needs—further complicates matters.
Bruno Quintavalle, representing parents of students at four private Christian schools, criticized the VAT initiative as poorly considered, asserting it places undue burdens on families who prefer not to send their children to state institutions.
Stephen White, a father with children enrolled at Bradford Christian School, openly challenged the policy after stating that families in his community contribute financially to private education, alleviating costs faced by the state.
Eadie countered by stating that while parental convictions regarding education should be respected, these convictions do not mandate state funding or tax exemptions for private education.
He highlighted that the Labour party's proposal to exhaust the VAT exemption is projected to raise up to £1.7 billion annually.
The court is currently deliberating the validity of these arguments, with the hearing led by Dame Victoria Sharp, Lord Justice Newey, and Mr. Justice Chamberlain.
A decision is anticipated to follow the conclusion of the arguments on Thursday.
