The government has insisted that adding VAT to private school fees is a necessary and fair reform, as it defended the policy during a judicial review at the High Court. The measure, implemented on 1st January this year, was a key pledge in Labour’s election manifesto and aims to raise additional tax revenue to support state education. Government lawyers argued this week that parents choosing private schooling should contribute more to the education system, which serves 94% of UK children.
Representing the Chancellor, the Department for Education, and HMRC, Sir James Eadie KC told the court that there is no obligation for the state to support private education. He said the policy is about enhancing the overall fairness of the tax system and ensuring that those opting out of state education still make a financial contribution that supports public services, particularly schools.
The legal challenge has been brought by three separate groups, including parents of children with special educational needs and disabilities (Send), and representatives of small faith-based schools. They claim the policy is discriminatory and infringes on human rights, particularly for families whose children are thriving in independent settings that they say cannot be replicated in the state system.
Jeremy Hyam KC, representing two families with Send children enrolled in private schools, argued that the VAT could force thousands of vulnerable pupils to leave schools where their needs are being met. According to government figures, around 6,500 children with Send but without formal EHCPs (Education, Health and Care Plans) could be affected. He called the impact “unfair,” particularly where suitable state alternatives are not available.
The government’s response was that only children with EHCPs that name a specific school will be exempt from the new tax. Other exemptions, such as those for small faith schools, international schools, or a delayed start date, were considered during consultation but ultimately rejected. Officials argued that introducing these would create an inconsistent and hard-to-manage policy and would also reduce the funds available to invest in state education.
Christian schools involved in the claim, represented by Bruno Quintavalle, argued that the policy was “ill thought-out” and rushed through without sufficient planning. He said the changes risked forcing closures of smaller institutions that already operate on tight budgets.
Despite the controversy, the government has shown no sign of backing down. Sir James Eadie stated that parents remain free to choose private or home education for their children, but that doing so does not entitle them to financial support from the state.
A decision on the case is expected later this year. If the legal challenge is upheld, the government could be forced to review the scope or timing of the VAT on private schools, but would not be obliged to make changes. Until then, families affected by the policy continue to voice concerns about affordability and choice, particularly where specialist educational needs are involved.
For further background, the UK government’s guidance on VAT and education services provides detailed information on how the policy is structured.
For more updates on education policy, tax changes, and legal challenges affecting families across the UK, visit EyeOnLondon. We’d love to hear your views in the comments.
Follow us on:
Subscribe to our YouTube channel for the latest videos and updates!
We value your thoughts! Share your feedback and help us make EyeOnLondon even better!
