The controversial plan to introduce VAT on private school fees will ‘interfere with the fundamental right to education’, the High Court heard today.

As part of a legal challenge being brought by families of students who say their needs cannot be adequately met in the state sector, Lord David Pannick KC argued that the planned levy is discriminatory.

Speaking to a packed courtroom of head teachers and students, he said parents were concerned their children’s needs could not be met outside of the independent sector, particularly those youngsters who have special educational needs and disabilities (SEND) and pupils at faith schools.

Lord Pannick, one of the country’s leading barristers in cases relating to government decisions, said the families he is representing ‘are not wealthy’.

Two of the claimants, he said, have no alternative schools in their area to meet the needs of their children who have SEND.

Another family sent their child to a single-sex independent primary school after they experienced ‘harassment’ in their previous co-educational school.

And Lord Pannick argued that adding VAT to their fees impedes their right to access education and the policy is ‘unprecedented’ in all other Council of Europe states.

Around a quarter of families affected by the VAT changes fall below the average wealth level, and the policy has been brought in ‘irrespective of the needs of the child’ or of the ability of the family to pay, he said.

Lord Pannick is leading the challenge for the Independent Schools Council (ISC) which represents more than 1,400 private schools.

There are two further claims also being heard by a group of faith schools and the parent-led group Education not Discrimination.

They are seeking a declaration of incompatibility with Article 2 of the First Protocol of the European Convention on Human Rights, which is the right to education, and that the policy is also discriminatory.

Barristers representing Chancellor Rachel Reeves, along with HMRC and the Department for Education (DfE), are due to make their arguments tomorrow.

They claim the move is necessary to raise money and increase standards in the state sector.