How the fight against Labour's cruel child VAT raid continues
Those hoping for immediate relief from the courts in relation to the Government's imposition of VAT on school fees yesterday had their short-term hopes dashed. But if you read the judgment and examine what is going on in schools, the Government now has a right mess on its hands.
The High Court rightly found that, for the 100,000 or so children in private schools with special education needs who are forced to move into the state sector because they have closed or their parents can no longer afford the fees, their fundamental rights have indeed been interfered with.
However, it said that Parliament was entitled to do this because it has very broad powers when it comes to raising new taxes. In this case, what was being sought by the claimants was a 'declaratory remedy' which would have sent the legislation back to Parliament to resolve.
So, what happens now?
The Chancellor Rachel Reeves and beleaguered Education Secretary Bridget Phillipson are no doubt delighted that they have apparently won. But the truth is, like special needs children themselves, they are not out of the woods. They won by a nose and could yet lose in subsequent contests.
The first thing to say is that the special needs system is in total chaos. Since the pandemic, there is a huge backlog of children who do not have 'statements', in other words official education health and care plans, who are in a queue or appealing at tribunals hoping to get one. Local authorities are understandably reluctant to award them, in part because of a questionable previous court ruling, which said they have to pay for taxis for special needs children to get to their school.
If you talk to a taxi driver, many of them make a fortune providing this service which, in general terms, seems excessive and incredibly costly.
Yet now, parents who previously were paying for their own children's school fees and indeed transport, have had it confirmed that their children have a fundamental right to an appropriate education and their legal claims against local education authorities have now been given additional force. It would have been cheaper and simpler if VAT had not been imposed on school fees and they stayed where they were.
Second, thousands of parents were waiting for this judgement, having either given provisional notice to leave private schools or waiting to decide whether to embark on that costly journey in the first place next term. So far, 11,000 children have left private schools because of this measure. My guess is that twice that number, will now not turn up next term. Put all this together and the new taxes on education will raise very little money and might even lose revenue.
The reality is that Labour have created a giant and costly mess. An appeal is likely. There is no tax on education in any civilised country and, sooner or later, we must hope that a future government will reverse this cruel and costly measure.
George Trefgarne is a parent and supporter of the 'Education Not Discrimination' group
Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 1 month with unlimited access to our award-winning website, exclusive app, money-saving offers and more.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hill
24 minutes ago
- The Hill
Iran reportedly moves to close Strait of Hormuz after US attacks
The Iranian Parliament has approved a measure to close the Strait of Hormuz, a critical global oil chokepoint, after the United States bombed three nuclear sites in Iran, according to the Iranian state media on Sunday. While the Parliament has voted in favor of closing the strait, the final decision rests with the country's Supreme National Security Council, according to state media. Closing the strait, located between Iran and Oman, could have serious implications for both the global and U.S. economy. President Trump on Saturday night announced that the U.S. had bombed three nuclear sites in Iran, engaging U.S. forces in a war that Israel launched two weeks ago. In a brief address on Saturday night, the president warned of continued U.S. attacks on Iran if 'peace does not come quickly.' U.S. bombs targeted three nuclear sites in Natanz, Esfahan and Fordow, located inside a mountain. Six 'bunker buster' bombs were reportedly dropped on Fordow, while more than two dozen Tomahawk missiles were launched at the other two sites. The administration has argued the strikes were a monumental success, but it is currently unclear how much the sites were damaged or how long it has set back Iran's nuclear program. Iran's Foreign Minister Abbas Aragchi said the U.S. 'decided to blow up diplomacy' to end fighting with Israel by joining strikes against the country late Saturday night. Aragaci further warned of 'everlasting consequences.' Secretary of State Marco Rubio on Sunday called on China to encourage Iran not to shut down the Strait of Hormuz. 'I encourage the Chinese government in Beijing to call them about that, because they heavily depend on the Straits of Hormuz for their oil,' Rubio said on Fox News' 'Sunday Morning Futures with Maria Bartiromo.'
Newsweek
4 hours ago
- Newsweek
Iran's Parliament Votes To Close Straits of Hormuz After US Attacks
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. The Iranian Parliament has voted in support of closing the Strait of Hormuz, one of the world's most critical oil transit chokepoints, according to media reports. Any final decision on retaliation, however, will rest with the country's Supreme National Security Council and leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. The parliament vote merely advises him of the option to pursue. "The Parliament has reached the conclusion that the Strait of Hormuz should be closed, but the final decision in this regard lies with the Supreme National Security Council," Revolutionary Guards Commander Ismail Kowsari, member of the National Security Commission of the Parliament, announced on Sunday, according to Al Arabiya and the Jerusalem Post. The vote took place Sunday following the U.S. Operation Midnight Hammer, in which seven B2 stealth bombers flew into Iran and dropped 14 Massive Ordinance Penetrator (MOP) bombs on two of Iran's nuclear sites, including the Fordow site. A third site was hit with Tomahawk submarine-launched cruise missiles. President Donald Trump said that the sites had been obliterated by the U.S. operation, which included 125 aircraft overall in an operation that took 25 minutes to complete. However, Trump's Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman General Dan Caine said Sunday that it will take some time to assess the full extent of damage to the sites. The MOP bombs used to hit the sites had never been deployed in a combat scenario prior to Saturday's strikes. This is a breaking news story. Updates to follow.
The Hill
5 hours ago
- The Hill
Good news: We've already been king-free for 810 years. But there's also bad news.
Resistance to tyranny, suspicion of concentrated power, and a firm belief in the democratic ideals that birthed this republic. It's a noble struggle. But for all their passion and theatrical flair, the historical literacy behind the 'No Kings Since 1776' slogan leaves much to be desired. In fact, the protestors missed the mark by several centuries. Yes, the U.S. declared independence from the British Crown in 1776. But the kind of 'king' these protesters seem to fear had already ceased to exist in Britain long before that. By the time George III ascended the throne, British kings were largely figureheads, bound by constitutional limits and dependent on Parliament to govern. The Glorious Revolution of 1688 had already drastically curtailed the powers of the monarchy. And indeed, if you want to pinpoint when monarchs lost their teeth, you need to look even further back, to 1215, when rebellious English barons forced King John to sign the Magna Carta. That document didn't create democracy, but it did begin a centuries-long process of transferring power away from the crown and into the hands of parliaments and assemblies. So, by the time the American colonies revolted, they were not really rising up against a tyrannical king, but against an unresponsive and overreaching Parliament. The rallying cry of the American Revolution — 'No taxation without representation' — wasn't an anti-monarchist slogan. It was an anti-parliamentarian slogan. The colonists didn't object to authority per se — they objected to being taxed and ruled by a body in which they had no voice. And they weren't demanding the abolition of kingship. They were demanding accountability, proportionality, and representation. They were asking for a seat at the table. Fast-forward to today, and that slogan might resonate more than ever. We don't live under a king, but we do live under a political system that often behaves as if it's immune to public influence. Our Congress — designed to be the voice of the people and a check on executive power — is frequently in lockstep with the president, regardless of which party is in office. Whether through partisan loyalty or political cowardice, our legislators often abdicate their role as a balancing force. They don't deliberate. They defer. They don't question. They rubber-stamp. The real issue isn't kingship but representation. And in the absence of real legislative independence, the presidency has become more monarchical than anything George III ever imagined. And this didn't start in 2025 or even in 2017. Every American president in modern history has wielded powers the British monarch couldn't have dreamed of: Executive orders, foreign military interventions without Congressional approval, surveillance regimes, and massive influence over the national budget. If protesters truly want to challenge creeping authoritarianism, the more accurate message would be: 'No taxation without genuine representation.' That would strike at the heart of the issue. If Congress does not act independently, if it does not reflect the interests and concerns of the people, then we are not truly being represented. And if we are not being represented, then why are we funding the machine? Of course, no one is seriously proposing that Americans stop paying taxes overnight. Civil disobedience has its limits. But protest must have a point, and slogans must have meaning. A movement that aims to hold power accountable must aim at the right target. 'No Kings' is, at best, historically inaccurate, and at worst, a distraction from the deeply rooted, troubling democratic predicament in which we find ourselves. A government system that would have the Founding Fathers turning in their graves. Imagine if all that energy, creativity, and public spirit were channeled instead into a campaign to restore Congressional independence, to demand term limits, to break the iron grip of lobbyists, to push for electoral reform, or to hold legislators to account for every vote they cast. That would be a revolution worth marching for. So, to the protesters in the streets: your instincts are right. Power must be kept in check. But your history is off, and your slogan is weak. Don't fear a king who never ruled you. Fear a Congress that no longer represents you. Daniel Friedman is professor of political science at Touro University.
