Dominic Lawson: Incredibly, the Labor Party is now involving civil servants in its persecution of private education. What a cruel and dishonest mess.

During his recent visit to the UK, the prime minister vowed to run his government in the spirit of Clement Attlee’s post-war reform Labor government.

I’ll leave it to historians to decide whether that turns out to be more than empty rhetoric. But it is already clear that Sir Keir Starmer’s role model would have been appalled by the initial implementation of this Labor government’s so-called “reforms”.

I am referring to the introduction of a new tax on parents who send their children to independent schools on January 1st (midway through the academic year).

Clement Attlee was adamant about leaving the private education sector completely alone when establishing what is now called the welfare state.

He was educated at an independent school called Haileybury, and was more proud than ashamed of this connection. In fact, he bequeathed his Garter flag to the school (it is now kept in the Utley Room).

And as a young man, Uttley spent years volunteering at Haileybury House, an East London youth club for working-class boys funded by his alma mater.

squeeze

This would now be called an outreach project. The kind of work that private schools have funded locally for generations will be cut as a result of pressure from Whitehall.

That will inevitably include many scholarships for children from less wealthy families. This is the kind of thing that provided funding for young Keir Starmer and enabled him to remain at Reigate Grammar School after it became independent.

Because these schools have to absorb more than just a 20 percent value-added tax on tuition fees. They have also been crushed (along with the rest of the private sector) by huge and completely unexpected increases in employer national insurance.

And in an additional act of spite, from April 1, 2025, independent schools with charity status will lose their 80 per cent business rates relief. As my brother Tom, principal of Eastbourne College, aptly put it, “It is this triple whammy that causes so much damage.”

Chancellor Rachel Reeves has been outspoken in arguing that independent schools save on efficiencies so they don’t have to pass on the entire 20 per cent increase in tuition fees to parents. Of course, schools have no choice but to charge parents the full amount of VAT. This is required by Labour’s own new legislation.

And if it were so easy for institutions to deal with rapid and multiple surcharges, then Ms Reeves would have to suffer by imposing an extra £40bn in taxes on private companies to fund the state. Instead, why not ask the public sector to make similarly significant efficiency savings?

In fact, the Prime Minister is proud of this persecution of the independent education sector. On New Year’s Day, the Treasury Department launched a social media campaign with an ad declaring that “tax breaks for private schools will end from 2025.”

But it’s not, or wasn’t, a tax cut.

The tax, known as VAT, was introduced after joining the European Community in 1973. This was introduced in place of a purchase tax that had never before been levied on education in any form.

However, since VAT levied a tax on all goods and services, the British government planned to exempt some of them. The food was one thing. Education was something else altogether. In fact, education has been exempted from VAT in all European countries.

What Keir Starmer’s government is currently doing is not scrapping ‘tax breaks’ but changing exemptions for education, only at the expense of the independent schools sector. For example, it does not require universities to charge VAT on tuition fees.

Timothy Straker KC, a leading tax law expert, points out, “I’ve never heard of anyone paying for college tuition getting a tax break.”

envy

I understand why the Labor Secretary, although disingenuously, continually represents that independent schools have enjoyed ‘tax breaks’.

They pursue a politics of envy by exploiting the sentiments of people who, when they hear the word ‘private school’, only think of Eton College, whose annual fee of £52,749 has now risen to more than £63,000. I am doing it. Standard private school – co-educational, with average fees of £15,000 (before VAT).

However, this disingenuous social media advertising campaign is not being led by Labor MPs, but is being run under the logo of the ‘Treasury’. In other words, it is the job of civil servants under political guidance. Our taxpayer-funded social media ads say the money raised by repealing the “tax breaks” will “enable better investments in state education,” including “adding 6,500 teachers.” continues to be advertised.

However, the Ministry of Finance has no idea how much money will be raised. This is because Treasury officials do not know how many parents will feel forced to withdraw their children from independent schools as a result of the policy, thereby increasing their burden. Regarding the state sector.

Additionally, the Treasury Department has no plans to ring-fence new private education taxes, if any, for use in state schools. That’s just a portion of the huge government revenue.

It would be equally true to say that new taxes would be used to fund overseas aid, or that money raised through inheritance tax would be used to fund “an additional 6,500 teachers” in the state sector. (Incidentally, this equates to just over a quarter of an additional teacher for every 25,000 schools retained.)

As another lawyer, Daniel Shensmith, pointed out, this social media advertising campaign “violates the rules of the Government Communications Ethics Guide.” This is a new tax and does not repeal tax breaks. ”

hood wink

In fact, some countries offer serious tax breaks to parents who send their children to independent schools. Denmark is one of them. And five of Canada’s 10 provinces are doing the same. These tax credits are based, in part, on the fact that it is cheaper for the state to do this than to fund such students entirely through the national treasury.

Paige McPherson, head of education policy at Canada’s Fraser Institute, exclaimed to the Daily Telegraph when informed of the UK government’s policy: Based on my understanding of different education systems around the world, it would be a fairly unique setting. ”

Yes, it’s unique. But sadly, if polls are to be believed, it also has wide support from the British public (by a margin of around 2:1).

This is part of what Education Secretary Bridget Phillipson calls “removing tax benefits for the ultra-wealthy,” which, as she boasts, will somehow “improve educational standards.” They appear to be completely fooled by Labor’s claims that it will lead to

If anything, it would do the opposite.

and the need for the state sector to handle perhaps thousands of additional pupils with special educational needs, whose already hard-pressed parents cannot afford to pay the new education tax for their children’s independent special schools. When faced with it, it will be Bridget Phillipson’s job. Please explain that.

What a cruel mess.