£43,000-a-year boarding school is forced to make 'heart-wrenching' decision to close after 125 years following Labour's tax raid on private education
A £43,000-a-year boarding school has been forced to make the 'heart-wrenching' it will close after 125 years following Labour's tax raid on private education.
Labour 's decision to levy VAT on private school fees has dealt a heavy blow to the sector, which some institutions have been unable to deal with.
Queen Margaret's School For Girls in York has become the latest to announce its closure saying they are 'unable to withstand mounting financial pressure' following the introduction of VAT on fees.
The controversial tax, pledged in Labour's manifesto, came into force in January this year.
The school also blamed 'increased national insurance and pension contributions, the removal of charitable-status business rates relief, and rising costs for the upkeep and operation of our estate'.
The 114-year-old institution said that 'tireless efforts' in the past 18 months to 'respond to these challenges' included a possible merger or sale and the search for 'fresh investment'.
However, the school said 'none of these routes resulted in a successful outcome' and coupled with declining entries, it has 'been left with no alternative' but to close.
After 'strong student enquiry levels' in Autumn, the school said 'these declined sharply in early 2025 following the implementation of VAT' and is 'below the viable level required' to keep the school open.
The school added it is 'unable to meet the costs of closure' and has therefore filed a Notice to Appoint an Administrator.
The independent boarding and day school for girls aged 11 to 18 will shut for good at the end of their summer term on July 5.
A statement from Queen Margaret's School said: 'This is a heart-wrenching decision that no governing body wants to take, and we fully recognise that the closure of Queen Margaret's will be deeply distressing for the whole QM community.
'Our priority is the wellbeing of our pupils, their families and all of our incredible teaching staff, and we are committed to ensuring as smooth a transition as possible for everyone.
'We will work closely with every family to achieve the best possible solution for every pupil and will provide ongoing support to all members of staff.'
It comes as today private school families were dealt a devastating blow after they lost a High Court challenge to Labour's VAT on fees.
The judicial review claim, heard earlier this year, aimed to have the 20 per cent tax declared 'incompatible' with human rights law.
However, in a decision handed down this morning, judges rejected all claims, despite agreeing with some of the arguments.
Earlier this year, Maidwell Hall In Northamptonshire revealed plans to close after it had been 'adversely affected by external factors.
The 114-year-old institution said it had been operating at a loss for several years but 'received further blows last November, when the announcement of VAT on school fees and the elimination of business rates relief was confirmed in the Budget'.
As well as the VAT hike, private schools in England with charitable status will also be stripped of their 80 per cent business rates relief from April.
Loughborough Amherst school - which began in 1850 - is another recent victim of the economic headwinds facing the sector, alongside other institutions in Norfolk, Oxfordshire, Hertfordshire, Hampshire, Staffordshire, Leicestershire and Scotland.
Three groups of families – most of whom are anonymous – joined private schools in bringing a legal challenge against the policy.
Their lawyers argued the tax is a breach of children's right to an education under the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).
The various families also said it was 'discriminatory' – either because their child has special educational needs (SEN), has a preference for a religious education, or because they need an all-girls environment.
In their judgement this morning, Dame Victoria Sharp, Lord Justice Newey and Mr Justice Chamberlain agreed that the tax interfered with SEN children's human rights.
However, Parliament ultimately had the right make the decision, they concluded.
They said Parliament had a 'broad margin of discretion in deciding how to balance the interests of those adversely affected by the policy against the interests of others who may gain from public provision funded by the money it will raise'.
They added that 'the challenged legislation falls within that broad margin'.
They also pointed out, more generally, that the EHCR does not 'impose any general obligation on the state not to hinder access to private education.'
At the opening of the court case in April, families of children with SEN from all over the country protested outside.
They said they have been forced to choose the private sector due to the state provision for SEN being so poor – but cannot afford the extra cost of the VAT.
During the case, lawyers argued that even a report by the National Audit Office (NAO) had said SEN provision in the state sector was 'not delivering for children' and 'unsustainable'.
And they pointed out Education Secretary Bridget Phillipson appeared to agree, saying in October that the report highlighted a 'broken' system.
Government lawyers sparked outrage by trying to claim the NAO evidence was 'inadmissible'.
Sir Lindsay Hoyle, the Speaker of the House of Commons, was criticised at the time for backing the Government's position.
In today's judgement, judges agreed the evidence amounted to 'proceedings in Parliament' and therefore inadmissible.
However, the judges said it 'does not affect the outcome' of the case because most of the key facts in that report were now 'agreed' by both parties.
During one of the hearings, it was also revealed Labour had considered making an exemption for SEN children, but then decided it would not raise enough revenue.
In written submissions, Sir James Eadie KC, representing the Government, said: 'Having considered 17,502 consultation responses, the Government rejected the exemptions… because they were incompatible with the principles underpinning the policy, namely being revenue diminishing, unfair, unworkable and/or administratively onerous.'
He said the 'central objectives' in implementing the tax included 'raising additional tax revenue annually by 2029-2030 to invest in public services, including the state education system, and enhancing the fairness of the tax system overall.'
And he added that the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) projected the measure will yield exchequer revenue of £1.5billion in 2025/26, rising to £1.7 billion per year by 2029/30.
There is already an exemption in place for SEN children who have an education, health and care plan (EHCP), which entitles them to a higher level of state-backed support.
However, only a small proportion are able to get an EHCP, leaving the vast majority of SEN families having to pay the tax.
In their decision today, the judges said they accepted that a 'significant number of the pupils with SEN but no EHCP who are displaced from private schools into the state sector will receive materially worse provision for their SEN than they do now.'
They added: 'In some cases, that provision is likely to be inadequate, at least in the immediate future'.
Among the other claimants are Jewish pupils at specialist religious private schools who fear anti-Semitic attacks if they go into the state sector.
There is also a girl who had to attend a single-sex private school – the only all-girls school in her area – due to 'harassment' by boys at her co-educational state school.
And there are also claimants using Christian private schools because they cannot obtain the same religious education in the state system.
One is Stephen White, who has chosen not to be anonymous, and whose eldest four children are at Bradford Christian School, a private Christian school in West Yorkshire.
In April, he helped stage a protest outside the High Court to mark the opening of the case, joined by dozens of other parents from around the country not involved in the case.
This morning, the Christian Legal Centre, which supported his case, vowed to appeal the decision.
Meanwhile, the Independent Schools Council (ISC), which represents most private schools, said it would decide whether to appeal in considering its 'next steps'.
ISC chief executive Julie Robinson said: 'The ISC is carefully considering the court's judgment and next steps. Our focus remains on supporting schools, families and children.
'We will continue to work to ensure the Government is held to account over the negative impact this tax on education is having across independent and state schools.'
David Walker, director, Boarding Schools' Association (BSA), said: 'There are no winners here.
'It is unlikely VAT will raise the expected funds, given the drop in pupil numbers is already far higher than predicted, with boarding schools seeing a 4 per cent drop in pupil numbers over the last year.
'This means children and communities are suffering due to disrupted education or school closures.
'It is a particularly sad day for students with needs that cannot be met in the mainstream system.
'We urge the government to stop its assault on independent education, before more children are caught in the crosshairs.'
It comes after the Prime Minister was criticised yesterday for appearing to suggest the money raised from the tax would now be spent on housing, not teachers (pictured: Sir Keir Starmer's post on X)
A spokesman for parent group Education Not Taxation said: 'While we are disappointed in the overall outcome of the challenge, we are grateful that the Court recognised that imposing VAT on school fees will have a disproportionately prejudicial effect on pupils with SEN but no EHCP, and therefore that the Government's measure discriminates against them.
'As the Court found, the Government's education tax violates the human rights of these vulnerable children.
'Labour have consistently demanded respect for the European Convention of Human Rights and we expect them to think hard about what these senior judges have said – does their concern for human rights not extend to these rights for children as well?
'We urge the Government to reconsider its education tax.
'We look forward to meeting with ministers soon to reiterate the harms this is causing children and families and to discuss next steps.'
The Government has always maintained the tax is necessary to raise money for state schools – including providing 6,500 new teachers.
However, in an X post after Wednesday's Spending Review, Sir Keir appeared to suggest housing will now be the beneficiary.
He wrote: 'In the budget last year, my government made the tough but fair decision to apply VAT to private schools.
'The Tories opposed it. Reform opposed it.
'Today, because of that choice, we have announced the largest investment in affordable housing in a generation.'
Replying, Tory leader Kemi Badenoch said: 'You said 'every penny' would go into state schools... but now it's housing?'
In October 2024, the OBR estimated the new tax would lead to 35,000 fewer pupils in private schools.
A Government spokesman said: 'We welcome the court's decision, which confirms that the legislation is compatible with the Government's human rights obligations.
'Ending tax breaks for private schools will raise £1.8 billion a year, helping to support public services including the 94 per cent of pupils who attend state schools.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Daily Mail
32 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
SARAH VINE: A knighthood for Sadiq Khan when London is such a mess devalues the entire system. Why do we hand out honours to a bunch of self-satisfied sycophants?
What a relief it must have been for the His Majesty the King to discover that Sir Sadiq Khan, knighted by the monarch in the New Year's honours, was well satisfied with his experience at the Palace last week. As Sir Sadiq told reporters after his investiture, 'He [the King] was very chuffed that he managed to personally give me this honour, and he actually apologised for it taking so long – which is not a problem at all.'
Times
an hour ago
- Times
We're in a ‘global fertility crisis'. Does this woman have a solution?
Worrying about the decline in fertility used to be a fringe issue: the reserve of religious leaders, tweedy conservatives and cranky pronatalists. No longer. Last week the United Nations issued a report declaring a 'global fertility crisis'. According to Natalia Kanem, head of the UN Population Fund, which published the report, the world has 'begun an unprecedented decline in fertility rates'. The figures are stark, the consequences potentially grave. In 1950s Britain, for example, the average woman had 2.2 children. Now that figure is 1.44. We are not replacing ourselves. The question is why? The will to procreate is our most primal evolutionary urge, but something is dulling it. What's going on? • Britain needs babies! And PM should find the right words to say so The UN report cites many of the usual suspects: lack of childcare and job security, housing costs, fears about the future. One in five people surveyed in 14 countries said fears about climate change, war and pandemics held them back from reproducing. Thirty-nine per cent pointed to financial constraints. But what if there is something else going on too? One woman with a different answer is Alice Evans, a senior lecturer in the social science of development at King's College London. Evans, a brusque yet charming 38-year-old from Sevenoaks, Kent, has spent much of her professional life travelling round the world, speaking to people from Zambia to the Americas about children: why they want them, why they don't, and what is stopping them from having the family they might want. Evans acknowledges that the factors highlighted by the UN all play a role in the fertility crisis. Yet, she argues, none fully explain why this is happening everywhere, all at once — in countries with vastly different living standards, gender norms, parental leave policies and working practices. Could it be, Evans suggests, that we are spending so much time on the internet that we've stopped falling in love, stopped reproducing? Are we entertaining ourselves into oblivion? At first, this might seem outlandish. But dig into the data and it becomes surprisingly persuasive. 'Looking around the world, we see one really big change which coincides with the fall in fertility,' Evans says. Over the past 15 years or so, smartphones have become ubiquitous, and we have seen the rise of an astonishing array of online entertainment — from online sports gambling to pornography to television streaming services such as Netflix and Hulu. 'It's really only some parts of sub-Saharan Africa that have replacement fertility, which means that each woman would have over two kids in her lifetime,' Evans explains. 'In every other population in the world, we'd expect a contraction of the young working-age population.' What's so different about sub-Saharan Africa? Few people have smartphones. Evans fears that 'hyperengaging media' may be outcompeting the real-world interactions that lead to babies. We spend more time on screens and consequently more time alone. 'Young men in their twenties in the UK are spending as much time alone as men in their sixties and seventies,' she says. In today's Deliveroo and Netflix economy, we socialise less, meet fewer people, and are less likely to find the person with whom we want to have children. Dating apps are struggling to fill the gap. 'Looking both at marriage and cohabiting,' Evans says, 'both of those indicators are down. They are plummeting in Hong Kong, South Korea, across Southeast Asia, across South America.' She's just returned from Costa Rica, where the average age of marriage is 38 for men and 35 for women. In America, up to 55 per cent of under-34s have been estimated to be single. 'We know that half aren't even in a rush to get into a relationship, they aren't bothered about it,' she says. ● The nation's birthrate has plummeted. How did we get here? That fewer people feel rushed into relationships can, of course, be seen as a good thing: a sign of empowerment and freedom, particularly for women. But it's also the case that across the developed world, about a third of men say they are lonely. There is something of a vicious cycle at play too. As we socialise less, we become less charming, less interesting, less confident. 'If I spend every night scrolling or watching Bridgerton, then I'm not necessarily finessing my social skills,' Evans says. 'Maybe I don't have the confidence to just go up to a group of guys, or maybe I don't have a ready group of people to go out with.' Men and women also experience the internet in different ways. Social media algorithms show them different news, different opinions, amplifying the gender divide. It means that across many western countries, the political and cultural gap between young women (who tend to be on the left) and young men (on the right) is growing. Data from Gallup last year showed that American women are 30 percentage points more liberal than American men. In this country, many point to the exorbitant cost of childcare as an inhibiting factor for starting a family. Yet Sweden, with its abundant parental leave and universal childcare, has a birthrate very slightly lower than the UK's. Housing is expensive in many places, yes. But if housing was the major friction, Evans argues, 'we might expect young people to do the cheaper thing and live communally. Across Europe we've seen a massive increase in young men living by themselves.' Evans argues that declining fertility is a threat to our way of life. Without massive migration or some sort of boost from technology such as artificial intelligence, our working-age population will go into decline, our tax base will shrink, our welfare bill will balloon and our towns and villages will begin to resemble parts of rural Italy or Spain, which have begun to empty out. 'If you want to maintain our current standard of living and if you want to maintain economic growth, this is something we should take extremely seriously,' she says. It may also change our political leanings, with religious conservatives having more children than liberal progressives. Even the steps required to tackle climate change will be difficult without a large working population to pay the bill. So what can we do about it? There is no fix-all cure, Evans says. She herself has no children. She was born with Rokitansky syndrome, which means that she has no womb and only one ovary. For a small group of women, including her, improvements in IVF and other fertility technologies could be very important. • How do we get our babies back? More broadly, Evans suggests that if we want to see birthrates increase, and maintain our current standards of living, the government might consider providing serious tax incentives for those who have children. More youth clubs and more community groups might help, she suggests, as would making our culture more family-friendly. Evans would love to see more (and better) rom coms made, with plots celebrating finding love and having a family. She also suggests that we need a serious conversation about tech, and how we make it work for us. 'We need to tackle all these issues at once,' she says. 'No one policy, no one sledgehammer is going to fix everything.' In the midst of all this worrying news, however, there is one thing to celebrate. On Friday Evans married her partner, Usama Polani, a macroeconomist. Now, it's over to the rest of us to pair off.
Daily Mail
an hour ago
- Daily Mail
Rachel's gone on a £4TRILLION spending spree... so here's how to make sure it gives your investments a turbo boost: These are some of the firms that will win big - and how to invest in them
After the blowout comes the debt hangover – and economic experts expect us all to end up with sore heads and wallets after Rachel Reeve's Spending Review last week. But while we wait to see which of our taxes she'll raise in the autumn Budget to pay for it all, we can help ourselves by investing in some of the companies that will reap the benefits from her largesse.
