Fettes College may cut jobs after Government's VAT decision
The private school in Edinburgh said it needs to run its operations "as efficiently as possible".
Jobs at a prestigious Scots private school may be lost as it looks to cut costs following the UK Government's introduction of VAT on school fees.
Fettes College in Edinburgh said the decision was one of the reasons it took the 'difficult' decision to 'right size our staffing model'.
The Scotsman reported that the school – attended by former prime minister Tony Blair – has opened a consultation process for both teaching and operational staff in order to reduce numbers.
The most recent accounts show 751 students in August 2024, down from 780 the previous year.
academic year, inclusive of VAT.
The Labour government imposed VAT on private education and boarding fees, effective from January 1. Ministers argue that removing the VAT exemption will benefit the wider education sector, including the 94% of pupils who attend state schools.
A spokesman for Fettes College said the sector is facing a 'tough time' and appealed for privacy for the staff involved.
Join the Daily Record WhatsApp community!
Get the latest news sent straight to your messages by joining our WhatsApp community today.
You'll receive daily updates on breaking news as well as the top headlines across Scotland.
No one will be able to see who is signed up and no one can send messages except the Daily Record team.
All you have to do is click here if you're on mobile, select 'Join Community' and you're in!
If you're on a desktop, simply scan the QR code above with your phone and click 'Join Community'.
We also treat our community members to special offers, promotions, and adverts from us and our partners. If you don't like our community, you can check out any time you like.
To leave our community click on the name at the top of your screen and choose 'exit group'.
If you're curious, you can read our Privacy Notice.
The spokesman said: 'Various factors have conspired to increase costs on all organisations and schools are not immune, particularly with the recent imposition of VAT on school fees and rise in national insurance contributions.
'Despite being financially very well managed with a strong student roll, these factors are having an impact on our costs and numbers, and we are obliged to run our operations as efficiently as possible.
'These headwinds obviously affect our families too and our parents need to be certain that we are taking the necessary decisions to run the school efficiently and to use their money effectively.
'A consultation process began in May to right size our staffing model. This difficult decision may result in some redundancies.
'We will continue to provide the highest standard of educational experience, delivering our innovative vision for the school and maintaining our position as a leader in the sector.'
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Telegraph
10 minutes ago
- Telegraph
Blair's old school ‘to axe teachers' after Labour VAT raid
Teachers at Sir Tony Blair's former college are facing redundancy after Labour's VAT raid on private school fees. Fettes College in Edinburgh, which charges up to £54,000 a year, is examining its options for reducing staff after changes to VAT and National Insurance forced it into 'difficult' decisions. It comes as private schools experienced their biggest year-on-year drop in pupil numbers for more than a decade. A number of schools across the country have also had to close, with others revealing the cost of Labour changes had run into seven figures. Fettes College sits on 100 acres and offers mountain views, woodland and green space on campus. Pupils pay up to £15,150 a term, rising to £18,000 if they board. However, it has been hit by Chancellor Rachel Reeves's decision to remove the VAT exemption on private school fees from January 1 and hike employer National Insurance contributions from 13.8 per cent to 15 per cent. It is now running a consultation with staff that could lead to redundancies. A Fettes College spokesman said: 'Various factors have conspired to increase costs on all organisations and schools are not immune, particularly with the recent imposition of VAT on school fees and rise in National Insurance contributions. 'Despite being financially very well managed with a strong student roll, these factors are having an impact on our costs and numbers, and we are obliged to run our operations as efficiently as possible. 'A consultation process began in May to right-size our staffing model. This difficult decision may result in some redundancies.' Experts have previously warned that the raid could hurt thousands of Scottish children with special educational needs and disabilities. Pupils with an educational, health and care plan are exempt from the increase in fees, but the system does not exist in Scotland. Private school pupil numbers have already fallen by more than 11,000 across England, with some schools already forced to close after becoming unaffordable. Park Hill School in Surrey, London-based Falcons School and Wakefield Independent School are among those which have said they will shut their doors. The headmaster of Malvern College, based in Worcestershire, said the raid had cost his school £2m. Earlier this month, affected families brought a series of High Court legal challenges in a bid to reverse the Government's decision. However, judges dismissed all three claims in a single judgment. Julie Robinson, chief executive of the Independent Schools Council, said: 'This is an unprecedented tax on education, and it was right that its compatibility with human rights law was tested. '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.'
Telegraph
25 minutes ago
- Telegraph
‘Tax is theft': it's time the Tories remembered that eternal truth
Suppose I were to force my way into your home and help myself to half your possessions. I hope everyone can see that my behaviour would be wrong. Does it become right when I get to call myself 'the government', and to label my confiscation 'tax'? Even in a democracy, I surely need a good reason to violate the rules of morality by which everyone else is expected to live. That, in a nutshell, is the case for libertarianism. Supporters of limited government want the state to be bound, to the greatest possible extent, by the same norms as the rest of us. Government intervention should be a last rather than a first resort. In what has become the global libertarian motto: 'Don't hurt people, don't take their stuff.' Critics on both sides scoff at the idea that there is a moral basis to libertarianism. Leftists think it is a cover for greed and selfishness. Rightists, or at least Trumpians and National Conservatives, dismiss it as the creed of rootless cosmopolitans. But all it really is is the application to official bodies of the ethical precepts we learn at nursery school. Treat other people considerately, don't take things that aren't yours, tell the truth, try not to get into fights. There was a time when mothers would tell their children to 'be civil': an apt word, recalling that decency, politeness and respect are attributes of citizenship, conditions for a happy and harmonious society. Those mums were channelling David Hume, who wrote of 'the three fundamental laws of nature, that of the stability of possession, of its transference by consent, and of the performance of promises'. Hume in turn was drawing on centuries of classical, Biblical, Islamic and Eastern philosophy. In all these traditions, alongside the Golden Rule, he found its less ambitious but more feasible twin, the Silver Rule. The Golden Rule tells us to treat others as we would like to be treated. The trouble is that, for most of us, this is rarely achievable. I might walk past a beautiful house and wish it were mine, but that doesn't make me post my own keys through its letterbox. For those of us who are not saints, the Silver Rule, being negative in its conception, has the advantage of practicability. Confucius phrased it as 'Do not impose on others what you yourself do not want'. Quite. Don't hurt people, don't take their stuff. There is a Talmudic story of an impatient gentile who asks a rabbi to teach him the entirety of the Torah while standing on one leg. The rabbi sends him away crossly, so the gentile makes the same demand of another rabbi, who happens to be the famously wise Hillel. Hillel tells him: 'That which is hateful to you, do not do unto your fellow. That is the whole Torah; the rest is commentary.' If you feel I am labouring the point, it is because I sense the tide running against us. The world is in a bossy, censorious, authoritarian mood, and has been since the lockdowns. The individualist philosophy that stretches back through Hume via John Locke to St Paul and Lao Tzu is losing ground, despite its monumental contributions to peace and prosperity. The Great Realignment, predicted two decades ago by Dr Steve Davies of the Institute of Economic Affairs, has happened. The old divide, which pitted classical liberals and capitalists against interventionists and socialists, has been replaced by a new one, one that divides patriots from globalists or (from the opposite perspective) bigots from believers in universal rights. 'There is no more Left and Right,' said Marine Le Pen at the last French presidential election. 'The real cleavage is between patriots and globalists.' Her opponent, Emmanuel Macron, did not dispute her framing: 'The new political split is between those who are afraid of globalisation and those who see globalisation as an opportunity.' This is uncomfortable for those of us who support national independence and cultural traditionalism as well as free contract and personal autonomy, a combination that did not seem strange to Margaret Thatcher or to Enoch Powell or, come to that, to Edmund Burke, the grandfather of Anglophone conservatism. For a long time, our opponents came overwhelmingly from the Left. They believed that patriotism was a form of false consciousness, a way to distract oppressed groups. Proletarians in different countries supposedly had more in common with each other than with the capitalists who happened to share their nationalities. Workers of the world should unite. Now, though, the critics tend to be professed anti-socialists, often idealistic and patriotic young men, convinced that classical liberalism places international interests over local loyalties, and that its exponents are soulless corporatists who feel at home only in Brussels or Davos. 'You know what a globalist is, right?' Donald Trump asked a rally in 2018. 'You know what a globalist is? A globalist is a person that wants the globe to do well, frankly, not caring about our country so much.' I spend a lot of time with classical liberals, and I have honestly never come across anyone who matches that caricature. We believe in free trade and open competition, not because we have elevated it into a dogma that stands above the national interest, but because it is the national interest. Countries with limited governments do better than countries with bloated governments. They are less corrupt, wealthier, happier and usually more equal. That our creed enriches the globe too is a happy bonus. I can't think of a better way to define our national interest than the net interest of the people in our nation. And that is best advanced if our government is circumscribed and limited. Every intervention that politicians make – every regulation, every tariff, every subsidy – privileges a particular group, usually one with political connections, over the general population. I'd call that the opposite of the national interest. 'One of the criticisms that I get from the Right is that I am insufficiently committed to the capital-M Market,' says J D Vance, arguing that markets should be a tool, not an objective in themselves. But who are these people who elevate the capital-M Market? Who are these demented ideologues who stalk Vance's imagination? You won't find them among the think-tankers of Tufton Street, who support markets precisely because they see them as a tool, a means to the end of greater national prosperity. The real ideologues are those who believe that governments, so inept at building cars, running airlines or installing telephones, suddenly become wise and disinterested when it comes to deciding which companies to subsidise or to shield from competition. Britain, of all countries, should understand that competition and free trade are a supreme expression of patriotism. It was these ideas that elevated us above the run of nations, turning us into the wealthiest country on Earth – a position we held until others copied our formula, thereby enriching themselves and incidentally enriching us, since prosperous neighbours are customers before they are competitors. Is the electorate, mired in post-lockdown stagnation, ready to hear such a message? Will voters prefer candidates who tell the truth about our public finances, and who argue for cuts, over those who claim that we can keep spending as long as we are compassionate enough? Not yet, perhaps. Hence Reform UK's shift away from classical liberalism and towards the nationalisation of selected industries and the maintenance of generous benefits. Yet we can see the storm gathering overhead. When the money runs out, so do people's illusions. There may yet be a reward for a grown-up party, a party prepared to stand apart from the high-spending, welfarist consensus. Even if that position does not attract 50 per cent support plus one, it will attract a lot more than 18 per cent support, which is where the Conservatives are currently polling. In any case, it is the right thing to do – right both economically and morally. Perhaps, in time, it will come to be right politically, too.
Daily Mail
4 hours ago
- Daily Mail
The ten ways to protect your money from a disaster: As the threat of nuclear war looms and cyberattacks soar, experts reveal the life-saving ways every family can keep their cash safe
In an increasingly fraught world, threats to the security of our finances are coming from all sides. The prospect of war between the US and Iran, paired with growing domestic concerns, means you'd be forgiven for worrying about how it might affect you.
