Top headteacher's fury at politicians who 'delight in the demise of independent schools'
The head of one of the largest private schools in the UK has hit out at politicians who 'delight in the demise of independent schools' and says her school makes £45m a year for the Scottish economy.
Lisa Kerr, who formerly led King Charles 's old school Gordonstoun, said those driven by their 'ideological beliefs' failed to recognise the massive economic benefits of private schools.
Now Principal at prestigious George Watson's College in Edinburgh, where 1 in 4 pupils attend private schools, one of the highest numbers in the UK, said: 'Our school alone contributed £34.8 million in GVA (gross added value) to the Edinburgh economy, supporting 580 jobs in the city.
'Across Scotland, our impact rose to £44.7 million GVA and 680 jobs.'
And Ms Kerr, who has previously slammed the government's VAT on fees tax raid as an 'existential threat' for private schools, said: 'The impact on Treasury coffers and state school places is only half the story.
'Those whose motivations are ideological and who delight in the demise of independent schools miss the significant economic impact we have on our communities and the benefits that are at stake as the sector shrinks.'
Pointing out the huge savings City of Edinburgh Council had made because of children being educated outside the state sector, she explained: 'By educating nearly 2500 pupils, our school saved the public purse a staggering £18.9m with £15.7m of this directly relating to savings made by City of Edinburgh Council from us educating pupils in this area.
'In addition to the staff we employ directly, the school has a valuable and long term supply chain including catering, construction, engineering and cleaning, some for as long as 25 years.'
The Labour-run council has been in the firing line since The Mail on Sunday first revealed its hardline anti private school policies such as charging sick kids on cancer wards at the Royal Hospital for Children and Young People in Edinburgh £115 an hour for tuition if they went to private schools while state school children received it free.
Ms Kerr also warned the huge numbers quitting the independent sector – 'four times the government estimate at 13,000' – would have a devastating impact on the state sector.
She said: 'Once numbers are in for the rest of the year, the Treasury sums will be further adrift. The numbers for this flawed policy just don't add up; not only will the government fail to raise the promised income but it will put serious strain on the public purse as more pupils are forced to move to already stretched state schools.'
Ms Kerr has previously revealed admissions numbers are dropping at the historic college, originally founded in the 18th century, where fees have risen by up to £19,991 a year because of VAT on school fees.
And she warned local partnerships which had delivered 'significant positive social impact' including work with the Edinburgh Food Project, an HIV education project and work with local primary schools were now under threat.
'As admissions and pupil numbers fall due to the introduction of the politically driven education tax, these benefits are at significant risk. This will not only damage Edinburgh's economy but will also increase the taxpayer burden.
'It is time for the government to go back to the calculator, be honest about the actual benefits that any school will ever see and to rethink this policy.'
The UK Government has repeatedly defended its stance, stating that ending tax breaks for private schools will raise £1.8billion a year by 2029/30, to be spent 'supporting the 94 per cent of children in state schools'.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Times
20 minutes ago
- Times
I'm grieving and I made a mistake, now my £8k inheritance is lost
My mother died recently, which was the last in a sequence of horrible events after the death of my son and my own cancer diagnosis. Mum left me a small inheritance of £8,370 which was sent to my NatWest account. I planned to transfer it to an account that my husband holds with Lloyds so that he could buy a new boiler for our house. We are both pensioners and the money from my mum's estate is a lifeline to us. I made the transfer through my NatWest banking app, but I wasn't thinking clearly when I sent it instead to my Lloyds credit card, which had expired years ago. I know there's no excuse for this error but my mum's death was a dreadful experience. I am also still unwell and undergoing a series of investigations, which I hope goes some way to explain why I wasn't thinking clearly when I sent this payment. I immediately realised that the money had gone to the wrong account and felt sick to my stomach. I was in tears and spoke to NatWest to see if it could retrieve the money from Lloyds. Dealing with various Lloyds call centres has also been an absolute nightmare. I have been promised return calls that never materialise. I have been on hold for hours at a time while the operators vary from being pleasant to rude and impatient. I admit I've become frustrated and tearful at times but I have always explained the background of my situation. I made the mistake 12 days ago and the funds have now disappeared into the ether. No one will tell me where the money is or when I will get it back. I just want the money returned to my NatWest account. The stress of this situation is having a serious affect on my already poor health. I am terrified I won't see this money again, which is sorely and address supplied I was so sorry to hear of the devastating series of events that had turned your life upside down and can totally understand why you were not thinking clearly when you made this payment. Usually when money is sent to an expired account, the payment is retrieved and returned to the source. But your case was slightly different because there was an outstanding debt linked to your old credit card account. You told me this amounted to £60 but you had long forgotten about it. The problem was that this debt had been outstanding for so long that Lloyds had passed the account's history to a debt collection agency. This made it harder for Lloyds to track down the account. Plus, as the account was no longer active it was difficult for it to match your details to the information it had in its system. Thankfully when I stepped in Lloyds found the payment, and a few days later the money was back in your NatWest account. You have now also repaid the £60 debt. I felt that Lloyds should have helped you sooner, instead of leaving you in the lurch and giving you conflicting information at a time of extreme distress. It explained that because of the different teams involved in locating and returning the money, the information you were given depended on which team you were talking to. Those teams were not linked up, which is also why you didn't get the return calls you were promised. Lloyds said: 'We're here to help customers during difficult moments and we're sincerely sorry the support we gave our customer was not at the level she rightly expected. We've returned her money and made a payment in recognition that our service wasn't good enough on this occasion.' It gave you £250 compensation and has told you about several charities that may be able to give you some extra support. You said: 'It's clear that this was resolved as a result of your intervention so I can't thank you enough.' • Read more money advice and tips on investing from our experts I work for a small business that sells memorabilia and over the past five years we have used a company called Bionic to manage our gas and electricity deals. When our contract is coming up for renewal, Bionic sends us quotes from suppliers and arranges the switch on our behalf. We had an email from Bionic last September telling us that our contract with British Gas was ending in May. We decided we would shop around and get our own quotes to see if we could get a better deal. I contacted Bionic online in September to say that we no longer needed its services. The agent said we should wait until the company had sent the next quote before opting out. When we got the quotes later that month, I got back in touch using its webchat service to confirm that we didn't want to go ahead with the renewal. I made it clear that we no longer wanted Bionic to act on our behalf and, based on this conversation, I assumed that our contract with the company had been terminated. A few months later I contacted British Gas to check when our energy deal ended, but was told that Bionic had already signed us up for another three-year deal with the company. We were not sent any information about this new deal and had given Bionic sufficient notice to terminate our contract, so we can't understand how this happened. I complained to Bionic but it said it had no record of the second webchat conversation in September where I had confirmed that we wanted to opt out. We have gone back and forth with Bionic to try and get it to cancel this contract that we never agreed to, but to no Lancashire • Compare exchange rates with our currency converter Bionic told me that it had sent you an email to confirm the new contract, but this was news to you and you said you never got the email. I was surprised that Bionic had signed you up to a three-year contract without you agreeing to it, but it explained that its digital renewal service is designed so that, unless a customer gets in touch to opt out, it assumes that they are happy with the quote and automatically signs them up. One Bionic email contained a quote and gave you three days to opt out. Once that deadline was reached, you were then locked into a contract and couldn't cancel. Three days seems like a very small window of time to opt out, which I imagine could catch out some people if they missed an email, yet Bionic said that suppliers can hold prices only for a short time. I also thought it was odd that Bionic finalised your contract eight months before your contract expired. It told me that it buys in bulk up to 12 months in advance and that, because of this, its customers get discounts on deals and are shielded from the price movements in the energy market. But regardless of this, you said you had made it clear that you wanted to cancel before the contract was finalised, so why didn't Bionic act on that? It showed me a transcript of the conversation on September 17 where you said you would like to cancel, but were urged to wait until the latest quotes had come through before confirming that you wanted to opt out. You said there was a subsequent webchat on September 26 where you had confirmed that you wished to cancel, but Bionic claimed it had no record of it. It also said that it has never lost a webchat and told me that it has 'complete and accurate records of all interactions'. • Online antique buyer lost my 91-year-old mum's treasures I could not work out why your version of events was different to Bionic's, but after I stepped in, it agreed to cancel your contract. Bionic said: 'Customers can choose to opt out of our digital renewal service at any time prior to finalisation of a replacement contract. As a gesture of goodwill and a demonstration of our commitment to ensuring customer satisfaction, we are prepared to arrange the cancellation of the replacement contract.' You have now arranged a contract directly with a supplier and said: 'This is the outcome that we wanted, but it is still very frustrating that we had to go through this ordeal in the first place. I believe this would not be resolved without your input, so thank you.' • £868,409 — the amount Your Money Matters has saved readers so far this year If you have a money problem you would like Katherine Denham to investigate email yourmoneymatters@ Please include a phone number
Times
20 minutes ago
- Times
‘No Carbon' Carney has left us high and dry
A bit like a sort of unreliable boyfriend. This, rather brilliantly, was the description of the record of the governor of the Bank of England, Mark Carney, by the Labour MP Pat McFadden, then a member of the Treasury select committee. That was in 2014, when the handsome Canadian, hailed as the 'George Clooney of central banking', was just a year into his tenure. McFadden was not talking about Carney's personal life: it was a metaphor for his policy of interest rate 'forward guidance', which was proving no sort of guidance at all. It was all over the place. In one respect, however, there was complete consistency in Carney's record over seven years as this country's most powerful unelected figure. He determinedly used his position to push Britain's banks into defunding the oil and gas industry, on the grounds that man-made climate change was of primary importance, and that financial institutions should base their investment decisions on the proposition that 80 per cent of the planet's hydrocarbon reserves were 'un-burnable'. His wise predecessor, Mervyn King, questioned the decision to make fighting climate change part of the Bank of England's remit, arguing that it made 'absolutely no sense' to add 'net zero' to its responsibilities, and that the Bank should stick to its knitting (interest rates and price stability) and leave environmental policies to the politicians. However, after leaving the Bank in 2020, Carney stuck to his mission. Under the auspices of the UN, he set up the Net Zero Banking Alliance, co-opting a large number of the world's biggest banks, representing $74 trillion in assets, into basing their lending on the mission to achieve 'net zero by 2050'. This, combined with the Labour government's policies under Ed Miliband, has meant that, as one British oil company executive put it to me, 'Not a single UK bank will lend to the North Sea industry'. The Net Zero Banking Alliance, more recently, has suffered an exodus of its American members, which have fallen in line with Donald Trump's agenda (summarised as 'Drill, baby, drill'). But surely, now that Carney has at last achieved his ambition of becoming Canadian prime minister, he is using all the power of that position to fight the good fight. Er, no. One reason Carney actually won the recent election was that he pledged to scrap the 'carbon tax' implemented by Justin Trudeau, for which he had previously proselytised. In office Carney has kept that promise — and in recent weeks gone much further in the opposite direction to everything he did when Bank of England governor. He appointed as energy minister a man who was an executive of an oil exploration and production company in Alberta, the heart of Canada's vast hydrocarbon reserves. These are known as the Alberta oil sands, covering an area the size of England and described some years ago by National Geographic (not a fan) as 'the world's largest industrial project … Especially north of Fort McMurray, where the boreal forest has been razed and bitumen is mined from the ground in immense open pits, the blot on the landscape is incomparable.' Carney has relaxed the emission restrictions that hampered this development (among others) and declared two weeks ago that he wanted Canada to be 'an energy superpower … in both clean and conventional energies. And, yes, that does mean oil and gas. It means using our oil and gas here in Canada to displace imports wherever possible, particularly from the United States. It makes no sense to be sending that money south of the border or across the ocean, so, yes, it also means more oil and gas exports, without question.' • The oil-rich Canadian cowboys who want their own Brexit What accounts for this remarkable transformation? Pure political expediency. Trudeau's policy had been profoundly unpopular, and the Conservative candidate, Pierre Poilievre, constantly referred to 'carbon tax Carney'. So, shamelessly disowning his own previous advocacy, Carney dumped it. Then there were the idiotic threats from Trump to annex Canada. While that will 'never happen' (to quote Carney), the prospect of Albertan secession was less improbable, as that province had been sorely provoked by the ecologically motivated threats to its hydrocarbon industry. Canada as a whole could not afford such a secession, and immediately after Carney's election win, the premier of Alberta, Danielle Smith, introduced a bill to make a referendum on the matter much simpler to implement. She simultaneously called on Carney to make various concessions, which 'must include abandoning the unconstitutional oil and gas production cap'. He got the message. It was no coincidence that, as host of last week's G7 summit, Carney chose to hold it in Alberta. In the final communiqué, the topic of climate change was barely mentioned. To put it mildly, this has confused those who deeply admired Carney, not least in this country, for his previously passionate campaigning against oil and gas investment. But when I asked someone who worked closely with the man at the Bank of England what had happened to his old boss, he laughed and said: 'I must have told you before that Mark is fundamentally a trader, and therefore prepared to adapt principles to circumstances.' This was partly a reference to the fact that Carney's career before becoming a central banker was at Goldman Sachs. But what does this mean for the UK, still thoroughly enmeshed by the net zero policies in which Carney played such a central role? As Brendan Long, a Canadian energy analyst, told The Daily Telegraph last week: 'It means that while Canada's oil and gas industry is ramping up production under Carney, the UK remains aligned with the anti-oil and gas ideology he promoted when he was governor of the Bank of England.' Although Ed Miliband has now indicated a reversal of his opposition to the development of two North Sea fields, known as Rosebank and Jackdaw, the government is keeping its radical policy of banning all new exploration; across the median line, Norway has declared it will be boosting its North Sea exploration and production to the highest level since 2010. The crazy point, which fits in with the government's target but not the national interest, is that if we buy Norwegian gas, it does not come out of our 'carbon budget', as administered by the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero. Similarly, when we've shut down our entire domestic oil and gas operation and are buying the Canadian hydrocarbons that Carney is now so keen to boost, we will make the (unelected) Climate Change Committee — charged with setting our carbon budgets and invigilating our progress to purity — happy. Not so much the British voters, I fear, come our own general election in a few years' time.
Times
an hour ago
- Times
Abortion overreach will backfire on women
One of the many, many reasons I prefer living in the UK to the US is the former's more clement weather, which reflects the country's calmer politics. By contrast, America's storms and wildfires feel like a metaphor for its political debates, not least on abortion. So it's apt that, just as a heatwave arrives in this country, the British left loses its mind over abortion. Last week MPs voted to support an amendment, proposed by the Labour MP Tonia Antoniazzi, which argues that women who obtain an abortion should never be prosecuted, even if it's after the legal 24-week limit. This sounds good in theory (abortion should not be criminalised, yes, agreed) but is in fact completely nuts. The law already allows late-term abortions in extreme circumstances, but now a woman could have an abortion the day before her due date for any reason she fancied. Now, very few women will do this, and in fact very few ever have, and the harrowing stories that have been used to justify this vote largely took place during the Covid lockdown, when women were buying abortion pills in the post and couldn't see doctors to find out how far along they were in their pregnancy. So: not a widespread problem, and one that could be resolved by re-examining how the Crown Prosecution Service deals with these sad cases. • `Read more: MPs vote to decriminalise abortion Instead, MPs have decided to chuck out the UK's heretofore liberal but pragmatic approach in favour of something far more radical that most people don't want: 87 per cent of the British public are in favour of legalised abortion, but more than half draw the line at the abortion of a healthy baby over the six-month limit. Antoniazzi's amendment upends the delicate compromise that existed until now. Sensing their moment has come, politicians on the right are already arguing that the time limit here should be cut, in line with most of Europe. Meanwhile, some on the left are arguing the amendment doesn't go far enough. Stella Creasy proposed a further amendment, which was written by the part-time tax barrister, occasional fox murderer and full-time tweeter Jolyon Maugham, that would have made it impossible even to prosecute those who coerced women into late-term abortions. This was considered so extreme it was rejected by every abortion provider in the country, and also, wisely, by MPs. Undaunted, Creasy, who seems to believe she represents Washington DC rather than Walthamstow, implied that rejecting her amendment was on a par with the overturning of Roe v Wade. By way of evidence, she reeled off voguish American clichés ('the Donald Trump playbook', 'women's bodies as battlefields') which always suggest the speaker is so high on progressive platitudes they have turned off their brain. If Creasy and her ilk want to take lessons from America, they should look at what happened last week to what is euphemistically called 'paediatric gender healthcare'. On Wednesday the Supreme Court allowed red states like Tennessee to ban doctors from giving hormone treatments and body-altering surgery to gender-confused children. It is the latest blow for the gender movement in the US, and it was entirely caused by overreach by activists. Until about a decade ago, people who wanted to live as the opposite sex were seen as a niche adult demographic who should be treated with kindness. But activist groups destroyed that moderate status quo with their ludicrous arguments, such as that male rapists could be sent to women's prisons and there should be no age limit on body-altering surgery for children. The Biden administration blindly supported them until belatedly realising it was following the wilfully blind, and American politicians are now, at last, trying to undo some of the damage. None of this worked out well for trans people or the left. Progressive overreach and reality denial will always cause a backlash, something Maugham should know, given his own flailing gender activism. Creasy, too, has argued that 'some women are born with penises', suggesting a strong disconnect between her beliefs and actual biology. I'm not sure when Labour politicians decided to follow their Democrat counterparts in defending the most extreme version of a social shift, but they need to get a grip. One reason US feminists lost the abortion argument is they insisted abortion was no big deal and derided Hillary Clinton for describing it as something that should be 'safe, legal and rare', saying that last word was 'stigmatising'. It turned out that it's a lot more stigmatising to pretend getting an abortion is just a jolly lark that should come with a loyalty card. When I was 23 and 11 weeks pregnant, I had an abortion, an experience neither jolly nor terrible but necessary. Afterwards, I felt pure gratitude, which is how I still feel about it now. Since then I've sampled many experiences on the fertility menu: given birth to twins, miscarried, had a baby. You don't need to be a wet-eyed sentimentalist to know a baby becomes a baby well before it's born; I could feel when it happened to all of my babies at about the six-month mark. The legal limit exists for good reasons, including the mother's mental health, and maintaining public support for abortion. Arguing that a woman has the right to terminate a fully gestated healthy baby is the most self-defeating version of the pro-choice movement, because it will reinvigorate the anti-abortion argument in this country, just as arguing for the most extreme version of trans rights destroyed the moderate accommodations that existed before. Labour has kicked a hornets' nest with this vote. And it's women who are going to be stung.
