School fees blow as judges reject challenge to Labour tax - even though they say it's discriminatory
Private school families lost their challenge to Labour 's tax on fees yesterday – but judges still branded the measure 'discriminatory'.
The judgment by the High Court said the 20 per cent VAT would have a 'disproportionately prejudicial effect' on pupils with special needs.
However, it also ruled Parliament still had the right to impose such a decision. Yesterday, the Boarding Schools Association said it was a 'sad day' for vulnerable pupils, adding: 'There are no winners here.' At least one of the claimants now plans to appeal.
Paul Conrathe, solicitor at SinclairsLaw which represented a group of special educational needs parents, Education Not Discrimination, said 'the Government should hang its head in shame'.
There was anger over the Government's insistence during the case that the tax would benefit state schools. This week it suggested that the money will now pay for housing.
VAT on school fees was introduced on January 1, having been pledged in Labour's manifesto. The claim against it was brought by three groups of families and some private schools. They aimed to have the tax declared 'incompatible' with human rights laws.
Yesterday's judgment, by Dame Victoria Sharp, Lord Justice Newey and Mr Justice Chamberlain, agreed that the tax was 'discriminatory' against pupils with special educational needs. It also interfered with their right to an education under the European Convention on Human Rights, they said.
'If the imposition of VAT makes the fees unaffordable, there is a significant risk that the state school to which they transfer will not provide adequately for their needs,' they added. 'The measure will have a disproportionately prejudicial effect on them.'
However, they concluded Parliament had a 'broad margin of discretion in deciding how to balance the interests of those adversely affected against the interests of others who may gain from public provision funded by the money it will raise'.
Many parents of special educational needs children pay fees because private schools offer better pastoral care. The Government said the court had confirmed its legislation was 'compatible with its human rights obligations'.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Telegraph
11 minutes ago
- Telegraph
How the fate of endangered swifts has become a political battleground
As thorny issues go, the plight of the humble swift may seem an unlikely controversy to split political thinking. But, a proposed new law to make including a single 'swift brick' – a block with a cavity for a bird's nest – compulsory for all new homes is now at the heart of a pitched Westminster battle. Reform UK is hoping the environmental cause celebre for the 50 million-year-old species – backed by unlikely allies Jeremy Clarkson and Chris Packham – will help garner them support within the countryside's traditional Tory heartlands. Richard Tice recently posed holding a sign calling for the bricks to be used to help endangered cavity-nesting birds, such as swifts, house martins, sparrows and starlings. The Reform deputy leader, who was once a housing developer, used social media to declare his support for the scheme and asked: 'why won't the Government act?' He wrote: 'The Conservatives rejected swift bricks in government, and now Labour is backtracking despite supporting them in opposition. 'Swifts – one of Britain's most iconic birds – are in steep decline, along with other cavity-nesting species. All they need is a brick with a hole. It's simple, low-cost, and essential.' The party's five MPs are now backing an amendment to the Government's planning Bill in a bid to make the £35 bricks compulsory. The amendment, tabled by Barry Gardiner, the Labour rebel, and backed by the Green party, Liberal Democrats and some Tory MPs, was revised to incorporate the bricks into building regulations, said to be the only way to ensure developers fit them to new dwellings. Although Labour supported the swift brick amendment when it was tabled in Conservative government legislation which failed in 2023, it has now reversed its position. Instead of legislation, Matthew Pennycook, the Housing Minister, wants guidelines to encourage, rather than compel, developers to fit the bricks. Hannah Bourne-Taylor, a 38-year-old former model and now environmentalist who has campaigned tirelessly on the issue – as well as walk nearly naked to Whitehall to promote the cause – believes her campaign has split the Right. She said: 'The swift bricks issue has become an unlikely political battleground. It is now a dividing line between Reform, who have declared their unequivocal support, and the Conservatives, who repeatedly failed while in Government to introduce a law to make them mandatory. 'The Tories are traditionally the party of the countryside. It remains to be seen whether they will pass it through the House of Lords where they have a majority. 'If they don't, the Tories will have killed off this amendment and have turned their backs on an issue that should be their domain. 'As for any fears Sir Keir Starmer may have that this scheme could scupper their plans to 'build baby build'; it seems remarkable that a brick used to do just that – build – could be seen to block developments.' The issue is to be debated in the Commons again during the report stage of the planning and infrastructure bill. The Conservatives failed to respond to a request for comment. A spokesman for the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government said: 'We've always been clear that our ambition to get Britain building and deliver the 1.5 million homes should create a win-win for nature recovery and development. 'Swift bricks are a simple and effective way to prevent the decline of an important bird species, without impacting building delivery ambitions.'
The National
26 minutes ago
- The National
Why Israel bombed Iran in its biggest attack since the 1980s
Israeli leaders cast the attack as necessary to head off an imminent threat that Iran would build nuclear bombs, though it remains unclear how close the country is to achieving that or whether Iran had actually been planning a strike. Iran maintains its nuclear programme is for civilian purposes only. READ MORE: Israel warns 'Tehran will burn' if Iran continues firing missiles in retaliation 'This is a clear and present danger to Israel's very survival,' Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu claimed as he vowed to pursue the attack for as long as necessary to 'remove this threat'. Israel is widely believed to be the only nuclear-armed state in the Middle East but has never acknowledged having such weapons. Why did Israel bomb Iran? Israel's seemingly well-planned attack comes as tensions have escalated over Iran's rapidly advancing nuclear programme, which Israel sees as a threat to its existence. Israel said it targeted nuclear and military facilities, killing Iran's top military and nuclear scientists, adding that the barrage was necessary before its adversary got any closer to building an atomic weapon. The strikes took place despite negotiations between Iran and the United States over the future of Tehran's nuclear programme. READ MORE: I'm an Iranian in the UK. Labour have emboldened Israel to launch attacks on my hom Iran had been censured by the UN's atomic watchdog a day earlier for not complying with obligations meant to prevent it from developing a nuclear weapon. Israel had long threatened such a strike, and successive US administrations had sought to prevent it, fearing it would ignite a wider conflict across the Middle East and possibly be ineffective at destroying Iran's dispersed and hardened nuclear programme. What did the IAEA, the UN's atomic watchdog, say about Iran? On Thursday, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) reported that Iran had failed to uphold the obligations it had signed on to as part of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Iran rejected the accusation while the IAEA believed was a long history of non-cooperation between Iran and inspectors. However, it did not say that Iran had developed nuclear weapons. Experts and the US government have also assessed that Tehran was not actively working on such a weapon. Has Israel again broken international law by attacking Iran? The short answer is: According to some, yes. Israel has breached dozens of international laws in its onslaught of Gaza. Michael Becker, a professor of international human rights law at Trinity College in Dublin, said: 'Based on publicly available information, Israel's use of force against Iran does not fit within the inherent right of self-defence enshrined in the UN Charter." Protesters hold posters of Mohammad Mahdi Tehranchi (left) and Major-General Hossein Salami of the IRGC (right), who were reported killed earlier today, on June 13 (Image: Getty) 'Self-defence requires Israel's actions to be directed at an ongoing or imminent armed attack by Iran,' added Becker, who has previously worked at the International Court of Justice in The Hague. 'There is no indication that an attack by Iran against Israel was imminent, nor is it sufficient under international law for Israel to justify the attack based on its assessment that Iran will soon have a nuclear capability, especially given the ongoing negotiations between the US and Iran.' Here is a timeline of some significant events between Israel and Iran:
Telegraph
26 minutes ago
- Telegraph
Hate crime probe into ex-Labour MP dropped in two-tier policing row
A fresh two-tier policing row has erupted after a force failed to bring charges against a former Labour MP who said Israel has forfeited any right to exist. Chris Williamson was hugely criticised when he made the comment on X, formerly Twitter, just days after Hamas launched its October 7 attack in 2023. Mr Williamson told his 149,000 followers on X: 'The people of the world now know that Israel has forfeited the right to exist and that resistance to the genocidal Zionist entity is the only option. Yet our political leaders still collaborate with this vile regime. So make them pay at the ballot box.' The former Jeremy Corbyn ally became the subject of a hate crime probe after Derbyshire Police received multiple reports about his comments. Around 18 months later, the force said no action would be taken. The decision has sparked fresh allegations of 'two-tier policing', a term used to describe the potential for different standards of policing based on an individual's background or politics. It contrasts with several other cases that have seen individuals who have made comments on social media calling for violence or destruction face arrest, charges and jail time. Last month, a Jewish protester was arrested and charged by the Metropolitan Police after briefly holding a placard satirising a Hezbollah terrorist leader. Allison Pearson, a columnist at The Telegraph, was questioned by police at home last year following a post on X following pro-Palestine demonstrations. Julian Foulkes, a retired special constable, was wrongly cautioned by Kent Police over a social media post warning about the threat of anti-Semitism in Britain. There is also mounting anger over the case of Lucy Connolly, who was jailed for 31 months for saying hotels housing migrants should be set on fire. Mr Williamson was criticised after refusing to condemn the attacks when he appeared on Radio 4's Today programme after The Workers Party of Britain, of which he is deputy leader, won the Rochdale by-election with George Galloway, the former MP. During his BBC interview, Mr Williamson said: 'You can't expect to live in a situation where people have been oppressed for 75 years and not expect a reaction.' He also claimed that most of those slaughtered on October 7 had been killed by Israeli forces. But the police said they had now completed their enquiries and that no action would be taken. A spokesman for Derbyshire Police said: 'Derbyshire Constabulary recorded a non-crime hate incident in October 2023 after receiving reports about a tweet regarding the Israel/Palestine conflict. 'Enquiries then began to establish if a crime had been committed. 'During the course of these enquiries, which included consultations with the Crown Prosecution Service, officers found that the evidential threshold for a crime to have been committed was not met. 'The incident was subsequently filed with no further action and all relevant parties were informed.' Peter Bleksley, the former Met detective, said: 'This is two-tier policing, plain and simple. One rule for one, one rule for another. 'There is no consistency with these cases and that creates bigger issues for policing as a whole. 'It's a very worrying time.' A Jewish man in Derby, who did not want to be identified, said he was 'appalled' at the comments. He said: 'Police need to make their minds up on what action and direction they are taking.' Mr Williamson, 68, was the former Labour MP for Derby North and the shadow local government minister from 2010 to 2013. He was suspended from Labour in 2019 after he claimed the party had been 'too apologetic' in response to allegations of anti-Semitism. Labour's National Executive Committee blocked Mr Williamson from standing as a Labour candidate in the 2019 general election. He resigned from the Labour Party and stood as an Independent, losing the seat. In July 2023, he joined the Workers Party of Britain.
