How the fight against Labour's cruel child VAT raid continues
Those hoping for immediate relief from the courts in relation to the Government's imposition of VAT on school fees yesterday had their short-term hopes dashed. But if you read the judgment and examine what is going on in schools, the Government now has a right mess on its hands.
The High Court rightly found that, for the 100,000 or so children in private schools with special education needs who are forced to move into the state sector because they have closed or their parents can no longer afford the fees, their fundamental rights have indeed been interfered with.
However, it said that Parliament was entitled to do this because it has very broad powers when it comes to raising new taxes. In this case, what was being sought by the claimants was a 'declaratory remedy' which would have sent the legislation back to Parliament to resolve.
So, what happens now?
The Chancellor Rachel Reeves and beleaguered Education Secretary Bridget Phillipson are no doubt delighted that they have apparently won. But the truth is, like special needs children themselves, they are not out of the woods. They won by a nose and could yet lose in subsequent contests.
The first thing to say is that the special needs system is in total chaos. Since the pandemic, there is a huge backlog of children who do not have 'statements', in other words official education health and care plans, who are in a queue or appealing at tribunals hoping to get one. Local authorities are understandably reluctant to award them, in part because of a questionable previous court ruling, which said they have to pay for taxis for special needs children to get to their school.
If you talk to a taxi driver, many of them make a fortune providing this service which, in general terms, seems excessive and incredibly costly.
Yet now, parents who previously were paying for their own children's school fees and indeed transport, have had it confirmed that their children have a fundamental right to an appropriate education and their legal claims against local education authorities have now been given additional force. It would have been cheaper and simpler if VAT had not been imposed on school fees and they stayed where they were.
Second, thousands of parents were waiting for this judgement, having either given provisional notice to leave private schools or waiting to decide whether to embark on that costly journey in the first place next term. So far, 11,000 children have left private schools because of this measure. My guess is that twice that number, will now not turn up next term. Put all this together and the new taxes on education will raise very little money and might even lose revenue.
The reality is that Labour have created a giant and costly mess. An appeal is likely. There is no tax on education in any civilised country and, sooner or later, we must hope that a future government will reverse this cruel and costly measure.
George Trefgarne is a parent and supporter of the 'Education Not Discrimination' group
Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 1 month with unlimited access to our award-winning website, exclusive app, money-saving offers and more.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
How a Once-Resistant Trump Decided to Back Israel's Attacks on Iran
The president had sought to persaude Israel to delay its military operation, but he shifted course after the strikes began.
Yahoo
3 hours ago
- Yahoo
Column: Will Tesla suffer if Musk alienates both political wings?
Donald Trump and Elon Musk — two epic disrupters of U.S. politics and the automotive industry, respectively and vice versa. Over the past year, they united over the election and efforts to cut government spending. They parted ways amicably … and then started trashing each other. It escalated quickly with Musk suggesting that the president be impeached and that he is implicated in the Jeffrey Epstein child-prostitution scandal. Musk later reportedly called the president before posting that he regretted some of his words: 'They went too far.' It was a remarkable breakup — incredible drama between the world's most powerful man and the world's richest man, who had been the closest of allies for hundreds of days of campaigning and governing. To the extent that it was a reality TV train wreck, I'd just as soon leave it be. But since the primary business in Musk's remarkable portfolio is nominally an automaker, it actually matters in this industry we cover. Sign up for Automotive Views, Automotive News' weekly showcase of opinions, insights, ideas and thought leadership. Love it or hate it, this disruptive era in which we live is providing us all with some real-life experiments in economics — the likes of which we probably thought we would never see. For decades, basically everyone who went to college was taught in an economics or history class that widespread tariffs would do more harm than good. Trump argues for a different approach, and he's pursuing it. Or he's pursuing it to negotiate for something else. In either case, we're now seeing how that works: So far, there's been a lot of paralysis, especially among suppliers and foreign automakers, but also a big investment announced recently by General Motors. His political strategy has been unorthodox, yet he's won two electoral colleges and one popular vote. He's only the 21st president to win two elections. So he's had success, whether some people like it or not. Same for Musk, of course: He approached the auto industry unlike anyone else — with an expensive electric car — had a couple of near-total collapses, and came out as the world's richest man and CEO of the world's most valuable automaker. That success helped propel his rocket business SpaceX and other ventures such as Starlink satellites and Twitter, which he bought and renamed X. But the disruptive move I'm watching was his decision to be an automaker CEO who got personally and financially involved in partisan politics. While new-vehicle sales skew to the affluent, when you sell something in the millions or tens of millions, a brand or model has to connect with a broad swath of people. And while there can be success with, say, a polarizing design, mass-market brands generally try to avoid alienating large chunks of their potential customer base. I've cited here before the story about Michael Jordan saying he didn't speak out on politics because 'Republicans buy sneakers, too.' In retrospect, he said it was just a funny line among friends. But the thing is that he wasn't wrong, and every business school graduate knows it. Musk, however, is not your typical MBA type. So out of his frustration with former President Joe Biden — who habitually sided with the UAW and its automakers against the U.S.-based global leader in EVs, even as he advocated for a carbon-neutral future — Musk threw an estimated quarter of a billion dollars behind the Trump campaign. That's an unbelievable sum of money to many of us, but when Trump won, it looked like the greatest bet ever. From late October to late December, Tesla stock more than doubled and its market cap approached $1.5 trillion. While Musk's political activism may have upset many of his loyal, environmentally motivated customers, there were a lot of reasons to be bullish on Tesla under Trump. It seemed likely that NHTSA and the SEC would take a more sympathetic view of the company's issues. Beyond that, Musk has refocused the company's future on artificial intelligence, humanoid robots and robotaxis. (Tesla said it plans to launch its service in Austin, Texas, on June 22.) A new administration with a deregulatory inclination toward self-driving cars was a significant tailwind. Now, those advantages for Tesla are gone or at least seemingly diminished. Structures that have legacy automakers paying to buy Tesla's credits for selling emission-free, fuel-efficient vehicles could be eliminated. (And let's not forget that Trump hinted at ending federal contracts with other Musk-affiliated companies.) Turning back to the auto business: The conventional wisdom is that Musk has now alienated all but the most apolitical consumers. Environmentally minded liberals might like EVs, but Musk's support of Trump (and the far-right Alternative for Deutschland party in Germany) has them seeking out other brands' offerings. There might have been an opportunity to become the preferred electric brand of the president's Make America Great Again movement — especially the tech-forward, high-income types and those motivated by the president's endorsement of the brand on the White House grounds. But after this month's blowup — with longtime Trump adviser Steve Bannon arguing to deport Musk — that notion seemed ever more remote. No fans on the left, no fans on the right. Is Elon out in deep water in an electric boat surrounded by sharks with no friends to bail him out? Maybe not. There is significant animus against Musk on the EV-inclined left, especially in the wake of his DOGE team's deep and sometimes chaotic cuts to government entities and programs. Certainly, protests at auto retail outlets are rare. The damage to stores is not acceptable, but it shows the intensity of the situation. But I still have to wonder how far consumers will follow those kinds of feelings. Michiganders, for instance, often assume that Americans prefer to buy American cars made by American (union) workers. But I've been to America, and most of them don't care. They want the best car for their money, whether it's American, German, Japanese or Korean. Some are clamoring for cheap Chinese cars: If Xi Jinping wants to pay for half of their EV, they ask, why not let him? So maybe they won't care about Elon's politics. Tesla sales are down a little this year, but some of that might be attributable to production hiccups. If the Model Y — the bestselling model in the world last year — provides a great value, they'll probably buy it regardless of what they think of the CEO. And now we get to find out. Have an opinion about this story? Tell us about it and we may publish it in print. Click here to submit a letter to the editor. Sign in to access your portfolio


Washington Post
6 hours ago
- Washington Post
Trump clears path for Nippon Steel investment in US Steel, so long as it fits the government's terms
WASHINGTON — President Donald Trump on Friday signed an executive order paving the way for a Nippon Steel investment in U.S. Steel , so long as the Japanese company complies with a 'national security agreement' submitted by the federal government. Trump's order didn't detail the terms of the national security agreement. But U.S. Steel and Nippon Steel said in a joint statement that the agreement stipulates that approximately $11 billion in new investments will be made by 2028 and includes giving the U.S. government a 'golden share' — essentially veto power to ensure the country's national security interests are protected.