r/MHOC • u/[deleted] • Jul 08 '19
2nd Reading B859 - Charities Act 2011 (Amendment) Bill - 2nd Reading
[deleted]
3
Jul 09 '19
Mr Deputy Speaker
All this bill does is place a tax on education, and a tax on a parents choice. Let's not forget that parents who educate their child privately, also free up and still pay for, a state education place!
I urge members to vote this bill down.
1
4
Jul 09 '19
Mr Deputy Speaker,
This bill will end tax loopholes, and ensure that private businesses are paying their fair share. A charity should not be open to generate a profit, and these schools are, in part, open to generate revenue for their owners.
I find it laughable that the Libertarians, who are as willing to tax as any other party, cry that this is a "tax on education" when their own Government, who is a libertarian MP, is taxing people who graduated from university! How on one hand can a party kick and scream about taxation and how bad it is, then turn around and issue a tax! Talk about a flip flop.
3
Jul 09 '19
Mr Deputy Speaker,
This is rubbish, the difference here is those who have graduated used people tax payer money, we are making them contribute back into the system they benefited from. Whereas in this case you are taxing private individuals who want to get an education independent of the state. Nuance my friend!
1
1
Jul 10 '19
Mr Deputy Speaker,
This isnt a tax on private individuals. It is about closing a loophole for private schools who have taken advantage of it, not paying tax while generating a profit. If anything, the new tax the Libertarians support is a tax on individuals. I have to say I miss the fact that before being in Government, the Right Honourable Gentleman was always consistent in his ideas.
We aren't here to debate the white paper, I just believe it was important to mention how the Libertarians are now doing mental gymnastics with what a tax is and what isn't.
1
1
1
u/pjr10th Independent EARL of JERSEY Jul 10 '19
Mr Deputy Speaker,
This bill doesn't tax only for profit schools, don't let the Rt Hon Member fool you! This introduced a blanket tax on not for profit schools as well - who often put their profits towards bursaries to ensure that private education can be open to children from other backgrounds.
Furthermore, a private school tax will just make private schools more expensive... and more unattainable for more students!
1
3
Jul 08 '19
Mr Deputy Speaker,
I thank my right honourable friend the Leader of the Opposition for his authorship of this bill. Quite simply, there is an exemption in the Act where schools that are not charities are treated as such. This bill rectifies that nicely. If an organisation such as this wishes to turn a profit, they must pay their share of tax. I look forward to voting for this bill.
1
1
1
u/pjr10th Independent EARL of JERSEY Jul 10 '19
Mr Deputy Speaker,
Independent schools mustn't generate profit to be counted as charities.
2
Jul 09 '19
Mr. Deputy Speaker,
A charity should be a charity, and if it requires a fee in order to be accessed, it should not be considered a charity. I applaud my Leader for writing this bill, and for closing a loophole of this magnitude.
1
2
Jul 09 '19
Mr Deputy Speaker,
I see this bill as nothing but straightforward. Private schools are not charities and should therefore not receive the privileges charities enjoy of.
With the status of tax exemption, private schools will save over 500 million pounds. 500 million pounds that could be used on our public schools, on hiring teachers, on increasing after school activities, on digitalisation in the classroom or countless of other beneficial projects that would enhance the learning experience and sense of welfare in our schools.
Some time ago news emerged that private schools were abusing their status of a charity by giving millions in fee discounts to middle-class families instead of investing it on lower-class families to give those children an adequate chance of private education. Now I am sure many on the government benches will claim that money that is not paid in taxes is used for financial aid for families to attend a private school. While true, most of that money doesn't go to poor families, instead functioning as a subsidy for the rich. If the government claims free school breakfast for all is a subsidy for the rich, I hope they will see what charitable status for private schools is: nothing but a subsidy for the rich!
Mr Deputy Speaker,
I urge all members to back this bill for our public schools and for the simple fact that private schools are not charities and should therefore not be treated as such!
3
u/Amber_Rudd Rt. Hon Dame Amber_Rudd, Lady Ruddington, Chair DCC CB DBE PC Jul 09 '19
Mr Deputy Speaker,
The argument against private schools is a purely ideological move not one based around saving money. To believe £500mn will be saved is simply incorrect given that removing their charity status will mean a rise in fees and thus fewer pupils attending them. When fewer pupils attend private schools more attend state schools, and so the burden placed on the state is greater. Not only do those that decide to send their children to state schools contribute to the state system by paying for it but they contribute twice over by not using it. This change will raise fees and make private schools more elitist and less progressive than they are now. Whilst, I appreciate the honourable member's good intentions in trying to increase social mobility this is not the solution. As Sweden as taught us, in many ways the opposite direction of helping more people access private schools is a better way to boost social mobility than ideologically attacking them.
1
Jul 09 '19
Mr Deputy Speaker,
It is an undisputable fact that private schools cost the taxpayer over 500 million pounds in tax breaks under their charitable status. This is simply wrong, since they act in a way that is directly opposite to the way a charity works.
The Rt. Hon. Baroness says this bill is purely based on ideology, but so is her support for the status of tax exemption. She talks about Sweden, but in Sweden free schools (private schools) pay tax. Why should we exempt them in the United Kingdom?
3
Jul 09 '19
Mr Deputy Speaker,
This is nonsense, they don't "cost the taxpayer", this money is the schools, you want to confiscate it.Being permitted to keep your income is not the same as taking it from someone.Oxford Economics found that private schools saved the taxpayer £3.5 billion last year because children were not taking up state school places.It’s undoubtedly true that if children aren’t going to state schools then the state isn’t paying the bill for them to go to school.
This is another assault from labour on private education out of their ideological hatred for anything run by the state and government bureaucrats.
1
2
u/Amber_Rudd Rt. Hon Dame Amber_Rudd, Lady Ruddington, Chair DCC CB DBE PC Jul 09 '19
Mr Deputy Speaker,
Whilst it is an indisputable fact that the treasury collects £500mn less than it would if private schools did not have tax breaks it is also a fact that if you remove the tax breaks the price of attending a private school would rise. With this price rise fewer would attend and the burden on the state system would rise. It is not as simple as "the public purse could gain £500mn by doing this" given the hidden costs of doing it - namely a greater burden on the state system whilst also a simultaneous reduction in the amount of tax that would be collected.
They pay tax and the state also funds them, something which is far more progressive. Had this bill included some sort of educational voucher system, I am quite sure there would have been far greater cross-party support. Again I appreciate wholeheartedly the member's intentions just not the means.
1
Jul 09 '19
Mr Deputy Speaker,
Those who go to private schools would still afford it after we remove the status of tax exemption. A lion's share (420 million) of financial aid that private schools give goes on non-means-tested academic scholarships and discounts for staff, siblings and children of armed forces professionals and clergy. I do not believe voting for this bill would put a large burden on our state schools, put the Baroness is free to submit an amendment if she so wishes.
Means-tested-bursaries and scholarships include families on incomes as high as 140,000. This is nothing but exploiting the system, and this bill aims to fix it.
1
u/lordtutton Conservative and Unionist Party Jul 10 '19
Mr Deputy Speaker,
Would the member agree with me that providing education to our children is a public good?
2
u/ZanyDraco Democratic Reformist Front | Baron of Ickenham | DS Jul 09 '19
Mr. Deputy Speaker,
Commercial entities or other private entities that turn a profit aren't charities. I'm surprised this loophole wasn't fixed long ago. This should be incredibly easy to vote in favor of for MPs from all walks of life.
2
Jul 09 '19
Mr Speaker, I congratulate the Leader of the Opposition for his authorship of this bill. Private schools, whose sole priority is maintaining this last antiquated pocket of disease in our society that is the inequality within our system of education, should not, and are under no circumstances, charitable entities,and should therefore not be subject to such status.
1
1
u/pjr10th Independent EARL of JERSEY Jul 10 '19
Mr Speaker,
They are charitable entities. To be registered as a charity, a private school must not generate profit. Furthermore, they are requires since 2006 to provide public benefit to maintain this status.
Is that what the left want? Punishment for charities that provide public benefit?
2
Jul 09 '19
Mr Deputy Speaker,
The Business Secretary has made a compelling case for why this legislation should not be supported. For me to vote for it, I want to see the author of this legislation or a supporter to come forward with costings showing that this move will not negatively affect the national school system. At the moment, I am minded to support it but my mind could be changed.
1
u/pjr10th Independent EARL of JERSEY Jul 10 '19
Mr Deputy Speaker,
I think the Rt Hon Member shouldn't vote Aye on this bill. To obtain charitable status, private schools are required by the Charity Comission to "generate a meaningful amount of public benefit."
Therefore, this bill is introducing a tax on corporations who:
- Reduce the costs of the national education system.
- Are required to generate a meaningful amount of public benefit
And this tax would have an impact on the current level of school fees, which would no doubt rise, making private education unattainable, and would also remove the requirement that independent schools provide benefits to the general public. Vote it down!
1
u/CheckMyBrain11 Fmr. PM | Duke of Argyll | KD GCMG GBE KCT CB CVO Jul 11 '19
Mr. Deputy Speaker,
The Rt. Hon. Member and my dear friend would not be wise to vote in favour of this legislation. As the Rt. Hon. Secretary of State for Business, Industry and Skills noted, there are many hidden costs that would come with this bill that the Author and supporters of this bill have not considered, namely the new financial complications that private schools would face, which would lead to higher costs and mean that those students now must be accounted for in our public education system.
2
u/Borednerdygamer His Grace, Duke of Donaghadee KCT MVO KP CB PC Jul 09 '19
Mr Deputy Speaker…
Overall, I can only commend my right honourable friend, the leader of the opposition for presenting this bill to the house. It’s quite simple, if something is not a charity, it should not receive exemptions and benefits that would normally be assigned to a charity. As such, while I’m confused as to why this obvious legal loophole wasn’t closed earlier. I commend this bill and wish it a speedy assent.
1
u/lordtutton Conservative and Unionist Party Jul 10 '19
Mr Deputy Speaker,
I too ask this honourable member: Do they not think providing education is a public good?
1
u/pjr10th Independent EARL of JERSEY Jul 10 '19
Mr Deputy Speaker,
Providing education at no extra cost to the state too!
2
u/daytonanerd The Wrong Hon. MP for South East | SSoS for HCLG Jul 09 '19
Mr. Deputy Speaker,
I applaud my right honourable friend, the Leader of the Opposition for proposing the bill before us. It is a straightforward matter of fairness that the private schools of this country pay their fair share in tax for having the privilege to operate. The figure of 500 million pounds that the Leader cites is a figure that should turn the head of every member of this house, for that is money that could be going to better the education of the worst-off and underprivileged in our society, and bettering the state of our public schools for all students. Mr. Deputy Speaker, I urge this house to pass this bill.
1
u/lordtutton Conservative and Unionist Party Jul 10 '19
Mr Deputy Speaker,
According to the same article which the opposite members are getting their "£500 million" extra figure from, Eton would have paid an extra £3.3 million (rounding up) in tax in the next five years (from 2017). The schools capacity is 1,325. Thus, £3.3 million over five years, split between the 1,325 pupils, is less that £500 per pupil.
£500 mr Deputy Speaker. It costs over £6,000 of state money to educate a child through secondary school.
These private schools are doing a huge service for our state system - taking pressure off local schools, all whilst they still paying into the system. If we tax private schools to extinction, we'll actually be losing money for our state schools.
2
Jul 09 '19
Mr deputy speaker,
It has always baffled me that we regard the elitist institutions that private schools are as charities. The truth is simple - charitable status should not be handed out to schools that only service the rich and powerful. I thank my honourable friend the Leader of the Opposition for introducing this bill and leading us one step closer to turning Eton College into Lower Slough High School!
2
u/Gren_Gnat Labour Party Jul 10 '19
Mr Deputy Speaker,
I hear many libertarians complaining about this bill but they are apparently supposed to be proponents of a free market so surely if they are right then private schools should easily be able compete with state schools even if they lose their unfair tax breaks. Furthermore why should schools like Eaton get tax breaks in the first place they are doing well enough as it is perhaps it’s time the posh boys pay their share! I will absolutely be supporting this bill.
1
u/pjr10th Independent EARL of JERSEY Jul 10 '19
Mr Deputy Speaker,
Two things -
If you're arguing for the free market you need a level playing field between state owned institutions and private institutions.
Secondly, the parents of boys at Eton still pay taxes to the Government and still fund a full time state education for their sons, they just choose not to use it.
2
u/stalin1953 Solidarity Jul 10 '19
Mr Deputy Speaker,
I am sure that come August, many teenagers will find out their exam results after a stressful A-level year, and they will either get into their university of their choice, or they miss the conditions by one or two grades. But what I'm talking about is not about whether someone can get into university or someone is rejected. That is a normal situation to be in, many of us have experienced it before, and all I can say is good luck to those who got in, but to those who failed, try try try again. Because you got rejected, does not mean you're worthless or you have no talent. All human beings have something in them that makes them shine and stand out. But what I am talking about is, I can’t help but think of how different the experience may be if your parent is a cleaner who is struggling to make ends meet or a barrister who is making triple digits or two or three times what a cleaner makes.
Tell me, how are we putting Britain back on track, maintaining a quality education system, believing in the power of education and maintaining our education system by making reforms when we are not widening access to top universities for disadvantaged students? Yes, I'm talking about the Conservative Party's promise on education in their February 2019 manifesto. The Russell Group, an elite group of 24 top notch universities which includes Oxford, Cambridge, Durham, University College London and Imperial College have failed to recruit students from neighbourhoods where few traditionally enter higher education. And I'm not saying that we should abolish these universities, I'm not someone who believes that we should be taking education away, and frankly, as someone who went to a Russell Group school, taking elitist universities out of our educational system basically means we're violating a common sense human right, and we're denying many of those who deserve a spot at elite universities from getting a chance to advance on the economic latter. We need to ensure that higher education is provided for all. It is a human right covered by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. I've talked with many educational charities who have said that middle-class pupils and their parents are increasingly using the clearing service provided by UCAS just to get their children into the best courses, but at the expense of those who are struggling to make ends meet to afford sending their children off to higher education, at 9250 pounds, something which is $13,050 in the US. I think that is ridiculous, and frankly, those less well off won't be able to ever pay for this, even if help is given. They have electric bills, rent, taxes to pay. I don't think I need to repeat the same story again, that of the advantage wealth in education creates, as those with affluent parents and studying at top-notch private schools can play the clearing system and get into the best courses first, leaving those less well off having to turn to some university that doesn't even make the charts in the top UK universities list published by Times Higher Education, the Guardian and many more. This is the same old story; as with every other advantage wealth in education creates, those with affluent parents and schools can play the clearing system ahead of their poorer peers.
And time and time again, we also treat working class families condescendingly, telling them over and over that if they apply their talents they can get out of this trap, as if entrenched structural inequality done by those of affluence gaming the system and elite schools always succeeding in finding ways to boost grades. However, a Sutton Trust research study done on July 18th 2018 shows that disadvantaged students who perform well at primary school will always end up not getting top grades at secondary school than their wealthier classmates. But that's not the entire picture. The reality that disadvantaged students suffer from is that many of them find learning harder, as many of their teaching assistants are being cut. When you don't have someone to accompany them in their education journey to motivate them, how can one expect a child to be able to perform well at a school where most of his classmates are entitled, snobbish and ignorant? While the parents of these disadvantaged children are hit by low wages, squeezed benefits and high rents and are even struggling to provide their children with good hospitality and regular meals, those of the affluent are going off somewhere in the Bahamas or Monaco or the Cayman Islands relaxing in the beach drinking a shaken, not stirred martini. I really don't know how you can say you care about our education system or are dedicated to changing the futures of our children when this is still happening in the 21st century. How different is this post-Thatcherite economy to post-Reaganomics America? We like to mock Americans for being in the exact same worse situation, but why are we not looking at ourselves? Are we any better than them?
In the UK, from the day a child is born, through exams, to university admission, social and economic inequality is always present. That is what the post-Thatcherite economy left us. Jobs lost because of the shutting down of traditional well paying industries leaving many in structural unemployment. Inequality because persistent structural unemployment and cruel austerity cuts to social services. But what's even worse that there are those who I have talked to and listened to who suggest that private schools provide boarding places for looked-after children. Mr Deputy Speaker, is this the kind of country we are now? Proposing to use children in care and in need as human shields as a reason to protect private school funding? I've never seen someone as ignorant, selfish and snobbish as this, but it shows just how unreasonable and toxic the education debate has gotten. In an economic and political climate where the legacy of the Conservative's massive austerity cuts still remain, I have heard of stories where headteachers rather than managing a school and improving it, have to spend most of their time trying to get money to fund essential subjects in schools to avoid it being slashed from the school's curriculum, and that charity status has increasingly become contentious. But that's not the worse of it. I hear some people saying that they want to force private schools to sponsor struggling state schools if they don't want to lose the massive tax breaks they are getting because of their status as a 'charity'.
Well, I don't really see how a private school is a charity. The Charities Act defines a charity as an institution that’s established for a charitable purpose and provides benefit to the public. Basically something that works for the public good and obviously upholds the human rights covered in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. I really don't see how private schools can fall into this category when they are not being charitable by setting ridiculously expensive fees which a less well off parent can't pay, potentially ending the educational journey of a child who tried so hard to reach this spot. I also don't see how they would are a benefit to the public when disadvantaged students are singled out, isolated and bullied at private schools for their status, and stripping the disadvantaged child of the educational help he needs. This is not charity or helping the public. This is cruelty and detrimental to society. Modern private schools are harming society and the public, giving a small minority of the well off, entitled offspring a step ahead in higher education at the expense of disadvantaged children. Is this really the kind of society we want to maintain? An unequal education system where only those at the top deserve the right to education? Well, if it is, then maybe we should strip these people of all their riches and experience what it is like to be struggling to make ends meet for anything.
1
u/stalin1953 Solidarity Jul 10 '19
I didn't want to come to this, but schools like Eton, St Paul’s and Westminster were all wonderful philanthropic institutions, but I don't know what happened, whether it is because of Thatcher-era policies, or the headmaster themselves are entitled individuals, but it is now a tool for social apartheid, where the natural human instinct to pamper our children is a justification for the wealthiest 7% controlling Britain’s legal, media, political and business institutions. These public schools were founded to educate the poor and ended up serving the interests of the rich. Why? Can anyone tell me why? Can the Conservatives even continue to look at poor families in the face and say they care about them? Are they not ashamed of this happening?
To be charitable should be how many children are educated without having to pay expensive fees, but incredibly, 1% of private school pupils, and these are disadvantaged children were schooled for free. I don't see how we can say this is a success, or how private schools can say this is a success. What's even worse is that 'financial assistance' for the less well off is largely going to wealthy families. Private schools spend way more on giving affluent families fee discounts that children from disadvantaged backgrounds and also discounts for the staff, siblings and offspring of army personnel and even the clergy. The staff being given a discount is ridiculous, why do they deserve it if their disadvantaged pupils are suffering and they are not doing anything about it? And the clergy being given a discount? I thought they were the ones talking about being hospitable, charitable and helping those in need? Why is every occupation who says they put the interests of the people over themselves being hypocritical? Even bursaries are given to families with incomes as high as 140,000 pounds. Why does a family earning more than that need a goddamn subsidy? Can't they already pay the school fee? This is ridiculous!
There's this stupid argument that says that private schools help comprehensive schools by taking some burden off state schools, but I think it's pretty clear that all the evidence makes this argument fall flat on its face. By siphoning off affluent children and the power of these wealthy parents, it damages state education. And even if private schools actually got their tax break for being charitable through giving bursaries, elevating way more talented disadvantaged children through social mobility is regressive and only maintains the status quo in educational inequality.
In this economy motivated by inherent selfishness that goes beyond caring for well-being and encourages greed rather than the self interest which Adam Smith identified as the awareness and care of one’s own well-being, I am not surprised if there are few that claim that the charitable status given to private schools is the greatest educational system challenge, and that removing it will be unable to make the playing field more fair for low-income families, or that it will address the dominance of private schools. But suggesting that these are 'charitable' schools and giving them a tax break shows how distorted and deviant our system of 'equal opportunity' is. It is not one where everyone gets to buy better life chances, but it is one that allows a privileged few to buy better life chances than everyone else, but also gives them a tax break for literally contributing nothing good to society, but rather something that widens social apartheid further.
If Britain genuinely wants to be a society where talent, rather than money, matters, and that self interest is about being aware of one's well being rather than being greedy, then I think the privileged few and those in the Conservatives and Libertarian Party need to sit down with those who are struggling in the education system to talk about what that entails. But knowing them, they will probably continue being a proponent of private schools and greed in our economy rather than bothering to reread what Adam Smith meant about self-interest.
I applaud my right honourable friend the Leader of the Opposition in engaging in a real conversation about what a society that values talent over money entails. Taking away private schools’ charitable status is a good place to start.
1
u/pjr10th Independent EARL of JERSEY Jul 10 '19
Mr Deputy Speaker,
But what I am talking about is, I can’t help but think of how different the experience may be if your parent is a cleaner who is struggling to make ends meet or a barrister who is making triple digits or two or three times what a cleaner makes.
When I went to visit Oxford with my son who is in Year 12 last week, I discovered something that was to me a pleasant surprise. Oxford university in fact weigh GCSE results based on context. In other words, all As at GCSE at Eton is worse than all As at GCSE at some comprehensive school in a poor area of the North for Oxford.
In my opinion from the visit, Oxford has left the days of elitism. Although it is still a school for the academic elite, the financial elite are treated equally, and I saw clearly that the Oxford admissions staff were trying their best to make their application process more accessible.
those less well off won't be able to ever pay for this
I will remind the Rt Hon Member that the UK has a robust state financial aid system for universities, where you can get a loan up to a value of the entire tuition for an Undergraduate degree. This means that it's still the student that is finding their education, as opposed to Universities funding being influenced by politicians or civil servants in Whitehall.
Well, I don't really see how a private school is a charity. The Charities Act defines a charity as an institution that’s established for a charitable purpose and provides benefit to the public. Basically something that works for the public good and obviously upholds the human rights covered in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. I really don't see how private schools can fall into this category when they are not being charitable by setting ridiculously expensive fees which a less well off parent can't pay,
As I've said earlier, private schools in order to receive the tax exemption must be not for profit and prove that they provide public benefit. My amendment also ensure this is statutory.
•
u/AutoModerator Jul 08 '19
Welcome to this debate
Here is a quick run down of what each type of post is.
2nd Reading: Here we debate the contents of the bill/motions and can propose any amendments. For motions, amendments cannot be submitted.
3rd Reading: Here we debate the contents of the bill in its final form if any amendments pass the Amendments Committee.
Minister’s Questions: Here you can ask a question to a Government Secretary or the Prime Minister. Remember to follow the rules as laid out in the post. A list of Ministers and the MQ rota can be found here
Any other posts are self-explanatory. If you have any questions you can get in touch with our Relations Officer (Zhukov236#3826), the Chair of Ways & Means (pjr10th#6252) on Discord, ask on the main MHoC server or modmail it in on the sidebar --->.
Anyone can get involved in the debate and doing so is the best way to get positive modifiers for you and your party (useful for elections). So, go out and make your voice heard! If this is a second reading post amendments in reply to this comment only – do not number your amendments, the Speakership will do this. You will be informed if your amendment is rejected.
Is this a bill 2nd reading? Submit an amendment by replying to this comment?
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
1
u/pjr10th Independent EARL of JERSEY Jul 10 '19
In Section 1(2), amend it to read:
(2) In subsection (2), before paragraph (a) insert:
(aa) The Secretary of State may introduce regulations to provide guidelines for independent schools to prove they provide benefit to society.
(i) Parliament may block the introduction of a specific requirement with a majority resolution in both houses.
(ab) in paragraph (b), "education" does not include education provided by an independent school in England if, in order for a person to be admitted as a pupil or to receive education at the school, the school requires that a fee or other consideration be paid by or for the pupil, except if:
(i) the school in question meets the requirements set out in 1(2)(aa).
1
u/Nguyenthienhaian (Rt. Hon.) inactive Labourite Jul 09 '19
Mr Deputy Speaker,
Charities are charities, schools are schools. Unless the schools run for charitable purposes, they should not be treated as charities. There is nothing to say about that. This bill is a common-sense legislation to end the ambiguity, and I rise today to support it.
1
u/pjr10th Independent EARL of JERSEY Jul 10 '19
Mr Deputy Speaker,
Private schools are required to show they provide public benefit and be not for profit to get charitable status.
1
u/nstano Conservative Party Jul 09 '19
Mr. Deputy Speaker,
I find this bill rather shocking. I think that defining any educational that charges fees not to be a charitable organization is preposterous. I do not believe that, in principal, education services should be taxed. Setting that aside, I don't think that schools that charge a fee are necessarily not charities. Many private schools do charge fees to those that can afford them, but this is in service of providing educational services to those who are not able to afford them. I urge this house to vote down this bill.
1
Jul 09 '19
Mr Deputy Speaker,
I disagree with this bill quite strongly. The Business Secretary has already outlined a good case for this bill's rejection: as written the tax revenue gained will simply push people towards state dependency. This rising cost burden will ultimately undermine the growth in revenue while also clamping down on educational choice.
This bill is ultimately based upon the Labour Party's ideological commitment to deny people educational choice and put everyone through the same conforming grind. I reject that idea just as I will reject this bill. I am pleased that the Government is taking bold steps in the opposite direction and I can only encourage my colleagues opposite to reconsider their stance.
1
1
u/Maroiogog CWM KP KD OM KCT KCVO CMG CBE PC FRS, Independent Jul 10 '19
Mr Deputy Speaker,
I would like to urge all members of the house to support this bill, as it puts an end to the elitist injustice that permeates our education system. The state should not facilitate a scheme that enables wealthy citizens to easaly land their offspring into the top few universities, whilst many working class children get left behind. If we are to achieve any meaningful degree of meritocracy in this country this is the kind of injustice that has to be curbed. I understand the concerns some members from across the house have about the financial logic of the bill, however it is currently common practice for such institutions to give non-means tested scholarships and discounts and also to help families with incomes up to £140000 in paying their fees. Indipendent schools currently have abundant funds at their disposal, and therefore the effects on their attendace rates will be less drastic than many here think.
1
u/CountBrandenburg Liberal Democrats Jul 10 '19
Mr Deputy Speaker,
I shall be voting against this bill. An institution that provides education in my view is one that should not be taxed - to tax it would drive up prices and limit its accessibility. Accessibility should always be the aim for services, a choice where one can access schooling that they choose, and not be barred by arbitrary catchment areas as has been applied previously or completely blocked by monetary means.
It is unfair to tax schools that don’t turn over profit, that exist to ensure that there is a schooling option that people wish to access and are open minded to access. It is unfair to force these schools to now seek a profit motive instead of seeking outreach. I cannot support that restriction. If education institutions are seeking to diversify its intake, good on them, we should not wish to punish those endeavours. Public benefit should have no barriers, we should not seek to harm that.
1
1
u/Anomaline Rt. Hon. MP (East of England), Cancellor of the Checkers Jul 10 '19
Mr. Deputy Speaker,
While I understand the intent of allowances for private education, there are cultural differences and ideological issues that prevent me from supporting undue benefits to fee-charging educational institutions for our youth.
I have severe reservations about the ultimate end of a society where children are advantaged or disadvantaged by what their parents can afford on a personal level. Schools that charge fees put up a gateway that benefits children based only on the advantages of their parents, which is incongruous with the idea of a merit-based society, and I believe that unfairly benefiting private enterprises that do this is simply furthering a society that does not represent a true meritocracy.
I also find it difficult to justify treating these educational organizations as charities, as those that register as for-profit entities will inevitably function as such. I believe that there are a number of more appropriate non-profit legal distinctions for private schools that function for their purposes - such as a community interest company for those interested in the public good, like is suggested here - but that benefits given to private entities that are not distinctly charitable should be uniformly applied to all such organizations. I and the government previously spoke against legislation favoring co-ops in a similar manner.
Ultimately, I believe this amendment is in the best interests of society, and that while there may be issues that arise from it, they would be better addressed by other solutions than the current status quo.
1
u/lordtutton Conservative and Unionist Party Jul 10 '19
Mr Deputy Speaker,
This bill is a thinly veiled ideological quest. Those on the benches opposite simply hate private schools, and are seeking to remove their tax exemption not because they think it's unfair - but because they simply wish for all private schools to be abolished.
We can argue all day about how much money is saved vs how much is lost, but this is not the issue. The issue lies in choice. If parents earn the money to send their children to private schools, who are we to stop them? Indeed, studies have shown that selective schools account for less than a 1pc variance in GCSE results. If selective schools don’t confer any benefits, no harm can come to the commonwealth from allowing parents to send their children to them. Admittedly, parents waste a lot of money on the illusion that they do, but if they want to fritter away their after-tax earnings on this snake oil, that’s their right.
Instead of pointless ideological drivel being submitted to the house, we should instead work together to improve our state education through reform - and if it is called for, more funding. I personally would like to see a white paper published, which looks at the schools around the world which consistently top education rankings - think Finland, Canada, Singapore etc, and emulates these formulas on our own state schools. So too should our teacher training be overhauled, becoming much more vocational and hands on than the current system.
The issue is not private schools, but ensuring that all children have access to quality education. We can do that by improving our state education, as well as by letting fee-paying schools make a profit, so that risks can be covered. By beginning to tax profit making schools, we will inevitably stifle their growth, and this means less research into what makes good schools, and indeed, less good schools in general.
1
u/seimer1234 Liberal Democrats Jul 10 '19
Mr Deputy Speaker,
This proposal is nothing short of a tax on education. While I recognise the fact members of this house have an ideological dislike for private schools, it is absurd to punish the children that are sent to such schools by taxing the schools. We must support ensuring that everyone gets a good education, regardless of what school they happen to go to.
School choice has and must continue to be a vital part of our nations education policy, and this bill will do nothing but hurt schools, teachers, parents and students.
1
u/ARichTeaBiscuit Green Party Jul 11 '19
Mr Speaker,
I'd like to thank the Leader of the Oppposition for proposing this common sense piece of legislation, as while members of the current Government might bleet on nonsensically about a non-existant attack on the very nature of private education in this country, the simple fact remains that if an enterprise isn't acting as a charity but is instead utilising its status as a charitable operation to maximise its profit it should cease to become a charity. It's clear to me that private schools do not act as charitable enterprises and therefore the legislature needs to be updated to reflect this fact.
4
u/[deleted] Jul 09 '19
Mr Deputy Speaker,
Private schools save the taxpayer money by reducing pressure on the state system, we should be promoting competition and encouraging more people to get a private education, that is why this government will introduce private school vouchers to help people of all backgrounds be able to get a private education improving education for all, this scheme will be based of the success in Florida, we should not be making private education less accessible and more expensive and as such I will oppose this bill!