The Education Secretary, Bridget Phillipson, has reiterated the Government’s stance on levying VAT on private school fees, insisting that closures in the sector are not a new development.

Appearing on Camilla Tominey Today on GB News, Ms Phillipson acknowledged that parents now face a choice in terms of fee-paying education, but stated she has no intention of reversing the policy.

“I don’t want disruption to children’s education if that were to result,” Ms Phillipson said. “But private schools, as businesses, will face choices as to how they manage their money. Parents also have choices as to how they spend theirs. If they choose not to opt for a particular school, and demand falls, that is how the market operates.”

When pressed on whether she was comfortable seeing further private school closures under her watch, Ms Phillipson noted that a falling birth rate has already led to “significant numbers of spare places” both in the state and private sectors. Highlighting that many private schools have shut down over the years, she stressed it is “not a new phenomenon” and that the broader trend has long predated the VAT policy.

Defending the policy

The Government’s decision to impose VAT on private education has sparked debate and concern among some parents and school administrators, who fear rising fees could drive more establishments to close. However, Ms Phillipson appeared resolute in her approach:

“Private schools, as I say, have closed in significant numbers for many, many years—this is not a new phenomenon. The policy stands, and I see no reason to move away from it.”

Welcoming Trump’s stance on Ukraine

Shifting focus from education, Ms Phillipson also used her appearance on GB News to address international affairs, specifically the ongoing conflict in Ukraine. In a move that may surprise some observers, she expressed support for recent calls by former US President Donald Trump to negotiate a peaceful resolution:

“We believe the British government should step up and play a bigger role,” Ms Phillipson told presenter Camilla Tominey. “That’s why we do welcome the approach of President Trump in bringing parties to the negotiating table and in seeking to secure an enduring and lasting settlement for Ukraine.”

Ms Phillipson linked the conflict to rising costs and economic instability at home, underlining the Government’s commitment to increasing defence spending. She noted that billions of pounds are being pledged annually to support the Ukrainian effort, describing the conflict as one with “big consequences here in terms of energy bills [and] the instability that is being caused.”

Acknowledging that the Defence budget had already risen under the Chancellor’s recent package, Ms Phillipson suggested there is scope to accelerate existing timelines for further spending:

“It’s been talked about getting [Defence spending] to 2.5% of GDP by 2028, not 2030,” she said. “Alongside that, we are committed to reaching 2.5% and we’ll be setting out a pathway towards it.”

While the VAT on private school fees remains contentious, Ms Phillipson appears unconvinced by arguments that it will lead to an unprecedented wave of closures. Pointing instead to broader demographic shifts, she reiterated the Government’s stance that private schools must adapt to market forces—a position that is likely to keep debate lively in the coming months.

Meanwhile, her supportive remarks regarding Trump’s diplomatic suggestions signal a willingness to endorse a wide range of interventions in the Ukraine crisis, placing further scrutiny on how the UK can expedite the conflict’s resolution. As both education and foreign policy challenges continue to evolve, Ms Phillipson’s firm positions on these issues will undoubtedly remain in the spotlight.

Read more:
‘If they close, they close’: Education Secretary brushes off private schools’ fate while praising Trump’s war plan

Nick Clegg, Britain’s former deputy prime minister, has announced his departure from Meta after six years at the social media giant.

Clegg, who joined in 2018 and rose to become the company’s president of global affairs, confirmed his exit in a Facebook post, describing his tenure as an “adventure of a lifetime”.

He joined the then-Facebook at a time of intense scrutiny, helping to steer the tech behemoth through the Cambridge Analytica data scandal. Clegg went on to spearhead the creation of the independent Oversight Board, an initiative aimed at boosting transparency in content moderation and governance.

Joel Kaplan, Clegg’s deputy and Meta’s former vice-president of global public policy, will succeed him. Kaplan previously served under President George W Bush as deputy chief of staff for policy and is seen as one of the most prominent conservative voices within Meta’s upper ranks. He rose through the company amid criticism from Republicans who claimed Facebook had a liberal bias, prompting moves such as partnering with the fact-checking division of the conservative Daily Caller news site.

Clegg’s departure comes just weeks before Donald Trump’s upcoming inauguration on 20 January. Meta and other social media platforms have navigated a complex relationship with the former president, from banning his accounts to reinstating them and donating to his inauguration fund in 2017. Meta chief executive Mark Zuckerberg praised Clegg’s impact in “advancing Meta’s voice and values around the world” and expressed confidence in Kaplan’s capacity to guide policy through what are likely to be turbulent political waters.

Read more:
Nick Clegg leaves Meta as Joel Kaplan takes helm of global affairs

Chancellor Rachel Reeves’s planned inheritance tax overhaul on family businesses and agricultural land risks backfiring by leaving the Exchequer £1bn worse off than if no changes were made, according to new economic analysis.

A report by CBI Economics suggests that a forecasted fall in investment—resulting from tighter relief on inherited business assets—is likely to overshadow any additional inheritance tax revenue raised. The study warns that Britain could lose £2.6bn in revenue from other taxes such as corporation tax, income tax, and national insurance over the next five years, significantly overshadowing the estimated £1.38bn gain from the inheritance tax changes.

The findings indicate that the Treasury has “underestimated the impact” of reforms to business property relief (BPR). Analysts anticipate that more than half of family businesses will cut investment in the wake of the policy shift, with further economic damage predicted to include the loss of 125,678 jobs.

Collectively, these measures are expected to drive down economic activity, eroding the tax base far more than originally projected. Instead of improving the public finances, the analysis implies the changes could cost the government £1.26bn more than maintaining the status quo.

Kemi Badenoch, the Conservative Party leader, is set to spotlight these concerns in a speech at the Business Property Relief Summit in London on Monday. She will argue that Labour’s approach leaves “no one safe” from tax hikes, accusing the government of stifling investment and sabotaging growth.

Speaking to attendees at the London Palladium, Ms Badenoch is expected to say: “Keir Starmer and Rachel Reeves spent years telling businesses they had nothing to fear. Within weeks of taking office, they unleashed the worst raid on family businesses in living memory. They promised growth, but instead have driven it into reverse.”

She will add: “The warning from Family Business UK, that Labour’s changes to BPR could cost 125,000 jobs, is chilling—equivalent to the entire population of Blackburn.”

Under the proposed changes, inherited business assets above £1m will be subject to a 20% levy. Agricultural property relief (APR) will also be tightened, meaning farmers face new tax burdens on inherited farmland.

Nigel Farage, leader of the Reform Party, said: “Rachel Reeves is no economist. Her Budget measures and her total lack of understanding of the private sector are dragging the country into recession.”

Tim Farron, the Liberal Democrat environment spokesman, added: “Farmers have already endured botched trade deals and endless red tape. Now this tax hike from the Chancellor threatens the survival of family farms and countless jobs.”

The measures come amid broader fears that the Chancellor’s record £40bn Budget tax raid has already dented Britain’s economic prospects. October’s GDP figures showed an unexpected contraction for the second consecutive month, and rising unemployment data—due to be published on Tuesday—may confirm the downward trend.

James Reed, chief executive of the recruitment giant Reed, has warned that falling job vacancies could signal an impending recession. He told the BBC’s Sunday with Laura Kuenssberg programme that vacancies advertised on his platform were down by 26% year-on-year, describing the trend as a portent of tough times ahead.

Later this week, Labour leader Sir Keir Starmer will face scrutiny from senior MPs at the Liaison Committee, where questions over the inheritance tax changes are likely to loom large.

Meanwhile, farmers are expected to join Ms Badenoch at Monday’s summit to voice their opposition. Industry groups are accusing the government of underplaying the impact of its reforms. The Central Association of Agricultural Valuers estimates that 2,500 farmers will be affected annually—five times the Treasury’s official projection—while the National Farmers’ Union (NFU) president Tom Bradshaw has raised concerns over the extreme pressure the policy places on older landowners.

On Monday, 160,000 family-owned businesses—represented by trade bodies including the NFU, the British Independent Retailers Association, and Hospitality UK—will write to Ms Reeves. They will demand a formal consultation and emphasise that BPR and APR were never loopholes but legitimate incentives designed to encourage investment.

CBI Economics surveyed family-owned firms and concluded that 85% plan to scale back investment due to the changes, while 54% expect to cut staff. By 2030, the group forecasts a £9.4bn fall in gross value added (GVA), a key measure of economic output.

Neil Davy, chief executive of Family Business UK, said: “Owners are already pulling back on planned investment and putting recruitment on hold. We do not believe these outcomes were what the government intended. We urge the Chancellor to consult formally and find a solution that protects long-term investment, jobs, and growth.”

The mounting backlash against the tax shake-up has sparked speculation that the government may soften its stance. Arun Advani of the CenTax think tank, a previous supporter of the proposals, has suggested raising thresholds to spare family farms.

A Treasury spokesman defended the policy: “Our commitment to business is resolute. With a 25% corporation tax cap and full permanent expensing, we aim to unlock growth for Britain. But with a £22bn inherited fiscal hole and public services under strain, difficult choices had to be made. We have published our impact modelling and will provide further analysis alongside draft legislation expected in 2025.”

Read more:
Reeves’s business inheritance tax shake-up ‘will cost exchequer £1bn more than it raises’ warn economists

Hundreds of farmers gathered in Westminster today, chanting “no farmers, no food” outside Downing Street, as Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer faced tough questioning in the Commons over proposed changes to inheritance tax.

Tractors blocked parts of Whitehall during a demonstration organised by Save British Farming and Kent Fairness for Farmers, reflecting the industry’s growing anger over Chancellor Rachel Reeves’s levy proposals.

Under the plans, announced in last month’s Budget, inheritance tax will rise to 20 per cent on agricultural assets worth more than £1 million. Although the government insists the majority of farms will remain unaffected, farmers’ groups have argued that the threshold is far too low for many family-run holdings. Approximately 500 farmers travelled to Westminster today to protest, following a rally of around 13,000 people in the capital last month.

As the protest took place, Liberal Democrat leader Sir Ed Davey pressed Sir Keir Starmer on whether he would “change course and recognise the vital role that family farms play.” In response, the Prime Minister stated that the “vast majority” of farms would be unaffected, citing the £3 million threshold for an “ordinary family” case.

However, many farmers remain unconvinced. Matt Cullen, a beef farmer and organiser with Kent Fairness for Farmers, claimed: “We need to show this government that we will not be pushed over and have our farms destroyed. This is war and we will win and force the government into a U-turn.”

Among the demonstrators was 26-year-old Claire Fifield, whose step-family runs a tenanted farm in Amersham, Buckinghamshire. Ms Fifield said the £1 million threshold was unrealistically low given the costs associated with farming: “I don’t think they’ve spoken to a single farmer, especially not a tenant farmer. They looked at Jeremy Clarkson and decided to take his money, but this punishes people who have been working these lands for generations.”

The emotional toll of the dispute was highlighted during a session of the Commons Environment Committee, where Tom Bradshaw, President of the National Farmers’ Union (NFU), was moved to tears while describing the pressure some farmers face. Middle-aged farmers are reportedly worried their parents will not live the seven years required to avoid tax liabilities, putting businesses that have been nurtured for decades at risk. Bradshaw warned of severe human consequences, including the possibility of farmers taking their own lives due to financial despair.

During Prime Minister’s Questions, Conservative MP Jerome Mayhew reminded Sir Keir Starmer of his pre-election remarks to the NFU, where he acknowledged that losing a farm “is not like losing any other business.” Mayhew accused the current administration of being duplicitous. Sir Keir countered by highlighting the £5 billion of support pledged to agriculture over the next two years, including £350 million allocated in the last week, and reiterated that “the vast majority of farmers will be unaffected” by the changes.

As tensions remain high, the government stands by its reforms, while many farmers fear the new inheritance tax threshold will jeopardise family farms that have supported communities and produced British food for generations.

Read more:
Farmers descend on Westminster amid inheritance tax row as Starmer faces MPs’ questions

The 16th century mansion, referred to as the ‘Garden of Eden’ is up for sale after Barbara Pollard accused her husband Ian of being a ‘womanising alcoholic’. The couple were given their ‘Naked Gardeners’ nickname after frequently appearing on TV wearing little more than their gardening gloves.

All divorces are difficult and they are made harder when a business is involved because of its impact on the family, the company – and the employees.

In this particular case, the wider community is also affected by the couple’s decision to split up. Since opening in 1998, the nationally renowned garden has attracted nearly half a million visitors and crowds of naked tourists who flocked to the former nunnery and grounds could now lose a favoured amenity once it is sold.

Elected Mayor of Malmesbury Sue Poole – who says the gardens have put the town on the map – is so concerned that Malmesbury will lose a vital tourist attraction that she has appealed for any prospective buyers to keep them open.

Ian Pollard says he cannot afford to buy his wife’s share of the property so their home – and business – must be sold. The Pollards’ situation reinforces the importance of obtaining good, professional legal advice – both prior to marriage and during a marriage – when a couple are in business together so that a pre-nuptial or post-nuptial agreement can be drawn up.

In the event of a divorce, a company could be regarded as a matrimonial asset to be sold or shared. And if you are already married, it really is worth considering a post-nuptial agreement to protect any new business ventures.

Although pre-nuptial and post-nuptial agreements are not legally binding, they are taken into account by the court and can make the whole divorce process run more smoothly. However, they will not prevent a business from coming under close scrutiny with key issues such as how much it is worth – and what income it provides both now and potentially in the future – when assets are divided.

Judges will often examine the liquidity within a business and how this might be paid out to the wider family to meet costs such as accommodation or school fees. It is therefore vital that you are not seen to be hiding any assets as this will not only be frowned upon by the courts – but could also result in a prison sentence.

While discussing assets, avoid mixing business and private assets unless absolutely necessary. When clients tell us they have secure borrowing for the business against the family home, we are always concerned about the potential impact on the domestic and commercial factors of a divorce settlement.

Ultimately, if as a business owner you find yourself facing divorce, I would advise you to think carefully about what desired outcome you are seeking. It is essential to recognise and understand how the court process works and the costs that may be involved. Being prepared and setting an agenda for discussions with your ex can ensure a better outcome for your company and everyone involved.

If your business is the economic bedrock of a local community then, like the Pollards, you may well find that more people than your immediate family and staff feel the thorny effects of your divorce.

Read more:
Protecting your business against divorce: cautionary tale from the ‘Garden of Eden’

The truth is that few of us can resist a bargain when conveniently and strategically placed, which is why the idea of buying a divorce at the supermarket – pioneered by the Co-op’s Legal Services – grabbed the public imagination when it was first launched.

The troubled organisation set up a family law practice when it was decreed that businesses, including banks and supermarkets, could be licensed to offer legal services.

The legal shake-up that heralded the Co-op’s family law service – and ironically dubbed the Tesco Law – adopted an IT conveyor belt approach with the size and sheer volume of cases keeping prices down.

As reduced profits and difficult trading conditions can put a strain on personal relationships, a cheap divorce may seem tempting. However, business owners need to think very carefully before cutting corners on such a life changing decision.

Can this really be the answer for couples who find that their marriage has fallen apart? Complex financial issues, disagreements about where children will live and pension arrangements will all require a more tailored and measured solution.

Successful firms wouldn’t dream of scrimping when it comes to obtaining sound financial advice because such expertise is necessary to ensure the business has a sustainable future.

Couples looking to separate need a bespoke service and one that means they can talk to an expert who will listen and offer solutions that work for their personal situation, particularly if they have a business. A solicitor who is a member of Resolution, the organisation for family lawyers committed to non-confrontational approaches to divorce, is very much alive to the needs of an individual client – not taking a ‘one size fits all approach’.

With the demise of legal aid for most family law matters, we know how important it is for people to keep down the cost of divorce – and an ‘off the shelf’ option may seem tempting. However, any good family lawyer will work with the client to manage costs and direct him or her to the most appropriate divorce option – whether mediation, collaboration, arbitration or simply good old-fashioned negotiation.

Read more:
Why picking up a divorce with the shopping just doesn’t add up

That’s why I would always recommend that clients who own a business talk to their accountants at the outset of a marriage breakdown.

Solicitors and accountants will often work together when a couple is going through a divorce, particularly if one party has their own business, or if the couple are ‘co-preneurs’ and jointly own a company.

Although as a business owner you are probably financially savvy, you are unlikely to be comfortable dealing in the financial matters surrounding divorce – particularly when it comes to agreeing the split of assets with your former spouse.

By employing an accountant, business owners receive the professional help they need to identify earnings and ascertain the value of any shares, investments, options and pensions.

In particular, an accountant will know how to evaluate the worth of the business – whether that’s a sole trader, a partnership or a limited company.

Discussing business and taxation affairs with an accountant as soon as it has been agreed to separate is a helpful first step towards the financial disclosure element of any divorce.

Depending on your personal situation, it may be advisable to see the accountant first – indeed he or she may be able to recommend an experienced family lawyer. However, if a situation is acrimonious, then a divorce solicitor should still be the first port of call.

If your ex does not work, then his or her lawyer will request appropriate disclosure of your income and assets. A key tip, however, is not to make rash promises about a house and maintenance before you speak to both your lawyer and accountant.

Sometimes a forensic accountant will need to be called in to examine information provided to lawyers if it is viewed as incomplete or suspicious. For instance, if one party claims to be poverty stricken, but is seen buying new cars and going on expensive holidays.

Unfortunately, some people try to hide their assets or try to reduce the profitability of their business so that they can reduce their income levels and payments to their ex. As I have written previously, no court will look favourably on this behaviour – and if you hide assets, you will be found out.

If you have a business to protect through a divorce then a chat with your accountant makes good financial sense.

Read more:
Getting divorced? Make sure you speak to your accountant!

Duncan Bannatyne reveals the warts and all heartbreak of his marriage breakup and divorce to second wife Joanne McCue in his autobiography Riding the Storm. His personal revelations demonstrate that no amount of money or career success can lessen the pain of divorce.

Despite his millions, the business angel says that the end of his marriage crushed him physically and emotionally and, as the divorce process continued, he turned to drink and became increasingly depressed.

Duncan, well known for his no nonsense style, reveals that he had to flee the television studio during the recording of Dragon’s Den to “go and cry somewhere” after discovering his wife was divorcing him.

When Joanne broke the news via a text message that she wanted their marriage to be terminated while he was filming the ninth series of the popular BBC 2 business programme, Duncan writes that “I couldn’t believe that after 18 years together she didn’t tell me in person”.

He describes waiting on Darlington railway station for a train to London with “tears streaming down my face” and feeling that the only way to “make the pain stop” would be to jump in front of a fast train.

Duncan’s despair turned to anger as he labelled his ex-wife a “gold digger” and revealed that the couple had not signed a pre-nuptial agreement. The Dragon even vented his feelings on Twitter – on one occasion Tweeting “#singleBecause I didn’t sign a prenup#divorcedformoney”

We live in a society where it is still perceived that ‘real men’ – particularly successful and powerful men – keep their emotions under wraps. The entrepreneur’s admission of his fragile state of mind serves as a lesson that even the strongest people can plunge the depths of despair when their marriage falls apart.

Throughout my decades as a family lawyer I have witnessed clients from all walks of life – including many running successful businesses – who have struggled to cope with the emotional fall out of separation and divorce. On numerous occasions I have driven to meet distraught clients in pubs and tearooms out of office hours – because they feel alone, depressed and vulnerable.

During the day these business leaders may be holding it together, but when staff leave and the phones stop, these successful business people may have no one to talk to and they can feel isolated.

Apparently Duncan’s best man advised him to draw up a pre-nup and that raises the question why the TV celebrity – who had built and grown a substantial business empire and whose divorce left him ‘financially crippled’ – ruled it out?

Lawyers and other professional advisers will often recommend that business owners sign such an agreement, so what are the lessons from the Dragon’s Den star to lessen the emotional and financial pain of divorce?

1. If you are the one seeking a divorce, then make time to have a face to face conversation with your partner. It may be tempting to text messages or email to break the bad news, but is that fair? You are about to deliver devastating news to your partner – someone you presumably loved at some point in your relationship – so consider how that will affect them emotionally and psychologically.

2. If you are the hurt party then, like Duncan Bannatyne, you may feel depressed, suicidal and perhaps very alone. Duncan was fortunate to be supported by good friends including his Dragon’s Den co-star Peter Jones. However, men in particular can find it hard to talk about their feelings to their mates. A good family lawyer should be able to refer you to a counsellor or talk to your GP about what help is available.

3. In business you wouldn’t appoint someone without personal recommendation or a good reference – the same applies to choosing a divorce lawyer. Ask around among friends, colleagues and professional advisers to find someone you rate and like. Not only will a respected, experienced divorce lawyer provide sound, practical advice he or she will also offer you appropriate support through what may be many challenging and emotionally draining weeks and months

4. It is extremely unhelpful when friends and family decide to meddle or badmouth your ex so I would advise asking them to stay on the side-lines and instead offer you emotional and physical support when you need it. Social media platforms have provided new, very public platforms for some people to promote extreme and inappropriate views. For example, Duncan says that he discovered one of his “Twitter trolls” who was writing anonymous “bullying” tweets, was related to his ex-wife.

5. The entrepreneur says he became increasingly angry about the financial side of his divorce; worrying about how he would continue to support his children and his charities. While such anger is understandable, I recommend a non-confrontational approach, wherever possible. Negotiation is the best way to resolve critical, yet often challenging financial settlements – including if a business is involved. If you have signed a pre-nup this agreement gives both parties clarity about their respective financial positions post-divorce. In the absence of a pre-nup, negotiation can avoid the trauma and added cost of court if you and your ex, together with your lawyers, work collaboratively to discuss the issues and different solutions.

The entrepreneur’s poignant revelations reinforce how even the most successful, hard-nosed business leaders allow their hearts to rule their heads when it comes to affairs of the heart. Once recovered from this ordeal – and if considering marriage again – he will undoubtedly be saying ‘I do’ to taking up a pre-nup – and taking the next Mrs Bannatyne down the aisle.

Read more:
Painful Lessons from a Dragon’s Divorce Trauma

It is a myth that living with a partner for a significant period of time automatically confers on a couple the same rights as their married counterparts. Cohabiting couples are not ‘common law husband and wife’ – this concept ceased to exist in 1753.

Living together as a couple, or cohabitation, is a lifestyle choice for over four million couples in England and Wales. As the law presently stands, this means a significant and growing number of couples have fewer financial rights and responsibilities than those who marry or form a civil partnership.

A report from the Office of National Statistics indicates around half of those cohabiting for 10 years have married each other, just under four in 10 have separated, and slightly over one in 10 are still living together as a couple. Despite Law Commission recommendations that cohabiting couples should be entitled to inheritance rights after two years of living together and the same rights as married couples after five years, there appears no firm intention to introduce any reforms.

Cohabiting couples who run a business, own property and other assets need to be aware that in the event of a relationship breakdown the law treats each party as two unrelated individuals with no automatic share of any property, though there are rights to claim maintenance for any children.

There are many quite simple methods of everyone being protected with the added advantage of certainty in the business and domestic circumstances.

All business should have an agreement to reflect ownership rights. There is rarely a good reason for only one of the couple to be referred to on all the legal and corporate documents.

Make a will to set out what should happen to the assets and consider the tax implications. If one partner dies, the other will not inherit their assets unless a will has been made to that effect. It’s essential that cohabiting couples know how to protect themselves, their partner and their business from the legal and financial complications which can arise in the event of separation or death.

Agree to sign a legally binding Cohabitation Agreement that sets out what will happen to property, business and other assets, should the worst happen. Whilst this may seem cold hearted, no one know what the future holds – and the stresses of running a business with a life-partner could just as easily drive a wedge between the couple as it could bring them closer together.

A Cohabitation Agreement states how property, a business, personal belongings and savings should be split so the rights of each are protected should the relationship break down. Cohabitation agreements offer more protection than pre-nuptial agreements, which are still not binding in the courts in England and Wales despite the Radmacher ruling.

Long term security and peace of mind can be achieved by setting down your intentions clearly at the start. Don’t trust your business to luck when it can be protected by law.

Read more:
Cohabiting couple? Don’t trust your business to luck