New Charity Commission boss starts well...

****

There has been a deal of debate about the funding of charities and the extent to which too many are too dependent and too close to the state. And William Shawcross, the new Charity Commission Chairman has picked this up:

Some charities risk becoming too dependent on the state, the new chair of the Charity Commission has warned, saying there needs to be debate on whether the charity register should make clear how an organisation is funded.

And Shawcross pointed us at how the public perceives charity:

He suggested that some charities risk becoming too dependent on the state, adding that most members of the public would say a charity was an organisation funded by private donations not public funds.

A reminder that the legal definition of charity - the purposes of the organisation - is very different from the public perception.

A big - and welcome - contrast with the previous Chair, I feel.

....

In which the Charity Commission becomes a lawmaker...

****

I'm inclined to side with the Charity Commission in this matter except for one minor point. It isn't the Commission's job to define the law:

“This decision makes it clear that there is no presumption that religion generally, or at any more specific level, is for the public benefit, even in the case of Christianity or the Church of England. The case law on religion is rather ambiguous.  Our view is that the definition is rather dated, and it is our job to define it adequately.”

If there is a case for removing charitable status from religion then that is a matter for Parliament not the Commission.

...

So what exactly is a charity? A lesson in bad lawmaking.

Recently, the courts arrived at a conclusion to the matter of public benefit and charities that charge fees (the consequence of the 2006 Act where the Labour government tried to shaft private schools without being seen to do so directly). In simple terms the Labour Party wanted to stop schools for wealthy parents receiving the "benefits" of being a charity, chief among which is tax relief.

The judgment - although it appeared to get the schools off the hook - left us with the consequence of Labour politically-motivated approach to charity. We should recall that not only did the party pass the 2006 Act but they made sure that the leadership of the charity commission was on their side in the mission to shaft private schools.

Then it started doing public benefit guidance on high risk (ie possible low-public-benefit charities).  For some this was akin to Thomas Cromwell going round dissolving the monasteries in 1536.  In 2009 the Commission failed two prep schools on their public benefit assessment – this was because the schools were giving inadequate provision to poor people. 

These schools, like most private schools, were long-established and operated exclusively to the benefit of their users rather than in the search of profit. As such they had met the idea of charity that existed prior to Labour's tinkering - the provision of education had been assumed to be a purpose worthy of being deemed charitable.

More to the point, the new "public benefit" requirements raised concerns for other charities that charged fees:

...‘where a charity charges high fees that many people could not afford, the trustees must ensure that the benefits are not unreasonably restricted by a person’s ability to pay and the people in poverty are not excluded from the opportunity to benefit’.

Lots of facilities run by charitable trusts - places such a swimming pools, clinics, sports clubs and theatres (how much does a ticket at the Royal Opera House cost these days?) - were caught in the headlights of this definition. A definition introduced purely from political spite.

Nobody loses from a public school - or the Royal Opera House - enjoying tax relief. Except a very marginal loss to the government. And many thousands gain - Britain retains the examples that are the world's best schools as we also have the pleasure of knowing that the high arts retain a significance and importance in our culture.

Had it not been for Tony Blair's desire to appease the bigoted left of his party, none of this would have happened. The 2006 Charities Act was bad law and this judgement reminds of of the fact.

....

The attack on private education – introducing the Education Review Group

****

Many readers will be aware of the Charity Commission’s review of how – or whether – private schools with charitable status apply that status in terms of providing “public benefit”. You will also appreciate that the review was motivated primarily by political objectives rather than by any suggestion that these schools lacked charitable purpose.

There is to be a Charity Tribunal to address this matter – essentially removing decisions from the Charity Commission itself – prompted by Dominic Grieve, the Attorney General:

The Attorney General, Dominic Grieve, has asked the charity tribunal to clarify how charity law should operate in relation to fee-charging independent schools.

The move has been prompted by the long-standing dissatisfaction of the Independent Schools Council about the Charity Commission's guidance on public benefit, which it says is a misinterpretation of the law.

This Tribunal will consider the narrow questions raised by Mr Grieve as well as the judicial review requested by the ISC. The hearing is scheduled for May.

The latest turn in this story has been the addition of the Education Review Group (ERG) as a party to the hearing on private schools and public benefit. The ERG is described as:

“...a body set up to advise the Charity Commission on public benefit in the education sector.”

So, one would assume, a carefully balanced group of experts drawn from academia, the law and education. And on the face of it this is the case – until you see who is involved:

Fiona Millar, Writer and former Special Advisor, School Governor

Melissa Benn, writer on education issues

Plus this person:

From school meals to school selection policies, Margaret Tulloch has been a tireless campaigner for state education for half a lifetime.

The ERG consists of a name check for opponents of private education and supported of comprehensive schools. It is not – despite the presence of a raft of academics – remotely balanced. So it will come as no surprise that its evidence to the tribunal is highly critical of private schools:

"Private schools have significant ‘disbenefits’ to society: for example, by removing able and committed pupils from the state sector and by being one of the most significant barriers to social mobility," it says.

"For this reason, they cannot show public benefit by pointing to debatable or nebulous wider benefits, such as saving money for the state or providing well-educated pupils."

The ERG presents these – and a range of other misleading and sweeping statements – as “facts” to be considered by the Tribunal.  However, what really concerns me here is the clear evidence that the Charity Commission did set out to remove charitable status from private schools and, through the ERG, created a ‘front organisation’ to advise it made up entirely from opponents of private education, selection, grammar schools and adequate school discipline. The very people whose influence condemned – and continues to condemn – tens of thousands of children to a life of semi-literacy and menial jobs.

 ....