Letter to the Chairman of the Committee
submitted by Rosie Chapman, Executive Director of Policy and Effectiveness,
The Charity Commission
You may remember we had a useful meeting a couple
of months ago to discuss the Charity Commission's guidance on
public benefit and the impact on charitable independent schools
(and the possible knock-on effect on co-operation between the
independent and maintained sectors).
I was interested to hear the evidence Chris
Parry, of the Independent Schools Council, gave to the Committee
yesterday. As you can imagine we were disappointed by a lot of
what he said, but I'm sure the Committee is used to hearing a
range of views and opinions!
However I did feel I ought to write to correct
one factual error. Mr Parry asserted that the Commission has not
given any assurances that the public benefit test will be applied
proportionately when dealing with independent charitable schools.
We have said time and again that we understand that (as with all
charities) one size does not fit all, and that we will not have
the same expectations of small schools as of larger schools with
substantial endowments. This is made clear in the draft guidance
itself on page 13, when we say that, "recognising the different
circumstances of different fee-charging charities, we do not expect
all fee-charging charities to meet the public benefit requirement
in the same way. Nor do we expect small charities with few resources
to be in a position to offer the same opportunities to benefit
that larger charities with more resources at their disposal might
be capable of providing". We also emphasised this point at
the Independent Schools Council's recent conference on public
benefit, when our Chair Dame Suzi Leather said in her speech,
"for the majority of smaller independent schools the major
hurdle you face is that of stretched, or dwindling, resources.
We understand that, and won't expect you to be able to match the
achievements of the wealthier schools."
Proportionality is of course essential for any
modern regulator and our approach to public benefit will be consistent
with our general approach, which as you know is to work with charities
to enable them to meet regulatory requirements and to expect more
of those with more resources and capacity.
I hope this provides useful clarification. As
you know we are still consulting on our draft guidance, but if
this evidence session has prompted any further questions do let
me know how we can help.
May 2008
| 
