The Conservative chair of the Public Administration Select Committee used the Charity Commission’s evidence session before the Committee yesterday to grill Commission chair Dame Suzi Leather about her personal views on the charitable status of public schools.

Committee chair Bernard Jenkin kicked off the questioning about the Tribunal’s judgment on the Commission’s public benefit guidance by asking: “This guidance was a big mistake, wasn’t it?” and followed this shortly after with: “On a personal level, do you accept independent schools can be charities?”

Dame Suzi responded: “We have always recognised, of course, that independent schools can be charities, but they must behave as charities.”

Jenkin queried why Scotland had not experienced the same problems following the law in relation to public benefit of charitable schools, to which Dame Suzi explained that the law in Scotland is different. “It’s an activities test in Scotland, whereas it’s a purposes test here.”

Jenkin mused that perhaps the English legislation was “framed to foment a dispute with independent schools”.

Labour MP Kelvin Hopkins intervened, stating that he still could not be persuaded that public schools should be charities. He said that if the government wanted to subsidise such organisations it should be honest about it and call it a subsidy for private education, but not pretend they are charities.  Jenkin then added: “Isn't that really what you think too, Dame Suzi, personally?”

Dame Suzi shot back: “My view is we should uphold the law.  That's what we've tried to do all along. I go absolutely no further than that.  The Tribunal judgment rather clearly says that in a sense this is going to please no one on either side of the political divide and must eventually be answered by Parliament, not by the courts and not by the Charity Commission.”

She added: “With this judgment we now have greater clarity about what the Act means, but it is up to Parliament whether what it means is what Parliament wants.”

Labour MP Paul Flynn then asked her whether she felt the “savage cuts” to her department were driven by “party-political malice”, but Dame Suzi said she did not think the Commission had been singled out for harsh treatment.

“No I don’t think it is politically motivated, of course I don’t,” she said.