January 2011 offcuts_Jan Offcuts 2010.qxd.qxd - The OKS Association

LORD PILKINGTON
We are grateful to Tom Macan, father of
Melissa Macan (WL 1997-2002), for
pointing out the error in our last edition where
we described Lord Pilkington (Headmaster
1975-86) as only the second public school
headmaster since the War to be created a Life
Peer (after Lord James of Rusholme). In fact the
second was Lord Wolfenden of Westcott, who was
created a Life Peer in 1974 at the expiry of his
term as Director of the British Museum. Prior to
holding a number of significant public positions,
Lord Wolfenden had been Headmaster of both
Uppingham and Shrewsbury. (Mr Macan is an
Old Salopian).
The ideology of educational change tends
not to be a direct concern of teachers in
the fee-paying sector, nor indeed of parents
or OKS once done with the educational
process. Almost certainly they are unwise
in this, since the central principle of those
committed to the comprehensive ideal is
that no one of school age can be said to
attend a comprehensive school until
everyone of school age does so: all
alternatives must be eliminated.
Independent schools have few positive
campaigners in Parliament, but Lord
Pilkington remains someone who will
speak out against monopoly projects. In
the Public Bodies debate, lasting more than
eight hours on 9 November 2010, in the
House of Lords, Lord Pilkington (speaking
after six hours) attacked the operation of
the Charities Act 2006, which (regrettably)
“went through without too much
questioning”.
The Bill’s topic was “the quango state”, the
£38 bn spent in 2009 (as a yardstick the
Defence budget is £32 bn) on 901 public
bodies, 481 of which are due to be
reformed or abolished. Lord Pilkington’s
concern was with the arguable abuse of a
quango. (Extracted from Hansard Vol. 722, No.
62).
“My Lords, I wish to raise problems relating to
the charity commissioners, I am encouraged by
the fact that my noble friend talked about their
impartiality and integrity, which has been
mentioned by other noble Lords. However, I
worry about the charity commissioners because I
feel that they have shown prejudice and
partisanship, particularly with regard to
independent schools. I confess to an interest, in
that I spent all my professional life in
independent schools. I was master in charge of
the scholars at Eton and headmaster at two
other independent schools. I feel that the
Charity Commission has started to show a
political bias, which has actually been unnoticed
in the whole of its history since it was set up by
statute in 1853.
The facts is that very few independent schools
have large endowments, but it has been
acknowledged since 1601 that education is a
charity and a charitable act. In consequence,
every independent school that I know subsidises
poor pupils with scholarships and bursaries.
They do this by taking money out of their total
income. The advantage given by charitable
status is used to give these scholarships and
bursaries. For example, at King’s School,
Canterbury, where I was the Headmaster for 11
years, there were no endowments whatever. It
took 13 per cent of its mainly fee-paying income
to subsidise scholarships and bursaries.
The present charitable administration is
questioning the commitment of independent
schools to their charitable status. That is quite
wrong and prejudiced and ought to be
questioned. It could have an effect on the
ancient universities, taking away their
independence. As noble Lords know, the only
universities to have large endowments are Oxford
and Cambridge and one or two others, but some
new universities are raising endowments. It is
crucial to a democracy that a state should not
influence their admission procedure or anything.
Charitable status is terribly important to this.
Because of that, I think that this legislature
should begin to question the Charity Commission
in this matter.
Everyone has looked at all sorts of charities and
we have talked of the integrity of the Charity
Commission, but I have the audacity to qustion
that. The Charities Act 2006 went through
without too much questioning – and I plead
guilty myself as I was ill at the time. The
Charity Commission has turned very general
clauses into a way of questioning the whole
business of charitable education, particularly in
independent schools. That is wrong and should
be questioned. It is wrong that political activity
should enter into such an organisation and I
shall certainly be raising the issue later.”
HELPFUL VOICES
Possibly Lord Pilkington may gain an
opportunity to talk to one of his King’s
sixth-formers Kate Fall (WL 1983-85)
is beginning to come out of the shadows, as
the Prime Minister’s Deputy Chief of Staff.
“Arguably the most powerful woman in
government, she has much less time these
days for shopping trips with Mrs C., but
they remain close,” according to one
commentator. “A small circle of young,
glamorous, well-connected women, among
them Kate Fall, 43, a friend of Mr
Cameron at Oxford,” says another.
All we could offer an enquring journalist is
Robert Scott’s “very impressive list of
paino works Kate played in her time at
King’s”, some seventeen high-quality piano
pieces; she gained Grade VIII Merit at
Piano and Grade VIII flute. Kate doesn’t
seem to have studied Machiavelli whilst
here, but The New Machiavelli by Tony Blair’s
Chief of Staff, Jonathan Powell (GL
1969-73), has been attracting a large
number of reviews, not all of them
friendly. (If he had waited one year,he
could have matched the centenary of HG
Wells’ book with the same title).
“This book is of immense value, not just as
a manual of modern government but
because it illustrates the arrogant,
unselfconscious belief of the Blairites that
they knew best about everything” (Andrew
Gimson).
“The book is fascinating in all its examples
of ghastliness. Ghastliest of all is Gordon
Brown. Brown lies, he bullies, he subverts,
and ultimately he brings down the prince,
the paragon of first-class temperament. All
Blair’s failures appear to be the result of
other men’s weakness or spite, or else of
outrageous fortune” (Alan Mallinson).
We can look forward to an insider’s view
of Jonathan Powell’s book in the May issue
of Offcuts, since we are privileged that
Lord Garel-Jones, PC (GR 1954-60) has
agreed to review it.
Hugh Robertson
Hugh Robertson, MP, Minister for
Sport, (BR 1976-81) didn’t quite make the
Dream Team for Zurich. “Me, Prince
William and the Prime Minister arriving
has turned things around,” said Becks,
unselfconsciously setting out the right
order of icons, the day before the
decisions, but Hugh was with them for the
announcement. Alas! No oil, no gas and
reporters who fail to get themselves
gunned down when investigating
corruption. No win!
However, he has been purposeful in his
attempts to change the governing hierarchy
of the Football Association, which he
regards as resistant to change and
inadequate at standing up for the wider
interests of football against the megamoney
of the Premier League.
OKS Offcuts • Jan 2011 • Issue 31
7
The OKS Association • www.oks.org.uk