Where does charity begin?

Keir Starmer has just rowed back on yet another Labour pledge, this time the one about removing the charitable status of public and private schools in England and Wales. Add this to the litany of broken commitments and you wonder why they bother making any such proposals at all; unless, of course, it's simply flying a kite to test public opinion?

Anyway, Labour now says it would charge private schools 20% VAT within one hundred days of coming to power, as well as ending business rates relief, to raise an estimated £1.7bn. The rationale is, presumably, that removing charitable status could open the way to protracted legal challenges from some of the most powerful institutions in the country, with alumni in every echelon of power. One can understand why, given the scale of the task Labour will be taking on if it wins power - everything, everywhere, all at once, so to speak - they might want to clear the decks of any problematic policies. Now they scent power, a ruthless pragmatism comes into play - that's the realpolitik of the situation. The time for blue-sky thinking is over, the need for grubby compromise has arrived.

Were it not for the plethora of dilemmas facing Labour right now an even more ambitious commitment to overhauling the entire charitable sector might have been a worthy objective. As a former chair of a Council for Voluntary Service (CVS), representing the voluntary and charitable (or Third) sector, I might be expected to support charitable status. In principle, I do, but in practice in England and Wales the system's a mess. It leads me to question whether the mediaeval Christian concept of charity (from the Latin caritas meaning love) any longer has a place in modern secular society.

There can be no doubting the charitable instincts of the British people. One only has to look at the astonishing outpouring of financial support for various 'good causes' to realise the scale of their generosity, even in straitened times. But should it necessarily be encouraged?  Does it not, rather, absolve the state of its proper responsibilities (for example for the welfare of its military veterans or for cancer research) and promote a mindset that, by making a donation to a particular cause, it's problem solved, job done, move on? My worry is that, by salving one's conscience by donating while not actually addressing the underlying issues of gross inequality, charity simply perpetuates social injustice rather than redressing it.

There has apparently been a 40% rise in the number of high street charity shops in the last fifteen years, hardly surprising when highstreet shopping is in decline and shop premises sit empty. Landlords are liable for full business rates on commercial properties that remain unoccupied for three months or more. It makes commercial sense, therefore, for landlords to sign agreements with charities and charities occupying such property qualify for a mandatory 80% discount on business rates, with local authorities having discretion to grant a concessionary waiver of the remaining 20%. This represents a win-win situation for landlords and charities but is not necessarily good for a mixed economy on our highstreets, or for council finances.

Charity shops receive donations free of charge and are mainly staffed by volunteer workers, keeping their overheads low and putting them at an unfair advantage over commercial operators. If England is still a nation of shopkeepers, as Napoleon sneeringly suggested, then we are putting our established and start-up enterprises at a distinct disadvantage by perpetuating such an unequal system. Local economies will not experience the looked-for 'growth' (that mantra of every mainstream politicsl party these days) or well-paid, secure jobs if this situation is allowed to persist. And then there are the chuggers...

I find the trend for charities sending out gaggles of eager young people onto our highstreets to accost passers-by for subscriptions and donations utterly reprehensible. These so-called 'charity muggers' make an already stressful experience in our shopping centres infinitely more so. As for the youngsters themselves, I don't blame them or doubt the sincerity of their motivation, but are they paid for their labour and, if so, is it on a commission basis? Would charity CEO's work on this basis I wonder? It smacks of exploitation and seems a highly unsatisfactory arrangement - except for the charities, obviously, or they wouldn't be doing it.

According to the National Council for Voluntary Organisations (NCVO) Civil Society Almanac 2022, the sector contributed £20.2billion (1% of total GDP) to the UK economy in 2019/20, with a total income of £58.7billion. During this period there were 165,758 voluntary organisations in the UK. The sector is obviously in rude health but does it lead to a healthy society? Surely in the 21st century it can't be right for injured military personnel, for example, to be dependent on charity for their care and rehabilitation. Surely prosthetic limbs, physio- and psychotherapy, training for civilian life, job opportunities, housing etc should be an obligation of government and not reliant on the whim of charity. Sure, giving makes one feel good - and may even be tax deductible - but I would rather pay higher taxes for properly regulated state services and be relieved of the constant bombardment (and guilt tripping) of charitable requests.

The Charity Commission, charged with oversignt of the sector, has itself been the subject of public criticism and official review, with some calling for its abolition. My own experience of the Commission has not inspired much confidence and I firmly believe a root-and-branch review is long overdue. Maybe a Royal Commission should look into it but, then, royalty itself is not immune from criticism of its charitable efforts. Receiving bags of cash from a Qatari sheik for one's princely charities is really not a good look.

Charity may begin at home, but where does it end?