Liberate small charities, voluntary groups and individuals

The number and source of laws and regulations constraining the actions of individuals and voluntary groups in carrying out community and civic activities are so extensive that their repeal would be slow and tortuous. In the meantime it is becoming impossible to get people to volunteer because of the hoops they have to jump through, and the threats of criminal and civil action if they persevere; from statutes on discrimination, health and safety, protection of the vulnerable, etc and from litigation in respect of employees, clients, etc seeking compensation and damages for perceived injury.

The principle must be re-established in law that a person giving their time and skills freely for the good of the community should be protected from criminal and civil action, provided only that they have acted in good faith and without wilful negligence.

This would make it more difficult to justify legal action against volunteers, freeing them from the anxiety that by attempting to benefit others they would become victims of the legal minefield which professional and commercial agents now navigate, but without any of the resources the latter can call upon in mitigation.

Why is this idea important?

The number and source of laws and regulations constraining the actions of individuals and voluntary groups in carrying out community and civic activities are so extensive that their repeal would be slow and tortuous. In the meantime it is becoming impossible to get people to volunteer because of the hoops they have to jump through, and the threats of criminal and civil action if they persevere; from statutes on discrimination, health and safety, protection of the vulnerable, etc and from litigation in respect of employees, clients, etc seeking compensation and damages for perceived injury.

The principle must be re-established in law that a person giving their time and skills freely for the good of the community should be protected from criminal and civil action, provided only that they have acted in good faith and without wilful negligence.

This would make it more difficult to justify legal action against volunteers, freeing them from the anxiety that by attempting to benefit others they would become victims of the legal minefield which professional and commercial agents now navigate, but without any of the resources the latter can call upon in mitigation.

Chuggers (Charity Muggers)

Any chance we can get the chuggers off the streets.  I have to run a gaultlet of them every morning to get to work and then they try to get me again on the way home. 

 

I do not object to normal charity collection and I even sometimes give when I'm not broke but the constant harrassment by artificially cheerful drama students earning commission is bringing to light worrying levels of anti-social undercurrent.

Why is this idea important?

Any chance we can get the chuggers off the streets.  I have to run a gaultlet of them every morning to get to work and then they try to get me again on the way home. 

 

I do not object to normal charity collection and I even sometimes give when I'm not broke but the constant harrassment by artificially cheerful drama students earning commission is bringing to light worrying levels of anti-social undercurrent.

One CRB for one person

It is ludicrous that I now have three CRB certificates running simultaneously. I am a retired Minister of Religion in my 78th year. I have one CRB as a Minister, one as a retired Minister, and one as a volunteer taking people without transport to Hospitals in various parts of the South West for a local Charity.

This is tantamount  to making a car driver with a licence having to apply again if s/he wants to go to Bognor and not Bournemouth. It is hugely wasteful of the money of many charities, now having to fork out £60 for each one, all of which appear to be identical. When a supply teacher is needed urgently by a school, s/he has to wait for umpteen weeks for Capita to get round to dealing with it yet again: some teachers end up with so many of these things that it is hardly worth their time being willing to supply.  A modicum of Common sense, if there is any to be found in the system, would be welcome. An annual CRB would be preferable, as with a MoT

Why is this idea important?

It is ludicrous that I now have three CRB certificates running simultaneously. I am a retired Minister of Religion in my 78th year. I have one CRB as a Minister, one as a retired Minister, and one as a volunteer taking people without transport to Hospitals in various parts of the South West for a local Charity.

This is tantamount  to making a car driver with a licence having to apply again if s/he wants to go to Bognor and not Bournemouth. It is hugely wasteful of the money of many charities, now having to fork out £60 for each one, all of which appear to be identical. When a supply teacher is needed urgently by a school, s/he has to wait for umpteen weeks for Capita to get round to dealing with it yet again: some teachers end up with so many of these things that it is hardly worth their time being willing to supply.  A modicum of Common sense, if there is any to be found in the system, would be welcome. An annual CRB would be preferable, as with a MoT

Update definition of forestry to include community and educational use

The current definition of forestry is limited and is inconsistent with DEFRA'S latest strategy for Trees, Woods and Forests which states that community and educational use of woodlands is core to it's aims.

Under current planning law, woodlands are only available for 'non forestry' use for 28 days a year. This means that community forest schools (which offer children opportunities to learn and connect with their environment), woodland playschemes and conservation groups using young people as volunteers may be required to apply for change of use. Current definitions of land use are also inflexible so that there are no sub groups; educational use is presumed to be a 'school' and a conservation project can find themselves being asked to supply car parking to the same specifications as a new build school in order to get change of use.

I would like the definition of forestry and agrigulture to be more flexible- to allow for sustainable community growing and conservation projects.

Why is this idea important?

The current definition of forestry is limited and is inconsistent with DEFRA'S latest strategy for Trees, Woods and Forests which states that community and educational use of woodlands is core to it's aims.

Under current planning law, woodlands are only available for 'non forestry' use for 28 days a year. This means that community forest schools (which offer children opportunities to learn and connect with their environment), woodland playschemes and conservation groups using young people as volunteers may be required to apply for change of use. Current definitions of land use are also inflexible so that there are no sub groups; educational use is presumed to be a 'school' and a conservation project can find themselves being asked to supply car parking to the same specifications as a new build school in order to get change of use.

I would like the definition of forestry and agrigulture to be more flexible- to allow for sustainable community growing and conservation projects.

Overhaul the rules for charities.

Charities are required to be for ‘public benefit’. ‘Public benefit’ is not defined in such a way that the activities of the charity need actually be in the long term interests of society. This is particularly the case for religious charities.

Why is this idea important?

Charities are required to be for ‘public benefit’. ‘Public benefit’ is not defined in such a way that the activities of the charity need actually be in the long term interests of society. This is particularly the case for religious charities.

Gift Aid on items donated to charity shops

The Gift Aid scheme for goods donated to charity shops should be simplified to encourage charitable giving and help charities carry out their vital work.  Members of the public that wish to Gift Aid donated goods should be allowed to make an enduring declaration for all their donations to charity shops.

Why is this idea important?

The Gift Aid scheme for goods donated to charity shops should be simplified to encourage charitable giving and help charities carry out their vital work.  Members of the public that wish to Gift Aid donated goods should be allowed to make an enduring declaration for all their donations to charity shops.

Self-Taxing Of Cannabis, An Idea For Legitimacy

You only have to browse this website to know cannabis users are very eloquent, informed, and well read.  The stigmatisation of this substance is archaic, and frankly, embarrassing to our international relations.  We are one of the last great garrison on the war on cannabis.

The UK cannabis user is desperately seeking legitimacy and to not be stigmatised by the ignorance and propaganda that has engulfed this subject for 90 years out of its 4000 year documented history.

I myself was anti cannabis until 2005, this was due to the fact I had no reason to seek further education on it, I was a closed book.  Now, after years of research, I truly am left awestruck at the level of misinformation that I had been subjected to via the media.  I have never broken a law, I have a high regard for morals, and the subject of cannabis inflames my humanity and morality into overdrive, the fact that it saves lives, including my own, is a travesty to those who suffer.

It is our democratic necessity to question and debate law, because a law exists it doesn't make it just.  History is littered with examples.  Clearly, the cannabis users of the UK have a great social standing and wish to be recognised as hard working and intelligible people; with this in mind, I propose thus:

Our country is in fiscal disaster, our troops are in danger and are dying through lack of money and equipment, the cannabis community are urging, crying out to be taxed on our substance of preference -in any society- this is a juxtaposed stance to say the least. 

If our voice is to be ignored once more as it has time and time again, in the anteroom, I would like to see an autonomous system where we self tax our usage.  It is simply not decent that cannabis has been ignored as a source of revenue when people are in mortal danger due to lack of funds, whether it be the NHS and hospitals or troops, it is once more morally repugnant that this is allowed.

The idea: If you are to use cannabis in any way, then you allow a brief period of reflection for those who are suffering and in need.  I would like to see a charity set up where we can all anonymously pay into without fear of reprisal.  This charity would act as our own taxation and contribution to the country.  If we all did our part and added a small amount with each usage like we would any other substance such as alcohol,  then we can stand up and be counted. 

Charities I would like to see benefit are the ones in need to alleviate suffering, such as Help the Heroes, British Legion, M.S association, and on a personal note, the M.E association, but of course, this would be up to the community as a whole as this is how democracy works, there are many people in need in current times.

We could raise much revenue in self taxing, and when we all seek to do this through legalisation, then I propose we all do our bit now and help the country where it is needed, we cannot let people suffer when we are readily prepared to pay our way.

Sounds idealist doesn't it?  But it doesn't have to be, it can be the simplest and most profitable protest of all time.  Identities can still be anonymous all the while law and stigma demands it so, so there is truly nothing to lose and everything to gain.

It is estimated cannabis taxation could raise millions, possibly billions.  If we actually did our bit, we could do a lot of good through amicable defiance.

Why is this idea important?

You only have to browse this website to know cannabis users are very eloquent, informed, and well read.  The stigmatisation of this substance is archaic, and frankly, embarrassing to our international relations.  We are one of the last great garrison on the war on cannabis.

The UK cannabis user is desperately seeking legitimacy and to not be stigmatised by the ignorance and propaganda that has engulfed this subject for 90 years out of its 4000 year documented history.

I myself was anti cannabis until 2005, this was due to the fact I had no reason to seek further education on it, I was a closed book.  Now, after years of research, I truly am left awestruck at the level of misinformation that I had been subjected to via the media.  I have never broken a law, I have a high regard for morals, and the subject of cannabis inflames my humanity and morality into overdrive, the fact that it saves lives, including my own, is a travesty to those who suffer.

It is our democratic necessity to question and debate law, because a law exists it doesn't make it just.  History is littered with examples.  Clearly, the cannabis users of the UK have a great social standing and wish to be recognised as hard working and intelligible people; with this in mind, I propose thus:

Our country is in fiscal disaster, our troops are in danger and are dying through lack of money and equipment, the cannabis community are urging, crying out to be taxed on our substance of preference -in any society- this is a juxtaposed stance to say the least. 

If our voice is to be ignored once more as it has time and time again, in the anteroom, I would like to see an autonomous system where we self tax our usage.  It is simply not decent that cannabis has been ignored as a source of revenue when people are in mortal danger due to lack of funds, whether it be the NHS and hospitals or troops, it is once more morally repugnant that this is allowed.

The idea: If you are to use cannabis in any way, then you allow a brief period of reflection for those who are suffering and in need.  I would like to see a charity set up where we can all anonymously pay into without fear of reprisal.  This charity would act as our own taxation and contribution to the country.  If we all did our part and added a small amount with each usage like we would any other substance such as alcohol,  then we can stand up and be counted. 

Charities I would like to see benefit are the ones in need to alleviate suffering, such as Help the Heroes, British Legion, M.S association, and on a personal note, the M.E association, but of course, this would be up to the community as a whole as this is how democracy works, there are many people in need in current times.

We could raise much revenue in self taxing, and when we all seek to do this through legalisation, then I propose we all do our bit now and help the country where it is needed, we cannot let people suffer when we are readily prepared to pay our way.

Sounds idealist doesn't it?  But it doesn't have to be, it can be the simplest and most profitable protest of all time.  Identities can still be anonymous all the while law and stigma demands it so, so there is truly nothing to lose and everything to gain.

It is estimated cannabis taxation could raise millions, possibly billions.  If we actually did our bit, we could do a lot of good through amicable defiance.

Raffles – remove requirement to register.

Anyone holding a raffle is supposed to register and get permission. On tickets of larger raffles you will see the name and the address of the promoter. Most raffles however are quite small and involve generic raffle tickets bought from stationers, involve relatively few people and may only last a few hours for the duration of an event. The requirement to register is largely ignored in practice by the general public for these smaller raffles, so you may as well remove the law which states that the raffle shoudl be registered.

Why is this idea important?

Anyone holding a raffle is supposed to register and get permission. On tickets of larger raffles you will see the name and the address of the promoter. Most raffles however are quite small and involve generic raffle tickets bought from stationers, involve relatively few people and may only last a few hours for the duration of an event. The requirement to register is largely ignored in practice by the general public for these smaller raffles, so you may as well remove the law which states that the raffle shoudl be registered.

Prisoners To Do Charity Work

I believe it would be a good idea to give prisoners the option of reducing their sentance a little, if they manage to achieve a set amount of charity work. This may involve producing hand made nets for protecting crops, making useful tools, tents or cultivating plants for example.

Why is this idea important?

I believe it would be a good idea to give prisoners the option of reducing their sentance a little, if they manage to achieve a set amount of charity work. This may involve producing hand made nets for protecting crops, making useful tools, tents or cultivating plants for example.

Stop giving tax money to charity.

The tax system provides an incentive for people to to give money to charity through tax relief for higher rate payers and allowing charities to claim money from the government through gift aid.  It seems absurd to be looking at putting people out of work with cuts because we don't have enough money while we are giving money the likes of the dogs trust.

Why is this idea important?

The tax system provides an incentive for people to to give money to charity through tax relief for higher rate payers and allowing charities to claim money from the government through gift aid.  It seems absurd to be looking at putting people out of work with cuts because we don't have enough money while we are giving money the likes of the dogs trust.

Remove all special privileges given to “religious” organisations

Remove any and all privileges, tax breaks and special treatment given to ALL "religious" organisations.  Religion is a personal life style choice and should have no more control on public life or impact on legislation than the fan club of some football team or pop star.  I am not a Christian nor a follower of Islam nor a Buddhist nor a believer in any of the multitude of other religions available and I see no reason why I should fund (indirectly) these organisations through taxes.  I see no reason why the laws of this land should have to take into account any of the so-called beliefs of these organisations thereby forcing me to follow them.  There is no reason for them to receive tax breaks or subsidies that are paid for out of my taxes. All religious organisations are nothing more than fan-clubs or international businesses and should be treated and taxed as such.

Why is this idea important?

Remove any and all privileges, tax breaks and special treatment given to ALL "religious" organisations.  Religion is a personal life style choice and should have no more control on public life or impact on legislation than the fan club of some football team or pop star.  I am not a Christian nor a follower of Islam nor a Buddhist nor a believer in any of the multitude of other religions available and I see no reason why I should fund (indirectly) these organisations through taxes.  I see no reason why the laws of this land should have to take into account any of the so-called beliefs of these organisations thereby forcing me to follow them.  There is no reason for them to receive tax breaks or subsidies that are paid for out of my taxes. All religious organisations are nothing more than fan-clubs or international businesses and should be treated and taxed as such.

National Charity Network

I think the government should set up a National Charity Network, whereby Charities submit requests for free work needed to be done to help people in Great Britain, and if people in or out of work have free time, they could be allocated such tasks.

It's a win/win as it will feel good to do it, and for shy people like me will help to make friends more easily.

Why is this idea important?

I think the government should set up a National Charity Network, whereby Charities submit requests for free work needed to be done to help people in Great Britain, and if people in or out of work have free time, they could be allocated such tasks.

It's a win/win as it will feel good to do it, and for shy people like me will help to make friends more easily.

Freedom to work in the charity/voluntary sector

At the moment, the system as it stands makes it incredibly difficult for those who believe they have a genuine ability and predisposition for charitable work to make an active decision when they leave school and through their lives to enter such work.

People should have the freedom to enter such work without having to worry about financial constraints, as they are putting something valuable into society. 

Some like myself would prefer to work permanently in the charitable or voluntary sector, but have been forced because of financial pressures into private sector employment.

The whole system needs a rethink to allow those who wish to permanently offer their abilities to the charitable sector to be able to do so, and some means needs to be established that maybe the larger companies who have had a monopoly on the workforce for so long should make contributions towards local community funds which perhaps charitable or voluntary workers could be given enough to live on, and then topped up by the government.

Why is this idea important?

At the moment, the system as it stands makes it incredibly difficult for those who believe they have a genuine ability and predisposition for charitable work to make an active decision when they leave school and through their lives to enter such work.

People should have the freedom to enter such work without having to worry about financial constraints, as they are putting something valuable into society. 

Some like myself would prefer to work permanently in the charitable or voluntary sector, but have been forced because of financial pressures into private sector employment.

The whole system needs a rethink to allow those who wish to permanently offer their abilities to the charitable sector to be able to do so, and some means needs to be established that maybe the larger companies who have had a monopoly on the workforce for so long should make contributions towards local community funds which perhaps charitable or voluntary workers could be given enough to live on, and then topped up by the government.

Abolish the Criminal Records Bureau (CRB)

The Criminal Records Bureau is a wasteful and inefficient quango, unable to perform the impossible task it was given.  The CRB check fails to deliver its aim of safeguarding children and vulnerable people as it:

a) It is slow, costly and inefficient – CRB checks take an interminable time to process, months on end, in which time the organisation requesting the check has either employed the person anyway, or has left them sitting on their hands at home doing no work.  This prevents people who would be perfectly suited to working with children working with them.

b) It creates a false sense of security – a CRB is no security against someone being a paedophile or sexual predator; it only shows that they have not been one in the past.  As such it engenders a sense of false security, whereby dangerous people are not scrutinised as they have the right piece of paper.  The tragic events in Soham in 2003 demonstrate this.

c) Poisons society – by requiring the intervention of the police and the state to ensure that every interaction with children is 'safe' (or not, see 'b'), the CRB creates dangerous mistrust between parents, adults and children.  The assumption is one of criminality without the correct vetting by the state.

A simple, common-sense approach to child protection, based on both responsible and clear headed thought by those appointing people to work with children and vulnerable people – while also allowing them to personally check on their employment history and other details (as you would for any other job) by directly contacting the relevant police authorities if necessary – would improve child safety more than a CRB check, conducted by faceless and unaccountable officials.

I therefore propose that the requirement for CRB checks be removed, and that the CRB be abolished.

The above also applies to the Independent Safeguarding Authority, the 'mini' CRB – another quango looking to check those who might have contact with children – i.e. everyone!

David Wickes

Why is this idea important?

The Criminal Records Bureau is a wasteful and inefficient quango, unable to perform the impossible task it was given.  The CRB check fails to deliver its aim of safeguarding children and vulnerable people as it:

a) It is slow, costly and inefficient – CRB checks take an interminable time to process, months on end, in which time the organisation requesting the check has either employed the person anyway, or has left them sitting on their hands at home doing no work.  This prevents people who would be perfectly suited to working with children working with them.

b) It creates a false sense of security – a CRB is no security against someone being a paedophile or sexual predator; it only shows that they have not been one in the past.  As such it engenders a sense of false security, whereby dangerous people are not scrutinised as they have the right piece of paper.  The tragic events in Soham in 2003 demonstrate this.

c) Poisons society – by requiring the intervention of the police and the state to ensure that every interaction with children is 'safe' (or not, see 'b'), the CRB creates dangerous mistrust between parents, adults and children.  The assumption is one of criminality without the correct vetting by the state.

A simple, common-sense approach to child protection, based on both responsible and clear headed thought by those appointing people to work with children and vulnerable people – while also allowing them to personally check on their employment history and other details (as you would for any other job) by directly contacting the relevant police authorities if necessary – would improve child safety more than a CRB check, conducted by faceless and unaccountable officials.

I therefore propose that the requirement for CRB checks be removed, and that the CRB be abolished.

The above also applies to the Independent Safeguarding Authority, the 'mini' CRB – another quango looking to check those who might have contact with children – i.e. everyone!

David Wickes

Freedom to Walk the Streets without being Accosted by Agressive Charity Collectors

In every shopping street, pedestrian are being harassed by agressive F2F charity collectors (Chuggers – Charity Muggers).  The general public and Local Council are desperately trying to lobby the government for the law to be enabled in the Charities Act 2006, so that full control and licencing of these groups can be enforced so that they are properly controlled and regulated.

At the moment self regulation is not working and the public is being harassed and abused by these chuggers and the local authorities have no powers to control them.

Many people now are avoiding certain areas in order to avoid this public nuicence and thus having a bad affect on local business'.  Also they are agressively undermining local charities in the intrusive approach to passers by.  They are affecting the local economy as a result and it it clear that Local Authorities should be able to control this behaviour.

It should be a fundamental human right to walk the street free of agressive beggers and chuggers so please enact this law so that councils can properly protect their local citizens.

Why is this idea important?

In every shopping street, pedestrian are being harassed by agressive F2F charity collectors (Chuggers – Charity Muggers).  The general public and Local Council are desperately trying to lobby the government for the law to be enabled in the Charities Act 2006, so that full control and licencing of these groups can be enforced so that they are properly controlled and regulated.

At the moment self regulation is not working and the public is being harassed and abused by these chuggers and the local authorities have no powers to control them.

Many people now are avoiding certain areas in order to avoid this public nuicence and thus having a bad affect on local business'.  Also they are agressively undermining local charities in the intrusive approach to passers by.  They are affecting the local economy as a result and it it clear that Local Authorities should be able to control this behaviour.

It should be a fundamental human right to walk the street free of agressive beggers and chuggers so please enact this law so that councils can properly protect their local citizens.

Charities – why do we have to pay VAT?

As the Executive Director of a UK based Charity (Institute for Human Rights and Business) which is recognized as an expert institution by the UK Government and receives support from a number of Governments around the world, I am perplexed by the VAT rules as they apply to charities – as is our accountant.

The best financial advice we have is that we should not register for VAT given that only a minority of our operational work is conducted in the UK (and nearly all our funding comes as donations) and obviously the book-keeping cost of registered and maintaining VAT records is significant. Yet, we are having to pay VAT on most of our administrative costs here in the UK.

It does beg the rather naive question as to why Charities are required to pay VAT at all. If our role is really one of public purpose (and perhaps this is not always the case for every Charity – e.g. some of the private schools with charity status) then it would it not be a wonderful thing to free us from paying VAT at all – allowing this resource to be channeled into our work – in our case in many emerging and developing countries as well as the UK.

I guess it might work by all interested Charities receiving a special VAT number – and being able to reclaim all VAT on a quarterly basis, but not required to charge VAT to others. It will also assist in dealings with other contractors based in the EU – to whom we currently have to pay VAT if not so registered in the UK.

Why is this idea important?

As the Executive Director of a UK based Charity (Institute for Human Rights and Business) which is recognized as an expert institution by the UK Government and receives support from a number of Governments around the world, I am perplexed by the VAT rules as they apply to charities – as is our accountant.

The best financial advice we have is that we should not register for VAT given that only a minority of our operational work is conducted in the UK (and nearly all our funding comes as donations) and obviously the book-keeping cost of registered and maintaining VAT records is significant. Yet, we are having to pay VAT on most of our administrative costs here in the UK.

It does beg the rather naive question as to why Charities are required to pay VAT at all. If our role is really one of public purpose (and perhaps this is not always the case for every Charity – e.g. some of the private schools with charity status) then it would it not be a wonderful thing to free us from paying VAT at all – allowing this resource to be channeled into our work – in our case in many emerging and developing countries as well as the UK.

I guess it might work by all interested Charities receiving a special VAT number – and being able to reclaim all VAT on a quarterly basis, but not required to charge VAT to others. It will also assist in dealings with other contractors based in the EU – to whom we currently have to pay VAT if not so registered in the UK.

Exempting charities from VAT

The main bureaucracy/admin burden on charities are the complex rules around VAT.  As well as having a direct cost in terms of the VAT that cannot be recovered (which will get bigger with the increase to 20%), there is a huge admin burden in working out how different transactions should be recorded, how much VAT can be reclaimed, getting specialist advice on appropriate treatments etc.  A simple blanket rule that charities are exempt from VAT would be a huge relief.

Why is this idea important?

The main bureaucracy/admin burden on charities are the complex rules around VAT.  As well as having a direct cost in terms of the VAT that cannot be recovered (which will get bigger with the increase to 20%), there is a huge admin burden in working out how different transactions should be recorded, how much VAT can be reclaimed, getting specialist advice on appropriate treatments etc.  A simple blanket rule that charities are exempt from VAT would be a huge relief.

Make post codes free to Charities

Post code data is needed by small and large charities for effective marketing and to ensure accuracy of gift aid claims. As small charities usually cannot justify the high cost of post code information, they waste time and effort entering data manually and making a proportion of errors along the way.

Although post code data by location is now in the public domain, it is not in an easy to use format for small charities with limited I T skills to make use of.

Registered charities should have free access to all UK addresses and post codes. They should also have free access to the location data for all UK post codes an one simple table to download.

Why is this idea important?

Post code data is needed by small and large charities for effective marketing and to ensure accuracy of gift aid claims. As small charities usually cannot justify the high cost of post code information, they waste time and effort entering data manually and making a proportion of errors along the way.

Although post code data by location is now in the public domain, it is not in an easy to use format for small charities with limited I T skills to make use of.

Registered charities should have free access to all UK addresses and post codes. They should also have free access to the location data for all UK post codes an one simple table to download.

Gift Aid reform for charities

Gift Aid helped to transform voluntary giving. By replacing the legalistic Deed of Covenant system, it enabled millions more people to give donations to charity that were tax efficient and brought millions of more pounds into charities.

However, it is still an administrative headache for charities to operate and they still miss out on thousands of potential Gift Aided donations from people who, for whatever reason, fail to make a Gift Aid declaration.

Also, Gift Aid currently misses out the extra income that could come in from higher tax rate payers.

I propose two things, neither new, but both still waiting to be implemented:

1. That Gift Aid becomes an "opt out" system, rather than opt in. This will increase Gift Aid revenue for charities and make administering Gift Aid far simpler, thereby reducing charities' costs.

2. Charities can claim the Gift Aid for the higher rates, as well as the basic.

Why is this idea important?

Gift Aid helped to transform voluntary giving. By replacing the legalistic Deed of Covenant system, it enabled millions more people to give donations to charity that were tax efficient and brought millions of more pounds into charities.

However, it is still an administrative headache for charities to operate and they still miss out on thousands of potential Gift Aided donations from people who, for whatever reason, fail to make a Gift Aid declaration.

Also, Gift Aid currently misses out the extra income that could come in from higher tax rate payers.

I propose two things, neither new, but both still waiting to be implemented:

1. That Gift Aid becomes an "opt out" system, rather than opt in. This will increase Gift Aid revenue for charities and make administering Gift Aid far simpler, thereby reducing charities' costs.

2. Charities can claim the Gift Aid for the higher rates, as well as the basic.