Jackies Pro Sports News - Rumors - & Scandals: Private charity is never a substitute for public welfare

Francis Maude may lecture us on 'big society', but he would do well to remember the government's role too

The personal wealth of Francis Maude, the Cabinet Office minister who has just issued a green paper on "giving" in the hope of "building culture change" in our attitudes to charity, is estimated at �3m. No doubt it was to maintain his own levels of "giving" that, having rented out a central London house he already owned, he bought a flat nearby and put �35,000 in mortgage interest on expenses. No doubt, too, he stopped to ladle out soup to the homeless on his way to board meetings of Prestbury Holdings, a financial services company that benefited handsomely from sub-prime mortgages and paid Maude more than �3,000 each time he put in an appearance. But, it should be admitted, we are short on detail. Asked on Radio 4 this summer for particulars of his voluntary charitable work, he replied "that's a very unfair question". Perhaps he and the 22 millionaires among fellow ministers who attend cabinet meetings regard constructing the "big society" as a sufficiently charitable contribution in itself.

That's the trouble with charity: it doesn't all go to what might be regarded as good causes. As a proportion of GDP, the US gives most: 1.7% against Britain's 0.7%. But donations to religious organisations account for 60% of the difference and, though some money reaches the poor, large sums fund preachers and church premises. Other "charitable" beneficiaries include the universities Americans attended in their youth, which are thus prompted to look with a kindly eye on children of alumni when they apply for places. But we, too, have our weaknesses, such as Eton, which notoriously counts as a charity.

In America, charitable giving is almost a kind of sexual display. It shows you're strong, wealthy, successful, and you let people know about it, preferably by having libraries or theatres named after you. Britons prefer not to boast about their wealth, and often make donations anonymously. The green paper's most eye-catching idea ? donating each time we draw from a cash machine ? won't wring more money out of Maude and his colleagues since, in my admittedly limited experience, millionaires never bother with mere cash and wouldn't know how to operate a cash machine anyway. But it fits the British character, allowing us to donate through tapping out a private code while nobody's looking.

Maude, though, would prefer our giving to become "more visible", so that we become competitive in our charitable works. The idea of the big society is that charities fill the holes created by public spending cuts. But charities receive nearly a third of their �35m annual income from the government. Unless ordinary citizens step in, the big society will be stillborn.

Unfortunately, private charity doesn't always have the same priorities as public policy. In the UK, the most popular causes are children, animals, cancer and lifeboats. Overseas causes, for relief of famine, disease or effects of natural disasters, tend to do well, helped by celebrity endorsements and fundraising concerts. Mental illness and disability, ex-offenders and unqualified school leavers are less likely to arouse our compassion. Again, volunteering tends to be most common in areas that need it least. It doesn't help that the coalition's standard narrative is that anyone on benefits probably lives in a Mayfair apartment and anyone claiming to be disabled is most likely faking it.

The point of post-1945 European welfare states was to free the needy from dependence on private generosity, which tends to miss out the socially marginal, and to be least available when times are hardest. Welfare gave a sense of security and dignity that the less fortunate had never previously enjoyed. It was particularly important to continental societies that had seen how insecurity bred fascism. Those who volunteer time to hospitals and homeless centres or who take out direct debits for guide dogs and cancer research are admirable, but no more or less admirable than those who pay taxes without vociferous complaint. Nor is a society with a "culture of giving" more admirable than one where workers receive living wages, decent pensions and reasonable employment protection; executives exercise restraint in remunerating themselves; and everyone has sufficient support to look after their ailing grannies.

The international league tables ? which, the green paper insists, prove "we could do so much more" ? show the Scandinavian countries, particularly Sweden, with relatively low levels of "giving time" to voluntary work. Does that expose Scandinavians as idle, self-centred and uncaring? No, it simply means social support is provided more than adequately by their governments from the proceeds of high taxation and social security contributions. Ministers imply there is some moral deficit in that arrangement and suggest high levels of volunteering are good for national character. But ask the poor which they prefer, and I doubt they'd hesitate in choosing the Scandinavian model.

Let Maude, David Cameron and their fellow millionaires go ahead with their big society, encouraging individual good works. But let them not imagine that it can substitute for a society big enough to accept collective responsibility for the welfare of all its citizens.

Peter Wilby

guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2011 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds