An uncertain future for Britain's charity shops

The humble charity shop will be hit by further financial burdens thanks to the government's new business rates scheme.

We’ve all got a local charity shop. Like the bank, the post-office or the news agents, they’ve become a staple of the British high street ever since the first one was set-up by Oxfam in 1947. It’s easy to take these unassuming shops for granted. Quietly, they chug-along in the background, minding their own business, recycling and re-selling unwanted possessions; but unlike other high street institutions, these small establishments are exceptionally important to our communities.

Last year alone, charity shops raised over £220m for their parent charities, which funded a variety of vital projects, from medical research to local community care work. Staffed by over 160,000 volunteers nationwide, who benefit from social-interaction and retail training, charity shops also prevent a huge amount of rubbish entering the waste stream through encouraging re-using and recycling. But as of this month, charity shops will have a tougher time remaining on our high streets, thanks to the government’s new business rates retention scheme.

Designed to create a direct link between business rates growth and the amount of money available for councils to spend on local services, the business rates retention scheme will allow local authorities to retain 50 per cent of all business rates revenue from their area – an increase of 25 per cent.  The scheme’s focus on economic growth is a concern for the National Council for Voluntary Organisations, who warns that it will “potentially stunt the growth of local community action”, as councils withhold discretionary rate relief payments.

At present, organisations occupying a building solely for charitable purposes are entitled to 80 per cent mandatory rate relief, funded by central government. Local authorities can then choose to grant the remaining 20 per cent rate relief at their discretion. But once underway, the new scheme will require councils to fund 75 per cent of all discretionary relief payments. For local authorities, already feeling the effects of budget cuts, it would be self-defeating for them to grant discretionary rate relief which they must fund substantially from their own resources, especially when they have the chance to earn more revenue from businesses paying rates.

Councils have already begun to grant less discretionary rate relief because of pressures on budgets, according to Wendy Mitchell, head of policy and public affairs at the Charity Retail Association: “Rate relief to charity shops is important, as any reduction in relief impacts the amount of money that goes to the parent charity. So it’s important that relief is given in recognition of the social and philanthropic benefits to services – local hospices for example.”

Not only does this new legislation create further financial burdens for a sector already feeling the effects of the recession, but the government’s lack of consideration for charities contradicts their ‘localism’ ethos. Outlining their desire for a rejuvenated high street last July, communities secretary Eric Pickles, and former minister for high streets Grant Shapps, asserted: “Shared and public spaces are vital ingredients. Creative thinking is needed so these spaces can become the focal point for the social interaction that is the epitome of the high street experience – an area that is enjoyed by all members of the local community.”

Charity shops are exactly the kind of spaces where community interaction takes place; where volunteers meet with members of the public and where social interaction and community-cohesion is encouraged. It is totally counter-intuitive, therefore, to create a scheme which makes it tougher for charity shops to survive on our high streets. Although, as Wendy Mitchell asserts, the charitable sector “understands that local authorities are under a lot of economic pressure”, it is nonetheless important for the government to recognise the importance of relief payments to charity shops; and in turn, the importance of charity shops in creating a community-focused high street.

A dramatic example of what may happen to charity shops is being played out in Wales: proposals from an independent business review want to reduce the amount of mandatory rate relief for charities from 80 to 50 per cent, and restrict the premises charity shops are able to occupy. The plans have been vehemently opposed by the Charity Retail Association, who submitted a petition of 22,600 signatures to the Welsh government in January. “Charity shops are being looped in with chicken shops and betting shops, and their wider context is being forgotten,” says Mitchell. “Our petition shows that most people do use them, they are popular, and we need to make sure that that voice is heard. These shops raise money for a huge range of worthwhile causes.” According to Mitchell, if the changes are accepted it will force charity shops to close, creating more empty shops on Wales’ already abandoned high streets.

Though no decision has yet been made regarding cuts to mandatory rate relief in Wales, it provides a stark vision of what could happen if attitudes towards charity shops remain unchanged. Incentivising councils to focus on economic growth rather than charities, the business rates retention scheme ultimately puts at risk the very organisations that contribute most towards the government’s idyll of a community-focused high street. And, more dangerously, should these small but mighty fundraising establishments be forced out of our town centres, it will be the more vulnerable members of our communities who will suffer most.

Oxfam worker looks for clothes that have been sold via their online store at the Oxfam online hub warehouse in Portishead, England. Photo: Matt Cardy/Getty Images
Photo: Getty
Show Hide image

Who will win in Stoke-on-Trent?

Labour are the favourites, but they could fall victim to a shock in the Midlands constituency.  

The resignation of Tristram Hunt as MP for Stoke-on-Central has triggered a by-election in the safe Labour seat of Stoke on Trent Central. That had Westminster speculating about the possibility of a victory for Ukip, which only intensified once Paul Nuttall, the party’s leader, was installed as the candidate.

If Nuttall’s message that the Labour Party has lost touch with its small-town and post-industrial heartlands is going to pay dividends at the ballot box, there can hardly be a better set of circumstances than this: the sitting MP has quit to take up a well-paid job in London, and although  the overwhelming majority of Labour MPs voted to block Brexit, the well-advertised divisions in that party over the vote should help Ukip.

But Labour started with a solid lead – it is always more useful to talk about percentages, not raw vote totals – of 16 points in 2015, with the two parties of the right effectively tied in second and third place. Just 33 votes separated Ukip in second from the third-placed Conservatives.

There was a possible – but narrow – path to victory for Ukip that involved swallowing up the Conservative vote, while Labour shed votes in three directions: to the Liberal Democrats, to Ukip, and to abstention.

But as I wrote at the start of the contest, Ukip were, in my view, overwritten in their chances of winning the seat. We talk a lot about Labour’s problem appealing to “aspirational” voters in Westminster, but less covered, and equally important, is Ukip’s aspiration problem.

For some people, a vote for Ukip is effectively a declaration that you live in a dump. You can have an interesting debate about whether it was particularly sympathetic of Ken Clarke to brand that party’s voters as “elderly male people who have had disappointing lives”, but that view is not just confined to pro-European Conservatives. A great number of people, in Stoke and elsewhere, who are sympathetic to Ukip’s positions on immigration, international development and the European Union also think that voting Ukip is for losers.

That always made making inroads into the Conservative vote harder than it looks. At the risk of looking very, very foolish in six days time, I found it difficult to imagine why Tory voters in Hanley would take the risk of voting Ukip. As I wrote when Nuttall announced his candidacy, the Conservatives were, in my view, a bigger threat to Labour than Ukip.

Under Theresa May, almost every move the party has made has been designed around making inroads into the Ukip vote and that part of the Labour vote that is sympathetic to Ukip. If the polls are to be believed, she’s succeeding nationally, though even on current polling, the Conservatives wouldn’t have enough to take Stoke on Trent Central.

Now Theresa May has made a visit to the constituency. Well, seeing as the government has a comfortable majority in the House of Commons, it’s not as if the Prime Minister needs to find time to visit the seat, particularly when there is another, easier battle down the road in the shape of the West Midlands mayoral election.

But one thing is certain: the Conservatives wouldn’t be sending May down if they thought that they were going to do worse than they did in 2015.

Parties can be wrong of course. The Conservatives knew that they had found a vulnerable spot in the last election as far as a Labour deal with the SNP was concerned. They thought that vulnerable spot was worth 15 to 20 seats. They gained 27 from the Liberal Democrats and a further eight from Labour.  Labour knew they would underperform public expectations and thought they’d end up with around 260 to 280 seats. They ended up with 232.

Nevertheless, Theresa May wouldn’t be coming down to Stoke if CCHQ thought that four days later, her party was going to finish fourth. And if the Conservatives don’t collapse, anyone betting on Ukip is liable to lose their shirt. 

Stephen Bush is special correspondent at the New Statesman. His daily briefing, Morning Call, provides a quick and essential guide to British politics.