FOLLOWING the Haiti Oxfam scandal, Eric Melvin suggests that the Gift Aid Scheme “be looked at afresh” (Lettersr February 15), by which I presume he means it should be withdrawn or restricted. He is mistaken about how the Gift Aid Scheme works and who can benefit.
Its origins lie in United States practice. There, if you make a donation for public benefit from your taxed income, you can reclaim the tax you have paid as you will not be spending that income on yourself. This has proved an effective device for encouraging people to donate to public causes and projects. When the Gift Aid Scheme was introduced into the UK, the then Chancellor altered the idea significantly.
Instead of reclaiming the tax you have paid for yourself, you ask for it to be given to the charity. This contribution is not the largesse of the taxman; it is the tax you have already paid on the part of your income you are giving away. It is an effective encouragement for people to give to causes they want to support.The notion that Gift Aid is paid to rich landowners, the Queen and so on is incorrect.
The only permitted recipients are recognised charities and community amateur sports associations. You cannot use them for school fees, theatre tickets, buying goods or anything that gives a benefit to you or any private individual or group. There is also a limit on how much tax can be refunded and, if you pay little or no tax, the charity cannot claim anything. As a director of an overseas aid charity in the past, I can comment that aid workers often face practical and moral difficulties in the field but sex problems as in the Haiti scandal are exceptionally rare. This is despite prostitution being all pervasive in poor urban areas and young male aid workers often being pursued.
I recall one colleague who was invited by community leaders to a golfing weekend “to say thank you” only to find that it was a “girlie” weekend. He got out of it by claiming to be religious, which the local leaders thought strange but respected. Most moral issues concerned whether bribes should be paid: “I’m sorry your trucks are delayed but I’m preoccupied with worrying about my daughter’s education. She so needs a laptop.”
The second most common moral issue is how much graft, skimming and theft to tolerate; say “none” and your project to help people often comes to an abrupt halt. A Canadian colleague once told me of a meeting with a Haitian official to complain about theft by officials from a project to help the poor in Port au Prince slums only to receive the candid reply: “Well, it’s not as if we stole it all. At least 10 per cent got through. Besides, you mustn’t give too much to those people. They only spend it on rum and drugs.”
Another colleague working in Haiti faced a different moral dilemma: out for drinks with workers from other charities he found one had dropped his wallet in the loo. Inside was a car-park pass for Langley’ Virginia; that is, the man was not an aid worker – he was with the CIA. My colleague chose to keep quiet; right or wrong moral decision? Who can say?
Running overseas aid projects can be tough and I have criticised some charities for sending out young staff who cannot be expected to have enough maturity to cope well. But categorising aid workers as sexual predators is a calumny on earnest and hard-working people. Stopping giving to support this work in distaste at this rare instance hurts only the people who really do need help: the poor and needy.
Russell Vallance,
4 West Douglas Drive, Helensburgh.
I VOLUNTEERED in an Oxfam shop for 15 years and, as far as I am concerned, the organisation does marvellous work. The actions of evil people cannot be allowed to interfere with the provision of foreign aid to those in need.
Despite their sordid actions there is a majority of people who do good things under the radar. They do not want publicity; they do not want thanks; they simply see a need and try to right a wrong. Remember them when you think the world is a horrible place.
Margaret Forbes,
26 Corlic Way, Kilmacolm.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel