The British public has the capacity to give more, but there is no consensus as to whether and what tax incentives can encourage more philanthropy, it was evident at a meeting of sector representatives in Westminster yesterday.

Karl Wilding (pictured), head of research at NCVO and one of the speakers at the All Party Parliamentary Group on the Voluntary Sector meeting at the House of Commons, called for a sector-wide debate into the role of tax in giving. Whether tax mechanisms should used as an incentive to get people giving or as leverage by charities requires much more investigation, he said. “We need a discussion.”

His call followed what appeared to be disparate opinion over the potential value of the introduction of lifetime legacies in the UK – an issue left out of the government’s Giving White Paper - among the charity sector representatives in the meeting.

Leading the charge on calling for lifetime legacies to be investigated with a view to being supported by the UK tax system was Matthew Bowcock, chair of the Community Foundation Network. “Lifetime legacies differ from legacies in that they’re fun,” said Bowcock, also a member of the Philanthropy Review board which has advocated strongly for the measure. Bowcock argued that the main problem with lifetime legacies was the number of models that could possibly be implemented.

“Please can we have a comprehensive, objective look at this,” he asked APPG chair Alun Michael MP.

But Wilding was more cautious, arguing that until charities made the most of the tax incentives they already enjoy they cannot well ask for further government support, particularly when that support will impact on an already stretched Treasury bottom line. Wilding singled out maximising gift aid take-up as a particular issue the sector needs to address.

Louise Richards, director of policy and campaigns at the Institute of Fundraising, said government and charities could focus on other things to increase giving. “Tax breaks aren’t the biggest thing that might help,” she said.

Even within the Institute of Fundraising itself, there has been discussion over whether to focus on promoting lifetime legacies or legacies, said Richards. She concentrated instead on calling for government to review the proposed abolition of cheques and for charities to better demonstrate their impact to donors and potential supporters.

Beth Breeze, researcher with the Centre for Charitable Giving and Philanthropy at the University of Kent, suggested that there was a case for lifetime legacies, adding that “there is a massive untapped pot” of philanthropy.

“We could double giving, triple it, without people even noticing,” said Breeze who insisted that it was relationships between charities and their major donors, not the ease of giving or tax breaks, which could bring significant amounts of money into organisations and the sector as a whole.

“You don’t get milk out of a cow by sending it a letter."