Consultation outcome

Consultation on financial thresholds in charity law: government response

Updated 31 October 2025

Executive summary

Introduction

Charity law aims to proportionately regulate charities of all sizes in order to maintain public trust and confidence in the sector, as well as allowing charities to have flexibility and autonomy in how they are run. Charities exist for the public benefit, and are often resourced by donations or public funds. Transparency and accountability are important elements of the legal framework for charities. Larger charities deal with greater sums of money, and are therefore subject to more detailed regulatory requirements. Smaller charities often do not have the resources to deal with large administrative costs or burdens, and benefit from less detailed regulatory requirements. The aim is for a legal framework that is proportionate in the requirements it places on charities of different sizes.

The Law Commission’s 2017 report ‘Technical Issues in Charity Law’ recommended that the government periodically review all financial thresholds in the Charities Act 2011 (“the 2011 Act”) with a view to increasing them in line with inflation. The government accepted this recommendation, and committed to conducting a review at least every 10 years, subject to resources. Financial thresholds in charity law were last properly reviewed in 2013, with changes made in 2015, so this review has taken place ten years since thresholds were last reviewed.

Through the public consultation, DCMS sought views on all existing thresholds in charity law. The consultation asked for comments on up to three options for each threshold - retain at the current level; increase in line with inflation; or partially increase by 20%. More detail on the options considered can be found in the original consultation document. For some thresholds, the government gave a recommended option. However, for other thresholds no initial recommendation was made.

Consultation responses

The public consultation ran from 3 April to 12 June 2025. We received 137 responses both via the Qualtrics survey tool (127) and via email (10).^{[footnote 1]} Three organisations submitted multiple responses – these were combined and treated as one response per organisation. Responses were submitted by a range of groups, such as individuals, small and large charities, audit firms and independent examiners. Details such as organisation name were optional to complete, therefore not all responses could be categorised. A full list of organisations who agreed to attribute their responses can be found at Annex B. The breakdown of responses by organisational type is as follows:

Organisation type	Number of responses	Percentage of total responses
Accounting and audit firms	28	20.4%
Small charities (gross annual income of less than £1m)	28	20.4%
Large charities (gross annual income of more than £1m)	11	8.0%
Other organisations (including regulators and sector membership bodies)	13	9.5%
Not provided	57	41.6%
Total	137	100.00%

While responses and preferences varied from threshold to threshold, there were some common themes. Respondents who supported increasing the thresholds (either by inflation or another amount), often did so to make thresholds more proportionate for the charity sector. These respondents agreed with the principle that inflationary increases would reset the thresholds to prevent more charities being caught by additional layers of regulation than was originally intended.

Respondents who preferred options to retain thresholds at their current level often felt doing so would ensure an appropriate level of scrutiny and oversight, by both the public and the Charity Commission for England and Wales (the Charity Commission), which is important for public trust and confidence in the sector.

A common theme among responses throughout the consultation was a desire for simplification of the broader regulatory landscape, such as greater alignment of financial thresholds, including with other regulatory thresholds (for example the new Charity Statement of Recommended Practice tiers), and greater clarity on the requirements of each threshold, to help reduce the burden on charities. Alignment and simplification was therefore an important factor when reaching a decision on each threshold.

Summary of government response

Below is a summary of the thresholds that were considered in the consultation, and the government’s decision on whether to retain or increase the threshold. More detail on the results of the consultation and the reasoning behind the government’s response can be found in the sections on each individual threshold, which are linked in the table. For background information on each threshold, please refer to the original consultation document.

The government has taken the consultation responses carefully into consideration, and intends to move forward with the recommendations made in the original consultation, where one was made, except for threshold 6, where we are now recommending an increase, in order to reduce burdens on the smallest charities. Where no recommendation was made in the original consultation, we have come to a final decision based on analysis of the responses – with the starting point being to increase in line with inflation unless there is good reason not to do so, as recommended in the Law Commission’s report. In two cases (threshold 7 and threshold 8), the government has decided to increase the thresholds above inflation, where doing so is the most appropriate option taking into account wider factors, including alignment and simplification of the regulatory landscape, and the government’s commitment to reduce administrative burdens on businesses by 25% by the end of this Parliament. 

Our estimates suggest that there will be an annual savings of £47m per year on average^{[footnote 2]} for the charity sector as a result of these changes, allowing charity employees and volunteers to spend more time working towards the charity’s purpose and freeing up charitable money for the public benefit. We will publish an updated impact assessment when laying the regulations in parliament, setting out these savings in more detail.

No.	Title	Current Threshold	Post-consultation Outcome
1	Registration for Charities	£5,000	Retain at £5,000
2	Registration for Excepted Charities	£100,000	Retain at £100,000
3	Statement in Official Publications	£10,000	Retain at £10,000
4	Annual Returns	£10,000	Retain at £10,000
5	Annual Reports	£25,000	Retain at £25,000
6	Independent Examination requirements	£25,000	Raise to £40,000
7	Qualification requirements for Independent Examiners	£250,000	Raise to £500,000
8	Account and statement option for lower-income charities	£250,000	Raise to £500,000
9	Audit of accounts of larger charities - income	£1,000,000	Raise to £1,500,000
10	Audit of accounts of larger charities - assets	£3,260,000	Raise to £5,000,000
11	Aggregate income for group accounts	£1,000,000	Raise to £1,500,000
12	Audit requirement for group accounts	£1,000,000	Raise to £1,500,000
13	Remuneration for ‘professional fund-raisers’	£10 a day, £1,000 a year, £1,000 in remuneration in connection with any fund-raising venture in the course of which money or other property is solicited for the benefit of that institution	Raise to £15 a day, £1,500 a year, £1,500 in remuneration in connection with any fund-raising venture in the course of which money or other property is solicited for the benefit of that institution
14	Remuneration for lower-paid collectors	£10 a day £1,000 a year, or £1,000 in remuneration in connection with any fund-raising venture in the course of which money or other property is solicited for the benefit of that institution.	Raise to £15 a day, £1,500 a year, £1,500 in remuneration in connection with any fund-raising venture in the course of which money or other property is solicited for the benefit of that institution
15	Donor refunds	£100	Raise to £150
16	Charity Commission concurrent jurisdiction with the High Court	£500	Raise to £1,000
17	Release of charity rentcharges	£1,000	Retain at £1,000
18	Maximum value of gifts applicable under cy-près	£120	Retain at £120
19	Resolution applying money or other property to cy-près	£1,000	Retain at £1,000
20	Small ex-gratia payments	See full table	Retain at current level
21	Spending on permanent endowments	£25,000	Retain at £25,000

Wider commitments

In addition to the changes to the thresholds, DCMS will work with the Charity Commission to develop a standardised form and content for receipts and payments accounts, and on the digitalisation of charity accounts. Together, these changes will help to simplify the accounting and reporting process for charities, and support charities in providing standardised, quality data that is easily accessible to the public and the Charity Commission. 

DCMS and the Charity Commission will also review the sufficiency of guidance on independent examination.

DCMS is also committed to continuing to work with the Charity Commission to consider further deregulatory opportunities and ways to support smaller charities, and will give consideration to the suggestions raised as part of consultation responses. 

Implementation

This response provides charities with notice of the government’s intention to amend the thresholds as set out in the response. Following publication of this response, when parliamentary time allows, a statutory instrument will be laid in Parliament to do this. 

It is the government’s intention that the new thresholds will come into force on 1st October 2026. Further detail can be found in the ‘Next steps and implementation’ section.

Consultation approach

Commitment to review

  Question 1: Do you have any views on the government’s commitment to review financial thresholds at least every 10 years?

Respondents to the consultation were in favour of this commitment. Approximately 49% of respondents were in full support of the commitment, with no additional commentary. A further 35% wanted reviews to take place more frequently, with every 5 years being a common suggestion. 4% had no comments, and 12% of respondents did not respond to this question.

Responses in support of the commitment highlighted that inflation has dragged charities into increasing requirements and that reviews were proportionate and appropriate to deal with this. Reasons given for more frequent reviews focused on high rates of inflation, particularly in recent years, which have an outsized effect on smaller charities.

Government response

The government is committed to reviewing the financial thresholds at least every 10 years. This is a proportionate timeframe between reviews, which allows for proper scrutiny of how the changes have affected charities. This commitment allows for a review to take place sooner than 10 years in cases of major events, such as after a period of high inflation. It also provides greater stability for charities, by minimising the frequency of changes to the accounting and reporting requirements. Due to the principle of using round numbers, more frequent reviews would not necessarily lead to increases (if inflation was low), or increases would be smaller, leading to a less aligned accounting and reporting regime and causing confusion for charities.

Principles of the review

Question 2: Do you have any comments about the principles or options considered in this consultation?

Only 27% of respondents provided an answer to this question; 38% of respondents did not respond, and 24% had no comment. Respondents who provided an answer to this question were broadly supportive of the principles. Respondents highlighted the need to increase thresholds to make them more proportionate, the value of aligning thresholds across all 4 UK nations, and the importance of the accounting and reporting regime in scrutiny of charities.

Government response

The government is content that the principles used were appropriate for this review. In making our decisions we prioritised alignment between thresholds. This was in response to a significant number of respondents highlighting the often confusing nature of the charity accounting and reporting regime. In setting the new thresholds we have also aligned, where possible, with the new Charities Statement of Recommended Practice (SORP).

The government has committed to cutting administrative costs to businesses (including charities) by 25% by the end of the Parliament. DCMS has considered this target when setting the new thresholds. Our estimates suggest that the changes will lead to annual savings of up to £47 million for the charity sector, allowing charity employees and volunteers to spend more time working towards the charity’s purpose and freeing up charitable money for the public benefit.

Registration thresholds

Thresholds 1 to 3

Threshold	Option A - Current level	Option B - Inflationary increase
Threshold 1 - the gross income threshold under which a charity is not required to register with the Charity Commission.	£5,000 - recommended	£10,000 (CPIH inflation of 61.6%, rounded from £8,081.11)
Threshold 2 - the threshold above which ‘excepted charities’ are required to register regardless of any secondary legislation or order of the Charity Commission excepting charities from registration.	£100,000 - recommended	N/A - increasing this threshold is not possible under current legislation
Threshold 3- the threshold above which charities are required to state that they are a registered charity in all official publications	£10,000 - recommended	£20,000 (CPIH inflation at 97.8%, rounded from £19,777.78)

Question 3A: Should these thresholds (Thresholds 1 to 3) be maintained at this time?

• Yes (Option A)
• No (Option B)

Question 3B: Please explain why this is your preferred option

Consultation responses

63% of respondents agreed with the government’s recommendation to retain these thresholds at their current level (Option A), and 27% preferred an inflationary increase (Option B). 10% of respondents did not answer this question. Responses to this question tended to focus on the registration threshold (threshold 1). There was majority support to retain these thresholds across all types of respondent.

Respondents who agreed with the recommendation suggested that the charity registration process is not overly complicated and that being registered has a positive impact on charities, including on the likelihood of receiving donations. Respondents also commented on the benefits of registration for retaining public trust in charities and showing accountability.

Respondents who preferred to see the thresholds increase suggested that aligning the thresholds, for example at £10,000, would reduce the complexity of the registration process. It would enable charities to focus on their work and would reduce the administrative and financial burden on small charities. Additionally, comments stated that since the thresholds had not been reviewed since 2006 (thresholds 1 and 2) or 1995 (threshold 3) an inflationary increase would make sense to make the burden on small charities more proportionate.

Some organisations, including the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales (ICAEW) and Charity Law Association (CLA) proposed that the registration threshold (threshold 1) should be removed altogether, so that every charity should be registered. The CLA also proposed that, if the threshold were retained, section 30(3) of the Charities Act 2011 could be commenced, so that charities with incomes below the registration threshold could voluntarily request to be registered and the Commission would be mandated to consider their application. They argued that this would provide parity with Charitable Incorporated Organisations (CIOs), which are registered as part of their incorporation and creation process, and charities in Scotland, which already have this right. The CLA also called for the excepted charities threshold (threshold 2) to be repealed, meaning that all excepted charities with incomes over £5,000 would be required to register with the Charity Commission.

Government response

The government proposes to maintain thresholds 1 to 3 at their current levels in line with the original recommendation. There was overall support from consultation respondents, who agreed with the reasoning set out in the consultation. The administrative costs of registration and a statement in official publications are minimal, but provide significant benefits both for charities themselves and for the trust and confidence of the public. Raising the threshold would mean unfairly removing the ability of smaller charities to gain a valuable status as a registered charity.

The government does not have plans at this time to remove or lower the registration threshold, or commence section 30(3) of the Charities Act 2011 (voluntary registration), although we will keep this under review. Doing so at this point would represent a significant burden on the Charity Commission due to a large increase in registration applications.

With regards to threshold 2, as noted in the consultation, any change made to the threshold must increase the number of charities registered with the Commission, and we are therefore legally unable to increase this threshold. Furthermore, all Christian denomination churches and chapels that are currently excepted will be registered with the Commission by 2031. The excepted charities regime is not in the scope of this review.

Reporting and accounting thresholds

Threshold 4- annual return

Threshold	The gross annual income threshold above which registered charities are required to prepare an annual return
Option A - Current level	£10,000 - recommended
Option B - Inflationary increase	£20,000 (CPIH inflation of 103.8% rounded from £20,381.68)

Question 4A: Should the threshold remain at £10,000?

• Yes, it should remain at £10,000 (Option A)
• No, increase the threshold in line with inflation to £20,000 (Option B)
• None of the above

Question 4B: Please explain why this is your preferred option

Consultation responses

48% of respondents agreed with the recommendation to maintain the threshold (Option A). 35% of respondents said that it should be raised to £20,000 (Option B) and 9% chose the ‘None of the above’ option. 8% of respondents did not answer these questions. Charities were more likely to support an inflationary increase than other types of respondent. 

Respondents who supported the recommendation agreed that annual returns contribute to public trust of charities, as well as providing useful oversight for regulatory bodies. They also mentioned the valuable data that the Annual Return provides. The National Council for Voluntary Organisations (NCVO) said:

raising the threshold would diminish our ability to track the health of a crucial segment of the sector. The dataset for NCVO’s UK Civil Society Almanac would be weakened by a lack of data about smaller organisations.

Respondents who preferred to raise the threshold made the case that it would reduce administrative and financial burden on the smallest charities, arguing that the annual return is complex, particularly for the smaller organisations, which are often run by volunteers.

Of those who responded ‘None of the above’, one respondent suggested that Threshold 4 should align with the registration threshold (Threshold 1 to £5,000). Another respondent suggested that both the registration threshold and the annual return threshold should be removed, so that all charities were required to be registered and complete an annual return.

The ICAEW suggested either aligning this with Threshold 5 (£25,000) or simplifying the annual return. 

In addition to commenting on the financial thresholds, some respondents called for improved guidance, particularly regarding terminology, for charities completing an annual return.

Government response

The government proposes to retain this threshold at £10,000 in line with our original recommendation. There was broad support for this option, in recognition of the invaluable data that the annual return provides. 

We appreciate that some smaller charities consider the annual return a burden, however we are taking steps to reduce the burden on the small charities in other ways. There was a consistent call in the responses to try to align thresholds as much as possible and increasing the threshold to £20,000 would create a new tier of thresholds, and move it out of alignment with threshold 3 (statement in official publications). While increasing the threshold to £25,000 would align it with the thresholds 5 and 6, we consider that this would take too many charities out of scope of the requirement to submit an annual return, representing a great loss of data on the sector.

Threshold 5- annual report and accounts

Threshold	The gross annual income threshold over which a copy of charity annual reports and annual accounts must be sent to the Charity Commission.
Option A - Current level	£25,000 - recommended
Option B - Inflationary increase	£40,000 (CPIH inflation of 50.2% rounded from £37,542.18)
Option C - Other	£30,000

Question 5A: Should the threshold remain at £25,000?

• Yes, it should remain at £25,000 (Option A)
• No, increase the threshold in line with inflation to £40,000 (Option B)
• No, increase the threshold to £30,000 (Option C)
• None of the above

Question 5B: Please explain why this is your preferred option

Consultation responses

Responses were split, with 42% of respondents preferring to retain the threshold (Option A) and 42% preferring to increase it to £40,000 (Option B). 3% of respondents preferred a partial increase to £30,000 (Option C), and 7% of respondents chose ‘none of the above’. 6% of respondents did not answer this question. Small charities were most supportive of an inflationary increase, whilst other types of respondent were more split. 

Arguments in favour of retaining the threshold cited the benefits of transparency and regulation of the sector. Respondents also argued that since charities must prepare accounts anyway, simply submitting them to the Charity Commission should not be a significant additional burden. 

Respondents who answered ‘none of the above’ made similar points around transparency and accountability of charities. Some respondents, including the ICAEW, suggested lowering or removing this threshold altogether, so that more or all charities should submit their accounts to the Charity Commission by default.

Generally, respondents who wanted to raise the threshold argued that retaining the threshold puts pressure on smaller charities who lack the resources and staff to comply. Respondents highlighted that the annual return provides much of the same information and in a more easily digestible format. They also raised the fact that every charity is already obligated to prepare accounts and make their accounts available to members of the public on request.

Government response

The government proposes to retain this threshold at £25,000 at this point in time. In order to change this threshold, the Charity Commission’s systems would require significant updates, which could not be completed by October 2026 (the date the threshold changes will likely come into force). However, we will keep this threshold under review, noting the desirability of aligning with other accounting and reporting thresholds in future.

Threshold 6- independent examination

Threshold	The gross annual income threshold over which charity accounts must be examined by an independent examiner.
Option A - Current level	£25,000
Option B - Inflationary increase	£40,000 (CPIH inflation of 50.2% rounded from £37,542.18)
Option C - Other	£30,000

Question 6A: Which option do you think the threshold should be set at?

• Keep the threshold at £25,000 (Option A)
• Raise the threshold in line with inflation to £40,000 (Option B)
• Raise the threshold to £30,000 (Option C)
• None of the above

Question 6B: Please explain why this is your preferred option

Question 6C: Do you have any specific comments or evidence about the cost and availability of independent examiners?

Consultation responses

55% of respondents chose the option to raise the threshold in line with inflation to £40,000 (Option B), and another 7% chose a partial raise to £30,000 (Option C). 27% of the respondents preferred to retain the threshold (Option A). 4% chose none of the above, and 7% of respondents did not answer this question. There was majority support for an inflationary increase across all types of respondent, other than large charities, who were split between retain and inflation. There was broad support across all options for aligning the threshold with Threshold 5, to reduce complexity for charities.

Those in favour of retaining the threshold made the case that keeping the threshold would provide useful oversight for charities and an additional level of scrutiny. The CLA argued that an income of £25,000 was enough to justify external scrutiny.

Those who advocated for raising the threshold in line with inflation suggested that doing so would reduce significant financial and administrative burdens on charities, allowing them to focus on their charitable work. One respondent suggested that having accounts independently examined can cost up to 5% of a smaller charity’s income. The Charity Finance Group (CFG) response provided direct quotes from charities who did not feel that the service they had received from their examiner was worth the money. Their conclusion was that, “…for the smallest charities, independent examination gives a false sense of assurance.”

Respondents who selected ‘none of the above’ were split between raising the threshold above inflation (to £50,000 or £100,000), or reducing the threshold to increase the number of charities who would be required to have their accounts independently examined.

Respondents provided helpful evidence around the cost and availability of independent examiners. The Charity Commission has found no evidence of a lack of availability, pointing out that charities are not submitting accounts late due to being unable to have them independently examined. However, 23 respondents provided evidence of the high costs of independent examiners, including the CFG, who suggested that it could be a sizable cost - an average of £1,500 against an annual income of £25,000. Other respondents quoted prices of between £400 and £1,500. Others commented that it was possible to get an independent examination done pro bono or for a nominal fee, but if a charity could not find someone to do this then the price went up significantly. The relative availability of independent examiners appears to vary across different parts of England and Wales, and this contributes to price variation. 

As part of the responses, there were requests for a review of the independent examination regime, with a view to improving the quality of independent examiners and promoting best practice, and calls for greater enforcement of independent examination standards. There were also calls for better guidance on independent examination requirements for charities.

Government response

The government proposes to increase this threshold to £40,000. There was strong support for an increase in the consultation response. We recognise that when small charities are unable to find Independent Examiners who do not charge for their services, that independent examination can be a significant financial burden. Raising this threshold will reduce administrative costs for approximately 11,000 charities, who have been drawn into scope of this threshold since it was last updated in 2009. We estimate this will generate £7.8m for these charities in annual savings.

It is noted that raising this threshold will de-couple it from threshold 5 (annual report and accounts), which will, at least in the short term, create an additional threshold for small charities to be aware of. However, on balance, we consider that the benefits of raising this threshold for small charities outweigh keeping the thresholds aligned at their current level.

Alongside raising the threshold, DCMS and the Charity Commission will review the sufficiency of guidance on independent examination.

Threshold 7- qualification requirements for Independent Examiners

Threshold	The gross annual income threshold over which certain qualification requirements to be an independent examiner apply.
Option A - Current level	£250,000
Option B - Inflationary increase	£400,000 (CPIH inflation of 61.6% rounded from £404,055.69)
Option C - Other	£300,000

Question 7A: Which option do you think the threshold should be set at? 

• Keep the threshold at £250,000 (Option A)
• Raise the threshold in line with inflation to £400,000 (Option B)
• Raise the threshold to £300,000 (Option C)
• None of the above

Question 7B: Please explain why this is your preferred option.

Question 7C: Do you have any specific comments or evidence about the cost or availability of qualified independent examiners who meet the criteria laid out in the 2011 Act?

Consultation responses

34% of respondents voted to retain the threshold (Option A). 42% of respondents preferred an increase in line with inflation (Option B) and another 7% preferred a partial increase of the threshold (Option C). 8% of respondents chose ‘none of the above’. 8% of respondents did not answer this question. Small charities (who are in scope of this threshold) supported an inflationary increase, whereas other respondents were more split between inflation and retain. 

Respondents who advocated for keeping the threshold at its current level noted that this would encourage good financial practices from charities and also supports accountability and transparency. The Charity Commission commented that raising the threshold would result in £1.5 billion of charity sector income being subject to a lower level of scrutiny. Many respondents commented that examination is only beneficial if done correctly by a qualified examiner, otherwise charities might not see the benefits. 

Respondents who wanted an inflationary increase suggested that raising the threshold would benefit smaller charities, and suggested that qualified independent examinations are costly which causes financial burdens for charities.

Of those who selected none of the above, suggestions include aligning the threshold with the new Charity SORP tier by raising it to £500,000. Some also suggested that the need for a qualified independent examiner should be linked to the requirement to complete accruals accounts, rather than a specific income threshold.

Respondents also provided evidence on the cost and availability of qualified independent examiners. The Charity Commission, ICAEW, and several independent examiners responded that there is not a lack of availability in this sector. However, many respondents commented that high vacancies and high demand for qualified independent examiners was leading to an increase in the price. The complicated nature of charity accounts and low profit margins was raised as contributing to a lack of availability. The CLA suggested that it costs between £700 and £3,000 for a qualified independent examination. Other respondents gave prices of between £1,500 and £4,000 for this service. Some commented that requiring a practising certificate creates a barrier to entry for retired professionals who could otherwise act as qualified independent examiners, and removing this would increase availability for charities.

Across many responses, concerns were raised about Independent Examiners, including their experience, qualifications and knowledge of charity accounting requirements. The most frequent request was for improved guidance on charity independent examinations. As discussed above in Threshold 6, there were calls for a review of the independent examination regime. Some respondents also wanted the list of professional bodies who are able to conduct qualified independent examinations in the Charities Act 2011 to be updated and expanded to improve availability. There were also calls for guidance on how to select qualified examiners and understand the associated costs, and promotion of training and accreditation programmes tailored to the charity sector.

Government response

The government proposes to increase this threshold to £500,000. This is above inflation and above the options specified in the consultation. We have chosen to raise it to this level to align with the Charities SORP Tier 1 threshold. The majority of respondents throughout the consultation consistently asked for alignment of thresholds, as well as consideration across the whole reporting regime, in order to reduce administrative burdens on charities.

The increase to this threshold means that approximately 9,000 charities will no longer be required to use a qualified independent examiner, representing an annual saving to the sector of £23 million. This will significantly reduce pressure on the independent examination sector’s capacity, and will help smaller charities use more money for the public benefit.

We acknowledge that increasing this threshold will result in a reduction of the independent scrutiny of these charities’ accounts compared to at present. Charities no longer required to employ a qualified independent examiner would still be able to opt to use one if they would prefer a higher level of scrutiny. The benefits of aligning and simplifying the accounting and reporting landscape and reducing the administrative burden on small charities are greater than the risks of reduced scrutiny. As discussed in threshold 6, DCMS and the Charity Commission will review the sufficiency of guidance on independent examination.

The government is also open to approaches from professional bodies that would like to be added to the list of bodies in the Charities Act 2011 who are able to conduct qualified independent examinations. Any application would be assessed on its own merits.

Threshold 8- account and statement option for lower-income charities

Threshold	The gross annual income threshold over which a non-company charity must prepare accruals accounts instead of receipts and payments accounts
Option A - Current level	£250,000
Option B - Inflationary increase	£400,000 (CPIH inflation of 50.2% rounded from £375,421.82)
Option C - Other	£300,000

Question 8A: Which option do you think the threshold should be set at? 

• Keep the threshold at £250,000 (Option A)
• Raise the threshold in line with inflation to £400,000 (Option B)
• Raise the threshold to £300,000 (Option C)
• None of the above

Question 8B: Please explain why this is your preferred option.

Consultation responses

30% of respondents voted to retain this threshold (Option A). 42% preferred an inflationary raise to £400,000 (Option B), and another 9% of respondents wanted a partial raise to £300,000 (Option C). 10% of respondents voted for ‘none of the above’ and 9% of respondents did not answer this question. Charities and accountancy firms were more likely to support increasing this threshold than other types of respondent. 

Respondents preferring to retain the threshold felt that cash based receipts and payments accounts do not provide enough oversight and accountability for charities of this income level, and advocated for accrual accounts, which provide a more detailed analysis. They argued that more charities preparing accruals accounts would help to maintain public trust in, and accountability of, the sector. 

Respondents who voted to raise the threshold in line with inflation noted that by having higher thresholds, the financial and administrative burdens on charities would be significantly lessened. Respondents highlighted that a large proportion of charities with incomes between £250,000 and £400,000 are incorporated as companies and so would not be affected by the threshold rising. This is because, to comply with company law, all charitable companies must prepare accruals accounts that are true and fair, and are unable to prepare cash based receipts and payments accounts.

The Charity Commission proposed retaining the threshold, on the basis that accruals accounts provide greater (and more consistently presented) detail on charity finances. Some respondents, including the CLA and ICAEW, advocated for a larger increase of the threshold up to £500,000, aligned to the Charities SORP tier 1 threshold. They noted that the increasing complexity of the SORP requirements for accruals accounts should be considered when reviewing this threshold.

In addition to comments on the thresholds, there were requests for further guidance on charity accounting requirements, particularly for receipts and payments accounts. Some respondents also asked for improved templates/model examples of receipts and payments accounts, which could help to standardise and improve the quality of these types of accounts.

Government response

The government proposes to raise this threshold to £500,000. This is an above inflation increase and above the options specified in the original consultation. As with threshold 7, we have chosen to raise it to this level to align with both threshold 7 and the Charities SORP Tier 1 threshold.

We recognise that there is a significant burden associated with preparing full SORP compliant accruals accounts. Raising the threshold will provide more charities, other than charitable companies, to have the option to prepare receipts and payments accounts instead. Aligning the threshold for this option with both the threshold at which a qualified independent examiner is required and the Tier 1 threshold for SORP compliant accounts will also simplify the reporting regime for charities. Raising the threshold does not prevent charities from continuing to prepare more detailed accruals accounts if they would prefer.

Further commitments

In order to mitigate concerns about raising this threshold, the government is also committed to working with the Charity Commission on the development of a standardised template for receipts and payments accounts, which charities could choose to adopt. A standardised form and content for receipts and payments accounts will help to ensure the data charities provide to the Charity Commission is consistent and reliable, and will also help charities to prepare their accounts.

The government is committed to exploring with the Charity Commission the digitalisation of accruals accounts. This will standardise and streamline the reporting process for charities, and would enable the public and the Charity Commission to examine charity accounts more easily. We would also look to enable optional digital submission of receipts and payments accounts. The government will also explore mandating the form and content and digitalisation of receipts and payments accounts in the future, to further promote standardisation across the charity sector.

Threshold 9- audit of accounts of larger charities (income)

Threshold	The gross annual income threshold over which a full audit is required.
Option A - Current level	£1,000,000
Option B - Inflationary increase	£1,500,000 (CPIH inflation of 33.0% rounded from £1,329,681.27)
Option C - Other	£1,200,000

Question 9A: Which option do you think the threshold should be set at?

• Keep the threshold at £1,000,000 (Option A)
• Raise the threshold in line with inflation to £1,500,000 (Option B)
• Raise the threshold to £1,200,000 (Option C)
• None of the above

Question 9B: Please explain why this is your preferred option.

Question 9C: Do you have any specific comments or evidence about the cost or availability of statutory auditors?

Consultation responses

66% of respondents supported raising this threshold in line with inflation to £1.5 million (Option B). 10% wanted to retain at the current level (Option A), 6% wanted a partial increase (Option C), and 9% voted for none of the above. Of those who responded none, the alternative options suggested included £2 million, £2.5 million, or matching the audit requirements for limited companies. There was majority support for an increase in line with inflation across all types of respondent. 9% of respondents did not answer this question.

Those who supported increasing the threshold in line with inflation mentioned that a full audit is expensive which can put financial pressure on charities, especially charities close to the income threshold, for whom the resources and time required to prepare an audit was considered disproportionate. Some respondents highlighted the increased SORP requirements which are due to come into force from 2026, which they argued will make audits even more expensive. 

Respondents who supported retaining the threshold argued that this would allow for more oversight of the charity sector and would help maintain public trust and accountability. They argued that having an independent examination at this level is not a sufficient level of scrutiny. 

The Fundraising Regulator highlighted that charities that meet the income threshold for auditing must also comply with reporting requirements under section 13 of the Charities (Protection and Social Investment) Act 2016, and raising the threshold would have implications for the breadth of this data.

We received a range of responses relating to the cost and availability of auditors, with many respondents pointing to increasing costs in recent years, especially compared to qualified independent examiners. Some respondents commented that auditors are stepping away from smaller charities and costs are increasing due to the increasing requirements with which auditors have to comply. Some noted that audit costs are relatively consistent regardless of income, and so are proportionally higher for charities close to the threshold. Specific figures provided varied from £5,000 to £19,000. 

We received a few responses that suggested there was neither a cost nor an availability issue, including the Charity Commission, which noted that they had not seen evidence of charities being unable to submit their audited accounts due to not being able to procure an auditor.

In addition to comments on the thresholds, there were calls for increased guidance on audit requirements.

Government response

The government proposes to increase this threshold in line with inflation, to £1.5 million. We note the concerns about reducing the level of scrutiny for those charities that would no longer require a full audit. However, we also note the challenging context of increased costs of audit and decreased availability of auditors. On balance, we consider that an inflationary increase is a proportionate response, which will significantly reduce the administrative burdens on the approximately 2,000 charities that have been drawn into scope of this threshold since it was last updated in 2015. 

We continue to take the position that charities should be subject to a lower threshold than non-charity companies. This is justified to hold charities to a higher standard of transparency, given they exist for the public benefit and often receive their income from public donations. As the audit thresholds in different parts of the UK are already non-aligned, increasing this threshold for England and Wales would continue that misalignment but would not add a new complication to the cross-UK regulatory landscape. 

We note that raising the threshold will also have the effect of decreasing the number of charities that are required to report on their fundraising activity, however, the proportion of charities that report on fundraising activity will not be significantly reduced from when it was set in 2016.

Threshold 10- audit of accounts of larger charities (assets)

Threshold	The value of assets over which account auditing requirements apply where gross annual income is less than £1m.
Option A - Current level	£3,260,000
Option B - Inflationary increase	£5,000,000 (CPIH inflation of 50.2% rounded from £4,895,500.56)
Option C - Other	£4,000,000

Question 10A: Which option do you think the threshold should be set at? 

• Keep the threshold at £3,260,000 (Option A)
• Raise the threshold in line with inflation to £5,000,000 (Option B)
• Raise the threshold to £4,000,000 (Option C)
• None of the above

Question 10B: Please explain why this is your preferred option.

Consultation responses

64% of respondents voted to raise this threshold in line with inflation to £5 million (Option B). 12% wanted to retain at the current level (Option A), 9% wanted a partial increase (Option C), and 6% voted for none of the above. Of those who responded none, the alternative options suggested included raising to £7.5 million, to align with the new non-small company asset threshold, or aligning with the income threshold. Increasing this threshold in line with inflation was the top choice across all types of respondent. 9% of respondents did not answer this question. 

Respondents who wanted the threshold increased suggested that a charity can be asset rich but income poor, and a higher threshold would provide more balance. Respondents highlighted that the new lease accounting in SORP will increase the number of charities in scope of this threshold, and an inflationary increase would rebalance this. The CLA pointed out that the existing threshold was originally meant to align with EU law, and so is now outdated. 

Respondents who would prefer to keep the threshold believe that it provides useful oversight of charities and assurance that charities are run transparently.

Several respondents argued that this threshold is not well understood or complied with. The CFG also asked for the corresponding £250,000 income threshold to be increased.

Government response

The government proposes to increase this threshold in line with inflation to £5 million. There was overall support for this from respondents to the consultation, and it will help to reduce administrative burdens on charities who have relatively low incomes, especially in the context of increased requirements for lease accounting in the new charity SORP. As we are raising threshold 8 to £500,000, we will also raise the £250,000 income threshold that is linked to this asset threshold to £500,000, to ensure an aligned and simplified accounting and reporting regime.

Threshold 11- aggregate income for group accounts

Threshold	The gross aggregate income of a charity group over which the requirement to prepare group accounts applies.
Option A - Current level	£1,000,000
Option B - Inflationary increase	£1,500,000 (CPIH inflation of 33.0% rounded from £1,329,681.27)
Option C - Other	£1,200,000

Question 11A: Which option do you think the threshold should be set at? 

• Keep the threshold at £1,000,000 (Option A)
• Raise the threshold in line with inflation to £1,500,000 (Option B)
• Raise the threshold to £1,200,000 (Option C)
• None of the above

Question 11B: Please explain why this is your preferred option.

Consultation responses

63% of respondents voted to raise this threshold in line with inflation to £1.5 million (Option B). 10% wanted to retain at the current level (Option A), 5% wanted a partial increase (Option C), and 9% voted for none of the above. Of those who responded none, the alternative options suggested included £2 million, £2.5 million, or matching the audit requirements for limited companies.13% of respondents did not answer this question. Increasing in line with inflation was the top choice across all types of respondent.

Respondents who wanted the threshold increased in line with inflation suggested that the threshold has been in place for a long time and it would be reasonable to increase it. Additionally, they touched on the financial and administrative burdens charities face if the threshold is not increased. 

Respondents who would prefer to retain the threshold have suggested that keeping it would continue to provide useful oversight of the charity activities, and that transparent accounts help to maintain the public’s trust in their activities.

There was broad support across all respondents for keeping this threshold aligned with threshold 9 (audit - income).

Government response

The government proposes to increase this threshold in line with inflation to £1.5m. There was overall support for this from respondents to the consultation, and doing so will keep the threshold aligned with the audit threshold, helping to ensure an aligned and simplified accounting and reporting regime.

Threshold 12- audit requirement for group accounts

Threshold	The gross aggregate income of a charity group over which audit requirements apply.
Option A - Current level	£1,000,000
Option B - Inflationary increase	£1,500,000 (CPIH inflation of 33.0%, rounded from £1,329,681.27)
Option C - Other	£1,200,000

Question 12A: Which option do you think the threshold should be set at? 

• Keep the threshold at £1,000,000 (Option A)
• Raise the threshold in line with inflation to £1,500,000 (Option B)
• Raise the threshold to £1,200,000 (Option C)
• None of the above

Question 12B: Please explain why this is your preferred option.

Consultation responses

63% of respondents voted to raise this threshold in line with inflation to £1.5 million (Option B). 8% wanted to retain at the current level (Option A), 5% wanted a partial increase (Option C), and 10% voted for none of the above. Of those who responded none, the alternative options suggested included £2 million , £2.5 million, or matching the audit requirements for limited companies. 14% of respondents did not answer this question. Increasing in line with inflation was the top choice across all types of respondent. 

Respondents who wanted the threshold increased in line with inflation mentioned that the threshold needs to reflect inflation and it needs to be proportional for charities. They also mentioned that by aligning the threshold, the regulatory framework could be simplified, making it easier for charities to navigate it.

Respondents who would prefer to retain the threshold suggested that keeping it would continue to provide useful oversight of the charity activities. It would also enable charities to prepare transparent accounts which would maintain the public’s trust in their activities.

There was broad support across all respondents for keeping this threshold aligned with thresholds 9 and 11.

Government response

The government proposes to increase this threshold in line with inflation to £1.5m. There was overall support for this from respondents to the consultation, and doing so will keep the threshold aligned with the audit threshold and group accounts threshold, helping to ensure an aligned and simplified accounting and reporting regime.

Fundraising thresholds

Threshold 13- renumeration for ‘professional fundraisers’

Threshold	Remuneration threshold above which an individual is considered a professional fundraiser
Option A - Current level	£10 a day £1,000 a year, or £1,000 in remuneration in connection with any fund-raising venture in the course of which money or other property is solicited for the benefit of that institution.
Option B - Inflationary increase	£15 a day (CPIH inflation of 50.2% rounded from £15.02) £1,500 a year (CPIH inflation of 50.2% rounded from £1501.69), or £1,500 in remuneration in connection with any fund-raising venture in the course of which money or other property is solicited for the benefit of that institution (CPIH inflation of 50.2% rounded from £1501.69) - recommended

Question 13A: Should the remuneration threshold increase to £15/£1,500?

• Yes, it should increase to £15/£1,500 (Option B)
• No, it should remain at £10/£1,000 (Option A)
• None of the above

Question 13B: Please explain why this is your preferred option.

Consultation responses

61% of respondents voted to increase this threshold in line with inflation to £15/£1,500 (Option B), which was the government’s initial recommendation. 8% wanted to retain the threshold at the current level of £10/£1,000 (Option A), 6% responded ‘other’, and 25% provided no response. Increasing in line with inflation was the top choice across all types of respondent. 

We received few qualitative responses for this question, and many respondents had no particular views on this threshold 

Respondents who wanted the threshold increased in line with inflation, including the Fundraising Regulator, suggested that given the low figures involved, doing so would not impact the accountability of the fundraising sector as it would result in very few fundraisers falling out of scope of the requirements. Instead, raising the threshold would simplify regulations for small-scale fundraising, reducing additional administrative burdens and bureaucracy costs for smaller charities. 

Respondents who voted to retain the threshold suggested that it would help maintain the public’s trust and accountability of the charity sector.

Government response

The government proposes to increase the threshold to £15/£1,500, as per the original recommendation. There was overall support for this from respondents to the consultation, and the practical impacts of raising the thresholds on the accountability of the fundraising sector are believed to be minimal, but doing so will keep the threshold aligned with the impacts of inflation.

Threshold 14- renumeration for lower-paid collectors

Threshold	Remuneration thresholds under which lower-paid collectors will be excluded from certain solicitation requirements
Option A - Current level	£10 a day £1,000 a year, or £1,000 in remuneration in connection with any fund-raising venture in the course of which money or other property is solicited for the benefit of that institution.
Option B - Inflationary increase	£15 a day (CPIH inflation of 50.2% rounded from £15.02) £1,500 a year (CPIH inflation of 50.2% rounded from £1501.69), or £1,500 in remuneration in connection with any fund-raising venture in the course of which money or other property is solicited for the benefit of that institution (CPIH inflation of 50.2% rounded from £1501.69) - recommended

Question 14A: Should the remuneration threshold increase to £15/£1,500?

• Yes, it should increase to £15/£1,500 (Option B)
• No, it should remain at £10/£1,000 (Option A)
• None of the above

Question 14B: Please explain why this is your preferred option.

Consultation responses

52% of respondents voted to increase this threshold in line with inflation to £15/£1,500 (Option B). 12% wanted to retain the threshold at the current level of £10/£1,000 (Option A), 7% responded ‘none of the above’, and 29% provided no response. Increasing in line with inflation was the top choice across all types of respondent. 

Respondents who wanted the threshold increased, including the Fundraising Regulator, suggested that this was proportionate to inflationary raises, and could potentially reduce burdens on smaller charities.

Respondents who voted to retain the threshold suggested that it would help maintain the public’s trust and accountability of the charity sector.

Others responded that this threshold does not affect them.

Government response

The government proposes to increase the threshold to £15/£1,500, as per the original recommendation. Raising the threshold will keep it aligned with inflation, along with threshold 13 for the remuneration for ‘professional fund-raisers’.

Threshold 15- donor refunds

Threshold	Donation threshold above which donors are entitled to request a refund in certain circumstances
Option A - Current level	£100
Option B - Inflationary increase	£150 (CPIH inflation of 50.2% rounded from £150.17) - recommended

Question 15A: Should the threshold increase to £150?

• Yes, it should increase to £150 (Option B)
• No, it should remain at £100 (Option A)
• None of the above

Question 15B: Please explain why this is your preferred option?

Consultation responses

52% of respondents voted to increase this threshold in line with inflation to £150 (Option B). 20% wanted to retain the threshold at the current level of £100 (Option A), 4% responded ‘none of the above’, and 23% provided no response. Increasing in line with inflation was the top choice across all types of respondent. 

Respondents who wanted the threshold increased, including the Fundraising Regulator, suggested that this would reduce the administrative and financial burden for charities.

Respondents who would prefer to retain the threshold suggested that it would help maintain the public’s trust in the accountability and transparency of the charity sector. It was also suggested that the refund amount should be at the discretion of the charities.

Government response

The government proposes to increase the threshold to £150, as per the original recommendation. Increasing this threshold will likely have minimal impact on charities or donors based on the average donation given to charity, which is below this threshold (£29 according to the Community Life Survey 2023/24), meaning most donations are already not eligible for a refund in these circumstances. Charities will often have their own policies for refunding donations, which may allow refunds below this threshold.

Other charity regulation thresholds

Threshold 16- Charity Commission concurrent jurisdiction with High Court

Threshold	Gross annual income threshold below which the Charity Commission has concurrent jurisdiction with the High Court to make certain types of orders
Option A - Current level	£500
Option B - Inflationary increase	£1,000 (CPIH inflation of 113.3% rounded from £1066.29) - recommended

Question 16A: Should the gross income threshold be raised to £1,000?

• Yes, it should be raised to £1,000 (Option B)
• No, it should remain at £500 (Option A)
• None of the above

Question 16B: Please explain why this is your preferred option.

Consultation responses

59% of respondents voted to raise this threshold in line with inflation to £1,000, which was the government’s initial recommendation. 8% wanted to retain at the current level (Option A), and 7% voted for none of the above. Of those who responded none, the alternative options suggested included raising the threshold to £5,000 (the registration threshold). 26% of respondents did not answer this question. Increasing in line with inflation was the top choice across all types of respondent. 

Most respondents either did not comment on their choice of option, or had no strong views. Those who argued for an inflationary increase tended to do so because it was in line with their general approach to the consultation.

Government response

The government proposes to increase this threshold in line with inflation to £1,000, as per the original recommendation. Increasing this threshold to £1,000 will increase the number of micro charities who can receive support from the Charity Commission to help them get back on track quickly.

Threshold 17- release of charity rentcharges

Threshold	The maximum payment that can be received as consideration for releasing a rentcharge, under which costs incurred by a charity in connection with proving its title to the rentcharge are recoverable from the person in whose favour the rentcharge is to be released
Option A - Current level	£1,000
Option B - Inflationary increase	£1,500 (CPIH inflation of 50.2%, rounded from £1,501.69) - recommended

Question 17A: Should the maximum payment threshold remain at £1,000?

• Yes, it should remain at £1,000 (Option A)
• No, increase the threshold in line with inflation to £1,500 (Option B)
• None of the above

Question 17B:Please explain why this is your preferred option.

Consultation responses

23% of respondents supported retaining this threshold, which was the government’s initial recommendation. 31% of respondents supported raising this threshold in line with inflation to £1,500 and 7% argued for none of the above. Of those who argued for none of the above, there were no alternative options provided. 39% of respondents did not answer this question. 

This threshold was not well known or well understood among respondents, which resulted in many not responding, or not expressing a strong opinion. Those who wanted to increase in line with inflation tended to do so because it was in line with their general approach to the consultation rather than specific arguments relating to the impacts of this threshold.

Government response

The government proposes retaining this threshold at £1,000, as recommended in the consultation. Rentcharges do not increase in line with inflation, and few cases exceed the existing threshold. The Rentchargers Act 1977 prevents new rentcharges from being created, and all current rentchargers will be extinguished in 2037, so this threshold will impact increasingly fewer charities over time.

Thresholds 18 to 21- thresholds introduced in the Charities Act 2022

Threshold	Set at
Threshold 18 - the value of a gift or gifts by a donor to a charity under which the charity can apply property cy-près without authorisation from the court or the Charity Commission	£120
Threshold 19 - the value of money or property over which a copy of the trustee resolution to agree to apply proceeds of a failed appeal cy-près must be sent to the Charity Commission	£1,000
Threshold 20 - the value of money or property under which a charity can make an ex gratia payment without the consent of the Charity Commission	Income £25,000 and below - £1,000 Income Greater than £25,000, but not exceeding £250,000 - £2,500 Income Greater than £250,000, but not exceeding £1 million - £10,000 Income greater than £1 million - £20,000
Threshold 21 - the market value of a permanent endowment below which the charity trustees may, in specific circumstances, release restrictions on permanent endowment without the consent of the Charity Commission	£25,000

Question 18A: Should these thresholds (Thresholds 18 to 21) be maintained at this time?

• Yes
• No

Question 18B: Please explain why this is your preferred option.

Consultation responses

53% of respondents voted to retain these thresholds, which was the government’s initial recommendation. 15% of respondents voted to raise in line with inflation. 31% of respondents did not answer this question. Retaining these thresholds was the top choice across all types of respondent. 

Most respondents simply stated that they agree with the consultation. Those who argued for an inflationary increase tended to do so because it was in line with their general approach to the consultation, rather than for specific reasons relating to these thresholds.

Government response

The government proposes to retain these thresholds at their current levels, as recommended in the consultation. These thresholds were set in 2022, and therefore any inflationary increases would be minimal, and it is considered that any benefits of increasing them would be outweighed by the costs of familiarisation.

Next steps and implementation

As the consultation document set out, DCMS will take forward secondary legislation to amend the thresholds. 

We will aim to take the legislation through Parliament in 2026. In order to ensure there is sufficient time for charities to understand and prepare for the impact of the changes, the changes will not come into effect before 1 October 2026. Implementation of the changes will be accompanied by updated Charity Commission guidance. 

We are also committed to continuing to work with the Charity Commission to consider further deregulatory opportunities and ways to support smaller charities.

Annex A: list of responding organisations who agreed to attribute their response to their organisation

• ACCA Global
• Active Lancashire Limited
• Adding Value Consultancy Ltd
• Adventure Hyndburn
• Age UK Somerset
• Association of Charitable Foundations
• Association of Church Accountants and Treasurers
• Berkshire County Girls Football League
• BHP LLP
• Bristol and Anchor Almshouse Charity
• Burton Sweet Chartered Accountants
• Caladine Ltd
• Cambridge Cycling Campaign
• Catholics in Fundraising
• Charity Commission for England and Wales
• Charity Finance Group
• Charity Law Association
• Charities Aid Foundation
• Chartered Governance Institute UK & Ireland
• Christian Youth Enterprises Sailing Centre
• Directory of Social Change
• Ecole des Copains
• Emmaus Bristol
• Enaid Accountancy Ltd
• Fortus Limited
• Freedom Network International
• Fundraising Regulator
• Gloucestershire Federation or Women’s Institutes
• Hampshire County Federation of Women’s Institutes
• Healthcare Financial Management Association
• Institute of Chartered Accountants of Scotland
• Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales
• Infinity Accountants Ltd
• Kinnair Associates Limited, Chartered Accountants
• KM Business Solutions Ltd t/a KM, Chartered Accountants
• Larking Gowen LLP
• Lions Brass 4 Youth
• Mercia Group Limited
• MHA
• Mid Kent Mind
• Moore Kingston Smith LLP
• National Association for Voluntary and Community Action
• Noel Buxton Trust
• Northgate End Chapel Congregation
• Paul’s Place (South West)
• Petersfield Museum and Art Gallery Limited
• PKF Francis Clark
• Price Bailey LLP
• Redditch and Bromsgrove Unit 595 of the Sea Cadet Corps
• Rising Brook Baptist Church; ;Royal College of Anaesthetists
• RSPCA Essex Mid & North Branch
• Runnymede Trust
• SAB Accountancy Services Ltd
• Saffery LLP
• Sancton Village Hall
• Sayer Vincent LLP
• Scarborough Symphony Orchestra
• Selly Park Singers
• SELFA
• Sew Positive
• Sheffield Churches’ Council for Community Care CIO
• Shell Pensioners Benevolent Association
• Signposts Services (Stafford)
• Stewardship
• Stroud Village Hall and Residents Association
• Sue Ryder
• The Angel Orchestra
• The Association of Charity Independent Examiners
• The Edward Thomas Fellowship
• The Faithful Stewards Ltd
• The Feed and Construction East
• The National Council for Voluntary Organisations
• The Scout Association
• Union Baptist Church High Wycombe
• Wales Council for Voluntary Action
• Warwickshire Symphony Orchestra CIO
• Weissbraun Emanuel
• Witcham Events Committee & Witcham Village Hall
• Wrigleys Solicitors

The consultation also received a number of responses from individuals, as well as anonymous responses. All valid responses were considered in the development of policy and this government response.

1. The consultation received 233 responses in total (222 via Qualtrics and 11 via email). However after examination, 96 responses were removed from the analysis as they contained little to no information. These ‘empty responses’ are common due to respondents clicking through the survey to review what questions are being asked of them without providing responses to the questions. The total analysed sample (137) included responses with 3 or more questions answered. ↩

2. £47m is the average annual saving over 10 years, taking into account inflation and discounted in line with the Green Book guidance. ↩