Proceeding contribution from Baroness Kramer (Liberal Democrat) in the House of Commons on Monday, 13 June 2005. It occurred during Debate on bill and Committee of the Whole House (HC) on Finance Bill.
Finance Bill
I shall speak primarily to amendment No. 35, but I shall also say a few words about amendments Nos. 36 and 1. I declare my various interests, which I discovered, once I started writing them down, are more extensive than I had realised. They include English Heritage, the National Trust, the Tate museum and, in my own constituency, Barnes wetlands and Kew gardens, some of which might be beneficiaries of the revised gift aid programme. I thank the Minister for recognising that many charitable attractions use the provisions on gift aid and admissions not as a loophole, but, with the encouragement of the official guidance of the Inland Revenue, as a justified way to enhance their viability. For many small museums, including the Richmond and Kingston museums, gift aid has played a significant role, especially when local government is frequently cutting funding. With competition having intensified from national museums—now free of charge—the difficulties of the smaller museums have worsened, and gift aid provision has proved a lifeline. That is why the proposed changes are of such concern. I accept the fundamental notion that for gift aid to apply, it is right to ask for a little something extra to be provided, rather than simply having admissions converted into a donation. I accept that in principle, but I am concerned about the provisions that are intended to give effect to it. I have received from Ken Robinson, and from people on the ground, representations saying that the difficulty of explaining the need to put an extra 10 per cent. into the pot so that payment qualifies as a donation is a challenge for many small museums, particularly where the admissions person is a volunteer—someone passionate about the collection, but not necessarily able to sit down and take someone through the complex details of adopting route A or B and explaining the differences between them. That is particularly significant when there is a fairly long queue. From a practical point of view, it provides a challenge particularly for small museums, but also perhaps for the larger ones.
Secondary information
- Type
- Proceeding contribution
- Reference
- 435 c30-1
- Session
- 2005-06
- Chamber / Committee
- House of Commons chamber
- Subjects
- Complaints Disclosure of information Admissions Charities Companies Corporation tax Charitable donations Finance EU law Investment Exemptions Interest payments Gift aid Ownership Museums and galleries Property Loans Open ended investment companies Small businesses Tax avoidance Taxation Transfer pricing Financial Ombudsman Service National Savings and Investments Collective investment schemes
- Legislation
- Finance Bill 2005-06
- Link
- View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk
Librarians' tools
- Timestamp
- 2024-01-27 13:49:33 +0000
- URI
- http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_251743
- In Indexing
- http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_251743
- In Solr
- https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_251743