Skip to main content

Proceeding contribution from Chris Bryant (Labour) 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

If the hon. Gentleman had not intervened, we would hear the ministerial reply rather sooner. I am grateful to him, however, for taking us round that hermeneutical circle. As I said earlier, amendment No. 1, which was tabled by the hon. Member for Wimbledon (Stephen Hammond), is problematic. It might be nice for the local Conservative association to gather its fees and present them to a gallery or a museum. They could, however, present that money as a gift aid cheque. In fact, if the association members raised some extra money on the bus, they could be even more generous by filling in a form and providing substantial amounts to the gallery or museum in question. I am not sure whether that is a very good argument in favour of the amendment, but the fundamental point is that it would be difficult to extend the benefits to all the other 20 people throughout the whole year. We should reject the amendment and stick with the Government’s proposal, as there should be a degree of financial dependency among the group of people as they are constituted.


Secondary information

Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
435 c41 
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