Paul Goodman (Shadow Minister (Childcare), Treasury; Wycombe, Conservative)

I shall pass over that interjection, in case it finds its way into Hansard, which I fear it has. I do not know whether the Paymaster General was suggesting that the amendment would be illegal, but I can understand her impatience as I am about to tax her again with one of the examples that I have a way of raising. I hope that she will address it more directly than she did the previous example.

The clause will extend restrictions on gift aid payments by close companies to non-close companies. The argument has been put to me that it is likely to hurt charities that run substantial corporate benefactor schemes and that the maximum benefit of £250 is minimal and will discourage companies from entering into such schemes. An example was given to me by, needless to say, the Charities’ Tax Reform Group. Let us suppose that the National Trust were trying to raise £500,000 to repair a property and a corporate benefactor agreed to donate £250,000. The National Trust might begin to raise the rest by holding a fundraising dinner, selling tickets at £100 a head. The corporate benefactor might be given a free table in recognition of its generosity and to encourage other substantial contributions. If the benefit to the benefactor exceeded £250, the charity would lose gift aid on the whole £250,000 donation. The argument put to me was that if the Government are unwilling to delete clause 58, at the very least the upper limit should be raised from £250 to £2,500 to allow charities to devise effective corporate benefactor schemes and to encourage companies to be generous in entering them.

See this speech in context