Mr.
Gauke: My point was merely a question of interpretation as
to what the clause is saying. I think that the Paymaster General has
clarified that. Because of the £100,000 over six years, it may
be possible to look back 11 years. That is a point that charities will
need to bear in mind, whether they are acting mischievously or
otherwise.
Dawn
Primarolo: The best way to avoid that is not to engage in
those arrangements from now on. Charities
will then not have to look back, so the issues that the hon. Gentleman
raises will not need to be addressed. This rather flexible use, perhaps
unintentionally, of retrospection came in because it is the second part
of the transaction when that is triggered.
I shall not speak to the
Government amendments. The hon. Gentleman and others have welcomed them
and it was necessary for the Government to make them. I hope that I
have assured the
Committee— Sir
George Young (North-West Hampshire) (Con): On Government
amendment No. 63, which as the Paymaster General said is welcomed by
registered social landlords, can she confirm that the Treasury cleared
it with the Housing Corporation and that those transactions that will
now be exempted by the Treasury will not be caught by the Housing
Corporation objecting to substantial donations being made by a housing
association to a charity that it set
up?
Dawn
Primarolo: I apologise to the right hon. Gentleman. I
cannot answer that detailed question. It is an important point and I
wish that I had thought of it. I will write to the right hon. Gentleman
and give every Committee member a copy of the letter. I shall keep my
fingers crossed that that is all in order, as it was precisely because
of the interaction with controls and regulations that it was felt that
these changes could be made. I do not quite have the confidence to give
the right hon. Gentleman a straight yes answer this minute.
[Interruption.] With the elapsing of 30 seconds, I am apparently
able to answer yes, but I should still like to consider the matter and
write to the right hon. Gentleman, because it is an important
point. In conclusion,
I hope that I have been able to convey to the Committee that the
Government took great care with this legislation and did their best to
obtain the correct balance between trying to stop the abuse of the
reliefs and ensuring as much as possible that the law-abiding charities
were not affected by these changes. I hope, therefore, that the hon.
Member for Wycombe, in the spirit that he moved the amendment, will not
press the amendments today, even if he wants to reserve his position on
some of the answers I have given. I hope that he is reassured on a
number of
points.
Mr.
Goodman: I am grateful to the Paymaster General for the
way in which she responded in her marathon speech that would otherwise
have been the responsibility of the Economic Secretary. She suggested,
at the start of her response, that some of the objections by the
Charities Tax Reform Group may
have come rather late and may work contrary to the general welcomes of
other organisations, which I mentioned on moving my
amendment. Reservations
have been expressed by others, including the Law Commission and the
Chartered Institute of Taxation, as I said, but generally the Paymaster
General sought, having listened to concerns about innocent transactions
being caught, to say either, “Innocent transactions won’t
be caught and I give guarantees and assurances”—which
were welcome—or that some of the examples given should be
exceptionable transactions. My hon. Friends and I still have some
reservations about her response, particularly to amendment No. 91 on
substantial donors. She argued that charities know who their
substantial donors are. However, there may be a donor who is a
substantial donor, who later, for one reason or another, stops being
one, or there may be a donor who was not a substantial donor, who later
becomes one. That takes us back to issues about bookkeeping and how far
back charities will have to
look. We will not
press the amendment to a vote. We heard the Paymaster General’s
reassurances, but there may be some matters to which we will wish to
return in due course. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the
amendment. Amendment,
by leave,
withdrawn. Amendments
made: No. 62, in page 40, line 21 [Vol I], leave out ‘value'
and insert ‘limit'.
No. 63, in page 40, line 25
[Vol I], at end insert— ‘(9)
A registered social landlord or housing association shall not be
treated as a substantial donor in relation to a charity with which it
is connected; and for that
purpose— (a)
“registered social landlord or housing association” means
a body entered on a register maintained
under— (i) section 1 of
the Housing Act 1996, (ii)
section 57 of the Housing (Scotland) Act 2001,
or (iii) Article 14 of the
Housing (Northern Ireland) Order 1992,
and (b) a body and a charity
are connected if (and only
if)— (i) the one is
wholly owned, or subject to control, by the other,
or (ii) both are wholly owned,
or subject to control, by the same person.'. —[Dawn
Primarolo.] Clause
54, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 55 ordered to stand
part of the
Bill. Further
consideration adjourned.—[Mr. John Heppell.]
Adjourned accordingly at
eleven minutes past Four o’clock till Tuesday 23 May at
half-past Ten
o’clock.
| 
