On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Over the weekend, the Secretary of State for Education and Skills announced a policy of extended hours that could affect every school in the country. No one in the House has had the chance to ask any questions about it. Are you aware that this is the third example in a week of the Secretary of State ignoring this Chamber? She announced a massive change to the way in which our children will be taught to read, involving reviewing the national literacy strategy, and in response to pressure, she announced an audit of special schools, which will affect many constituencies represented in the House. So far, we have not had even a written ministerial statement, let alone an oral one. Have you had any approach from the Secretary of State about making a statement this afternoon? Should she not come here and spell it out?

Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Will you undertake to speak directly to the Secretary of State about her discourtesy today? We on the Liberal Democrat Benches share the views expressed by the hon. Member for Witney (Mr. Cameron). The Government's plan may be welcome, but it raises more questions than it answers, as one sees when one looks at the detail. It makes no mention of school transport arrangements for the extended day, for example, which threatens not Kelly hours, but Kelly rush hours. When will we have a chance to debate this issue and ask the Secretary of State questions?

Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Well, let me answer both points, and perhaps that will help the right hon. Gentleman. I am on the record as saying that I want Ministers to come to the House, but I need help from Members of the House, particularly on the Front Benches. No application was made for an urgent question today. That does not mean to say that I would have granted an urgent question, but at least I would have had a mechanism before me to require the Minister concerned to come before the House. I lay down that matter; I know that Monday is a day when people are a bit slower and are not so quick off the mark, but that is the way to do things.

You will recall, Mr. Speaker, as I do, that when this matter came up last week, the Leader of the House wriggled and evaded in his usual way by saying that Ministers were obliged to come to the House only when a new matter was being raised. He wrongly claimed that if it was an existing matter, they had no such obligation, in spite of your rulings. The matter that is being raised now is patently a new one, but Ministers are still apparently evading their responsibilities. It really is time that this issue was sorted out once and for all and that ministerial evasion was stamped on, preferably by you.

I did not notice that the Leader of the House was wriggling at that particular time, but he was quite right: new matters are different from matters that are already the policy of the Government. As I said, those on the Front Bench in particular can take note of these things.

I beg to move amendment No. 36, page 11, line 40, at end insert—

'(h) interactive experiments with an educational purpose.'.

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments:

No. 35, in clause 11, page 12, line 1, leave out 'one year' and insert 'three months'.

No. 1, page 12, line 8, after 'family', insert

'or of that person and an accompanying group of no more than twenty individuals.'.

It is a pleasure to open the batting for the Opposition this afternoon on the first clause of the Finance Bill to be considered in Committee of the whole House.

Several changes have taken place at the Treasury since the general election, so with your leave, Mrs. Heal, I shall begin with a few quick courtesies. In his absence, I welcome the new the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, the right hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Mr. Browne), who is now the other Browne—Browne minimus—at the Treasury. I congratulate the hon. Member for Wentworth (John Healey) on his promotion from Economic Secretary to Financial Secretary and wish him luck, but not too much luck, in his new role. Finally, I congratulate the hon. Member for Bury, South (Mr. Lewis) on his joining the Treasury as the new Economic Secretary. He will be my direct opposite number, and I look forward to shadowing him in what I hope will be a constructive spirit.

Amendment No. 35 seeks to reduce the specified period in proposed new subsection 5H from one year to three months. Amendment No. 36 seeks to expand the range of charities that may claim gift aid on their admissions under subsection 5G to include those facilities which have

"interactive experiments with an educational purpose."

In addition, my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon (Stephen Hammond) is a new hon. Member, but he has had the gumption to propose his own amendment to the Finance Bill, which augurs well for the future. I look forward to hearing what he has to say, and I will seek to respond to his amendment in my winding-up speech.

On a procedural point, as clause 11 deals with changes to the tax treatment of gift aid in relation to a number of charities, in the interests of transparency, I declare an interest as a member of English Heritage, the Natural Trust and the Essex Wildlife Trust. With specific regard to amendment No. 36, I also declare an interest as a member of the friends of the Royal Air Force Air Defence Radar museum at Neatishead in Norfolk.

The concept of gift aid, which is at the heart of clause 11, was introduced by John Major when he was Chancellor back in 1990. Since then, it has helped to generate billions of pounds of tax-efficient donations to charity. Gift aid has been through a variety of changes since then, which, the Committee will be pleased to hear, I do not propose to apprise in detail now.

This afternoon's debate directly relates to a specific measure in the Finance Act 2000 that had the stated aim of encouraging new donations to charity. To cut a long story short, those changes to section 25 of the Finance Act 1990 permitted charities specifically involved in the conservation of heritage property or the conservation of wildlife to begin to reclaim gift aid on admission charges to their premises. In that context, it is important to note that that outcome was not the Government's stated intention, but a number of charities sought to take advantage of it with the subsequent agreement of the Inland Revenue, which is an important point. Indeed, paragraph 3.12 of the Government's own regulatory impact assessment to accompany the proposed changes to the gift aid regime states:

"Changes to the Gift Aid rules in Finance Act 2000 mean that heritage and conservation charities are acting within the terms of the law by seeking donations that give a right to free day admission. This has become established practice, and guidance produced by the Inland Revenue confirms it is within the terms of the existing Gift Aid legislation."

It is important to establish at the outset that what the Government propose to change has become established practice over the past few years, and that the Inland Revenue fully acknowledges that.

That brings me to the cost of these measures. In the debate on Second Reading, it was notable that when Ministers were pressed for the estimated cost of making the changes—that is, the amount of money that, in their view, the Revenue was losing, and that they wished to make up by amending the gift aid regime—they were noticeably reluctant to give that figure on the Floor of the House. However, if one looks into the detail of the regulatory impact assessment, as I have, it is clear that on several occasions the Government estimate that the amount of revenue in effect forgone by the Treasury is approximately £10 million. All public money is important—I would not deny that—but the Government are bringing in a change that will have a very significant effect on the charities and museums sector, particularly small and independent museums, and they must acknowledge that although there is not a vast amount of public money at stake here, it will necessarily have an important effect on the institutions in question.

Following the Government's decision in December 2001 to grant free admission to 50 or so Government-funded national museums and galleries, many charities that do not receive subsidies took advantage of the gift aid provisions to allow them to continue to compete with neighbouring attractions, entry to which had become free to the viewing public. Thus the situation post-2000, which pertains today, has helped to maintain something of a level playing field between subsidised and unsubsidised charities and museums, even though the Government admit in their RIA that that was not originally their intention. Again, this particularly affects smaller independent museums which are highly reliant on admission fees as a source of their income.

The reasoning behind the Government's proposals was, as they stated as far back as the pre-Budget report 2003, that gift aid had become, in the words of the Paymaster General, "a loophole", and that the facility was therefore to be withdrawn, even though the Inland Revenue had admitted to the museums and charities sector that it was perfectly within its rights in using it. Perhaps not surprisingly, that rapidly led to the Government getting into trouble with the charitable sector. Under a considerable amount of fire, not all of it very charitable, the Government began to back away and encouraged the consultation on the proposed changes. They came back with a modified scheme, which was presaged in pre-Budget report 2004 and is now contained in the Bill.

The proposals do not abolish the ability of charities to claim gift aid on admissions—we concede that—but rather reform it, with conditions and, in fairness, in order to allow additional institutions to qualify to claim gift aid, albeit on the revised basis. Those new conditions are addressed by amendment No. 35. New subsection (5H) sets either of two conditions by which institutions can continue to claim gift aid. In essence, they can do so either by charging an additional 10 per cent. on the admission fee for those people who wish their payment to be reclaimed as gift aid by the institution that they are visiting, or by granting a right of free admission for a year in return for an admission fee being reclaimed for gift aid. However, having contacted a considerable number of institutions over the past week, it is clear that implementing the changes presents several very practical difficulties.

I declare an interest, as a member of the Wimbledon Society, which has a small museum.

I wish to speak to the amendment that seeks to extend the definition of who can accompany a donor under gift aid in subsection (5I)(a). Last week on Second Reading I mentioned a number of small museums in my constituency, and also the Wandle industrial museum, which held an exhibition on Saturday. The chairman of its board of trustees is the Reverend Andrew Wakefield. It was somewhat surprising, therefore, to find that the board was sponsoring an exhibition on Nelson, especially as it featured the ménage à trois in which he lived in Merton. [Interruption.] For the benefit of the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant), may I say that Nelson lived with Emma, Lady Hamilton, who was married to someone else at the time? It was odd to find a reverend member of the Church sponsoring such an exhibition.

The industrial museum is exactly the sort of small museum covered by the Bill. I asked Mr. Wakefield whether he had had a chance to read the report of last week's Second Reading or had heard anything about the clauses that were being suggested. It seemed that, like those mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh (Mr. Francois), he had heard nothing, and nor had he had a chance to consider how the provisions might affect the museum.

On Second Reading I commented on the current position. Subsection (5I) explains that "right of admission" means a right of admission

"of the person who makes the gift or of that person and one or more members of his family".

That covers a number of circumstances: a parent taking a child; a parent taking another family member; and a parent taking a family member, plus certain other family members.

However, a parent's taking a group of children to a small exhibition or museum is currently disallowable under the gift aid clause. Given the many different circumstances that can arise, it is sensible to widen the terms of that clause, which is what the amendment seeks to do. The ability to make a donation should surely extend to everyone in the donor's party, and the amendment would remove the anomaly so that the whole party would be covered by the gift aid provision. Inserting "accompanying" would also ensure a link between the principal person and the group itself, instead of a spurious association. I accept that figure of 20 to which the amendment refers is an arbitrary one; none the less, that figure would cover most of the circumstances to which I referred earlier, such as a children's party or a local group or society trying to enter a museum. I hope that the Minister will consider accepting the amendment, which would simply clarify matters and allow a number of perfectly innocent people who wish to be admitted to be covered by the gift aid provisions.

I want to say a little about the amendments moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh, which I hope the whole House will welcome and commend. When I spoke to various people after last week's Second Reading, it became clear that the one-year rule will create real problems for those who have established friends' groups for small industrial museums. Such groups often have a right of admission of a year. Unless the provision is amended, it would be rather odd if someone actually wanted to become a friend of a museum, instead of just paying their donation on the way in. Changing the period from one year to three months seems an acceptable idea that would provide valid support for museums.

On Second Reading, I referred to interactive displays. I have a child who regards viewing museum displays as a rather restrictive pastime and who is keen to take advantage of the various interactive hands-on displays. There is no real purpose to confining the current provision to viewing alone. Amendment No. 36 also refers to the "educational purpose", and I hope that anyone who enters a museum would regard doing so as educational. I hope that the Minister will accept the amendment.

Will the hon. Gentleman clarify what an interactive display or exhibition is? I have my own views—I have seen such displays in museums—but I wonder what his are.

I can give two practical examples. The museum that I visited on Saturday contains a working scale model of a mill. Children can look at it, move it around and remove and replace its various parts. Another display included various panels that people can touch, with lights indicating different results. Instead of simply viewing the display, they can press buttons and involve themselves in interactive way. As I understand it, the amendment will allow such circumstances to be covered.

That deals with "interactive", but will the hon. Gentleman say a little more about the second word in the amendment, which is "experiments"? The mill to which he referred may count as an experiment, but his second example, involving flashing lights, did not sound like an experiment.

The amendment in question is not mine, so perhaps the hon. Gentleman should have sought clarification on that point earlier. I was merely discussing interactive displays.

I hope that the Minister will accept the amendment.

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 intensified competition 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.

Is it not already the case that small museums have to explain gift aid provisions? The people paying the entrance fee are taxpayers and have to fill in forms in any case; surely a different form could be given to them to fill in while they were in the long queues that the hon. Member for Rayleigh (Mr. Francois) mentioned. The punters would soon come to understand the situation.

The hon. Gentleman will know that many taxpayers frequently make donations and often understand the need to fill in forms. In other words, it is a practice with which they are familiar and accept as part of their general routine. It is not associated only with admissions but with all sorts of other things that people happen to do relating to charities. Suddenly finding that a separate set of rules applies as people go through the admissions door at the local museum is a significant additional step. This is simply a matter of practicalities. When five or six people are standing in a row to gain admission to a small museum and another crowd arrives behind them, that can be overwhelming.

If the Minister believes that the clause is efficient and will work effectively, will he agree to monitor it? If we started to see that the provisions were having an impact on small museums that were unable to realise the funding and benefits that both they and the Minister anticipate, could some intervention be made to deal with that problem? I am willing to accept the provision as a starting point, but I ask for it to be watched because the practicalities may prove more difficult than is currently envisaged.

I am reflecting carefully on what the hon. Lady is saying, but it strikes me that if there is a queue, people can get their heads around what is required while they are in it; and if there is not a queue, it can be explained to them at the ticket desk.

I suggest that such provisions should be tested out with the experience of time. Hon. Members, who often enjoy discussions, sometimes overestimate the skills of the typical volunteer who helps out over the weekend at the local museum. This could prove to be an intimidating challenge in which people find themselves extensively questioned. If I am wrong, I will be happy for the provision to apply as it is, but I would like to know that the Government are prepared to watch to establish whether I am wrong.

I hear what the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Rob Marris) says, but does the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Susan Kramer) agree that I have provided several examples from museums and charities that have direct experience, day in and day out, of how practicable some measures are? They are firmly of the view that the suggestion is not practicable. I do not know how many days some Labour Members have spent working as charity volunteers in museums, but I do think that the museums know what they are talking about.

I thank the hon. Gentleman for saying that, because I believe that those on the ground are usually better than those of us who preach at telling what the realities are.

I support amendment No. 35. I have talked to people from several institutions, and as the hon. Member for Rayleigh (Mr. Francois) has said, the one-year membership is at the core of their funding and of their whole strategy of communicating with and marketing themselves to the community that they seek to serve. That is an important community and an important role.

As I understand it—if I am wrong, I shall be grateful if the Minister corrects me—if the price of a one-year membership exceeds the price of a single admission, charities will lose out substantially if they adopt the programme, unless they can provide some sort of extraordinary differentiation between a one-year membership under the donation and a one-year membership under their current structure. In fact, I cannot see how anybody, even a Member of Parliament—certainly I am struggling with the idea—could try to explain the difference to people applying for membership or coming into the museum or other attraction.

The hon. Lady may find that extraordinary, but I find her proposition extraordinary. For example, I am a member of the friends of the Grand theatre in Wolverhampton—although that is not a charity in exactly the same sense—and like lots of other people I get additional benefits, besides admission, from my membership. We are talking about charities, so the financial transactions should be viewed not in purely capitalist terms, but in terms of supporting an organisation, its ethos and what it is trying to do. This is not simply a question of admission; for example, people get newsletters from the National Trust and other such organisations.

We shall have to agree to disagree, because I think that there will be a significant impact on the income of organisations such as the National Trust and English Heritage—an impact that will be a loss to the nation.

rose—

I think that we have gone round this subject long enough.

It is entirely appropriate to ask an attraction to offer something more than simple admission to justify gift aid, but it seems unacceptable to set the hurdle much higher than that. The opportunity to differentiate between an annual membership with add-ons and one without is pushing the limits of the system too far, and I suspect it is not what was intended. I ask the Government seriously to consider reducing the period from 12 months to three; indeed, there is an argument for reducing it to one month. Somebody could pay the price of a single admission and then be able to go back again and again over the period of the membership. For museums that change their displays—places that people enjoy going back to—it would be extraordinarily unfair if people could pay the admission charge and go in once while those who paid the same amount categorised as an annual membership could go back 10 or 12 times. For places that people visit only once in a while, that is probably reasonable, but for places that know that people will take advantage and come back over and over again, it strikes me as insane to say that a single visit must cost the same.

I wonder whether the hon. Lady's argument is accurate. The national museum of Welsh life just outside Cardiff is a fine institution, and it is free now, because the policy of the Welsh Assembly and of this Government has been to try to make all national galleries and museums free. Many people argued that museums would suffer from not getting admission charges, but I go to that museum several times a year—certainly every time friends come to visit—and it probably makes far more money out of me now, because I go four or five times a year. I wonder whether the precise arithmetic is as the hon. Lady would have us believe. Sometimes, because people have free admission across a year, they go to the museum or gallery more often, including the bookshop or coffee shop, and spend more money. If the gallery or museum is not short-sighted, it may end up earning more money rather than less from that.

That is a risk that most small museums could not take. Museums funded by the Government can perhaps take the risk that visitors would spend money in other ways, because their core funding is essentially secure. However, I am talking about admissions that are essentially core funding for many small charitable institutions. If that is put at risk because annual memberships are no longer possible—because they would cost the same as a single admission—we will threaten the viability of those museums. Many are already under pressure.

The industry has argued its case effectively, with more than one hon. Member, and the Government should consider its point. If the Government are willing to do so, there will be no need to divide the Committee, but if they are not willing to take a second look, we should divide to try to protect that core funding.

Given the hon. Lady's desire that the period of the right of admission should be reduced to three months, which is consistent with the argument of my hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh (Mr. Francois), or even to one month, does she think that that three-month or one-month period should be at any time during a 12-month period, or is she concerned that it should not be at a period of maximum interest, such as August or another time of extended school holiday?

I take the hon. Gentleman's point. The one-month period would provide more protection from someone who tried to target their visits on the most interesting season or a time when they were likely to come back on multiple occasions for the price of a single admission. One month would provide better protection than three months.

I thank the hon. Lady for her courtesy in giving way again. There is no separate Liberal Democrat amendment on this clause, so can she confirm—for the avoidance of doubt—that if we decide to press amendment No. 35 to a division, if the Government make no concessions, we will enjoy the support of the Liberal Democrats?

I can confirm that that would be the case—[Interruption.] Well, it is progressive.

Is the hon. Lady saying that she supports amendment No. 1 about

"an accompanying group of no more than twenty individuals"?

If so, can she explain why that will not mean that top-rate taxpayers collect together basic-rate or non-taxpayers to exploit another loophole?

Most of the top-rate taxpayers I have met would be unlikely to spend the energy to find sufficient friends and neighbours to visit on that single occasion. I agree with the hon. Member for Wimbledon (Stephen Hammond) that the issue is more likely to be a couple of parents bringing a group of youngsters along for a birthday party or special treat in the holidays. We should do everything we can to get youngsters into our museums and attractions so that they are much more aware of the whole community around them, especially the arts and sciences and our various botanical gardens.

Surely the point is that the provisions are about financial dependants, and that cannot be extended to any 20 people one may choose to gather and call members of one's family, unless one is able to prove that they are financial dependants. That would drive a coach and horses through the finance legislation.

My interest is in trying to draw up a provision that will encourage people to bring in youngsters, which frequently means a group of youngsters, wherever possible. If there were something in the provision that did that, I should be entirely satisfied that the clause contained all that I wanted to achieve.

Finally, on amendment No. 36, although I do not pretend to understand the difference between an interactive project and an interactive experiment, we can probably all understand the sense of those words. An interactive approach is being adopted at more and more charitable attractions to engage youngsters. For example, at the Barnes wetlands project in my constituency, and indeed my neighbourhood, an attraction is being set up where youngsters can become engaged through climbing, guessing, touching and drawing to work through issues relating to wetlands, such as climate change and its impact on ecology. Such strategies are being used to draw young people to various attractions. That is important, so there can be nothing disadvantageous in adding the amendment; it can be only advantageous.

The hon. Lady is making an important point about the variety of places where we might want to encourage such activity. However, I do not understand why the amendment is necessary; none of the examples advanced so far, including the one that she has just given, cannot be met by some other part of subsection (5G), which refers to "grounds, or other land" used

"by a charity in pursuance of its charitable purposes".

The amendment may be a nice thing, but it is completely redundant—a bit like the Lib Dems I suppose.

The hon. Gentleman gives me the opportunity to say that the direction shown by the amendment is one for which there is an increasing interest and following. I can see no harm in adding those words. There is nothing in their scope of which the hon. Gentleman would not approve and that he could not support. It at least adds clarity, which is helpful on these occasions.

I am not quite sure how one draws these things to a close but I have reached the end of my speech.

I have only one short point to make, but first I declare an interest as a member of the National Trust and a proud member of Beamish, which is a marvellous museum in County Durham.

As has already been said, small museums, as well as private and specialist museums, which often have charitable status, have to compete with the state's museums, which are free—although I completely support that. However, that situation affects museums such as Beamish, which is quite a large organisation.

As the Financial Secretary knows, the practice has developed over the past three or four years of paying gift aid with membership subscriptions. The hon. Member for Rayleigh (Mr. Francois) referred to that in his introduction. People standing in the queue eating their ice creams at Beamish, or at the ticket desk, get leaflets about gift aid so they know about it already. When the Government are considering the small print, I urge them to make it clear that we are not worsening the current position but that the measure merely establishes in law rights that are currently applied. I hope that we can mount a campaign on that.

I understand why the Opposition are raising those points, because various museum groups have also raised them, but the important thing is that the Government respond to what is happening and maintain the situation. We must get that message across. I ask the Financial Secretary to be generous in considering some of the suggestions. The suggestion made by the hon. Member for Wimbledon (Stephen Hammond) was a good try, but it would create so many anomalies in our tax legislation that it cannot be a runner.

I do not know whether the period should be 12 months, three months or one month, but I rather suspect that, whatever the provision, it will be theoretical. Museums are ingenious and they can usually find ways of getting round the regulations that we establish. One of the ways of doing that—it is quite legal—is to give an annual member privileges that someone who is a member for a day or three months does not have. For example, an annual member may be able to get the kids in a bit cheaper. There are ways in which the institutions can respond to the points that have been made.

I am not absolutely stuck on the 12-month rule, but I think that it is fairly reasonable. Although the points made by the Opposition sound reasonable, they would not apply to most museums. If one joins the Beamish, it is a 12-month deal. Most people visit once a year, but I recognise that some go more frequently. However, the revenue for gift aid comes from those who go once a year.

I hope that the Minister will be generous in his response and make it clear to museums that there will be no worsening of conditions.

I support amendments Nos. 36 and 1. In common with many other Members, I declare an interest as a member of the National Trust—I am a life member—and I am expecting to become a trustee of the Ludlow Town Walls trust. I am also a member of the Hereford Cathedral Perpetual Trust.

I support the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh (Mr. Francois) on amendment No. 36, but ask the Minister for clarification in relation to one of my interests. That may not be good form, but I shall ask the question anyway because the position is not clear. Under the proposed new paragraphs (e) and (f) to section (5G) of the Finance Act 1990, I wonder whether the world-renowned Mappa Mundi and its associated chained library that reside in Hereford in a purpose-built building constructed by the perpetual trust a few years ago qualify as either "works of art" or "artefacts". If not, I am sure that the trust would establish an interactive educational exhibition to ensure that they qualify if our amendment is accepted. I should point out that the constituency of Ludlow is in the diocese of Hereford, so I am not interfering in neighbouring Members' affairs.

Amendment No. 1, which was tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon (Stephen Hammond), is eminently sensible. The leaders of many of the groups that visit museums pay the admission fees on behalf of the group as a whole. It would be quite wrong if groups could not benefit museums by being able to take advantage of the gift aid provision.I should perhaps also declare that I am a member of Ludlow Civic Society and the Leintwardine history group, both of which organise group visits to areas of historic interest.

We have heard much about queues in the debate, but how would this amendment stop people—some would be top-rate taxpayers; others would not—going along a queue and saying that they were all part of a group?

To answer on behalf of my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon, I think that the word "accompany" is useful in assisting the hon. Lady with her point. A group leader pays on behalf of all its members precisely to avoid the need for up to 20 other people to form part of the queue. That is very sensible.

I also wish to refer to the Broseley Conservative Association, because I am particularly familiar with its activities. It runs biannual coach outings to places of historic interest outside the Ludlow constituency and around the country. It is led by the remarkable Mrs. Yvonne Miles, who is a particular favourite of mine as she helped me in my recent campaign. She collects on the coach the subscriptions for her members before they enter a place of interest, and it is precisely to enable people such as Mrs. Miles to maximise the take for the museum or other site that they are visiting that the amendment should be supported.

It is important for us to consider the amendments in the context of the dramatic expansion of the number of museums and galleries in this country over the past few years and, for that matter, of attendance at museums and galleries. The fact that the sector has increased significantly has partly been a direct result of additional funding from national Government, from the lottery, especially, and from local government, although that element is often forgotten. Most smaller galleries and museums such as those cited by hon. Members today subsist by virtue of the support that they receive from local government. It is a source of pride in my constituency that the Rhondda heritage park museum has received significant support over the years from the local authority. In the near future, I hope that there will be the opportunity to refurbish the museum completely so that it can meet the needs of the 21st century.

It is clear from listening to the debate and the contribution that I made last time round that this is quite a complicated area. There are thousands, or perhaps even hundreds of thousands, of charities throughout the UK, many of which are in the Windsor constituency. May I ask the hon. Gentleman—or the Minister, in effect—how much, if any, quantitative research has been undertaken to establish which charities in the mix will be affected the change? We hear lots of words such as "many" and "some of these", and hon. Members have cited specific examples from their constituencies, but is the measure based on quantitative research, and will that be considered during our deliberations?

The hon. Gentleman is really putting a question to the Minister, not me. As he was speaking, a picture of the Queen paying admission to go into Windsor castle was going through my mind. However, she is not a top-rate taxpayer, so perhaps gift aid donations would not be relevant—I do not know whether she signs the form.

The hon. Gentleman, like all hon. Members, will know that the number of galleries has expanded, so there is now considerable competition for attendance in the gallery sector. One is often better off if there are two or three galleries in an area because they are able to promote the area and many people will choose to visit several galleries in a day, rather than just one at a time.

I urge people who work in the gallery industry to be open to possible changes to the system because that is likely to be in their interests. As I said to the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Susan Kramer), I do not accept the argument that if galleries give free admission for a year, it automatically means that they will mathematically lose the full cost of any visits that might have occurred during that year. It is free for me to go to the National Gallery and the National Portrait Gallery. I can now also go to the Victoria and Albert for free—it used to charge admission, but thanks to this Government it no longer does. The fact that it is free means that I visit it more regularly and thus use the bookshop more, drink more cups of tea and eat more chunks of cake there. Many galleries have found that such auxiliary services are not only a good way of making money, but often an important part of the educational and charitable purposes that they want to pursue.

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

I will give way—

rose—

I have not given way quite yet. I will give way to the hon. Gentleman now.

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for determining the precise point at which the giving way takes place. It is always a joy—a titillating delight, no less—to listen to him. However, although obviously he is central to his own world, he is not necessarily central to the world. Further to the inquiry made by my hon. Friend the Member for Windsor (Adam Afriyie), can the hon. Gentleman extrapolate beyond his example and say what evidence he has that what he is advancing, which is perfectly valid in theory, is true in practice? What is the additional spend in cafeterias, bookshops and so on in the examples that he is describing?

The Victoria and Albert Museum used to describe itself as a great caff with a museum attached. I do not have the precise figures to hand, but the hon. Gentleman is usually a more encyclopaedic resource than I on such matters—I see that with flattery, he does smile.

I was, of course, trying to scrutinise the amendment, and it was in the interests of scrutiny that I made the point about the pure mathematical equation. Free admission to a gallery for a year does not mean that the gallery automatically loses four £3.50s. I would have thought that if a gallery had a database of people who had become members for a year, it would want to use it to entice them back into the museum as often as possible during that year so that they bought books and used other services.

I am following the hon. Gentleman's argument with interest. He refers to museums like the Victoria and Albert and other great national museums, but they have the advantage of size, which means that people have to return a number of times to see them in their totality. They also have the advantage of changing exhibitions because they bring in new attractions on a regular basis. Those considerations do not apply to small private museums and galleries.

I am not sure that the hon. Gentleman is right in his final assertion that smaller museums and galleries do not change their exhibitions. A small gallery often changes what it exhibits because it does not have the space to exhibit all the material it has. Exhibits at the National Portrait Gallery and the National Gallery barely change because nearly everything they own is up on the walls, whereas that is not true for other galleries, such as the Tate. The important point is that we are talking not about national museums, but about museums such as the Rhondda heritage park, which does not receive national Government funding. In fact, it is in competition with Big Pit, another mining museum in south Wales, which receives money directly from the National Assembly and has free entrance. There is a specific need to help such museums and galleries.

I have another interest to declare in that I am a director of a bookshop, and I hope that I can help the hon. Gentleman in dealing with his point on national museums. The company that I am involved in operates the concession in the Science museum. When admission fees were abolished, the bookshop's revenue increased, I am delighted to say. In the interests of commercial sensitivity, I shall not reveal by how much it increased for fear of prejudicing our negotiations on renewal. I can assure him, however, that it went up not by a multiple of sales, but by a percentage of sales considerably less than 50 per cent. There is an improvement in the other commercial add-on opportunities for museums, but it is not of the order of magnitude that he suggests.

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for correcting that. I was merely trying to argue against the idea advanced by the hon. Member for Richmond Park, who said that there was a mathematical equation to show the loss of income across the year. Clearly, it is different from that. One thing that we have seen over the past 10 to 15 years is that many museums and galleries have tried to maximise their opportunities.

I was a bit depressed when everyone else declared an interest and I had no museum or gallery of which I was a member and for which I could declare an interest, but I realise that I can now declare one. The only museum that still sells my biography of my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Glenda Jackson) is the Theatre museum—

Order. The debate is stretching wide of the amendments.

I take the admonition, Mrs. Heal.

To pick up on the point made by the hon. Member for Ludlow (Mr. Dunne) about the increased sales in the bookshop, if other services that support that main exhibit increase by the same significant amount, the overall effect is positive.

Absolutely. I agree wholeheartedly.

My second point is that the other significant expansion over the past few years is in gift aid. The Government should be congratulated on the way in which they seized hold of what was originally a Conservative idea and made it their own. They have expanded the scheme and made it possible not only for people with significant incomes who make significant charitable donations every year to give that bit extra through the tax system, but for many millions of people throughout the country to do the same. It will be beneficial for many museums and galleries that, after their initial hesitation, the Government have now accepted that and are effectively legitimising it.

The Mappa Mundi has featured prominently in our debate. It is a map, and maps are not necessarily categorised as works as art. The chained library primarily contains books, which are not necessarily works of art. It is therefore not clear that the terms "artefacts" and "works of art" are sufficient, which is why I asked the Minister for clarity.

Order. I urge all hon. Members to concentrate on the amendments. We are straying wide of this group of amendments.

I am grateful for your admonition, Mrs. Heal.

The Mappa Mundi has been made by man, and is therefore an artefact.

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

I was going to move on to the next amendment, but I shall give way to the hon. Member for Buckingham (John Bercow).

We all want the hon. Gentleman to move on, but we also want clarity, if not too much of it.

The hon. Gentleman objected to amendment No. 36 on the grounds that it did not remedy a mischief. His exegesis of the unamended clause is of interest, but it is not conclusive. Does he not accept that it would be helpful if the Minister made it clear that the existing unamended clause is intended to embrace the terms of amendment No. 36? Failing that, we are justified in pursuing a belt-and-braces approach.

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.

Does the hon. Gentleman object to the principle of amendment No. 1 or the number to which it refers? If he objects to the principle, why does he disagree with the industry's leading practitioners, including the Law Society and its tax law committee?

It is the principle that I object to, not the number. As the hon. Gentleman said earlier when he confessed the weakness of his own argument, the number is entirely arbitrary; it could be six, 20, 50 or 100, and he has chosen 20. My argument is that there should be a degree of financial dependency, as would be found in a family. That is why we should reject his amendment and stick with what the Government propose.

I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) that there is a question of principle on amendment No. 1. There is also an issue of practicality. The amendment refers to

"an accompanying group of no more than twenty individuals".

The paying person produces a total of 21, but my understanding of proposed new section (5I) to the Finance Act 1990 is that all 21 people, of whatever age—they will often include children—would have the right of admission for a year.

That seems to contradict hon. Members who have argued that one year is too long. On one hand, it is said that one year is too long and people should not have free membership for a year, but we can apparently still pile in 20 people with what is effectively free membership, as it is being characterised, or certainly the right to free admission. Will the hon. Member for Wimbledon (Stephen Hammond) explain that contradiction and tell us whether he supports amendment No. 35?

As I said earlier, I support amendment No. 35. There is no contradiction at all.

It is helpful to know that the hon. Gentleman continues to support amendment No. 35, despite my exegesis, as the hon. Member for Buckingham (John Bercow) would call it, on the contradiction.

I have already referred in interventions to amendment No. 36, whose wording is problematic. I shall be interested to hear the Minister's comments, but I think that the word "experiments" is problematic. Museums and similar places have many exhibits that are interactive, but that are not in the nature of experiments. As my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda sagely pointed out, if the wording is too narrow, institutions could fall foul of it that would not do so if the provisions were left slightly broader. If amendment No. 36 were agreed to, an institution offering interactive exhibits that are not in the nature of experiments would be excluded, even though it might not otherwise have been excluded. I urge caution in that regard.

The hon. Gentleman is a magnificent anorak—he is even more pedantic than I am in such matters. He has made a thought-provoking point, and I put it to him that, although the interactivity of itself might not be experimental, a child's decision and choice to participate in it probably is.

The hon. Gentleman has made my point for me—it is difficult to interpret tax legislation in terms of who is the user of an exhibit. If he were playing with the machine with flashing lights, it might not be an experiment, but if his son Oliver were playing with such an instrument, it might be an experiment, given the young lad's age.

I shall be interested to hear what the Economic Secretary has to say about amendment No. 35. Some hon. Members have been pessimistic in assessing the effect of the one-year admission rule, which amendment No. 35 would change. The excellent Wolverhampton art gallery, of which I am not a member because it is free, has a tea shop, the kind of facility to which my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda referred. Lots of people who go to the tea shop just to drink tea end up catching an exhibition. The example is anecdotal, but since the tea shop has been expanded in the past few years, footfall must have increased since the abolition of entry charges to museums.

Many museums in England, Wales and, I suspect, Scotland—this is possibly true in Northern Ireland—are expanding their provision of tea shops because they are experiencing greater footfall with free admissions. Footfall increased following the introduction of the 12-month right of admission in the great public museums and art galleries that have become free under this Government, and footfall might similarly increase in small museums, such as the Gainsborough museum in Sudbury to which the hon. Member for Rayleigh (Mr. Francois) referred.

The 12-month right of admission might allow small museums that already get some repeat business to increase that business and benefit from spin-offs on commercial sales and increased interest in the museum and its offerings. Charities should try to increase footfall to enable more people to enjoy and learn, which is their purpose. If a museum were creative, the 12-month restriction could assist it by allowing it to say to people, "You are now an honorary class 2 member. Come here more often, drink more cups of tea and bring other people with you."