Proceeding contribution from Ed Balls (Labour) in the House of Commons on Tuesday, 1 May 2007. It occurred during Debate on bill and Committee of the Whole House (HC) on Finance Bill.
Finance Bill
I fear that the hon. Gentleman is in danger of misleading the Committee. The regulatory impact assessment refers to the cost that would arise to the Exchequer, had we not taken action at the time of the pre-Budget report. As I said, it was never the Government’s intention to incentivise through pensions tax relief what became a rapid switch to pension term assurance. It was to prevent that cost arising that we acted. I am still trying to work out whether the hon. Gentleman is supporting our action to protect the revenue base, or advocating a reversal of the 1984 decision not to tax advantage life assurance. On that question of principle, he still has not given us any clue.
Secondary information
- Type
- Proceeding contribution
- Reference
- 459 c1391
- Session
- 2006-07
- Chamber / Committee
- House of Commons chamber
- Subjects
- Codes of practice Crime Arrests Aviation Combined heat and power Climate change Bereavement benefits Fraud Income tax Electricity generation Police Pollution Powers Workplace pensions Pensions Life insurance Passengers Pension funds Tax allowances Taxation Revenue and Customs Renewables obligation
- Legislation
- Finance Bill 2006-07
- Link
- View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk
Librarians' tools
- Timestamp
- 2023-12-15 11:11:36 +0000
- URI
- http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_393892
- In Indexing
- http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_393892
- In Solr
- https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_393892