Skip to main content

Proceeding contribution from Philip Dunne (Conservative) in the House of Commons on Wednesday, 6 May 2009. It occurred during Debate on bill on Finance Bill.


Finance Bill

My hon. Friend makes a powerful point. It is the most significant and rapid collapse in the public finances, and the most significant about-turn in Government action to try to revive the economy, that we have seen in our political lifetimes. It is astonishing that the Government have not been prepared to stand up and debate in this House why the quantitative easing measures that they have proposed, and are implementing through the Bank of England, are the right approach to take. Those measures are referred to, as it were, in parenthesis alongside other debates about the economy, but we have not had a significant debate on quantitative easing, and that is highly surprising. I wonder why not. I shall touch on three specific measures in the Budget. The first is pensions. The reasoned amendment highlights the inconsistency of the Government's approach to pensions, as evidenced by the measures in the Bill. The Government took a relatively mature approach to the self-evident looming pension crisis. The introduction of the new regime on A-day only three years ago was detailed and considered. It followed detailed and prolonged industry consultation over the previous 18 months by Lord Turner, who has now been promoted—if that is the right word—to chair the FSA. The Turner review was a reaction to a demographic challenge and medical improvements. The problems in the pension industry had been compounded by the impact of the previous Chancellor's assault on pensions in 1997, and the consequent collapse in savings, which all contributed to the time bomb in pension provision in this country. The Turner proposals were adopted more or less wholesale by the Government as a start in encouraging greater self-responsibility for pension provision, but the measures in the Bill demonstrate a significant reverse in that approach. I wonder to what extent the Chancellor has consulted Lord Turner, let alone industry experts. It seems that the Treasury recognises that it has not thought through the full implications of what is proposed in the Budget, because it was also announced that a consultation would be held""on the best way to implement this reform, to ensure that the different categories of pension scheme used by individuals are treated fairly.""


Secondary information

Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
492 c267-8 
Session
2008-09
Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamber
Subjects
Children Alcoholic drinks Business Corporation tax Credit Bingo Borrowing Finance Income tax Excise duties Fuels Gaming Government assistance Economic growth Forecasts Personal savings Poverty Pensions Public expenditure Scotland Tax allowances Tax avoidance Taxation VAT Trusts Tax rates and bands Tax evasion North Sea oil Trade competitiveness Marginal tax rates
Legislation
Finance Bill 2008-09
Link
View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk