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.
Finance Bill
Proceeding contribution from
Ed Balls
(Labour)
in the House of Commons on Tuesday, 1 May 2007.
It occurred during Debate on bills
and
Committee of the Whole House (HC) on Finance Bill.
Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
459 c1391 
Session
2006-07
Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamber
Subjects
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