I cannot give the hon. Gentleman a detailed answer. I would say that, in Finance Bill terms, it would count as ““neg””—negligible. Without wanting to return to the earlier debates about the philosophical difference between zero and close to zero, my guess is that it would be pretty close to zero.
The Government believe that the best way for the majority of people to save is to secure an income in retirement by saving through a pension and then purchasing an annuity. An annuity provides an income for life, regardless of how long life turns out to be. As one of our steps towards a progressive consensus, I should point out that the Pensions Commission endorsed that basic principle in its report when it said:"““since the whole objective of either compelling or encouraging people to save, and of providing tax relief as an incentive is to ensure people make adequate provision, it is reasonable to require that pensions savings is turned into regular pension income at some time””."
On that point, as on many other points, I can agree with the conclusions of the Pensions Commission.
Finance Bill
Proceeding contribution from
Ed Balls
(Labour)
in the House of Commons on Tuesday, 26 June 2007.
It occurred during Debate on bills on Finance Bill.
Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
462 c280 
Session
2006-07
Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamber
Subjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2023-12-15 12:10:14 +0000
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_405859
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_405859
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_405859