Significant restrictions are being introduced on ASPs a matter of months after their introduction on A-day. There is little doubt that such instability is one of the main reasons for the collapse in the savings ratio since the Chancellor entered No. 11 Downing street. Small wonder that confidence in saving has sunk to such lows when the Chancellor not only raids pensions funds for billions of pounds every year but pulls the rug from under the feet of savers when they invest in products that his own legislation has been responsible for creating. It is a further blow to savings that the Government have this evening once again resisted our efforts to scrap the annuity rule, which causes so much anger among people who have made the effort to act responsibly and save for their old age.
We have sought safeguards in relation to the significant powers of arrest and surveillance that the Bill extends to the combined HMRC organisation. Of course, we support the use of powerful tools in the fight against tax fraud, particularly organised crime and missing trader intra-Community fraud, but it is vital that such powers should not be used as leverage in ordinary day-to-day tax disputes. It would not be acceptable if someone was threatened with arrest if they made a mistake on their tax return. We are pleased that the Government have responded to concerns expressed about the concept of ““HMRC thinks””, which was almost universally condemned. It would be highly inappropriate to give HMRC the power to penalise taxpayers when it merely thinks that they have done something wrong.
We continue to support the Government’s efforts to crack down on MTIC fraud. We welcome the fact that they have now got their derogation from the European Union, but regret that the heavy price they paid was to give up all resistance on the loss of £7.2 billion of our rebate. In negotiating the derogation, it seems that the Treasury finally gave up the last semblance of resistance and handed over £7.2 billion more of our money to the EU.
On the last full day of his term as Chancellor, this Finance Bill is typical of the 10 years that we have seen of him—not all bad, by any means, but defective in some very fundamental respects. The Bill creates further complexity and instability in our tax system, just as has every one of his other Finance Bills, to the detriment of our global competitiveness. It fails to provide effective measures to tackle climate change. It penalises small companies with higher taxes and more tax complexity, just as the Chancellor has done so many times in the past. It undermines confidence in pensions. Just as we see the Chancellor’s 10 years in office ending with figures showing poverty and inequality increasing in Britain, the Bill does nothing to help those on low incomes, and the Budget actually shifts the burden of tax on to the poor and away from those on middle incomes. Above all, we decline to give the Bill a Third Reading because it implements a Budget that was characterised by the spin and the cynically, nakedly political motivation that has typified the Chancellor’s years at No. 11—and will no doubt continue to characterise his years at No. 10.
Finance Bill
Proceeding contribution from
Theresa Villiers
(Conservative)
in the House of Commons on Tuesday, 26 June 2007.
It occurred during Debate on bills on Finance Bill.
Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
462 c290-1 
Session
2006-07
Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamber
Subjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2023-12-15 12:10:12 +0000
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_405885
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_405885
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_405885