Speeches by Glen.
Every Hansard contribution by John Glen this parliament, most recent first. Back to the MP page for the headline figures and analysed positions.
Showing 1,061–1,080 of 1,449 contributions · most-recent first
| Date | Debate & contribution | Words |
|---|---|---|
| 26 Feb 2025 | Treasury Committee — Oral Evidence (HC 607) “If we assume that the caps and the penalties are sorted out, we have seen substantial evidence that, as a saving vehicle for somebody wanting a deposit to buy their first home, it has proved to be a success. I want to just probe and get some clarity over what happens afterwards, because, Mr Byrnes, you have said that 7…” | 65 |
| 26 Feb 2025 | Treasury Committee — Oral Evidence (HC 607) “Let us take that as reasonable.” | 6 |
| 26 Feb 2025 | Treasury Committee — Oral Evidence (HC 607) “My colleague Mr Grady set out all the advantages and options in terms of pension saving, particularly with the tax advantage for higher-rate taxpayers, but also the way that the auto-enrolment has moved forward. The reality is that once you have bought property, if you have a 90% or 95% mortgage, a lot of your disposab…” | 182 |
| 26 Feb 2025 | Treasury Committee — Oral Evidence (HC 607) “Of course, I am not criticising you; I am just saying.” | 11 |
| 26 Feb 2025 | Treasury Committee — Oral Evidence (HC 607) “I understand that, but the specific point is that that is a cash-based product. If you are then going to switch to use it for savings for pensions, or as a complement to your auto-enrolled pension, can you switch from the cash-based thing to an equities-based savings vehicle—that is, the same one? Can you retain the be…” | 61 |
| 26 Feb 2025 | Treasury Committee — Oral Evidence (HC 607) “What I am trying to get at is that, if you want to fulfil that aspiration of the 79%, surely you must feel a responsibility for them to move over, notwithstanding the issues around advice, to get into the equities. Otherwise, it is not going to be the right product, probably, is it? For a 40-year-old to have cash only …” | 74 |
| 26 Feb 2025 | Treasury Committee — Oral Evidence (HC 607) “If we can fix that, we then get a viable transition, and the dual purpose that Mr Johnson and the first panel envisaged for this could be achieved.” | 28 |
| 26 Feb 2025 | Treasury Committee — Oral Evidence (HC 607) “What I am trying to get at is that, if you want to fulfil that aspiration of the 79%, surely you must feel a responsibility for them to move over, notwithstanding the issues around advice, to get into the equities. Otherwise, it is not going to be the right product, probably, is it? For a 40-year-old to have cash only …” | 74 |
| 26 Feb 2025 | Treasury Committee — Oral Evidence (HC 607) “If we can fix that, we then get a viable transition, and the dual purpose that Mr Johnson and the first panel envisaged for this could be achieved.” | 28 |
| 26 Feb 2025 | Treasury Committee — Oral Evidence (HC 607) “Can I try to zone in on the possible differences? Mr Lewis has spoken about the fact that, under the auto-enrolment regime, you have this 3% employer contribution. Does that not mean that, in fact, it is not like-for-like? The pensions provision is much more underpinned with a sophisticated provision of non-cash produc…” | 107 |
| 26 Feb 2025 | Treasury Committee — Oral Evidence (HC 607) “We need to get on the record the fact that, in reality, with auto‑enrolment, and you have the employer contribution alongside the other, it does not really make them equivalent. It is very misleading to say that, surely.” | 38 |
| 26 Feb 2025 | Treasury Committee — Oral Evidence (HC 607) “Can I try to zone in on the possible differences? Mr Lewis has spoken about the fact that, under the auto-enrolment regime, you have this 3% employer contribution. Does that not mean that, in fact, it is not like-for-like? The pensions provision is much more underpinned with a sophisticated provision of non-cash produc…” | 107 |
| 26 Feb 2025 | Treasury Committee — Oral Evidence (HC 607) “That is dead now, is it not?” | 7 |
| 26 Feb 2025 | Treasury Committee — Oral Evidence (HC 607) “Is it not really a better supplementary vehicle for basic rate taxpayers?” | 12 |
| 26 Feb 2025 | Treasury Committee — Oral Evidence (HC 607) “It was Treasury officials, I suspect.” | 6 |
| 26 Feb 2025 | Treasury Committee — Oral Evidence (HC 607) “Mr Johnson, I know you well because we worked together in opposition 20 years ago—I should declare that. I do not think that LISA would have existed without you, but I understand your frustration, as it comes through, as I said, in your written evidence. Policy development has to interact with a legacy landscape and a …” | 386 |
| 26 Feb 2025 | Treasury Committee — Oral Evidence (HC 607) “Was it not, though? It was though, really, was it not? If this had reached its full extension as your 30-year vision would have had, everyone would have used this as the vehicle to save. They would not have been taxed on the exit. You then have a whole issue around how you advise people, particularly people who are not…” | 86 |
| 26 Feb 2025 | Treasury Committee — Oral Evidence (HC 607) “We need to get on the record the fact that, in reality, with auto‑enrolment, and you have the employer contribution alongside the other, it does not really make them equivalent. It is very misleading to say that, surely.” | 38 |
| 26 Feb 2025 | Treasury Committee — Oral Evidence (HC 607) “I was very sympathetic to it, I must say.” | 9 |
| 26 Feb 2025 | Treasury Committee — Oral Evidence (HC 607) “My colleague Mr Grady set out all the advantages and options in terms of pension saving, particularly with the tax advantage for higher-rate taxpayers, but also the way that the auto-enrolment has moved forward. The reality is that once you have bought property, if you have a 90% or 95% mortgage, a lot of your disposab…” | 182 |