---

Pensions Bill

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. The amendments’ point is to say, ““Let’s get on with it. Let’s get the Government loan through the system to achieve the PPF level, not the more niggardly proposal.”” We can then ascertain the resources that can be released through the Young review process and other processes, and calculate how much of that money the Government can get back. The Minister is dithering about the financial outcome for the affected pensioners while saying, ““We must wait and see.”” There must be an end to the dithering. The House and the pensioners who suffered the injustice have waited a long time and consistently demanded PPF level benefits. My party made it clear in our election manifesto that we believe that benefits should be paid at the PPF level. I previously referred to the figure that House of Lords written answers provided for the cost of that. At net present value, the cost would be £640 million in the first 10 years. That is £25 million a year and, as the Minister said, there is a curb. Perhaps I should not be, but I am prepared to take on trust the word of his colleague in the House of Lords for the correctness of those figures. The difference between the PPF and the FAS is great. The 80 per cent. that is currently being offered amounts to only 60 per cent. when we consider expected pension, according to the pensions action group. That is because, unlike the PPF, the benefits paid out under the FAS have no index inflation linking. Other benefits, such as widows’ benefits, are more limited under the FAS than they are under the PPF. Other dependants’ benefits are non-existent. The FAS pays out at the age of 65, irrespective of the retirement age of the individual’s scheme. Even if the Minister goes up to 90 per cent. of his ““expected core pension””, it will amount to perhaps only 65 per cent. of actual expected pension—that is, two thirds of the sum to which people would have been entitled had their schemes not collapsed. Hon. Members should bear that in mind when they cast their votes this evening. The core pension concept, which was invented for the purposes of the scheme, varies a great deal according to individual circumstances. I met one pensioner today who told me that his personal circumstances meant that his core pension amounted to 32 per cent. of his expected pension. There is a wide difference, which means that the Government’s talk of 80 or 90 per cent. is simply not in keeping with many affected pensioners’ individual circumstances. The PPF method of delivering benefits gives a great deal more certainty and we should aim to achieve that.