The situation might be much clearer to my noble friend, but I am afraid that I am not convinced. The Minister quoted the then Minister for pensions and the current Minister repeated it. He said that the intention of the Young report and, presumably the findings—incidentally, have they reached the Treasury?—are to bring the FAS payment as close as possible to 90 per cent, the so-called PPF level. However, there is a vast difference between that and this incurious invention of the Government—the so-called core pension—which means that people, and especially their dependents, will get far less than they expected under the current scheme.
Having sat here for most of the afternoon—I accept not all of it—I readily understand the Minister’s implication that the FAS is not a charity and, therefore, would not fit into the remit of this Bill. But the Bill covers not only charities, but any social enterprise, as I understand it. For goodness’ sake, my noble friend Lord Higgins, to whom I pay tribute for his great work in this area, pointed out that if this is not a social benefit, what on earth is?
Dormant Bank and Building Society Accounts Bill [HL]
Proceeding contribution from
Lord Skelmersdale
(Conservative)
in the House of Lords on Monday, 10 December 2007.
It occurred during Debate on bills
and
Committee proceeding on Dormant Bank and Building Society Accounts Bill [HL].
Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
697 c46-7GC 
Session
2007-08
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords Grand Committee
Subjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2023-12-16 02:27:13 +0000
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_428089
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_428089
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_428089