Dormant Bank and Building Society Accounts Bill [HL]

I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Skelmersdale for reminding us that 90 per cent of core pension is certainly not what my amendments are about; they are about taking pensions up to PPF levels. So far, the Government have been searching only to increase pensions up to 90 per cent of core pension, which is simply not good enough in our view. While my noble friend Lord Higgins was delighted by the Minister’s explanation on taxation, I wish to report that I am not going to be diverted by a red herring on taxation in this amendment, which is about a serious issue of how we get appropriate resources to a relatively small group of people—some 120,000 or so—who lost their pensions before the PPF kicked in to give protection. I am disappointed that the noble Lord, Lord Newby, whose party has supported us in our efforts to get a lifeboat, feels unable to support us in this instance. I hope that he will think again about this before we get to Report. The amendment is permissive. It does not require any amount to be transferred and the decision on whether money could be transferred, as opposed to being put to any other purpose via the Big Lottery Fund, would be taken, in part, in the light of the amounts available. As I shall say later, there is significant doubt about how much money is available and, therefore, it is a shame to miss this opportunity to reinstate a version of what we tried to include in the most recent Pensions Act—this is not very different. The Bill has an emphasis on youth, but no emphasis on the other end of the generation spectrum; that is, older people, who are at least as important members of our community. Some reflection of the amounts that could probably be spent in that direction would be a useful addition to the Bill. The Minister castigated me for saying that it was an open-ended commitment, but it is open-ended only to the extent that there are some variables, such as longevity, in how much is involved. However, the Government are grappling with the amount that is involved, and the mere fact that we cannot calculate it down to its last penny does not make it not a problem or a proper use of money, it simply makes it difficult to ascertain the final bill. I am disappointed by the Government’s response to the amendment, but we have been disappointed with the Government’s response on the FAS from the very outset. As the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, reminded us, the FAS was invented only in the face of a big revolt in another place. It was invented at a mean level and incrementally made a little less mean, but is still nothing like good enough. I hope that we will return to the matter on Report. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.