Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Baroness Barker: My Lords, we, too, on these Benches support the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, on Amendment No. 261, particularly in the light of his comments on Amendment No. 262, which would have muddied the waters somewhat. Along with our colleague in another place, Steve Webb, we believe that this is the right thing to do.
The one common factor to all people who fall within the auspices of the financial assistance scheme is that they had planned for their financial future, which has now gone. What people require more than anything else from the financial assistance scheme is certainty. It is quite clear from the way in which the scheme is set up that we are not talking about the full replacement of income or anything like it. It should be a scheme which enables people not only to recover some of what they have contributed, but to begin to put together the financing of their later life.
One reason in particular why we support this amendment is that we believe it is highly likely in practice that people who made sacrifices to belong to occupational pension schemes are more likely than other pensioners to have capital behind them. Therefore, we believe that, taken as a whole, this is an important
8 Nov 2004 : Column 627
statement of principle, as the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, said, in making sure that the money gets to the right people. Therefore, we support the amendment.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, this amendment seeks to ensure that when assessing entitlement to assistance under FAS, any income or capital that the member might have is disregarded in full.
I would like to remind your Lordships that in Grand Committee I said:
"Planning work on the FAS is proceeding on the assumption that we will not determine eligibility for assistance from the scheme through an assessment of any income or capital which an individual may have, other than . . . the pension income that they have lost through a scheme winding up underfunded".[Official Report, 13/10/04; col. GC 128.]
However, we are still examining in detail various options relating to how assistance from FAS will be paid out. My concern again here is trying to close down options too early. If we completely ruled out taking some account of other assets in advance of fuller information and analysis on the individual members, this could compromise our ability to design a coherent scheme. We need to make best possible use of the available funds which will ensure that those who have lost the most will receive the most help.
As I said in Committee, although we are working on the assumption that we will not take account of other assets, it is surely not sensible to rule that out completely until we know more about individual members' losses. Some element of this approach couldit is a very tentative "could"prove to be the best way to target a significant, but cash-limited pot of assistance at those who need it most.
I understand the concern of noble Lords, but in light of what I have said, I hope that they will support us during the design phase and allow us the time we require to gather the data we need and to explore the options available to us to make FAS deliver what we all want. It is not a path I want to go down. It is possible, and just conceivable, that it may be a path one will have to use in order to protect those who are poorest under the scheme. As a result, I hope that noble Lords will be willing to withdraw these amendments.
Lord Higgins: My Lords, this again follows on from the opening debate and the same issues apply. We and the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, are quite clear where we stand on the issue. We believe that effectively it is a question of policy, but the noble Baroness said that the Government have not made up their mind for sure. The problem is that if we do not vote on the matter this evening, the Government may suddenly return, after the Bill has become law, and introduce a regulation which states that they have decided that they should means test after all. Given the Chancellor's propensity for that, it would not be a great surprise to these Benches. We shall then find that we cannot amend the amendment. Our only option would be to vote against the regulation. We would then find ourselves in a position which I
8 Nov 2004 : Column 628
described earlier where the only option is whether to vote against the matter completely. It might be better to amend it. But we will not have the option to fine tune it.
The noble Baroness said that there are various detailed arrangements to be made and so forth. I believe that voting on this amendment will not close down the options but clarify the situation. I believe that the House would be doing its job in taking a clear view on what is a very straightforward issue. Therefore, I seek to test the opinion of the House.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 261) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 139; Not-Contents, 117.
[Amendment No. 262 not moved.]
Next Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |