I am saying that we have the same intention and that we will make proposals to make sure that what we have said is exactly what happens. I am happy to meet my hon. Friend to discuss the matter, but I am pretty sure that he will be happy with what we have done because our intention is the same.
We believe that 80 per cent. is the right amount from the taxpayer, but we are not saying that that is all that should be considered. The taxpayer should fund up to 80 per cent. but there should then be a review of alternative sources of funding that have been suggested. The taxpayer does not fund the 90 per cent. level provided by the PPF. There is no taxpayer money at all in the PPF. There will now be nearly £2 billion of taxpayers’ money in net present value terms in FAS. In contrast, the PPF is funded entirely by the levy payments of member companies, which are paying to insure themselves against future possible insolvency. We therefore think that the balance that we are striking of nearly £2 billion of public money in FAS and no public money in the PPF, with a review to look at what more could be done is the right one for the taxpayer and for the people involved.
Pensions Bill
Proceeding contribution from
James Purnell
(Labour)
in the House of Commons on Wednesday, 18 April 2007.
It occurred during Debate on bills on Pensions Bill.
About this proceeding contribution
Reference
459 c330 Session
2006-07Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamberSubjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2023-12-15 11:34:45 +0000
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_390187
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_390187
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_390187