If he will make a statement on the impact of the 2007 Budget on the financial assistance scheme.

As a result of the Budget statement and the Amendment tabled to the Pensions Bill, all the estimated 125,000 people with losses will be helped, receiving 80 per cent of the core pension rights accrued in their scheme. In addition, we have started a review of non-public sources of funding to top up the financial assistance scheme. I have today placed a note in the Library with details of the review and an indicative list of 17 schemes where we understand a compromise agreement is in place. We are asking for any similar schemes not on this list to come forward. The review will look at the definition of solvent employers, provide an initial view in the summer and make a final report by the end of 2007.

I thank the Minister for that answer and look forward to reading his statement. Last week, facing a Back-Bench revolt, the Chancellor was forced to expand his Budget measures to cover solvent schemes. He seems able to commit funds for pensioners when it suits him, but when a cross-party agreement for a solution is put forward, he rejects it out of hand. Surely what pensioners need now is not just another review, but action and payment in respect of pensions that many people saved a long time for, but may not live to receive.

I have looked at the proposed Amendment and have found that it promises to pay 90 per cent., without saying how it can be funded. There is a word in the pensions sphere for guaranteeing pensioners a certain level of income with no guarantee to fund it—and the word is mis-selling. That is exactly what the Opposition are doing.

On behalf of the pensioners of HH Robertson's, may I say how grateful they are for the work done by the Minister and the Secretary of State in developing the financial assistance scheme as they did? However, may I ask the Minister to look carefully into some of the smaller technical issues, such as bridging pensions, that remain as obstacles? Some of the rules of schemes such as HH Robertson's are still presenting tiny problems for a small number of members, but they are entitled to benefits from the scheme. It is often a case of working out precisely what they are. Will the Minister meet me to discuss those issues?

I would be very happy to meet my hon. Friend to discuss them. He may well have been the first Member to raise this issue in the House, so his constituents and others owe him a real debt of gratitude. He may want to make a submission to the review so that those issues can be looked into by the external panel.

As one trade unionist to another— [Interruption.] For those in doubt, I used to be a member of the Fire Brigades Union. In respect of this cobbled-together agreement that took place on Thursday evening between the trade unions, the Secretary of State and the Chancellor, can I ask whether any people who were not members of trade unions were present? Many of the people who have lost their pensions, including the Dexion workers in my Constituency, are not trade union members and were not invited to this little gathering.

To be honest, I am not quite sure what meeting the hon. Gentleman is referring to. The important thing is to provide 80 per cent. to those affected and look further into how to top it up. It would be mistake to go for the sort of dodgy small print that the hon. Gentleman's scheme has. The Shadow Chancellor guaranteed on Wednesday morning that no extra public money was available, but that afternoon he was contradicted by his shadow Secretary of State who said that it was. We are opting not for that sort of dodgy small print, but for a proper review, which will look at the available money and make recommendations in due course.

May I ask my hon. Friend about the timetable for the unclaimed pension assets—he said that a statement was due some time before the recess—and whether the measures will need primary legislation? Are any pension funds, such as Legal and General or Prudential, not co-operating with this process and, if so, how are we going to get them to co-operate?

One of the things that the review needs to look at is whether legislation will be needed, as well as considering any technical, financial and legal issues. That is why we believe that the right way to proceed is to hold the review and to make recommendations in the light of its findings, rather than guaranteeing levels of payments that cannot be guaranteed. It is important that the financial services industry co-operate with the review; we will need its help and support. It is in the interest of everyone involved to come up with as good a settlement as we can, and I would urge my hon. Friend and other hon. Members, as well as those on the front bench, to put in a submission to the review.

The Budget changes to the financial assistance scheme and the additional change that the Minister announced last Wednesday are welcome. They will improve the position of those who are some way away from retirement, and of those on higher incomes. They will do nothing, however, for those at or near retirement who are on low wages, including shop floor workers and trade unionists. Such people are increasingly having to look to the Conservative party to defend their interests and fight their case, because the Labour Members who have taken up their case let them down last week. Will the Minister tell the House why he rejected a perfectly sensible proposal, supported on both sides of the House, that would have delivered an immediate solution at no cost to the public purse, save that of providing a short-term loan?

The hon. Gentleman has just illustrated why the proposal needed to be rejected; he contradicted himself in the space of one sentence. Either there is a taxpayer guarantee, in which case his Shadow Chancellor was wrong last week to say that there was no public spending commitment involved, or this is mis-selling the Conservatives' policy. Which is it?

The Minister might want to be a little bit careful about what he says about the package of policies that we announced last week. On Tuesday, shortly after my hon. Friend Mr. Osborne announced the package, the Chancellor accused him of having announced a reheat of his own policy. The Minister should therefore be a bit careful before he rubbishes it. This is about people. Let me give him two examples: Peter Humphrey, a former Dexion worker, and John Brooks, a former Early's of Witney worker, are both now seriously ill. The Minister will know about their cases. They are receiving precisely nothing from the financial assistance scheme, and the announcement that he has made will deliver nothing extra to them. Is he not sending a message to them today that people will have to wait still longer, and that, in their cases, they might never receive the benefits for which they have been saving for many years?

That is not the message at all. We made it clear that we were increasing the level of initial payments from 60 per cent. to 80 per cent. The problem with the hon. Gentleman's proposal is that he does not know how to fund it. The House will notice that he absolutely refused to say which of the two options was correct. We still do not know who is right. Is it the Shadow Chancellor, who said that no public spending commitment was involved, or is it the hon. Gentleman? There is a contradiction at the heart of their policy. What I was saying was exactly what the Chancellor said, namely that we should have a review and make decisions in the light of its findings and of proper technical advice, rather than adopting cooked-up amendments from the Conservative front bench.