Throughout its passage through the Commons, this government’s Pensions Bill has been largely overshadowed by legitimate concerns about the 60,000 workers who have already lost pension rights and who, under the Bill as it was originally drafted, would not receive any compensation.

We in the Official Opposition have consistently argued for compensation to be provided through the use of so-called "unclaimed assets". 

Until very recently, the Treasury’s attitude has been that these assets cannot be used for this purpose.  Yet in the Budget, the chancellor did a complete U-turn on this, announcing that unclaimed assets were to be put to use to fund charities!

We added our names to a cross-party New Clause, which would require the secretary of state, within three months of the Bill becoming law, to put forward proposals to compensate the 60,000 workers.

At the last moment, and facing defeat on the issue, the government did a U-turn and cobbled together a panic package to compensate some of those affected.

Many of the important details are still missing. The sum proposed of £400 million over 20 years is unlikely to be enough, and the victims of pensions scheme wind-ups in solvent companies are apparently to get nothing.

The experience of the American Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation shows just how important it is to start off with a proper risk-based levy, so that the PPF is properly funded and that good schemes do not subsidise the bad. 

Alas, the government is bringing in a flat rate levy for the PPF’s initial life, and have conceded it may take until 2009 for a full risk-based levy to be in place. 

Yet there is considerable anecdotal evidence that a number of pension schemes are keeping going in the hope that they can collapse into the arms of the PPF as soon as it is up and running. 

I am very concerned that in its early years, the PPF will be financially vulnerable, yet may face very substantial claims.  And the lack of public confidence in the fund is not assisted by the government’s insistence that it must be self-supporting and will have no support from the Treasury.

There is a disturbing gap between the government spin on the "guarantee" to be provided to individuals by the Pension Protection Fund, and the reality.  This is what I have termed the "leaking lifeboat".

In the first place, people who have not yet retired will only get 90 per cent of their entitlement.  Moreover, there is to be a cap on the compensation payable in each case.

The government is also diluting the indexation rules, so that pensioners will receive even less.  As if all this were not enough, the government is taking powers to cut benefits payable under the scheme, if the resources are not available.

So it is evident that this is far from being a total safety net and people need to be aware that it falls far short of the "guarantee" that ministers are claiming.

Nigel Waterson is shadow pensions minister.