---

Pensions Bill

moved Amendment No. 45: 45: Clause 13, page 7, line 9, leave out subsection (2) The noble Baroness said: In moving Amendment No. 45, I shall also speak to Amendments Nos. 47 and 48. The previous group of amendments in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Turner, sought to give the Secretary of State power to amend at will the thresholds around the earnings band. My amendments are much more modest and are designed to ensure that the Secretary of State does not let the value of the earnings threshold fall behind any increases in the level of earnings. The Minister has explained that it is the Government’s policy to uprate the earnings band in line with earnings; he said it on a previous day in Committee and he said it a moment ago. It would have been fairly easy to have provided that in the Bill, but the Bill does not do that; it gives the Secretary of State carte blanche to decide how to revalue the band, whether or not in line with earnings. Amendment No. 45 would delete subsection (2), which allows the Secretary of State to use whatever value assessment procedure he likes. He does not need this power; he has the procedure referred to in subsection (3) under the Social Security Administration Act 1992. Amendment No. 47, which is one of our usual ““‘may’ to ‘shall’”” amendments, would therefore mandate the use of the procedure in the 1992 Act. Lastly, Amendment No. 48 is another ““‘may’ to ‘must’”” amendment—this time to subsection (4)—so that if the Secretary of State is determined that the qualifying earnings band has not maintained its value, he must lay an order substituting the revalued amounts. We always worry when the Government translate what appears to be a straightforward policy, such as earnings uprating, into legislation that allows the Secretary of State to do pretty much what he wants. We shall therefore take some persuading that the amendments should not be made. I beg to move.