Clause 6
Pensions Bill
11:45 am
Nigel Waterson (Shadow Minister, Work & Pensions; Eastbourne, Conservative)
I am sure that the Committee will be delighted to hear that I shall be very brief in discussing this clause. Compared with its predecessor, clause 6 is a relatively inoffensive clause; it has certainly not attracted an awful lot of comment from outside bodies. However, I wanted to raise a couple of issues before we move on.
Clause 6, along with its various related consequential amendments, is designed to ensure that, for some benefits, the preservation of the link with prices rather than earnings will continue, but some benefits will be linked with the basic state pension as and when it comes to be linked with earnings—we do not want to go back over the issue of when that day will dawn. One example of the second category of benefits is bereavement benefit.
I am asking the Minister to address two issues in his comments. First, I should like him to explain the reasoning behind the distinction between the two groups of benefits. I assume that the reason for the groupings is financial. I should be grateful if he would indicate the kind of saving that is expected by making this distinction between the two groups of benefits: those that will be clinging to the coat tails of the basic state pension, in terms of uprating with earnings in due course; and those that will continue, for ever and ever, to be linked to the level of prices. That is all I have to say.