Pensions Bill

had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 17: 17: Clause 5, page 6, line 3, at end insert— ““(3A) The general level of prices shall be defined as the Retail Prices Index. (3B) The general level of earnings shall be defined as the Average Earnings Index.”” The noble Lord said: On Amendment No. 15, I apologise to the Minister if I was wrong about what James Purnell said. I will re-read the relevant quotation and see if I was indeed wrong. On his point about the average earnings index, economists and those in the City generally use the term ““average earnings index”” for exactly the index that he cited; the headline average earnings index, including bonuses. That is the long definition of the average earnings index, so that is precisely the index that we have in mind. I will be quite happy if he wants to put the longer definition in the Bill, but the key thing is that it should be clear and should not be subject to ministerial manipulation. On the fair point that he makes about the problems with the compilation of the average earnings index between 1998 and 1999, which could in theory arise with any index, the answer is not to say that we will let the Minister decide. The way in which to deal with that temporary problem is to let the National Statistician estimate an amount on the best basis that they can, because they will be in the best position to do so. That is the answer to that, so I beg leave to withdraw the amendment, although I will certainly return to the matter on Report. [Amendment No. 17 not moved.] [Amendments Nos. 18 and 19 not moved.]