I fully accept that some of these questions may have been technical and that the Minister may need to write but, in the case of one question that I asked, I would fully expect him to have come able to answer. The Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee took a lot of time taking these regulations apart. It made a number of recommendations and made comments about the Explanatory Memorandum. I fully accept the Minister’s explanation as to why the instrument was relaid—that makes absolute sense—but the committee explicitly asked why the DWP did not take advantage of the opportunity of having to relay the instrument to improve the Explanatory Memorandum. I know that he will have read the report, as I know he holds the committee in high regard, so I am sure that he came briefed and able to answer the question of why the department did not respond to that recommendation. Could he just answer that for us?
Occupational Pension Schemes (Funding and Investment Strategy and Amendment) Regulations 2024
Proceeding contribution from
Baroness Sherlock
(Labour)
in the House of Lords on Tuesday, 26 March 2024.
It occurred during Debates on delegated legislation on Occupational Pension Schemes (Funding and Investment Strategy and Amendment) Regulations 2024.
Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
837 c173GC 
Session
2023-24
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords Grand Committee
Subjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2024-04-18 14:50:02 +0100
URI
http://hansard.intranet.data.parliament.uk/Lords/2024-03-26/24032674000079
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://hansard.intranet.data.parliament.uk/Lords/2024-03-26/24032674000079
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://hansard.intranet.data.parliament.uk/Lords/2024-03-26/24032674000079