My Lords, I will respond briefly to those comments. Amendments are about to be moved to the amendment, but I should like to say that I am grateful for the support and encouragement from all three noble Lords who have spoken. I add my thanks to the staff of the DWP, who worked extensively and diligently on moving from where we are. The noble Lord, Lord Oakeshott, called it our macho moment. I am not sure that I would fully subscribe to that. However, they have done a substantial job but have engaged fully with stakeholders, which has been the key to moving this forward.
The noble Lord, Lord Lucas, posed a very real point about what comfort there is in the regulator's code. The regulator's code, as I said, has evidential value and the regulator must always have regard to it, although the regulator would always and must act on a case-by-case basis. In the Government’s view, it would be difficult to argue that the regulator could reasonably act beyond the code unless there were frankly exceptional circumstances. However, the regulator tells us that it is unable to think of any circumstances in which it would want to act outside the code. I hope that that is at least a degree of reassurance to the noble Lord.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Pensions Bill
Proceeding contribution from
Lord McKenzie of Luton
(Labour)
in the House of Lords on Monday, 27 October 2008.
It occurred during Debate on bills on Pensions Bill.
About this proceeding contribution
Reference
704 c1437-8 Session
2007-08Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamberSubjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2023-12-16 00:47:08 +0000
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_503488
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_503488
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_503488