I thank the noble Lord for this amendment because it gives me an opportunity to clarify an important point. Clause 30 aims to ensure that there is only one compliance regime for the new duties, which will be enforced by the Pensions Regulator. This means that an individual will not be able to bring an action against an employer solely—I stress, solely—on the basis that he has breached an employer duty provision. It does not affect any pre-existing right of action.
This amendment, which I understand is a probing amendment, removes that provision and enables individuals, alongside the regulator, to take action against the contravention of an employer duty. There will be a role for individuals in alerting the regulator to non-compliance through whistle-blowing, but allowing individuals to take action against employers directly could lead to duplication, confusion and increased employer burden as an employer could face action from the regulator and individuals at the same time.
We fully recognise the need for individuals to have access to other routes for redress if a situation of non-compliance has not been pursued or resolved to their satisfaction. A fairer, less burdensome way of achieving that goal is to enable individuals to make a complaint to the Pensions Ombudsman. The ombudsman may then decide to pursue an investigation. Individuals may already make a complaint to the ombudsman under certain circumstances; for example, where they are an actual or potential beneficiary of a pension scheme. We have tabled an amendment to ensure that jobholders opting out of pension schemes are among the groups of individuals who can make a complaint to the ombudsman. The proposed approach will ensure a clear and consistent compliance regime and minimise burdens for employers while providing appropriate protection for individuals. This amendment would undermine that approach. There is nothing in this clause that affects any pre-existing right. For example, where contributions are set out in an employment contract, the individual will retain the right to pursue missing contributions just as he would be able to pursue any other breach of contract. It is just in relation to the duties arising under the Bill where the Pensions Regulator is put in place to ensure compliance.
Pensions Bill
Proceeding contribution from
Lord McKenzie of Luton
(Labour)
in the House of Lords on Monday, 30 June 2008.
It occurred during Committee of the Whole House (HL)
and
Debate on bills on Pensions Bill.
About this proceeding contribution
Reference
703 c46-7 Session
2007-08Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamberSubjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2023-12-16 00:01:44 +0000
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_488148
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_488148
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_488148