There could be a one-off situation, with the recruitment of one employee when the prohibition had been breached. Let us say that a decision was taken and somebody had been appointed, but the individual concerned had not been appointed. The ability to remedy that by making that appointment retrospectively is unlikely to be available. That is one circumstance in which it may not be possible to remedy the contravention of the prohibition; in other cases, it might. If, for example, there is an ongoing recruitment exercise and the literature for all that has been produced and that literature falls foul, that is a circumstance in which it could be the case. It is obviously a question of degree, but it is right that both are catered for in the clause, so that a remedy in the circumstances where that is possible can be dealt with.
I should clarify also that the reference to remedying a contravention in this clause does not mean that the Pensions Regulator would be able to require employers to give unsuccessful applicants a job. That simply is not the case. The emphasis here is simply on trying to prevent employers avoiding their new employer duties from the start by screening out candidates who might want to assert their new rights to join a pension scheme.
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 c119-20 Session
2007-08Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamberSubjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2023-12-16 02:17:12 +0000
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_488298
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_488298
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_488298