---

Pensions Bill

moved Amendment No. 109: 109: Clause 55, page 27, leave out lines 5 and 6 The noble Lord said: Tomorrow and tomorrow and tomorrow rolls on this happy Bill. We turn now to a rather unhappy situation; that of unfair dismissal. For some reason, government Amendment No. 109A, although it refers to the same clause, has been grouped with this. But I make no complaint: with a bit of luck we can speed up a bit through the rest of the day. Under Clause 55, when an employee is sacked because the employer has leant on him in one direction or another about auto-enrolment, that will be unfair dismissal. That is a summary of the clause as I understand it. I have tabled a simple, probing amendment. It would seem that subsections (1)(a) and (b) of proposed new Section 104D of the Employment Rights Act 1996 are in direct contradiction to subsection (2)(a). They appear to say that a requirement that does not apply in favour of an employee could be enforced as if it were. It is quite possible that I have totally misread this clause. If I have, I have no doubt that the Minister will explain how and why. I beg to move.