§ Mr. JohnI beg to move amendment No. 29, in page 12, line 14, leave out clause 15.
The amendment is probing. It would remove the whole clause concerned with the enforcement of judgment, and if it were agreed it would remove any possibility of someone who had been bilked of his sick pay enforcing a judgment against the employer. Clearly, that is not our intention.
In Committee I highlighted what I considered to be a big weakness in the Bill—that in order to enforce judgment in the county court fees appropriate to the kind of enforcement sought are payable. The clause is ambiguous, but the effect will be that the person who is trying to enforce the judgment will have to pay the necessary fees. They would be not inconsiderable sums which might, for example, in the case of an insolvency, the dissolution of a firm, be completely nugatory expenditure. The Minister of State will recollect that the hon. Member for Wallasey (Mrs. Chalker) undertook to look at the situation and to respond on Report on the problem of the enforcement of debts and payments. I hope that she will do so now.
§ Mr. RossiI cannot accept the amendment. I appreciate that the hon. Member for Pontypridd (Mr. John) said that it was merely a probing amendment. I have listened to the speeches made in Committee, and also to right hon. Gentlemen today. I have concluded that it is basically right, as long as there is some further assistance for employees in meeting the costs with which they will be involved in seeking to enforce a declaration that they are entitled to sick pay from their employers.
§ Mr. Andrew F. BennettThe Minister says that people will get help with costs. Does that mean that from the first point where they go and ask for advice from a solicitor to the point at which they get their money they will not have to pay out of their own pockets? What concerns many of my constituents is that they are regularly told that if they win they will be paid, but they do not have the money to risk going to law hoping to win.
§ Mr. RossiI am not talking about costs in that broad sense, and I thought that we had covered this ground very thoroughly in Committee. I was hoping not to detain the House further in going over the same ground. We have already established in Committee what the procedures will be, namely that there will be adjudication of these matters through the normal independent adjudicating authority. Say, for example, it goes to a tribunal and a decree or a 580 declaration is given that the employer has wrongly denied his employee sick pay, that declaration cannot be enforced by the tribunal because it has no juridical powers. It does not have bailiffs that it can send out to levy upon the employers' goods; only an established court can do that, a court within the high court or county court system.
What happens is that the employee, armed with chat decree, declaration or certificate that he has received from the tribunal, goes to the county court. The county court will then register it, and it will then have effect as though it were a judgment of that county court and will be enforceable as such.
The costs that I am talking about, and the one that the hon. Member for Pontypridd was concerned about, were the fees that would be payable by the individual to the county court first of all in registering that declaration, the plaint fee, which could vary between £15 and £26 depending upon the amount recoverable. If he then wants, having obtained his plaint, to enforce it by warrant of execution he may have to pay another £3.50 or more in order to have the order or decree executed.
Whilst the amounts of the fees will be eventually recoverable by the employee from the employer under the order or decree, I am persuaded that it would be unreasonable to expect the employee to find the money in order to pursue his statutory entitlement.
Therefore—this is where I can respond positively to the hon. Member for Pontypridd—it is our intention to bring forward an amendment in another place enabling the Secretary of State, in prescribed circumstances, to pay the fees to an employee who has made use of the procedures. Such a payment would be recoverable from any State benefit subsequently paid to the individual. I have no doubt that the occasions on which an employee must have recourse to proceedings under clause 15 will be limited, but when he does the proposed change will be of help.
I could go on to explain the procedures further, but I have met the hon. Gentleman's point. The matter can be discussed in another place where the amendment that I have promised will be tabled.
§ Mr. JohnIn view of the Minister's assurance, which meets the points raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport, North (Mr. Bennett) and me in Committee, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.