Let me explain the six-year, three-year issue as best I can. The hon. Member for North-West Norfolk (Mr. Bellingham) asked whether we had statistics on how many cases went through sheriff courts in Scotland, compared with employment tribunals. I have to say that I am disappointed with the quality of the statistics that we are getting. However, of those enforcement cases that the Inland Revenue takes on behalf of employees, some 85 per cent. go through the county court and some 15 per cent. go to employment tribunals.

I am not sure how many cases are pursued individually, through trade unions or by people themselves, and what is the breakdown of the relevant figures. I am, however, clear that most cases go through the county courts for the reason that the hon. Gentleman mentioned, which is that people cannot go to an employment tribunal if it is more three months since the last underpayment. On Second Reading we briefly discussed the fact that people can get 8 per cent. interest on a claim through the county court, which they cannot get through an employment tribunal claim. That is as much as I can tell the hon. Gentleman.

I tried to find out from debates on the National Minimum Wage Bill in 1998 the rationale for requirement for records to be kept for three years. I think that it was intended that the provision tie in with other legislation requiring employers to keep records for that period. It was a question of consistency. Nevertheless, the hon. Gentleman is right to raise that issue. He said that that was academic, but it was not academic from April last year.

The national minimum wage was introduced in April 1999, so there was the possibility of claims going back three years from April 2002 onwards. An employee is entitled to claim arrears dating back six years if the claim is being enforced, but can claim arrears dating from however long ago if they do not go through enforcement officers and instead take their

claim to an employment tribunal. That already applies to county courts. Sheriff courts in Scotland have a five-year limitation, and county courts in the United Kingdom have a six-year limitation. What we are saying through the Bill is that, when enforcement is carried out through the Inland Revenue, there should be consistency, and a period of six years.

The hon. Gentleman asked about the disparity between employers having to keep records for only three years, but arrears going back six years being enforceable. On Second Reading, when he argued that we should limit arrears to three years, I said that there was a better case for employers keeping record for six years than for reducing the arrears period. None the less, I shall consider the issue. The Bill will be the acid test, because this is a new experience—there have not been any cases of arrears going back more than three years being pursued. The average arrears go back less than a year. Usually, employers find out about arrears within a reasonable time and the matter is pursued.

I do not want to make a big song and dance about the issue if it will be academic, but we will consider what difficulties Inland Revenue enforcement officers have with the absence of records going back more than three years. I suspect, as the hon. Gentleman said, that there will be evidence about pay: employees will have payslips, because most are meticulous—as they should be—about keeping them for many years. Although most employers dump other records after three years, they may well keep records of pay. If a problem occurs, we might need to consider the issue—under the regulations, not the Bill—with a view to extending the requirement to keep records to more than three years.

The hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable) talked about the amendment that we accepted in the other place. The Opposition argued—and we, in the end, accepted—that the rules on enforcement for Inland Revenue acting on behalf of other people should be consistent with those for county courts and tribunals, as long as that did not remove the right of a person to claim arrears going back however far. It was felt that that was a sensible amendment, and I hope that the Committee leaves it in place.