The hon. Member for North-West Norfolk referred to the period to Royal Assent when we debated the Bill on Second Reading. He asked how many cases there were. I made it clear that the Bill applies in retrospect, so that we can pursue all the cases that have occurred since August 2002 when the Bebb Travel case went against us at the Employment Appeal Tribunal. There will be a delay, but every case will be picked up. There were 250 cases at the time. The hon. Gentleman said that that number was cited some months back; it was not, it was referred to on 11 February. It is now 27 February, and there are still 250 cases.

The hon. Gentleman's second point was about the fact that we are waiting for Royal Assent. I am always convinced by his arguments, but he represents a party

that abolished wages councils and allowed hairdressers to be paid less than £2.10 an hour, so it is a little strange that he is pursuing the case on behalf of low-paid workers. We want to protect them absolutely.

There have been previous cases in relation to Royal Assent. The hon. Gentleman referred to many of them on Second Reading, such as the Northern Ireland (Elections) Act 1998 and the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001. I think a lot of the Bill, but I do not consider it to be more important than those Acts. I can understand why their provisions came into effect immediately and did not have to wait after Royal Assent. We sought advice from the Attorney-General, and the protocol is that only in exceptional cases would we not give notice and wait for Royal Assent. Given that we shall apply the measures retrospectively and that we are logging each case for the enforcement officers to pursue, there is no need to have an argument with the authorities about protocol and the Bill.

The hon. Member for Perth (Annabelle Ewing) referred to the potential confusion arising from our appeal. As I said on Second Reading, we do not accept that the wording of the original Bill was wrong or misleading. It has operated happily for three years. We have gone to appeal because, if we withdrew, we would have to pay the other side's costs. We could not pre-empt a decision of Parliament, nor could we be sure that we would gain a slot in the parliamentary timetable.

Therefore, we decided to take a belt-and-braces approach. We took forward an appeal and we decided to amend the law in case we lost it. If we had waited for the appeal before introducing the Bill, even greater delay would have been the result. There will be no confusion. If we win the appeal, many parliamentary draftsmen will be saying, ''Well, we were right all along and we told you so,'' and we will feel better, particularly those hon. Members who scrutinised the National Minimum Wage Bill in Committee in 1998. However, the Bill will make the matter absolutely clear, and that will protect us against any challenges or weird decisions that might arise in future.

We thought that the provision was clear enough, but for the avoidance of any doubt, we have made it absolutely clear that enforcement officers can claim purely for arrears—not arrears, current up-rating and future up-rating. They can go for arrears alone. As the Bill makes that absolutely clear, I do not think that any confusion can arise. It is sensible of us to deal with the matter in this way, given the concerns that have been expressed by hon. Members on both sides of the House about the need to protect low-paid workers.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 2, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Bill, as amended, to be reported.

Committee rose at twenty-five minutes past Nine o'clock.