Let me begin by acknowledging the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, North. He is absolutely right that the clause is timely—more so than in recent years, given some of the problems that our constituents face.

The hon. Member for Solihull is right that the hon. Member for Brent, East raised the issue of interest on Second Reading. However, if my memory serves me correctly, and it may not, she was talking about minimum  wage arrears, which we will deal with shortly, in clause 8. As for the question of how someone would prove that losses are directly related to the non-payment, the provision is not new. It already applies to holiday pay, so tribunals are used to it. We are simply extending it. I should like to point out the key phrase in the clause. Subsections (7)(1) and (2), propose a new subsection (2) in section 24, and a new subsection (5) in section 163, of the Employment Rights Act 1996. The last line of new subsection (5) will read

“to compensate the worker for any financial loss sustained by him which is attributable to the non-payment of the redundancy payment”.

It must be directly attributable and, of course, there must be evidence, but that is for the chairmen of tribunals to judge. We are extending provisions for holiday pay to other matters, in recognition of the fact someone who is unlawfully denied money, and who is dependent on every pound of their wages, could incur other charges through no fault of their own, as well as lose their wage.