If he will make a statement on the operation of the welfare to work forum in Glasgow. [207428]

The Government's measures, such as the new deal, have been very successful in moving people from welfare into work. However, more needs to be done and we will continue to work with the Glasgow welfare to work forum, as well as with others.

My right hon. Friend will be aware of the ambitious plans of the welfare to work forum to create 30,000 jobs in the city by the end of 2010. Given the current favourable economic conditions and, as reported in this month's Insider magazine, the massive growth in profits of the top 500 companies in Scotland, I believe those plans are achievable, but it will require the closest co-operation between all public agencies—here at Westminster, the local authorities and the Scottish Executive. Can my right hon. Friend assure me that his Department will be actively involved in working with the forum to achieve success for Glasgow?

Yes, I can. My hon. Friend is right: what is striking about the forum in Glasgow is the common interest between not only public bodies and others with a long history of trying to help people get into work, but also private sector companies, because they realise that it is in their interest that we expand the work force so that we have more people available for work. It is worth bearing in mind what has happened over the past few years with the new deal: in Glasgow, nearly 5,500 lone parents, 1,400 adults, more than 25,000 people with disability and 1,600 people aged over 50 have moved from welfare into work thanks to the new deal. Many other measures can be taken, but there is a big difference between 10 or 15 years ago, when the then Government either ignored unemployment or thought it an inevitable fact of life, and the situation today where there is universal determination to get as many people into work as possible.

The Secretary of State is right to acknowledge the valuable work that has been done both through the active labour market policies promoted by the Government and through the forum, as was rightly raised by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Ann McKechin), but does he not think it slightly strange that training providers are not part of the forum? He is right to say that the commercial sector has a part to play, but there are no training providers on the forum itself. Furthermore, there is no flexibility about some of the funding streams. Up to £90 million may be available to the forum but there is little flexibility in how it can use much of that money. Would not access to training providers and more flexibility in the use of funding make the Glasgow welfare to work forum even more effective than it is now?

I am sure that is something the forum would like to consider. I know that the hon. Gentleman, through his experience of chairing the Select Committee on Work and Pensions, will be well aware of the fact that the Department has shown itself open to looking at new ideas in relation to funding. Let me give him an example: the pathways to work programme, which has been very successful in pilot form in getting people into work, is being extended across the whole country and it will include Glasgow.

I know that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions will continue to keep flexibility under review. The main thing, however, is to concentrate on getting as many people as possible into work, and, especially in Glasgow, the comparatively high number of people on incapacity benefit who really do need to be helped into work as quickly as possible.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the foundation for the welfare to work forum is the tried and tested new deal? Is not it the case that the Liberals opposed the funding of the new deal and that the Tories will abolish it? In contrast to those shameful policies, will the Secretary of State ensure that the necessary resources continue to be made available to tackle the scourge of long-term unemployment and to provide education and training to the youngsters who so desperately need it?

I agree with my hon. Friend. The new deal will remain the foundation of everything we do to help people into work. It is worth bearing in mind that employment in Scotland has risen by 174,000 people since 1997. Many of us in Scotland remember what happened in the 1980s and the early 1990s when hundreds and thousands of people were condemned to unemployment, we had a second generation of people growing up who had no experience of work and there was precious little help from the then Government. As for the Liberals, my hon. Friend is right—they are in favour of the new deal, but they were actually against the means of funding it, which is a typical Liberal attitude towards such matters.

Getting people off incapacity benefit and back to work is an important part of welfare to work. Is the Secretary of State aware of the Citizens Advice Scotland report entitled "Riding the Benefits Roller-coaster", which raised serious concerns about the rigidity of the existing system for incapacity benefit and concluded that claimants fall between gaps in the system when their conditions change? What are the Government doing to help people on incapacity benefit get back to work rather than penalising them?

As I said just a few moments ago, the Department for Work and Pensions has piloted a programme known as pathways to work, which is specifically designed to help people who are on incapacity benefit to get into work. The pilot scheme has shown that it is much more successful than conventional programmes, precisely because it offers help that is tailored to individuals. I visited a scheme in Renfrewshire a few months ago, with the First Minister, and we met a number of people who had taken part in the pilot scheme and had been got back into work. They had been given help and assistance that they would not receive under conventional schemes. That all shows that, when a Government are determined to work with others to help people into work who, historically, have simply been dumped by the system, we can make a very real difference. The fact that there are now record numbers of people in work, including people coming off incapacity benefit, shows why it is so important to stick with the new deal and not to do away with it, as the Tories would do, so returning us to the days of very high unemployment, when a whole generation of people were simply written off by the then Government.

2. If he will make a statement on the introduction of identity cards in Scotland. [207429]

So far as reserved issues are concerned, the introduction of identity cards across the United Kingdom is, of course, a matter for my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. Decisions on the use of identity cards to access devolved services in Scotland are the responsibility of the Scottish Executive.

This most appalling Bill will give the Secretary of State dictatorial powers to order people to attend at a specified place and time to have their fingerprints and other biometric information recorded. Given the cost and time of travelling to the passport office in Glasgow from many parts of Scotland, will the Secretary of State assure the House that facilities will be available locally to allow people to attend to have fingerprints and biometric information taken—for example, at local post offices?

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving me notice of the question that he intended to ask, which I saw on page 6 of ThePress & Journal today.

Have you got an answer?

It just about gave me sufficient time to find out the answer. I am glad to say that, as the House may be aware, the Home Office is piloting what will be necessary to implement the ID card scheme in Glasgow. One of the things that it is considering is a mobile facility to enable people to record their details without having to travel, in this case to Glasgow. In any event, when biometric passports are introduced, which, I think, will be in about 2008, it will be necessary for people to attend to have those details recorded. As far as I am aware, the Liberals are not actually against biometric passports, but—who knows?—we could be wrong about that as well.

I remind the House that the Bill provides for a database to be established to make it possible to have identity cards in the future. For my part, I cannot see anything wrong in principle with people being asked to identify themselves for various transactions. After all, most of us are asked to identify ourselves in respect of various transactions several times a week. It would be a tragedy if, at this stage, we were not to take those steps because they might be absolutely necessary in 10 or 12 years' time. If the Liberals had their way, the country would be ill-prepared to guard against security problems, fraud and so on. So what is proposed is entirely reasonable.

May I wholeheartedly agree with my right hon. Friend? [Hon. Members: "Yes!"] None of us can have access to this building unless we are wearing an ID card, and I do not see that there is any problem with that. Most hon. Members take them off when they enter the Chamber, but I do not have a problem with wearing it whenever. Does my right hon. Friend agree that Scotland deserves to live in security, with protection from fraud and petty crime, just as much as the citizens of the rest of the UK, and that ID cards must therefore be introduced UK-wide?

Of course, the provision of identity cards is reserved to the United Kingdom Parliament—that is why the Bill applies across the whole country—but my hon. Friend is right: increasingly it will not be unreasonable to ask people to identify themselves if they wish to use public services. After all, as I said just a few moments ago, every one of us probably has to identify ourselves when we go to the bank and when we buy things in the shops, and that is not a great imposition.

In relation to security, increasingly, whether we like it or not, not just in this place but elsewhere as well, it will be necessary for people to be satisfied about the identity of individuals, and I do not think that there is anything wrong with that in principle. The problem that the Liberal Democrats have is that they are in favour of security in principle, but rather like their policy on the new deal, they are against the practical means of achieving it.

May I wholeheartedly disagree with the Secretary of State? Does he accept that if identity cards are compulsory for Westminster-provided services, they are then compulsory in Scotland, regardless of what Mr. McConnell and the Scottish Executive say? Can he confirm that the cost of introducing identity cards over the next 10 years in Scotland is more than £500 million, enough to pay for 2,000 extra police officers in the communities of Scotland? What would make people in Scotland feel safer: a plastic identity card or extra thousands of police officers?

Of course, thanks to the money that we have made available to Scotland, because of the economic prosperity that has been built up over the past seven years there are more policemen in Scotland. There are also more teachers, nurses and doctors. So as far as public services are concerned, we can provide that.

In relation to identity cards, the fact that the hon. Gentleman disagrees with me comes as no surprise. It is hardly news that it may be necessary to have an ID card to access benefits, for example, in Scotland in future. Does he say that there is anything wrong with asking someone on benefits to identify themselves? The Scottish Executive have made it clear, however, that they do not propose to require the use of ID cards for accessing the NHS in Scotland. That is an entirely proper decision for them to take. However, I repeat the point: what is wrong in principle with people identifying themselves so that others are satisfied they are entitled to use services? I defy him to answer that. I see nothing wrong with that in principle and cannot for the life of me understand why he takes such a ridiculous attitude.

3. What discussions he has held with ministerial colleagues on the outcome of the EU Fisheries Council in December. [207430]

Colleagues in the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the Scottish Executive and the Northern Ireland Office worked very closely in the run-up to and during the Fisheries Council in December. The deal they secured is a good one for Scottish fishermen. The Departments are working together and with the industry to implement the agreement. I am delighted that the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Mr. Bradshaw), has joined us on the Front Bench.

I thank the Minister for her answer. She will be aware that past and current EU restrictions have led to the decommissioning and scrapping of sea-worthy boats. Do the UK Government agree that it makes little sense to scrap boats when they have been offered to tsunami-hit fishing communities in south-east Asia? Commissioner Borg has said that emergency legislation could be brought before the Council of Ministers in the near future to fund the transfer of vessels and gear. Will the UK Government support that?

I congratulate the white fish producers' initiative on offering aid to the disaster area in south-east Asia. I give the hon. Gentleman every assurance that we will do all that we can to support that initiative.

What assessment has my hon. Friend made of the enhanced cod recovery programme? What difference will that make to ensuring the sustainability of the Scottish fishing fleet?

We must all recognise—I hope all hon. Members agree with this, although I have a niggling suspicion that the official Opposition may not—that the recovery programmes and the recent negotiations offer a sustainable future for our fishing communities. The House does not need to listen to me on this. Those in the industry have made a series of comments, including:

"Fishermen now believe in the future . . . it has to be a future based on legality and long-term recovery plans".

I am only too delighted to identify who made that comment. It was Mike Park, vice-president of the Scottish Fishermen's Federation.

On behalf of west coast fishermen, may I express my appreciation to the Fisheries Minister for achieving for, I believe, the first time an increase in the west coast prawn quota, which is the bedrock of the west coast industry? I hope that that will be the first step towards further enhancements of that quota at future Brussels meetings.

Will my hon. Friend congratulate the west coast fishermen's association on the way in which it worked with marine laboratory scientists to develop new techniques to research the state of the west coast prawn stocks? That should be seen as a model of co-operation between scientists and fishermen in the future.

I am only too delighted to offer my congratulations. As some Members know, I take a great interest in the west coast prawn stocks. They did very well over Christmas, and made a lovely accompaniment to turkey and cranberry sauce at a Christmas dinner not very far from where my hon. Friend stays.

Given the Minister's family interest in the issue, has she asked her colleagues for their views on why the fishing fleets of Norway, Iceland and the Faroe Islands are successful and are expanding while the Scots fleet has been decimated?

I suppose that the hon. Gentleman is still on a learning curve on fishing. There are different circumstances in different countries, but I also want to draw to the attention of the House the fact that, despite all the evidence to the contrary, the Conservative party in Scotland announced yesterday that it intends to withdraw from the common fisheries policy. The hon. Gentleman said that that is "not some silly proposal", but it is. If the Conservatives withdrew from the CFP, they would have to negotiate with a range of countries. Fish in the sea do not swim around with little flags saying "I'm a British fish" or "I'm a Norwegian fish". The Conservative party must get real about fisheries policy.

The Minister must accept that the problem is that we do not have any fish swimming around, as the CFP has emptied our seas of fish. The problems faced by Scotland's fishermen are almost exclusively the result of the CFP itself. The Scotland Office has a poor track record in standing up for Scotland's interest. Will it now do so, and recommend either to the Prime Minister or to the Chancellor, whoever is in charge this week, that he return fisheries policy to local and national control?

I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman does not accept that fish stocks have stabilised, although some stock levels are still critical. The conservation measures adopted in the various packages are beginning to work. Not only did the hon. Gentleman say that withdrawing from the CFP is not a silly proposal but he accused it of emptying the seas. If ever something was foolish, it is the way in which the Conservative party allows its Euroscepticism to undermine the good negotiations on fisheries policy and their outcomes, which have been accepted and applauded by the industry.

I am glad that the Minister has become excited again during our annual exchange on fisheries. She is right—we will return our fisheries to local and national control, we will withdraw from the CFP, and Scotland's fishermen will be the better for it. Does she agree that the people best placed to manage Scotland's fisheries are fishermen themselves, not politicians in Edinburgh, London or Brussels?

The way to manage our fisheries stocks across Europe is to make sure that we have a balance between conservation and fishing. We must work together to ensure that the North sea continues to provide fishing communities across Scotland and the rest of the United Kingdom with a living, but the reality is that the hon. Gentleman's policy would do neither.

4. If he will meet the First Minister to discuss the requirements for a balanced energy policy for Scotland. [207431]

I have regular meetings with the First Minister to discuss a wide range of issues.

But has the Secretary of State noticed that the people who are now objecting to renewable energy sources such as wind farms are exactly the same people who object to nuclear power and opencast mining, and are supported by Scottish National party MPs and MSPs? Is it not true that if they had their way, there would no sources for electricity generation and the lights would go out all over Scotland?

I agree with my right hon. Friend that the logic of the nationalists' position is that the lights would go out in Scotland, as they are against nuclear power, wind farms and opencast coal mining. It is difficult to see where the electricity would come from. Dare I say that perhaps they would import it from the hated England? Nationalist policy is nonsense and, as I have said in the House before, it is important that we have a balanced energy policy and that we can draw electricity from a number of sources. Renewable energy from wind farms is an important strand of that policy, but we must also pay regard to the important role played by nuclear power, as my right hon. Friend knows, given that he represents a seat in Ayrshire.

The Secretary of State will be aware that the balanced energy mix will require significant growth in renewable generation. Allied to that, it is important that we get the regime right for transmission charging. The third proposal by the National Grid Company for renewable projects in the mainland highlands has caused serious concern about the viability of generation there, and we still do not have any proposals at all for projects in the western or northern isles. Will the Secretary of State pursue that with his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and the chairman of Ofgem as a matter of urgency so that we in the isles are not excluded from the benefits of renewable generation?

I understand the hon. Gentleman's concern. The new scheme has the advantage of removing interconnector charges between Scotland and the rest of the United Kingdom. That will bring large benefits, which will also go to Scottish consumers.

The hon. Gentleman is right that we should not disadvantage generators. In particular, we should not disadvantage proposals for wind farms or wave power generation on the islands. Ofgem will reach a decision in February. I hope that it takes on board the legitimate concerns of generators and others in Scotland. We must ensure that electricity generation in Scotland can compete on fair terms with electricity generation in other parts of the United Kingdom.

5. What recent discussions he has had with the Chancellor of the Exchequer on pensioner poverty in Scotland. [207432]

My right hon. Friend discusses a wide range of issues with the Chancellor of the Exchequer. My hon. Friend knows that tackling pensioner poverty is one of this Government's key policies.

In Anniesland, more than 13,500 pensioner households are receiving the winter fuel allowance and more than 5,100 pensioner households receive an average pension credit of £45. Will my hon. Friend ensure that the Chancellor not only continues that support for the poorest pensioners in our society, but does more for them?

I agree with my hon. Friend, whose constituency has one of the highest proportions of pensioner households in Scotland. He works assiduously to make sure that pensioners in his constituency get all their rightful benefits.

16. What devolution issues have been raised with her since 30 November 2004. [207422]

17. What devolution issues she has considered since 30 November 2004. [207423]

18. What devolution issues she has considered since 30 November 2004. [207424]

19. What devolution issues she has considered since 30 November 2004. [207425]

Since 30 November, 67 devolution issues have been intimated to me: 36 devolution issues related to criminal matters, including pre-trial delay, self incrimination under section 172 of the Road Traffic Acts and satellite monitoring of fishing vessels; the remaining 31 devolution issues related to civil matters, almost all of which concerned prison conditions.

Is the Advocate-General aware of any discrepancy in the Scotland Act 1998 that means that it is essential for the Prime Minister to declare his stay with a pop star, but that it is not essential for the First Minister to declare his stay with a political pundit?

No.

The Advocate-General has said that 67 cases were notified to her. Will she tell hon. Members the number of cases in which she acted and the length of time that she spent doing so?

Many of those cases—for example, the pre-trial delay cases—were copycat cases in which I had examined the legal issues in detail in relation to other cases. In one or two of those cases, I intervened and appeared in Privy Council to deal with the legal issues. Such matters depend on the type of issue and whether the issue has been raised before. I did not intervene on any of the particular issues intimated to me in the past month, but some of those issues have been raised in other cases, one or two of which I have intervened in.

My hon. and learned Friend will be aware that the Gambling Bill is currently passing through the House and that it has important implications for Scotland. What discussions has she had with the Scottish Executive about the regulatory regime in Scotland? In particular, the Government indicated on Second Reading that use class orders in England and Wales will be changed to separate bingo clubs and casino premises. Has she received any indications from the Scottish Executive on whether they intend to pass similar legislation to amend planning in Scotland?

The important matters that my hon. Friend raises relate to policy, not legal issues. Policy discussions would not normally be carried out by me but by the relevant policy Ministers, including my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland.

It may be of some assistance if I give an overview of legal regulatory matters as I see them at the moment. My hon. Friend will be aware that although gambling is a reserved matter, Scottish Ministers exercise some powers as a consequence of Executive devolution. The Bill proposes that the Gambling Commission will regulate commercial gambling and issue operating and personal licences. There will be a right of appeal against that to the Gambling Appeals Tribunal. In addition, it is important to understand that licensing boards, which are devolved, will regulate the gambling premises and that the devolved planning structure will apply.

May I invite the Advocate-General to give some advice to her right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland on his power in the Crown Estate Act 1961 to issue directions to the Crown estate commissioners? I suggest that had he done so, the shellfish farmers in my constituency and elsewhere in Scotland would not have found themselves in the position that they did shortly before Christmas, when they were faced with massive increases in the rents that they have to pay to the Crown estate commissioners, who are the only possible landlord to whom they can turn.

I am always happy to give any advice that is asked for by colleagues.

22. If he will review the procedures relating to the private finance initiative for Essex magistrates court. [207407]

My Department continually reviews and monitors private finance initiative procedures for new court building projects, including plans for Essex magistrates courts, to secure the most effective and efficient contracts on behalf of the taxpayer.

May I urge the Minister to take a personal grip on this particular issue, as the position to date has been absolutely lamentable? The time that has elapsed since the day that the decision on the private finance initiative for the new Colchester courthouse was taken is longer than the duration of the second world war. If Churchill can win a war in six years, why cannot this Minister build a new courthouse?

It is certainly a challenge that I am tempted to take up. I have to say, however, that we are at an early stage in contracting for this private finance initiative. I understand the hon. Gentleman's keenness to see such older court facilities improved and to get on with the more exciting proposals that are on the table, but we have a duty to ensure, on behalf of the taxpayer, that the contractual arrangements that we enter into are fit and proper and efficient, and we are working on that.

23. What steps he is taking to regulate the activities of claims handlers. [207408]

The claims management sector must be properly regulated. We have given claims handlers one last chance to put their house in order. If they do not, we will consider how formal regulation could be introduced in the context of our consideration of Sir David Clementi's report.

Does the Minister accept that in coalfield areas such as mine, claims handlers are causing real difficulties by making unnecessary charges for coal health claims and raising unrealistic expectations about industrial injury claims, and that some of them seem to have intimate connections with firms of solicitors? Many of us do not want our constituents to continue to be ripped off in this way, so is this the last-chance saloon?

Yes, it most definitely is. My hon. Friend will know that last year the Law Society did much work on this with solicitors' firms. The cold-calling, sharp practices and unfair preying on vulnerable people must stop. We have asked the Claims Standards Council to consider the situation and to work with the industry on getting its house in order. If it does not, we will regulate to deal with the gaps.

Am I right that one of the drivers of the proliferation of claims handlers is the no win, no fee rule, which has also led to a big increase in so-called ambulance chasers? What is the Under-Secretary going to do about contingency fees?

The hon. Gentleman will know that a previous Administration largely introduced the contingency fee regime. We have tried to simplify the regulations. The Better Regulation Task Force considered the matter, we accepted many of its recommendations and we are moving forward.

Companies such as Industrial Disease Compensation Ltd., which is an unscrupulous claims handling firm in the north-east, cannot operate without close relationships with law firms, as my hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood (Paddy Tipping) said. Will my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary consider meeting coalfield Members of Parliament to discuss the issue? What representations will he make to the Law Society, which has a key role to play in ensuring that the act is cleaned up?

I absolutely agree to meet Members who represent coalfield areas. I have regular discussions with the Law Society and have raised such issues with it in the past. I also have upcoming meetings. We take the matter seriously. As I said, the Government are actively considering regulation—but let us meet, continue the dialogue and ensure that we can bring the practice to an end.

The National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux issued a report last month on the claims farmers—unqualified intermediaries who are engaged in high pressure sales tactics and often mislead the public into ill-conceived litigation. If we consider that report with the comments that have been made, is it not odd that the Under-Secretary's policy is to allow those people to go further and take over or set up high street solicitors' practices? How will he tackle the abuses?

The hon. Gentleman is confused. The Government's policy has been to ask Sir David Clementi to consider the issues and to act once we have examined his report. We have said clearly that we need the right provisions to ensure that there are no sharp practices on the high street. We are working with the Law Society. David Clementi has specifically considered those matters and we are dealing with the issue; the Conservative Government did not.

I first raised the problems of claims assessors when I was elected in 1997, but the position has got worse. Claims assessors feed the myth of the compensation culture rather than present the facts. Would it not be more appropriate to regulate now, ask Clementi to reconsider the matter with specific reference to the proposed legal services board and suggest that claims assessors should be brought under its auspices in the same way as other people in practice? Is not the best advice to people who are injured simply to go to a reputable specialist personal injury lawyer, from whom they will get a much better deal than from the crooks?

I know that my hon. Friend has campaigned on those issues for many years. I also know what the Association of Personal Injury Lawyers has said in the past few weeks about the matter. He knows that Sir David Clementi has just reported. We must examine the detail of the report, but we must also let the Claims Standards Council at least to have the opportunity to rectify the position.

24. What recent representations he has received on the establishment of a written constitution for the United Kingdom. [207409]

I have received occasional representations on the establishment of a written constitution from some hon. Members in the course of parliamentary questions and debate. However, my officials have no record of any correspondence from the public on the matter since September.

The current British constitution is an amalgam of documents such as Magna Carta, Acts of Parliament, case law and convention. It provides little protection for the rights of citizens, and none for the legacy of Governments. Does my hon. Friend agree that in the face of the Conservative commitment to repeal the Human Rights Act 1998 on that far-off day when a Conservative Government are returned to office, all such future reforms must be entrenched in the British constitution so that changes can occur only through special measures such as super-majorities in this place or referendums in the country?

It is not the case that most of our constitution is unwritten. Large parts of it are enshrined in statute law, including the human rights legislation to which my hon. Friend referred and the distribution of powers relating to the devolved Administrations. This is not just a question of the codification of a constitution; it is more about any reforms to it that are proposed. We have a series of reforms for improving the separation of powers between the legislature, the Executive and the judiciary, and they will be put before the House shortly.

If a written constitution were put in place, would the Minister's boss, the Lord Chancellor, who advocates constitutional change in the other place, still be required to qualify for his job by being either a friend or a former flatmate of the Prime Minister?

I wonder whether that was a slightly facetious question. I suspect that it was, and I shall therefore not dignify it with a substantive answer.

The Queen once said that she found the British constitution a bit of a puzzle. Would it not help to clear up that puzzle if we began to write a lot of it down? As my hon. Friend the Minister said, this Government have done a lot more writing down of provisions on matters such as human rights and freedom of information. Although it might not have made much sense a long time ago to try to codify the constitution, surely we have now reached a point at which some kind of codification would be sensible. Could not the Government produce a draft, so that we could see what it might propose?

With respect to my hon. Friend, we could spend a great deal of time and effort on such a codification, but I am not convinced that it would achieve a great deal, particularly when there are so many other pressing priorities for legislative time. We need to have an eye to what our constituents want us to spend time talking about in Parliament.

Has the Minister acquainted himself with the work of the founding fathers in the United States, whose genius provided the Americans with a constitution that has protected them for more than two centuries from the kind of capricious changes that this Government have made to our governmental arrangements? Does the Minister agree that it would serve the British people well if we had a genius similar to that of the founding fathers to protect us from his Government?

This Administration are doing a pretty good job of reforming and improving our constitution; in that respect, I think that we are trying our best. Just because a constitution is written and codified does not mean that it will not be amended or reformed, even in the United States. I do not therefore believe that this question rests on codification. The focus of attention should be more on how a constitution evolves and improves.

25. If he will make a statement on Sir David Clementi's review of the regulation of the legal profession. [207411]

I refer my hon. and learned Friend to my earlier statement, made on Wednesday 15 December 2004.

I thank my hon. Friend for that reply and I appreciate that some aspects of Clementi have already been discussed today. One recommendation that he makes, which has already been made by the Office of Fair Trading, is that the traditional rules on the way in which the legal profession is organised—with barristers being unable to go into partnerships, and clients having to go to a solicitor before seeing a barrister, for example—impede the public's access to cheap, high quality legal services. Does the Minister agree that access to legal services is very important and that non-access to them represents an element of social exclusion that we cannot tolerate? Does he also agree that some of Clementi's suggestions are capable—subject to safeguards about the independence of the profession—of expanding the availability of legal services to our client group, especially to poorer people?

My hon. and learned Friend knows that we have broadly accepted the recommendations of Sir David Clementi, but we have to look at the detail. She will also have heard the discussions that we have had on the matter this morning. It is right that we should find ways of getting outside investment into our law firms, and ways in which lawyers and non-lawyers can work together, but we have to have the right safeguards in place. We must therefore consider in detail the introduction of legal disciplinary practices by speaking to all the stakeholders involved, particularly consumer groups and members of the legal profession.

There might be some frustration among the general public at the time scale involved in introducing the regulatory and complaints proposals through a White Paper and the statutory process. In regard to the issue raised by the hon. and learned Member for Redcar (Vera Baird) on legal disciplinary practices, has the Minister formed a view as to whether the "fit to own" suggestion by Sir David Clementi should be implemented by statute—and if so, at what sort of threshold—and whether a maximum stake should be set by law for outside interests in lawyers' practices?

The hon. Gentleman's question cuts to the heart of the issues. We have not formed a view, but we are consulting and talking to ensure that we get any such outcome right. He is right that the safeguards regarding the "fit to profit" test are at the centre of the discussion, and if we are to have outside ownership we must get the balance right. We are consulting and talking and I have a round of meetings over the next few months so that we can get into the detail.

The Law Society yet again reiterated yesterday that it does not have the power to force solicitors to repay money to their clients if that has been erroneously deducted to a third party such as a claims handler. In what time scale can we expect action to stop that scandal?

If there are particular problems, let me hear about them so that we can deal with them. My hon. Friend knows that the whole point of asking Sir David Clementi to examine the entire issue was so that we could get the statutory footing right. If the Law Society does not have powers, the Government can deal with that.

The final report of Sir David Clementi on the regulatory framework for English and Welsh legal services has been well received by most interested parties and certainly by the official Opposition. On the report's suggestion for designing a suitable regulatory system, are the Government in favour of model A, model B or model B-plus?

I have now said several times that we got the report in December and that it is right for us to consider and consult on it. We have indicated that we want to move towards a White Paper, but let us get on with detailed discussions with the legal profession, of which the hon. Gentleman is part.

26. If he will make a statement on the Lord Chancellor's recent discussions with the Archbishop of Cardiff on the Mental Capacity Bill. [207412]

We have had an ongoing dialogue with the Archbishop of Cardiff and other stakeholders. The dialogue has been a success and has improved and reinforced the Bill. I undertook on Report to reinforce the Bill further, which is why we will amend it in another place so that when the best-interest determination relates to life-sustaining treatment, a decision maker must not be motivated by a desire to bring about a person's death, regardless of what would be in his best interests.

Those of us who have been concerned about some aspects of what is overall a good Bill will draw some reassurance from what my hon. Friend says. Will he add to that reassurance by making it clear that the word "decision", as used in the Bill, covers omissions as well as acts?

The reason we have continued the dialogue that we have held, especially with the Catholic Church, is to make the Bill better. We should not forget the many millions of people who will benefit from the Bill. It was because of the dialogue that we had clause 58 and were able to rule out euthanasia. It was because of the dialogue that we were able to strengthen aspects of the Bill relating to advance decisions and that we were able to establish that anyone with the motivation of bringing about death—that is at the heart of the discussion about omission—should not be able to do so.

Why does not the Minister get rid of all this jargon? Why does he not talk about conversations rather than dialogue, and why does he not ask his officials to write answers that he can read to the House that are written in the Queen's English and comprehensible to all those who listen?

I hope that the hon. Gentleman understands that the decisions are important and that serious cases regarding life-sustaining treatment go through our courts each year. Whether he likes it or not, Law Lords and judges in the Court of Appeal spend a long time discussing such issues. I am sorry that he does not understand the legal position on life-sustaining treatment, but I give absolutely no apology for making that clear to the House.

Is the Minister aware of the concerns of disability rights groups such as the "I Decide" coalition about the Bill, and will the Government take those concerns into consideration? Their concerns are similar to those to which Baroness Chapman alluded in her excellent speech, if he has had time to read it, in the debate in the House of Lords yesterday.

Yes, I am aware of those concerns. This is a question of getting the balance right between those in the "I Decide" coalition who want to ensure that those who lack capacity and who are disabled have rights, and those who have taken up issues in relation to life-sustaining treatment. Dialogue has taken place because of that balance, and I am sure that we will achieve a compromise with which everyone is satisfied.

27. What plans he has to remunerate magistrates. [207413]

Although lay magistrates in England and Wales are not remunerated, they receive reimbursement for their travel costs and loss of earnings resulting from the discharge of their official duties. Further resources are not available to change that arrangement at this time.

That relates only to certain magistrates, and it was a fairly mealy-mouthed answer to those who deal with 97 per cent. of the crime in this country. The Government impose a huge number of demands on magistrates who do fantastic work both inside the courts and outside, such as extra training in relation to antisocial behaviour orders. The reserve forces get bounties, and councillors get paid and only have to show their face in the council chamber once every six months. Why cannot the Minister remunerate people who do something useful in the community?

Of course, I agree that magistrates do a fantastic job and we owe them a great debt for their role in the local administration of justice across the country. However, the hon. Gentleman's plan for remunerating and paying thousands of magistrates is not on our agenda right now. If the Conservative party proposes to add that to its list of spending commitments, that shows how hollow its commitment to the shadow Chancellor's supposed tax-cutting agenda is. It could not afford the plan and, in fact, it proposes to scrap pretty much all of this particular Department.

36. What plans he has to send a new voters' guide to every 18-year-old. [207399]

The Modernisation Committee, which I chair, recommended that the House devise a new voters' guide to be sent to all young people around the time of their 18th birthday. The House of Commons Commission has authorised further exploration of this proposal and has stated that it would not authorise the production and distribution of such a guide without the prior approval of the House, which I hope to seek soon.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. I wonder, however, whether he has read some of the research that reveals that turnout among first-time voters is low because many of those young people simply do not know what to do when they get into the polling station. Such a measure would therefore complement the work of many Members of Parliament, schools and colleges. Were the House to support such a measure, when would he anticipate a guide being sent to new voters?

I very much agree with my hon. Friend's point. Indeed, I recall an incident in the Islwyn by-election when I knocked on a door and an 18-year-old came to the door who asked me, "If I make a mistake in the polling booth, will they have a go at me?" She did not ask me what would happen if she voted one way or the other. There was therefore a degree of concern, worry and intimidation in her question. The sending out of a new voters' guide, possibly in your name, Mr. Speaker, would explain to every young person their democratic rights and opportunities and how to vote. Closing the gap between young people and Westminster would be a big boost for democracy.

Would the Leader of the House consider sending, along with the guide, contact and surgery details relating to new voters' MPs?

I think that that is the responsibility of the House of Commons, but there is a good chance of that happening.

If he will make provision for Grand Committees for each region in the UK. [207400]

As my hon. Friend knows, there is already a Scottish Grand Committee, a Welsh Grand Committee and a Northern Ireland Grand Committee, and the Standing Committee on Regional Affairs fulfils much the same function for England. It is open to the Standing Committee to meet to discuss a topic of concern to a particular region, and any Member for an English constituency may attend. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House is open to suggestion for potential topics for debate.

That was an interesting answer. What we ought to be saying is that we should enfranchise Members in, for instance, the north-west following the rejection of regional government. There ought to be a way of making quangos accountable, and to provide the same benefits that Scotland and Wales have enjoyed in the House of Commons. It is only right for us to have a regional Question Time allowing us to make Ministers accountable to the Members who are affected by their decisions. Will my hon. Friend consider a trial programme for a region such as the north-west, which has a larger population and gross domestic product than Scotland? We could then judge whether there were benefits in the extension of such Question Times to other regions.

I certainly think that the north-west should be first to be involved in any such trial. That much is obvious to my right hon. Friend and me. My right hon. Friend agrees that those of us who represent English regions should have opportunities to debate regional issues. He would be willing to consider the option of English regional Grand Committees if there were widespread support for it, but it is not clear that such Committees would offer significantly more advantages than the current Standing Committee on Regional Affairs. That Committee can and does debate issues of regional interest: for example, it last met to debate regional economic performance and the Northern Way.

When my right hon. Friend the Minister for Local and Regional Government canvassed on the idea of separate Standing Committees—first raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice)—it found little favour.

Can the Minister tell us how many times the Standing Committee on Regional Affairs has met during the seven years for which it has been meeting?

I recall that when I was the Committee's Whip it was difficult to persuade many Members to attend, but it has held useful meetings on a number of matters—[Hon. Members: "Answer."] I am about to answer. It has held meetings on a number of matters, including the important Northern Way economic strategy and planning policy—the regional policy raised by the hon. Gentleman's own party.

I repeat that this is a matter for Members in the English regions. If there is support for the idea of debating issues in the Standing Committee, that is open to the Committee.

Does my hon. Friend accept that we are faced with a growing accountability deficit? In the north-east, the regional development agency is engaged in discussions aimed at identifying a site for a mega-casino—one site somewhere in the north-east. No public accountability applies to those discussions and processes, which is unacceptable. Will the Government now address that?

My hon. Friend has raised an important point relating to the accountability of regional bodies for regional decisions. That is why my right hon. Friend is encouraging participation in the Standing Committee.

What recommendations he has made to the Select Committee on the Modernisation of the House for the future sitting hours of the House. [207401]

The Modernisation Committee published its report on sitting hours this morning. A copy has been sent to every Member. It recommends that the current hours be made permanent, with sittings beginning an hour earlier on Thursdays to accommodate more substantial business and rebalance the sitting week. I intend to give the House an opportunity to reach a decision on our future sitting hours in the next few weeks.

I thank my right hon. Friend for his answer and congratulate the Committee on its report.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that at a time when the Government are requiring public services such as the health service to modernise, it would be very negative of the House to vote to return to its former ways of working, rather than seeking to balance the unique role of Parliament with more modern ways of working that better reflect the experience of the constituents whom we represent?

I could not agree more with my hon. Friend. It would be wrong for this House to revert to the working hours of the Victorian era. We should reflect modern working practices and that is what the Committee recommends.

It should not be for the Modernisation Committee to lecture the House—[Interruption.] The responses of Members of Parliament to the Procedure Committee's questionnaire showed that only—[Interruption.]

Order. There is too much conversation among the Whips, who have been talking for the best part of half an hour. It is going to stop, or the hon. Member in question will be removed from the Chamber.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Only 31 per cent. of Members wanted to keep the current Tuesday hours, while 65 per cent. wanted the House to sit on Tuesday evenings. Of course, there are some good things in the report that I support, but the plea that the Committee is making in respect of Tuesdays is a rather desperate one. Surely we are entitled to take our own decisions on these matters, and if the House takes the view that it is more convenient to sit on Tuesday evenings, it should be able to do so. Can the Leader of the House assure us that there will be an early vote on restoring Tuesday evening sittings?

I certainly can assure the hon. Gentleman that there will be an opportunity for an early vote. As he points out, there are deep feelings about the issue of Tuesdays, on which the House is divided. I had hoped to achieve a consensus through the Committee's work and through my prior consultations with many Members from all parts of the House—I thank those who took part—but it was not possible. In the end, the House will make the decision, but the view that the Modernisation Committee formed on this matter was a majority one. Its report is excellent and I commend it to every Member.

Is it not a fact that the Modernisation Committee has considered all the evidence very carefully? The shadow Leader of the House said that Members want to sit on Tuesday evenings, and it is true that quite a large number want to take private Members' Bills then and to cancel all Friday sittings. The report recognises that this issue will have to be considered at a later stage, but is it not a fact that in focusing on the entire sitting week and the particular problems associated with Thursdays, the report has tried to give the House a balanced view, based on all the evidence submitted to it during the inquiry?

I agree with my hon. Friend. There was a strong argument in favour of shifting private Members' Bills perhaps to Tuesday evenings—indeed, probably a majority of Committee members were in favour of that idea—thereby making all Fridays constituency days. But we did not want to do that in isolation from the wider issues associated with private Members' Bills, which is why the report reached the conclusion that it did. The point that my hon. Friend makes is important, in that it is wrong always to have, in effect, a lot of one-line business on a Thursday and to risk the danger of becoming a House of Commons that sits for only part of the week. That is why we recommend sitting for an additional hour on Thursdays, and I hope that the House will support that recommendation. Doing so will enable Second Readings and Opposition days to be taken and a rebalancing of the week, so that we work a full week and go back to our constituencies on Fridays.

To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on the Government's policy towards applications in the courts for injunctions to delay or to prevent the commencement of the Hunting Act 2004.

I am very grateful to my right hon. Friend for his question, because it enables me to provide the House with some clarity in respect of issues that have been rather muddled in the press and other media comment. It might assist the House if I explain the legal and policy background to this issue before coming to the specifics of what we expect to happen in court on 25 January. I shall deal in particular with the challenge mounted by the Countryside Alliance to the validity of the Hunting Act 2004, which is based specifically on its argument that the Parliament Act 1949 is invalid. We disagree. We do not believe that its challenge will succeed, and we will vigorously contest that challenge.

In view of some confused press comment, I must make it clear that what I am about to say has nothing whatever to do with any possible challenge under the European convention on human rights. Those who suggest that there could be a long delay in commencement from 25 January because of a human rights challenge are incorrect and misinformed, as incorporation challenges on human rights grounds are dealt with in our own courts under the Human Rights Act 1998. We do not have such a challenge as yet, but a challenge to the Scottish legislation failed, and we would not expect a different outcome here. In any event, human rights challenges are usually dealt with following commencement of legislation, and there are plenty of precedents. There are two possible avenues of challenge, and they are unrelated, as is our response to them. I want to be absolutely clear about that.

Let me now come to the Parliament Act challenge. The point of that challenge, to be heard on 25 January, is to allow the Countryside Alliance to promote its claim that the Hunting Act 2004 is not valid law. We expect that challenge to fail. It is only after the court has decided against that Countryside Alliance claim that any issue of delay becomes relevant. As the chairman of the Countryside Alliance himself made clear, lawyers have already discussed the next steps, as is quite normal in advance of a court hearing. Having failed, the alliance will seek leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal. If that is granted—it is a matter for the court—it says that it will seek an injunction to delay commencement of the Act from 18 February. As hon. Members are aware, that date is three months after Royal Assent, as provided for in the Hunting Act itself, and the Countryside Alliance intends to seek a delay until after its appeal has been heard.

I do not know what view the court will take, but we neither oppose nor support such an application if we reach that stage—and for two reasons. First, we want certainty, and supporters of hunting have claimed that there is uncertainty. The right place for their challenge is in the courts. We confidently expect to have our view that the Act is valid upheld. We expect the case and any subsequent appeal to be dealt with quite quickly, and no one will then have reason for any doubt whatever or for believing that they might be justified in undertaking activity that is, in fact, illegal. Secondly, we are relaxed because the date of commencement of 18 February was neither the Government's proposal nor what the House voted for. MPs voted for 31 July 2006. It is the Countryside Alliance and its representatives in the Lords, through what the media described as the kamikaze option, who rejected that date and insisted on retaining early commencement.

What is in the Act is a matter of fact, and it is for the courts to interpret what is in the Act. I suggest that any colleague who says, in effect, that those who made their bed must now lie on it, should also be relaxed and leave it to the courts. We are confident that the Hunting Act is valid and rightly fulfils the will of the elected Chamber of Parliament. We are confident that the result of the court hearing will uphold that view and do so soon, providing certainty for everyone on all sides of the debate.

Will my right hon. Friend give the House an assurance that there have been no discussions between the Government and the Countryside Alliance on this issue behind the back of the House of Commons, which has expressed its will repeatedly by large majorities? Will he further confirm that, whatever the courts may be able to do, they are not able to change the text of an Act of Parliament, and the Hunting Act lays down commencement three calendar months after enactment on 18 November? Will he take it from me and many other Members that we are sick and tired of hearing two voices coming from the Front Bench on this dispute? The House of Commons has expressed its will that it does not want any fiddling or messing about: it wants this Act of Parliament to come into force and to do so without the Government conniving with the Countryside Alliance to prevent it.

I urge my right hon. Friend not to give in to any temptation to believe that there are two voices coming from the Government, nor to indulge in conspiracy theories. I am happy to give him all the assurances that he requests on these matters. First, he asked what discussions had taken place. I have confirmed precisely what the chairman of the Countryside Alliance said: that there have been discussions between lawyers about what will happen when a case comes before the court. It is as simple as that. No other discussions are of any relevance whatever.

Secondly, my right hon. Friend asked about what the Hunting Act states. As I have made clear, it states that commencement will be three months after Royal Assent. It is not for me to say what the court will make of that. I simply do not know. Neither am I a lawyer nor do I seek to look into the court's mind. The court must do its work, just as this House did when it decided on the legislation.

Finally, I assure my right hon. Friend that the Government do not have two voices on this matter. There is only one voice. I have articulated the Government's position, which has been consistent throughout. I am very pleased that many hon. Members who worked passionately to bring the Hunting Act into law believe that my approach, which I articulated in December, is right. We want the law to be clear. It is the Countryside Alliance, not the Government, that is attempting to cause confusion, and we want that confusion to be set aside authoritatively by the court. After that, let everyone obey the law of the land.

There can be no precedent for the way in which the Government used the Parliament Act to ram through a Bill and then immediately briefed the press to the effect that they would not object to a judicial delay to its implementation. The Minister is right to say that that delay is a matter not for the Government or the Attorney-General but for the court. The Government's view is irrelevant and does not matter at all. In that case, surely the briefing given by No. 10 in advance of the Boxing day meets can be seen as nothing other than a grubby political ploy to avoid too great a political outcry in the run-up to the general election?

That was a pretty pathetic attempt. The hon. Gentleman has introduced nonsense to the debate, and it is clear that he did not listen to the answer that I gave to my right hon. Friend. The Government did not ram through the Hunting Act. The House voted 10 times in 10 years for the essential content of what is a good piece of legislation. That should be respected, as we now have an Act of Parliament. The Countryside Alliance has every right to challenge it in the courts and to set out its beliefs in a proper and constitutional way. That is what is happening, and we should await the outcome.

The hon. Gentleman spoke about a briefing. I am not sure what briefing the Countryside Alliance gave. I first heard its chairman say that the issues had been discussed by lawyers from both sides on the "Today" programme, shortly before I had to respond to his comments. However, the hon. Gentleman, like the Countryside Alliance, likes to spread confusion. He should not be allowed to succeed.

I am sure that the Minister's contribution has clarified matters for everyone in the House, as his previous statements on the legislation have done. Does he agree that in a sense whatever the court or Parliament may say is irrelevant, as the Act as currently constituted is unworkable and will not bring an end to hunting?

No, my hon. Friend is absolutely wrong. I am grateful to have the opportunity to contradict her in terms. The Act is workable and enforceable, and makes very clear what is banned and what people should not do because it is now illegal. Hunters are always described as normally law-abiding people. I hope that they will abide by the law.

It is important that the democratic will of the House is properly and rigorously defended by the Government. The Minister knows that a case was made at various stages of the Bill's progress for compensation for those whose livelihoods would be affected by the Act. As the Act is supposed to be implemented on 18 February, does he agree that if the Government had accepted compensatory measures—after all, it is an Act of Parliament, not an act of God, and livelihoods will be affected—the case for delay and the case being made by the Countryside Alliance would be considerably weakened?

We do not accept that there is a case for compensation. 18 February, there is any justification for compensation. Our view is consistent with the view that was taken by the Joint Committee on Human Rights. Incidentally, people often say that the Joint Committee on Human Rights found that there were flaws in the Act. It did not, and that has been made clear in the House. Nevertheless, people attempt to spread confusion about that, so I am glad to make it absolutely clear. We recognised that some people's employment would be affected, so the later date for commencement—we proposed July 2006, and the House agreed with that proposition—would have given everyone time to change their activities, take up drag hunting and consider other ways of ensuring that employment could continue through other equine activities, and so on, but the case against compensation remains strong, even with the date of 18 February. That is not the issue today. The question of a challenge is nothing to do with human rights or compensation. It is to do with whether the Parliament Act 1949 is valid. We believe that it is. We believe that the Hunting Act 2004 is valid and sound, and we will say that clearly in the courts, as we have said in the House. We are being entirely consistent, as always.[Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman and I have discussed that on a number of occasions. I have made my position clear. We do not believe that with commencement on

Is not the sensible way forward for hunts to use whatever time is available to wind up their activities or make alternative provision in a thoughtful and sensible way?

Yes, my hon. Friend is right. My advice to hunts—[Interruption.] I would advise hunts not to consider that the challenge might succeed, but to undertake such actions as are necessary for them to comply with the Hunting Act 2004, as passed by the House.

Order. It seems to be the practice that whenever the Minister gets up to speak, certain hon. Members try to talk him down and shout across the Chamber. I will not tolerate that.

The Minister said a moment ago that the Countryside Alliance and its supporters in the Lords voted for an immediate ban. Which way did the Lord Chancellor vote?

I am not sure what the relevance of the question is. It was the president of the Countryside Alliance who sought to frustrate the possibility of the House of Lords endorsing the date of July 2006 which was proposed by this House. The House has taken a clear and reasonable view. The Government have always sought to bring reason into a debate where reason is often in short supply. We continue to do so.

On a previous occasion, I suggested to the Minister that whether the Act was good or bad for foxes, it would be certainly be good for lawyers. He rejected the suggestion at that time. Does not his statement today confirm it?

No, it does not. It confirms what I said before. We have always known that the Countryside Alliance would make two challenges—one on the Parliament Act and the other on human rights issues, although it has not commenced any such action. The Countryside Alliance has made it clear for several years that that was its intention, so it should come as no surprise to anyone. We believe that the outcome will be clear and simple in both cases and that neither of the challenges will succeed, so I still say my hon. Friend is wrong.

The right hon. Gentleman will doubtless remember the amendment on the Order Paper of 15 September in my name, which provided that if the legality of the Act should be challenged before the courts at its implementation date, the Act should not come into force until those proceedings had been disposed of. Would it not have been a great deal more transparent and, some might say, honest of the Government to have accepted that amendment, or at least its sense, rather than to embark on a wholly unprecedented device in order save their electoral bacon?

No, that is a crazy approach. The right hon. and learned Gentleman suggests that we should anticipate challenges to legislation that has properly been put in place by the House. He may want to undermine the good law-making processes of the House, but I think it is for the House to pass legislation in a proper way and for the courts to do their job. Let us keep the two separate.

Am I the only Labour Member to be fed up with the constant sniping by my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Sir Gerald Kaufman) at the Front Bench? I take the view that the Hunting Act that was passed is good law and we should leave it to the courts to decide how it should be implemented.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his support. I would not criticise my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Sir Gerald Kaufman), because by raising the question he has enabled the House to clarify things and to give less excuse to those on the Opposition Benches and in the Countryside Alliance who want confusion to prevail—but I agree with my hon. Friend.

The Minister hopes for clarity on the law, and I agree. Can he confirm that after the date of commencement, whenever it turns out to be, exempt hunting, drag hunting, exercising hounds, chasing away, searching and unintentional hunting will continue to be legal?

I can confirm that the Act bans only those things that it bans. What people ought to do is to look at the Act, the provisions of which are clear. We are doing all that we can to ensure that people have clear understanding of the legislation, which is quite a challenge given the amount of misinformation that has been put out by those who do not like the Act. I suggest to the hon. Gentleman that the Act is much clearer than he seeks to imply.

What is the Minister's current forecast of the implementation date for the legislation, in the light of what he said in his statement about likely court proceedings and their timing? Will he assure his hon. Friends that he is desperately striving to get the Act implemented before the election?

My current prediction on the date of implementation is 18 February. It will be a court decision, which I shall certainly not anticipate, as to whether there should be any delay to that commencement. We have already heard people say that there could be no delay because the legislation is clear and specific about the date of commencement—three months after Royal Assent—but that is a matter to be discussed if, as we anticipate, the case fails following the hearing of first instance and an application is made for an injunction. It will be for the court to decide, and I am happy to leave it to the court.

The right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) is right in one thing: there have been two voices from the Government. First, there was a Bill that would have allowed hunting to continue under licence, and then there was a Government Bill to ban all hunting. That is what has exasperated my constituents. Given that they will lose their livelihood through this wretched measure, surely they should be permitted, without interference from the Government, to pursue all their entitlements through the courts in the proper way.

The hon. Gentleman ought to explain to his constituents how reasonable the Government have been in trying to find a less divisive way through this most divisive of issues. That is why I brought proposals to the House, with the support of the Prime Minister, as has been made clear on many occasions. The House voted for a different piece of legislation. It amended the Bill that I introduced and voted in the same way as it has on 10 occasions over 10 years. I respect that; so should the hon. Gentleman, and so should his constituents.

Does not the delay in implementation, at which I think the Minister has hinted today, give all those who are genuinely concerned about animal welfare—that includes the middle way group, which I think includes the Minister, although sadly not the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman)—a genuine chance to look again at any new evidence that has emerged since the measure became an Act of Parliament? In that context, will the Minister give a commitment to meet the middle way group to discuss its report on the welfare aspects of shooting foxes, which has passed the peer group review process and is established scientific fact?

May I clarify the point absolutely? I have given no hint of delay; I have simply acknowledged our understanding that an application for a delay in commencement may be made by the Countryside Alliance when it loses its case at the hearing of first instance. I have made it clear several times that we are content to leave the court to look at the issues and at what the Act says and to take a decision on such an application.

The hon. Gentleman raised animal welfare issues. We are concerned about those issues, but it is important for those who support hunting to recognise that legislation is now in place and, even as they continue their challenge in the court—the right place to do so—to engage with animal welfare issues. It is for that reason that I shall seek to promote discussions, including animal welfare organisations and those involved in hunting activities, on issues relating to the welfare of horses and dogs that might arise from the implementation of the legislation, whether that is on 18 February, which is the working assumption with which we must stay, or whether there is a decision by the court that makes a difference to that expectation.

I agree with the Minister this far: about the only clear part of the Hunting Act is the clause on its implementation date. Does not he think it regrettable that the Attorney-General and No. 10 allowed themselves to be quoted in the media discussing the implementation question? Would not it have been better to leave that to private discussions between the respective lawyers and the courts?

Did the Minister authorise the writing of the article in The Sunday Telegraph by his Parliamentary Private Secretary, the hon. Member for The Wrekin (Peter Bradley), which seemed to counter, shall we say, some of the arguments that the Minister urged—in good faith, I am sure—when he was piloting the Bill through the House?

First, the hon. and learned Gentleman, as a lawyer, should know that the whole Bill is clear. It makes very clear what is illegal following the date of commencement, and I hope that he and Opposition Members who have, in other circumstances, enjoined people to obey the law will encourage their constituents to obey the Hunting Act. The law is absolutely clear and the hon. Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray) ought to read the Act and counsel his constituents to obey the law. I should be interested to know whether he still holds to his words about letting loose the dogs of war or whether he supports his other statements about people obeying the law. The Conservative party needs to be a little bit clearer than it has been up to now as to whether it is a law-abiding party.

The second point raised by the hon. and learned Gentleman was on discussions between lawyers on the two sides. I heard the chairman of the Countryside Alliance refer to those discussions and the alliance appears to have made it clear that it would apply for an injunction in the event of its failing in the hearing of first instance.

Finally, the hon. and learned Gentleman referred to an article in The Sunday Telegraph. Through the encouragement of some Opposition Members, I have received various pieces of correspondence from people who, like him, have clearly not read the interesting article written by my Parliamentary Private Secretary. I should be interested to receive comments and contributions from people who have actually read the article. I suggest that the hon. and learned Gentleman does so—he clearly has not done so as yet.