The hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) mentioned his constituent's simple question on why the provisions of the Bill come into effect only in October and not on Royal Assent—I think that he mentioned April. That request is straightforward. It is, "Please, let us have the Bill in force now, and let it catch all the claims that are in the pipeline as of today or the day of Royal Assent." I readily understand, accept and appreciate the force of that argument, but there are real and considerable practical difficulties.

On 12 March 1997, after discussion in Standing Committee on that and other matters, I wrote to the hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. McLeish), the Opposition Front-Bench spokesman, and sent a copy of the letter to the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow as a member of that Committee. In it, I explained that, in the other place, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish gave undertakings that there would be extensive consultation with all interested parties on the detailed regulations that would be consequent to the Bill's passage. Those undertakings were specifically asked for by the Opposition. The Labour party tabled about 10 amendments on consultation, and undertakings were given.

Therefore, even if the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow were to persuade Opposition Front Benchers to release us from those undertakings, the undertakings were given not only to the Labour party but to the world at large. The first difficulty is that the Government and Ministers are committed to consultation. Moreover, it is important that there should be consultation. There are important legal and technical issues—as I know the person in the street and the injured party will appreciate—and, in the interests of all those involved in the process, it is important that we get the regulations right.

As I explained, if we are to have proper consultation, it is probably necessary to allow the months of April and May for the process. "Consultation" means just that; it does not mean hitting people over the head with a tablet of stone and saying, "That's what we'll do." Therefore, it would be wrong to think that the process of drafting the regulations can be properly advanced beyond a preliminary stage until the consultation process has been completed.

In the timetable in the letter that I sent to the hon. Member for Fife, Central—which was copied to the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow—I stated that we envisage that the regulations will be drafted in June and July, possibly extending into August. Our intention is that, at the beginning of the summer recess, the legal framework will be in place so that the legislation can be implemented from the beginning of October 1997.

It is a matter, however, not simply of legislating but of rewriting the software that runs the compensation recovery unit's computer systems. Although we can attempt to do both tasks in parallel, the people who deal with the programmes complain bitterly when we attempt to do so, because it infinitely complicates their job, adds to expense and can cause delays in itself. They prefer to have the rules made by the House in final-cast form before translating them into the necessary instructions and software for the computer programmes that run the system.

5.15 pm

There will also be some administrative adjustments. However, I stress to the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow that one of the striking features of the evidence given to the Social Security Committee on the workings of the compensation recovery unit—very possibly some of the people who gave the evidence were slightly surprised to be giving it—was that, administratively, the system worked well. Accordingly, we think that not only consultation but a process of drafting the regulations and subsequently writing the software is necessary, so that the system will come into effect in October in a ready state that will not cause any technical or administrative hiccups for those who must deal with it.

Those who deal with personal injury actions—whether on behalf of the plaintiff and trade unions or defendants and insurers—cannot settle or dispose of cases under the old or the new rules without the vital certificate from the compensation recovery unit. If that process were not to work reliably and efficiently, considerable difficulty and inconvenience—if not chaos—would be caused. I therefore suggest to the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow that—although I understand the point of view of his constituent, who would say, "Why can't we do it more quickly?"—there are real practical reasons, which I have partly explained in writing and amplified today, why a process of six months is necessary after Royal Assent, which I anticipate will occur soon.

I take the point made by the hon. Gentleman that that necessity will cause considerable difficulties for those with claims in the pipeline. The Government intend, and the legislation has been cast, to ensure that, on the day the provisions come into force at the beginning of October, all cases in the pipeline at that point that have not been settled or determined will be caught by the new rules of the new regime. If they are settled or determined before the beginning of October, they will be covered under the current regime. I readily accept and appreciate that that causes concern. Many hon. Members have written to me about specific problems of constituents, who ask, "What do I do between now and October?"

Individuals must take proper legal advice. It may well be that the change of rules will not affect their specific case to their advantage. We are talking about some hard cases that were identified—particularly by the Select Committee, and particularly the asbestosis cases from the constituency of the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow—when the old regime was particularly harsh and unfortunate. In other cases, there will be no financial difference, whichever way individuals settle. Therefore, constituents must first take legal advice on whether they will benefit.

If an individual will be affected and it is a matter of settling, he must determine what he can do to postpone the settlement—if that is the advice—until after the beginning of October and the introduction of the new regime. It was once easier to do that than in these modern interventionist days, when the rules of court encourage progress. I have no doubt that, if one has commenced proceedings, it will be more difficult to postpone than if one has not. If one has not commenced proceedings and is within the limitation period, one is entitled to dilly-dally if necessary. One is ultimately at risk of being penalised with costs if one dilly-dallies too much, but if one has not yet started proceedings, there is an opportunity to slow up the process. Most plaintiffs hate delay. They say bitterly to their lawyers, "Why doesn't the process operate more quickly? Why can't we get it through faster?"

Let us suppose that postponement is not possible because proceedings have already begun. The hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow said, with more generosity than accuracy, that I might have some knowledge of Scots law. I have only a layman's understanding of what takes place in Scotland, so I am not in a position to comment in detail on the differences in procedure and litigation between the Court of Session and the sheriff court. Not having practised at the English Bar for nearly three years, I may also have forgotten—or not had occasion to attend to—the precise evolution of the rules of the Supreme Court and the county court.

In the bad old days, once a writ had been issued, one had a year in which to serve it. In other words, a person could do nothing for a year and probably even renew the writ within the limitation period. So the plaintiff, in the driving seat, could decide to park the car if he really wanted to do so.

Under the modern system of more instructions, both through the rules of court and through the operation of the listing procedures and the application of automatic directions, there is indeed a problem—people may be driven to proceed more quickly.