---

Mr. Hoon: My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is here every week to answer questions on any subject that hon. and right hon. Members may raise. Of course, he was here yesterday, and if the matter had been a burning issue for Opposition Members, they would have raised it in the way in which the right hon. Member for Bracknell (Mr. Mackay) has done today. The views of the chairman of the Committee on Standards in Public Life on the issue are well known, so the matter is not new and has been before the House on many occasions. If I have misquoted the Prime Minister, clearly I apologise to the House, but I do not believe that I have. This Prime Minister and previous Prime Ministers have made it clear that it is ultimately for them to decide whom to appoint to ministerial office.

Mr. David Winnick (Walsall, North) (Lab): Given what might appear to be a case of someone who has been nominated for a peerage putting pressure on the House of Lords Appointments Commission, would it not be useful for us to have a statement so that we can debate the matter and praise—I would have no hesitation in doing so—the work that we have done to make political donations far more transparent than they were when the Tories were in office, when they absolutely refused to make any change to the law that would have allowed donations to political parties to be made known? At the same time, we could build on the progress that we have made so that the possible link between political donations and getting a peerage or knighthood would become weaker, not stronger. Some of us are rather worried about the current position.

Mr. Hoon: I certainly agree with my hon. Friend's substantive point. The Government have taken clear steps to improve the process of appointment, to make it transparent and to ensure that there is proper supervision of what happens. I do not entirely share his criticism of the discussion that is taking place in one particular case, although I have no detailed information about the case—nor should I. It does not appear to me that an individual is trying to put pressure on the Appointments Commission, but that there is the situation with which we frequently have to deal when such information seeps into the public domain, which cannot be in the interest of the process or the individual in question.

Mr. Michael Jack (Fylde) (Con): The departure from the national health service of Sir Nigel Crisp has raised fresh doubts about the future management of the NHS. It is causing problems to hospital trusts such as the Blackpool, Fylde and Wyre trust, which is faced with ward closures and service cuts. In light of the uncertain situation, will the Leader of the House look to have an early debate on the whole conduct and management of
 
9 Mar 2006 : Column 953
 
the NHS, so that we might probe with some clarity just how the Government will get out of the mess that they have got themselves into?

Mr. Hoon: The right hon. Gentleman is usually a fair-minded person when it comes to establishing the facts, and I am sure that in the interests of his reputation he would want to add that in Fylde there are 5,400 more nurses, 543 more doctors and 142 more consultants. That is a remarkable record, and one on which I know, if he had a little more opportunity, he would want to congratulate the Government. Having a debate about the astonishing improvement in the health service under this Government is not something that the Government fear at all. We have had a number of debates on the question.

On health service deficits, I have set out the figures before; a tiny number of NHS organisations are responsible for an overwhelming proportion of those deficits. [Interruption.] Right hon. and hon. Members are shaking their heads and groaning, but these are the facts. The truth is that a small number of organisations are involved. I thought that the Conservative party was concerned with financial propriety and with ensuring that organisations balance their books. That is precisely what the Government are trying to do in the health service.

Mr. Dennis Skinner (Bolsover) (Lab): Now that the question of standards in public life is being discussed again by the media, would it not be an idea, if we are to have a debate, to turn our attention to the Register of Members' Interests as well? Now that this has become a great public issue, it is high time that we returned to the idea put forward many times by myself and others: Members of Parliament paid £60,000 a year, which is enough to live on—no one can starve on it—should be stopped from making money on the side. This book has page after page of people with directorships, most of them Tory MPs. If we want a legacy, let it be "One Member of Parliament, one job only". Moonlighting should stop for everybody, especially them.

Mr. Hoon: My hon. Friend has expressed his point of view very well with his characteristic style, and I enjoyed the way he put it. No doubt, we will have some comments from Opposition Members about their views on this issue.

Nick Harvey (North Devon) (LD): Will the Leader of the House find time for a debate on the draft statutory instrument on the parliamentary pension regulations, on which he has announced a very short timetable for consultation? Does he understand the concern of the trustees that Members of the House should have the same pension options in the new era that begins in April as other members of the public, and in particular our concerns that older Members will not have as much of an option on their right to commute their pension into a lump sum; that the death in service benefit on which, sadly, any Member's family could depend at any moment, will be restricted; and that divorced Members will not get the opportunity to rebuild their benefits that
 
9 Mar 2006 : Column 954
 
other members of the public will have? In view of that short consultation, could we have a debate so that Members can make their views known?

Mr. Hoon: I certainly appreciate that this is an important issue not only for Members of Parliament but for all pension funds facing the significant changes that the new financial legislation brings into force on 6 April. It is a matter of concern to people up and down the country. The Government have made changes that will encourage people to save for their pension right through their working life, and I recognise the importance of that for Members of Parliament and others. I am certainly willing to discuss the matter with the hon. Gentleman in detail.

Julie Morgan (Cardiff, North) (Lab): I know that my right hon. Friend is aware that there will be a debate in Westminster Hall this afternoon on violence against women to mark international women's day. Can we have a debate on the Floor of the House about equal pay—one of the other major issues facing women in this country today—particularly in the civil service because that is something over which the Government have more control?

Mr. Hoon: I acknowledge the important material about equal pay that was recently published and the fact that there is still some way to go in ensuring equality of remuneration in both the public and the private sector. It is something to which the Government are absolutely committed, which is why we continue to bear down on these discrepancies and will continue to do so.

Mr. Julian Brazier (Canterbury) (Con): May I urge the Leader of the House to have an early debate on the development of so-called head shops, which are selling dangerous but legal alternatives to cannabis and other drugs? Meridian Television has put together a terrific dossier about that. At a time when we have a ban, a shameful ban, on many traditional herbal medicines, many of these substances, some of them newly developed, are legally available and are being openly sold. They provide highs like those associated with cannabis and harder drugs but are still technically within the law.

Mr. Hoon: I know that this is something that the Home Office monitors and regularly reviews. It is vital that the law is upheld. If the hon. Gentleman has examples of specific instances or areas where the law needs to be updated to reflect threats to the health of the public, I hope that he will make them known.

Mr. George Mudie (Leeds, East) (Lab): Yesterday it emerged that the Home Office had agreed a contract with the somewhat controversial property company Mapeley to open 69 high street offices to issue passports. This is work that the Post Office looked to for a future. A fortnight ago the Speaker intervened and forced the Department for Work and Pensions to reveal the contents of its contract on Post Office accounts, which demonstrated that after 2010 pensioners would be forced to use banks. Both those matters threaten the future of 8,500 out of 12,500 post offices. Does the Leader of the House agree that this is a shabby way to
 
9 Mar 2006 : Column 955
 
treat 4.5 million pensioners, 8,500 sub-postmasters and even Members of this House? Will he use his persuasive powers to bring a Government spokesman here to make a statement on the present policy on the future of the Post Office, or is this—

---