---

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. The hon. Gentleman has had a generous allocation.

Mr. Hoon: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I think that I have got the drift.

This is a serious issue, and one that the House has addressed not only during business questions in recent weeks but on other occasions. To deal with at least one aspect of what my hon. Friend said, no one is suggesting that people should be forced to use the banks. Indeed, I have been at great pains to emphasise that there is a range of accounts available at the post office, many of them simple and straightforward to use, which bring real benefits to pensioners; for example, interest payments. They should be encouraged to use those accounts, preserving the Post Office and its business. I see no reason to be quite so alarmist about the future of the Post Office. The Government strongly support it, and we continue financially to support the post office network, not least in rural areas. It is something to which the Government are committed.

Mr. Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con): Does the Leader of the House deny that proposals to curtail the right of hon. Members to ask ordinary written questions have been circulating in Government circles?

Mr. Hoon: I am not going to comment on leaked documents. [Hon. Members: "Ah."] I have made it absolutely clear that this is a matter for the Procedure Committee and, ultimately, for the House. These issues have been debated in the past; for example, by the Procedure Committee and the Modernisation Committee. Serious concern has been expressed by Members of the House about the numbers of questions tabled and, crucially, about the circumstances in which they are tabled. It would be inappropriate not to consider those concerns; otherwise the House will simply allow ever more questions about matters of an ever more routine nature. Indeed, when the matter was last looked at, it seemed clear that many of the questions tabled were of a routine research kind, asking for information that was already in the public domain, and I know that right hon. and hon. Members have expressed concern about that before.

Gwyn Prosser (Dover) (Lab): Yesterday's announcement that the beef ban is to be lifted might have been good news for some farmers, but it was bad news for veal calves and the animal welfare groups that have campaigned to ban live animal exports from Dover? Will my right hon. Friend find time for a debate on the Floor of the House to explore what progress Ministers have made towards ensuring that meat is exported on the hook rather than on the hoof, which is declared Government policy?

Mr. Hoon: I know that that is a long-term ambition of those who rightly campaign to protect animal welfare. The subject has arisen over many years both here and,
 
9 Mar 2006 : Column 956
 
obviously, in the European Union. The Government take it seriously. I cannot offer my hon. Friend the prospect of an early debate on it, but my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, who has just answered questions, takes a keen interest in such matters.

Mr. Peter Robinson (Belfast, East) (DUP): On Monday, we are due to debate the Northern Ireland (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill. It had been the intention of the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland to amend it to add important proposals for the governance of Northern Ireland. Is that still the Government's intention? If it is, can the Leader of the House take it from me that it is not considered an appropriate vehicle to introduce important constitutional proposals? That should be done in primary legislation on the Floor of the House.

Mr. Hoon: I will not get into the detail of that. I urge the hon. Gentleman, his colleagues and others who represent Northern Ireland constituencies to ensure that progress is made and that there are discussions about improving the governance of Northern Ireland. That is what is important. I know that that is vital to the people of Northern Ireland and those whom he represents. I urge him to use his best endeavours to bring that about.

Mr. Clive Betts (Sheffield, Attercliffe) (Lab): May I support the request by the hon. Member for North Devon (Nick Harvey) to discuss the impact of pensions legislation on the parliamentary pension fund in April? I am aware of the correspondence between the hon. Member for Bournemouth, West (Sir John Butterfill), as chair of the fund's trustees, and the Leader of the House, which goes through a number of the options for changing the rules to the scheme and the complications, which are considerable. May I suggest that it would be appropriate to debate those matters before hon. Members are finally asked to vote on them, so that the trustees and my right hon. Friend get the views of hon. Members on things that could have a serious impact on their future pensions?

Mr. Hoon: I appreciate the concern. I have made it clear that I am willing to discuss that in depth and in detail. As my hon. Friend rightly indicates, and as I have found to my cost, the issues are not simple and straightforward. The complexity of the regulations and the legislation makes me wonder whether it would be entirely appropriate to have a detailed debate. I realise that that is not the best argument, but nevertheless I think that it would be better if we discussed the matter seriously and calmly. I am certainly willing to see him to do that.

Sir Nicholas Winterton (Macclesfield) (Con): May I warmly support the request by the hon. Member for North Devon (Nick Harvey) relating to parliamentary pensions? It is a critical issue. May I also—this supports the Leader of the House—commend the Procedure Committee's report on parliamentary questions, which sought to remove the abuse of the Order Paper, not to restrict hon. Members from asking genuine and important questions?
 
9 Mar 2006 : Column 957
 

However, as the right hon. Gentleman seeks to be a radical, reforming Leader of the House, will he find time to debate critical issues, such as police authority mergers and the restructuring of the health service, in Government time, with substantive motions before the House to be decided on free votes? That would enable hon. Members legitimately and properly to express their views without any influence from Government Whips.

Mr. Hoon: The hon. Gentleman was doing so well with his first two observations that I was hoping to be able to say how much I agreed with him, but snatching defeat from the jaws of victory, I recognise that he needed to return to a number of issues that we have debated. I am sure that there will be plenty of opportunity for right hon. and hon. Members to discuss specific proposals for police authority mergers if they are not agreed to by local communities. I know that we will come back to that on a regular basis.

Keith Vaz (Leicester, East) (Lab): May we have a debate next week on the guidelines for the provision of stairlifts for elderly people by local authorities? My constituent Vera Cheshire is 78 years of age. She has a colostomy bag, an artificial leg and has lost the use of one of her arms. She has been waiting for 18 months for a stairlift from Liberal-led Leicester city council. Does my right hon. Friend agree that when local authorities fail to discharge their duties, especially to the vulnerable in society, it is important that Ministers intervene and that, at the very least, we should debate such important matters?

Mr. Hoon: As ever, my hon. Friend makes his point, and he does so with considerable force. It is outrageous that anyone should have to wait so long for assistance from their local authority. I am sure that the Liberal Democrat leadership in the House of Commons will look at that as a matter of some urgency.

Mr. Alex Salmond (Banff and Buchan) (SNP): Does the Leader of the House not detect the groundswell of support for a debate on the marketplace for honours established by the Government? Is not it the case that 80p out of every £1 of individual donations to the Labour party comes from people who are subsequently ennobled or knighted by the Government? What about the queue of people, like Dr. Patel, at the House of Lords Appointments Commission who are demanding to know where their peerage is? Having given the money, it is a case of cash for no peerage. Do not we need a debate on the debasing of the political process by the Government in a manner that would make Lloyd George blush?

Mr. Hoon: Clearly, my political antennae are not as well attuned as the hon. Gentleman's. I have not detected a great groundswell. He delivered his press release effectively, and we take account of that matter. Again, I am surprised that he has not given credit to the Government for their efforts to ensure that there is a
 
9 Mar 2006 : Column 958
 
new and independent system of appointment. I commend him to look at the procedure so that he understands it more thoroughly.

---