---

Identity Theft

24. Miss Anne McIntosh (Vale of York) (Con): Pursuant to his oral answer of 9 February 2006, Official Report, column 1003, on identity theft, what response he has received from Home Office Ministers. [58774]

The Solicitor General: I understand that the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham), who deals with policy on identity fraud, has written to the hon. Lady on this matter. I have seen the letter, and I have also further discussed with him my concerns about the case that she raises. He has agreed to meet her and her constituent to discuss the matter.

Miss McIntosh: It is a very simple question: under what circumstances will identity fraud be investigated and prosecuted? Does the Solicitor-General agree that data protection should not be used an excuse for not conducting an investigation?

The Solicitor General: The hon. Lady needs to raise this issue with my hon. Friend at the Home Office and, in due course, with Royal Mail. I share some of her concerns about how Royal Mail has decided to deal with this matter. The appropriate method for reporting abuse is via the Royal Mail security team, which then liaises with the police investigation, but it is also important that we ensure that a person whose mail is diverted is able to get to the bottom of what on earth went on. That is why I have had a conversation with my hon. Friend at the Home Office, and I hope that the hon. Lady will be able to take those discussions further.

Business of the House

11.33 am

Mrs. Theresa May (Maidenhead) (Con): Will the Leader of the House give us the business for the coming weeks?

The Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Geoffrey Hoon): I have previously announced the business for next week, but I hope that it will be helpful if I give the House a little more detail. The forthcoming business is as follows:

Monday 20 March—Estimates [2nd Allotted Day]. There will be a debate on the costs of peacekeeping in Iraq and Afghanistan, followed by a debate on deficits in the NHS. Full details will be given in the Official Report.

Followed by proceedings on the Consolidated Fund (Appropriation) (No. 2) Bill. At 10 pm the House will be asked to agree all outstanding estimates.

Tuesday 21 March—A motion to approve a money resolution on the Armed Forces Bill, followed by, if necessary, consideration of Lords amendments, followed by consideration of Lords amendments to the London Olympic Games and Paralympic Games Bill, followed by a debate on "a points-based system for managed migration" on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.

The House may also be asked to consider any Lord messages which may by then be received.

Wednesday 22 March—My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will open his Budget statement.

Thursday 23 March—Continuation of the Budget debate.

Friday 24 March—The House will not be sitting.

The provisional business for the following week will be:

Monday 27 March—Continuation of the Budget debate.

Tuesday 28 March—Conclusion of the Budget debate.

Wednesday 29 March—Consideration of Lords amendments.

Thursday 30 March—Motion on the Easter recess Adjournment.

Friday 31 March—The House will not be sitting.

[The following is the information: The Estimate is to be considered in so far as it relates to the costs of peacekeeping in Iraq and Afghanistan (Resolution of 16th March). Relevant documents: Fourth Report from the Defence Committee, Session 2005–06 (HC 980) on costs of peacekeeping in Iraq and Afghanistan; Spring Supplementary Estimate 2005–06; and Ministry of Defence Annual Report and Accounts 2004–05 (HC 464).

Uncorrected oral and written evidence taken by the Health Committee on 1 and 6 December 2005 (HC 736–i, –ii and –iii) on Public Expenditure Health and Social Services 2005.]
 
16 Mar 2006 : Column 1604
 

I should also like to inform the House that the business in Westminster Hall for the 30 March will be:

Thursday 30 March—A debate on the report from the Constitutional Affairs Committee on the courts and small claims.

The House may wish to be reminded that we will rise for the Easter recess at the end of business on Thursday 30 March and return on Tuesday 18 April.

Mrs. May: I suspect that not all Members will be aware that this morning it has been announced in a written statement that due to chaos in the Rural Payments Agency, which is responsible for the single farm payment, the chief executive has been replaced—I assume that means sacked. May we have an oral statement on Monday from the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs so that Members can question Ministers and raise farmers' concerns about the failure of that agency?

I appreciate that there will be a statement today by the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions on the Government's response to the parliamentary ombudsman's report, "Trusting in the pensions promise". However, the Government's initial attempt to dismiss the ombudsman's findings called into question her role and her ability to act on the referrals that she receives from hon. Members. Constituents assume that the ombudsman is the last line of defence against possible maladministration by the Government. The ombudsman serves this House. Will the right hon. Gentleman arrange for a debate on the role and powers of the parliamentary ombudsman?

The latest annual study by the Association of Directors of Social Services shows that council social services departments have a funding shortfall of £1.76 billion, some of which is due to deficits in the health service. Crucially, that means that councils are cutting the provision of services to elderly and other vulnerable people. May we have a statement on joint funding and working between health and social services and a debate on the provision of social care?

In business questions recently, I, and other hon. Members, asked for a debate on the withdrawal of the Post Office card account and the possible resultant closure of 10,000 post offices. The right hon. Gentleman dismissed those concerns. Last week, in reply to the hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Mudie) he 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".—[Official Report, 9 March 2006; Vol. 443, c. 955.]

I have checked the Post Office website. There are indeed accounts that can be used at the post office. They are accounts that are held at Abbey, Alliance & Leicester, Bank of Ireland, Bank of Scotland, Barclays, Clydesdale Bank, the Co-operative Bank, First Trust Bank—the list goes on. Unless I am mistaken—and the names do rather give it away—those are all banks, although there is one building society, the Nationwide. Will the right hon. Gentleman explain to the House what accounts the Post Office provides as an alternative to the card account? I ask him again for a debate on the future of the Post Office.

Finally, may we have a debate on standards of financial management? I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman was concerned that the treasurer of the
 
16 Mar 2006 : Column 1605
 
Labour party did not know that the party had received a loan of £1.5 million. I wonder what account the money went into if the treasurer did not know about it. Should we assume that the money went into a hedge fund? The Labour party treasurer is married to the Minister of State, Department for Constitutional Affairs, the right hon. and learned Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman) who speaks for the Government on the funding of political parties. Indeed, in a debate in Westminster Hall on 8 November last year, the right hon. and learned Lady said:

"We do not have any millionaires in Peckham, and we probably do not have any people who would donate £5,000".

She went on to say in reference to local party members:

"If they think that donations are entirely the remit of millionaires, they will feel that they themselves do not matter".—[Official Report, Westminster Hall, 8 November 2005; Vol. 439, c. 20WH.]

Could she not have helped her husband out on this matter, or is this yet another Labour household where financial matters are not discussed over the breakfast table?

---