---

Dr. Julian Lewis (New Forest, East) (Con): Try not to smile, Geoff.

Mr. Hoon: I will certainly give it a try.

The House has clearly been concerned for some time about rural payments. Business questions have been asked routinely about the difficulties faced by farmers who have not received appropriate payments, so I would have thought that the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May) would congratulate my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs on dealing with the matter. Where there are problems, it is obviously right that the Government and accountable Ministers should take the action necessary to bring about an improvement in the situation. I can assure the House that that is precisely what my right hon. Friend has done through her decision.

On pensions, I can assure the House that no one is dismissing the report of the parliamentary ombudsman. Indeed, after business questions, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions will make a statement to the House about the report, as is appropriate. As the House is aware, it has a proper process for dealing with reports from the parliamentary ombudsman and, as I understand it, that proper process will be pursued by the Select Committee on Work and Pensions, which again is as it should be.

The responsible Minister at the Department of Health is looking at any shortfalls that may arise in social services. I have made clear to the House before the importance of health service bodies being able to deal with deficits and having appropriate procedures and accountancy standards to deal with them. I am sure that all Members want the huge amount of extra money that the Government have put into the health service to be spent wisely and effectively on continuing to improve health care both for the elderly, in conjunction with social services across the country, and for all other users of the service.
 
16 Mar 2006 : Column 1606
 

I look forward to the right hon. Member for Maidenhead telling the House about the evidence on which she relied when suggesting, in rather emotive terms, that 10,000 rural post offices will be closing. I have seen that in headlines and in newspapers and although there is a tendency for the Opposition to believe all they read in the Daily Mail, it is not necessarily the best source for research or advice. Nevertheless, I take seriously the future of the Post Office—the Government take it extremely seriously. I have previously set out the position on Post Office accounts and accounts that can be used at the post office. It is important that pensioners and others get the best return on their savings and their money. I have generally assumed that the Conservative party supports financial improvement for pensioners, so I am a little surprised that week in, week out Opposition Members continue to suggest that pensioners should not get the best return on their savings and their accounts. That is the implication of the right hon. Lady's suggestion.

The Government have introduced clear standards of transparency on financial management in respect of donations—[Laughter.] Quite why that should cause the Opposition so much entertainment is difficult to understand. Without those arrangements we would not be aware of the range of contributions that have been made to the Conservative party over the years. The Government have no difficulty about discussing such matters and I am surprised that Opposition Members are not a little more embarrassed about the history of the arrangements in their party.

Mr. David Heath (Somerton and Frome) (LD): The evidence on which the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May) might have been relying was the words of Adam Crozier, the chief executive of the Post Office, who might be expected to know about the Post Office system.

The Leader of the House cannot just sweep aside an issue that the treasurer of the Labour party calls impropriety. Is the right hon. Gentleman not at all ashamed that there should be even a suspicion that in this country people can buy a place in Parliament? There is nothing wrong with loans to political parties, if they are transparent and if they do not buy preference, but should not we have a debate on removing patronage altogether from Parliament and stopping millionaires from payrolling parties the money they need to go about their business?

I note that the Leader of the House has arranged for a debate on the costs of the actions in Iraq and Afghanistan, which I welcome. But is there not a need for a wider foreign affairs debate, dealing with not only what is now acknowledged by the Secretary of State for Defence as a prospective civil war in Iraq and the continuing situation in Afghanistan, but also the crisis in Palestine? We need an opportunity to debate the British position on these matters more fully than the time available for the statement would permit.

Lastly, I wonder whether we ought to have a debate on the teaching of English in universities, because I am very concerned that the Home Secretary, who went to Cambridge—which some say is a reputable university—appears to think that a scheme that is compulsory for everybody who drives a car and for everybody who wants to go on holiday is somehow voluntary. For nine
 
16 Mar 2006 : Column 1607
 
out of 10 people in this country it will be compulsory, so I do think that perhaps we need a debate on English comprehension.

Mr. Hoon: Well, as someone who has suffered at the same institution as my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, I am confident that we both understand English and that we can both explain it with the same ability. I recognise that in the recent past the hon. Gentleman has had some difficulty understanding my replies. I will do my best to make them clearer to him, not least because he has at least accepted the House's advice in relation to his political ambitions—I see that he is planning to become the deputy leader of the Liberal Democrats. We all congratulate him on that, and if I were to get a vote, I would be voting for him.

On the question of political patronage, I assure the hon. Gentleman that in any event, rightly, it is against the law for honours to be sold—a law that I think was passed by the House as a result of the activities of a previous Liberal Democrat Prime Minister. [Interruption.] I am sorry; I should correct that—Liberal Prime Minister.

Mr. Heath: He published the prices.

Mr. Hoon: I have no knowledge of that. But in any event it is something that is clearly thoroughly disapproved of, and something that I assure the House does not happen.

On the question of a wider foreign affairs debate, we have regularly scheduled such debates. I am sure that it will be possible to have such a debate in the future. This week we had Foreign and Commonwealth Office questions, where I know that my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary went out of his way to provide as much detail as he could at the time in relation to recent and very troubling events in Palestine. That is a subject that I am sure the House will want to return to, and certainly we will look at the possibility of arranging such a debate.

Dr. Gavin Strang (Edinburgh, East) (Lab): Does my right hon. Friend agree that Labour Members are justly proud of the fact that it was a Labour Government, after returning to power in 1997, who introduced and enacted the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000, which, yes, brought a real transparency to the funding of political parties? [Interruption.] Hon. Members should read the thing. Yes, it brought transparency covering donations; but I hope that some Opposition Members will read it, and agree that we need and want a debate to discuss how quickly we can introduce amending legislation to cover loans as well as donations. It is as simple at that.

Mr. Hoon: My right hon. Friend has made his point extremely well, and certainly no one on this side of the House would be in any way concerned about such a debate.

Mr. Andrew Mackay (Bracknell) (Con): After my criticism last week, I thank the Leader of the House for coming here today in a much better mood, which is much appreciated. Let me try and ensure that he stays in that mood, and suggest to him that his right hon. and
 
16 Mar 2006 : Column 1608
 
learned Friend the Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman) does have a serious potential conflict of interest, as her husband is treasurer of the Labour party. Would it be wise for her to come to the House next week and tell us that this particular part of her many responsibilities has been divested to another Minister within the Department?

Mr. Hoon: I can tell the House that, yesterday, my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State, Department for Constitutional Affairs asked to be relieved of her responsibility for electoral administration. My noble Friend the Lord Chancellor has accepted that request and has strengthened my right hon. and learned Friend's portfolio by adding legal aid and family justice. She will now deal with the central planks of the Department's portfolio on justice, including the courts and legal aid.

---