---

Mr. Forth : Oh, no!

Mr. Hain: The right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues scoff at the big conversation because when they were in government they never had a conversation with any members of the public. That is why they were run out of office.

Janet Anderson (Rossendale and Darwen) (Lab): My right hon. Friend will be aware of concern on both sides of the House about the effect in practice of the revised sitting hours of this Chamber. He will also be aware that the responses to the recent questionnaire on the issue show a small overall majority for reverting to the previous times on Tuesdays. Can he assure us that we will have an early opportunity to debate the matter in the House?

Mr. Hain: As my hon. Friend knows, the Modernisation Committee will begin a review shortly into how to resolve the issue. I pay tribute to her efforts to try to find a consensus on the matter. As she knows, I have wanted to achieve agreement so that the House can move forward, instead of being split as we were when the original decision was taken. As my hon. Friend fairly acknowledged, the Procedure Committee report shows a narrow majority in favour of changing back to a 10 pm finish on Tuesdays, but 200 Members did not register an opinion. If we can find a consensus through the Modernisation Committee review, I will put it to a vote in the House as soon as it is possible to do so.

Mr. Nigel Evans (Ribble Valley) (Con): Will the Leader of the House arrange for a statement next week on the managed closure of post offices? I bring his attention to early-day motion 1133, in the name of the hon. Member for Chorley (Mr. Hoyle) and supported by other Lancashire Members, including myself.
 
6 May 2004 : Column 1498
 

[That this House congratulates the Lancashire Evening Post in its campaign to save post offices from closure throughout Lancashire and recognises that the Lancashire Evening Post has received thousands of responses from its readers supporting the campaign; raises concern that Royal Mail are providing financial incentives to sub-postmasters to leave, thereby allowing the Royal Mail to close post offices leaving local users with no service; and calls on the Royal Mail to be open and transparent in making a business case for closure ensuring that all interested parties are consulted and provided with all the facts in relation to profitability and use of individual branches before any decision to close is taken.]

Thirty-one Lancashire post offices are about to close, including three in my constituency—two in Clitheroe and one in Ribchester. The motion also praises the campaign of the Lancashire Evening Post and thousands of its readers to keep the post offices open. Is it not insanity to pay post offices to close instead of paying for them to open? When will we see an end to this post office set-aside?

Mr. Hain: I understand the points that the hon. Gentleman raises about his constituency, and we have all had to deal with such problems, not only in the last seven years—or the last year or last few months—but for the last 20 years. We have seen a whole process of change which was partly brought about by people changing their shopping habits and not using their local post offices as much as we would like. The Government have been dealing with the problem. We have put extra money in to support the distribution of local post offices and we will continue to work on the problem.

Mrs. Alice Mahon (Halifax) (Lab): May I bring my right hon. Friend back to the subject of the possible deployment of troops in Iraq? The headlines in The Sun and The Times are specific. They claim that the troops will go out "to seize flashpoint city" and that the decision has already been made. That would be an extremely dangerous mission. Will my right hon. Friend deny that such a decision has been taken and, if he cannot, when can we have a statement? After all, we have a right to know before the Murdoch press.

Mr. Hain: My hon. Friend will know that similar press reports have appeared almost daily—or at least weekly—in recent months. Sometimes they have been accurate and sometimes they have not. I do not have anything to add to what I have just said and the Prime Minister made the position clear yesterday.

Sir George Young (North-West Hampshire) (Con): Three months ago, when the Prime Minister appeared before the Liaison Committee, he agreed to review the rules under which civil servants give evidence to Select Committees—the so-called Osmotherly rules. When does the Leader of the House anticipate reporting progress on that review?

Mr. Hain: The Prime Minister is due to appear before the Liaison Committee in a few months' time and I should have thought that he would be questioned about that subject if it has not been progressed in the meantime.
 
6 May 2004 : Column 1499
 

Colin Burgon (Elmet) (Lab): I am one of the many hon. Members who enjoy showing constituents around the House. However, I have noticed lately that a key piece of our history is missing from the Royal Gallery—the death warrant of Charles I. That is one of the most important documents in the history of this House and of this nation, as a reminder of when our valiant predecessors put an over-mighty monarch firmly in his place. [Interruption.] I have no one in mind at the moment. Can the Leader of the House find out when that key document will return to the Royal Gallery?

Mr. Hain: My deputy mutters that the document is currently subject to scientific research. I have no idea what that means, but no doubt my hon. Friend's concern will have been noted by the House authorities and his constituents will be satisfied in future.

Rev. Martin Smyth (Belfast, South) (UUP): As we are currently sending more reservists out to Iraq—for example, some members of the Royal Irish Regiment will be going out—may I, too, press the Leader of the House for a debate on troop deployment? At the same time, we could examine the attitude of employers who have not played fair with reservists mobilised to serve their country.

Mr. Hain: If employers are not playing fair, that is an important issue because members of the Territorial Army do a valuable job and should be treated fairly. On troop deployment generally, and the role of the Royal Irish Regiment, the Ministry of Defence will have carefully noted what the hon. Gentleman said.

Mr. Colin Challen (Morley and Rothwell) (Lab): May we have an early statement from the Foreign Secretary about the situation faced by British lorry drivers who are incarcerated in French prisons? When I last inquired, about 60 HGV drivers were being held in those prisons, including my constituent, Paul Watson, who has been locked up in Arras prison since last October and still does not know when he might go to trial. He has been refused bail on several occasions, and although I have applied for a permit to visit him it seems that the French are quite adept at losing such applications. Will the Foreign Secretary come to the House to explain what we are doing to secure proper treatment for British lorry drivers, many of whom, I believe, are innocent, so that our constituents are free to come home to their families?

Mr. Hain: I know that my hon. Friend has pursued that case with great diligence; I acknowledge that, and his constituent will be grateful. I am very surprised that the French authorities are apparently denying a British Member of Parliament, who is also a fellow citizen of the European Union, access to his constituent and I hope that that will change. In the meantime, the Foreign Office is providing full consular advice and my hon. Friend is free to raise the issue with the Foreign Secretary or his Ministers who will want to support my hon. Friend in whatever way they can.

Bob Spink (Castle Point) (Con): The well-informed Leader of the House will have seen the report in today's papers suggesting that the Government may be
 
6 May 2004 : Column 1500
 
considering the development of more incinerators because they are said to be less dangerous than landfill. The campaigning newspaper, the Yellow Advertiser, is currently exposing landfill contamination on Two Tree Island in my constituency. May we have a debate on how we can increase recycling to meet the Government's recycling targets, which are likely to be missed? Recycling is the very best way forward.

Mr. Hain: I fully agree that recycling is the main solution to the problem. If we do not adopt a much more sensible response to waste disposal, we shall cover the entire landmass of Britain with landfill. That is why we are putting such emphasis on recycling and other innovative ways to dispose of waste.

Mr. Andrew Miller (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab): When I first became an MP 12 years ago, I never thought that unemployment in my constituency would drop below 2 per cent. It has done so as a result of fantastic partnerships between the private sector, local government and central Government. Will my right hon. Friend arrange for a debate on the role of central Government in that area, especially in the context of programmes such as the new deal?

---