Got a TV Licence?

You need one to watch live TV on any channel or device, and BBC programmes on iPlayer. It’s the law.

Find out more
I don’t have a TV Licence.


  1. The Commons began at 14.30 GMT with questions to Education Secretary Nicky Morgan and her ministerial team
  2. Questions were followed by a statement from David Cameron on last week's EU summit
  3. The day's main business was the examination of the Recall of MPs Bill in a committee of the whole House
  4. MPs rejected Conservative MP Zac Goldsmith's rival recall plan by 340 votes to 166
  5. DUP MP Ian Paisley closed the day with an adjournment debate on the closure of JTI Gallaher factory
  6. The government suffered three defeats in the House of Lords as peers voted against proposed changes to judicial review
  7. At the start of the day Lord Lennie and Baroness Pinnock were introduced as new peers
  8. Peers' questioned the government on academies' funding, the Green Climate Fund, the UN Security Council and the Troubled Families Programme
  9. The day's main business was the Criminal Justice and Courts Bill at report stage

Live Reporting

By Sam Francis and Pippa Simm

All times stated are UK

Conclusion of business in the Commons

The House of Commons has adjourned, which brings an end to our coverage of Monday's proceedings at Westminster.

MPs return at 11.30 GMT on Tuesday, when the main business will be dedicated to two Labour-led debates: on government policies on disabled people, and coalfield communities.

Government response

Northern Ireland Minister Dr Andrew Murrison is responding to the debate, led by Ian Paisley MP, on behalf of the government.

Adjournment debate

Earlier this month, JTI Gallaher

announced that the Ballymena factory would shut down by 2017, with the loss of nearly 900 jobs.

Tobacco has been manufactured on the site for over 150 years.

Lords recap

The government suffered three defeats in the House of Lords tonight over its proposed changes to judicial review, which came under sustained attack from senior legal figures.

Peers voted against proposals aimed at restricting the number of judicial review cases in an effort to save money and streamline the courts system.

The government can decide to ignore the Lords and re-instate its plans when the bill returns to the Commons for MPs to consider peers' changes.

But given the scale of opposition to their measures from all sides of the House - several senior Tory and Liberal Democrat peers defied their party today - they'll have to consider their next move carefully.

House of Lords finishes for the day

Lord Pannick withdraws his final amendment to the Criminal Justice and Courts Bill, which brings an end to the day in the House of Lords.

Peers will be back at 14.30 GMT on Tuesday, when the main business will be consideration of the Serious Crime Bill.

Adjournment debate

That brings day one of committee-stage scrutiny of the Recall of MPs Bill to a close, and attention turns to an adjournment debate on the closure of the JTI Gallagher factory. It is being led by the Democratic Unionist MP for North Antrim, Ian Paisley.

Goldsmith defeat

Zac Goldsmith loses the vote on his amendment, which is defeated by 340 to 166 - a majority of 174.

Amendment explanation

To recap, the amendment being voted on at the moment would rewrite the Recall of MPs Bill, replacing the government's recall provisions with a three stage, constituent-led process.

Final amendments

Lord Pannick withdraws his amendments and peers now move on to the final grouping to be debated at report stage of the Criminal Justice and Courts Bill.

Once they are completed peers will vote on whether to progress the bill to third reading, which will be it's final stage in the House of Lords.

Unlike the House of Commons, amendments can be made at third reading in the upper chamber, but this usually only happens if an issue has not been fully considered and voted on during either committee or report stage.

Government responds

Justice Minister Lord Faulks responds for the government, telling peers that 751 improper cases in 2012-13 received public aid.

Government changes to legal aid, made using the Lord Chancellor's right to make changes using secondary legislation, were designed to restore public "confidence and credibility" in the legal aid system, he adds.

Justice Minister Lord Faulks

Commons division

Zac Goldsmith takes the opportunity to make a last-minute appeal for support, before pressing for a vote on his amendment.

MPs begin to file out the chamber to register their vote in the Aye or No lobbies situated just outside the chamber.

Typically votes - known as 'divisions' - tend to take about 15 minutes. There must be four tellers at each vote, two to count the ayes and two to count the noes, who then announce the result.

UKIP MP Dogulas Carswell and Tory Peter Bone are acting on behalf of the ayes (i.e. those in favour of the amendment) while Tory Andrew Robathan and Lib Dem Ian Swales are tellers for the noes.

Government response

Sam Gyimah reiterates that the government will look at proposals for an electoral court, as proposed by Lib Dem MP David Heath.

In his concluding remarks, the minister tells MPs the government believes recall should be on the basis of conduct and serious wrongdoing by MPs.

Mr Gyimah criticises the system being proposed by Zac Goldsmith, which he predicts would leave voters "fed up" - and urges MPs to reject it.

Sam Gyimah

Government response

Cabinet Office Minister Sam Gyimah is responding to the debate - and the amendments proposed - on behalf of the government.

Labour response

Shadow political and constitutional reform minister Stephen Twigg sets out Labour's response to the amendments that have been proposed throughout the nearly five-hour debate.

He says David Heath MP's proposal - for a mechanism for the public to trigger recall through 100 constituents petitioning an Electoral Court in case of improper behaviour or gross dereliction of duty by an MP - merits further consideration, but needs a "significant refinement" to make it workable. Earlier, the government said it would consider the amendment.

Mr Twigg also informs the House that Labour will not force a vote on any of its amendments.

Lib Dem voice

Liberal Democrat peer Lord Phillips of Sudbury tells peers that removing the lord chancellor's ability to restrict legal aid is "absolutely essential".

The need for the average citizen to have access to legal aid "has never been remotely as great" as it is today, Lord Philips tells peers, due to "the stunning complexity and volume of the law".

Lord Phillips of Sudbury

Commons schedule

Committee stage of the Recall of MPs Bill is scheduled to conclude after the closing speeches by the government and opposition - which have just begun. A series of votes will then be held, including on Zac Goldsmith's rival recall plan.

'Dangerous' bill

Crispin Blunt, the Conservative MP for Reigate, is providing another voice against Zac Goldsmith's recall plans, which he brands "dangerous". His criticisms also extend to the government-backed bill.

Crispin Blunt MP

Legal aid concerns

Lord Pannick moves an amendment designed to prevent the lord chancellor, Chris Grayling, from using his powers to restrict legal aid in judicial review, after accusing Mr Grayling of attempting to rush through changes

using secondary legislation - sparing it detailed scrutiny.

"Restrictions on legal aid for judicial reviews are far too important a matter for secondary legislation," Lord Pannick tells peers.

Lord Pannick

Amendment to an amendment

Sir James Paice, a former Conservative minister, has tabled an amendment to an amendment - stay with me - to "narrow down" the field by which recall could be applied.

It would ensure a recall procedure could not be initiated on the basis of disagreement with an MP's political or personal views.

Sir James, the MP for South East Cambridgeshire, is standing down at the 2015 general election.

Limiting freedoms

Conservative MP Sir Edward Leigh criticises party colleague Zac Goldsmith's plan to leave the recall process entirely in the hands of voters as "extraordinarily dangerous". He fears it would undermine parliamentary privilege and limit MPs' freedom of speech.

Parliamentary privilege is one of the most ancient rights enshrined in British law and it has a very special place in British constitutional history. It means parliamentarians have the right to say whatever they like in Parliament and they can never be sued for libel for doing so.

Sir Edward has tabled his own amendment to ensure that no recall action can be initiated against an MP on the basis of what they say in the House of Commons, or how they vote.

Sir Edward Leigh MP

Government win

The government has won its first vote of the night, defeating Lord Pannick's amendment on Protective Cost Orders by 149 votes to 58, a government majority of 91.

Judicial review costs

Peers are debating amendments tabled by Lord Pannick to reverse government plans to restrict the use of cost-capping orders, which prevent judicial review cases exceeding a pre-set level of cost and protect a claimant from paying some or all of the other side's costs if their case is unsuccessful.

The plans are aimed at preventing what are described as unnecessary delays, and ensuring that the taxpayer is protected from spiralling court costs.

But critics claim that limiting protective costs orders, as they are known, would cause judicial review to become the privilege of the wealthy and effectively shield public bodies from proper scrutiny when they act unlawfully.

Bill scrutiny resumes

Peers are turning their attention back to the Criminal Justice and Courts Bill, which is being scrutinised at report stage. Lord Pannick kicks off proceedings, as he proposes another amendment relating to the government's judicial review reforms.

Vote breakdown

Update: Two former Conservative cabinet members voted to defeat the government's plans to deny a judicial review if the defendant - usually a public body - can show that it is "highly likely" that the action it took made no difference to the claimant's situation.

They included John Selwyn-Gummer, who sits as Lord Deben, and former Tory chancellor Lord Howe. Seventeen Liberal Democrat peers - including former party leader, Lord Steel, and Baroness Williams of Crosby - also voted for judges to keep their discretion over hearing judicial review applications.

Recall 'promoter'

In response to concerns about politically-motivated recall attempts, Conservative Anne Marie Morris is proposing a new clause to require the "promoter" of a recall process against an MP to provide a statement explaining their reasons for taking such action. It would also offer MPs a right of reply.

Labour concerns

Moving the motion, Labour health spokesman Lord Hunt of Kings Heath claims that whenever the government is pressed over problems in the NHS in England, or gaps in service, they point to "more effective commissioning" as the solution. But it is very difficult to see whether the performance of commissioning is being properly assessed in the current structure, he claims.

Labour's health spokesman Lord Hunt of Kings Heath

Motion to regret

Peers are now moving on to a Labour-tabled regret motion on the Care Quality Commission (Review and Performance Assessments) Regulations 2014.

The motion claims there is no provision for a regular assessment of performance by clinical commissioning groups and local authorities in the commissioning of health and social care, or for the NHS Commissioning Board in relation to specialty commissioning.

Manifesto promise

Some form of recall proposal was included in the three main Westminster parties' 2010 general election manifestos.

The Conservatives and Liberal Democrats committed to introducing the "power of recall" in the coalition programme for governance drawn up after the election.

Statement procedure

Important ministerial statements made in the House of Commons will sometimes be repeated in the Lords at an appropriate time to fit in with the main business.

Once the statement has been repeated, peers have an opportunity to question a government minister on its contents, as in the House of Commons.

Government response

Cabinet Office Minister Greg Clark is representing the government at the despatch box, and responds to the amendments moved by MPs.

Greg Clark MP

He says ministers are open to amendments to improve the bill, but argues that Zac Goldsmith's plan - which the government opposes - would mean the bill is "in effect sent back to the drawing board to start again".

Mr Clark adds that he will "reflect seriously" on David Heath's proposal for a third trigger in the recall process, in which 100 voters could petition an electoral court that their MP had committed misconduct in public office. Mr Clark said it "provides an answer" to the charge that MPs are "marking their own homework", while keeping the focus on misconduct.

'Asleep at the wheel'

Shadow leader of the House Baroness Royall of Blaisdon repeats Labour's accusations that the government would have known about the extra £1.7bn the UK has been asked to pay towards the European Union's budget.

Lady Royall tells peers the increased contribution could have been calculated using a formula published by the Office for National Statistics (ONS) during the summer. She accuses the government of being "asleep at the wheel" and says it is the British public who are "paying the price".

Baroness Royall of Blaisdon

Third government defeat

A third defeat of the night is inflicted on the government as peers accept Lord Pannick's amendment by 219 votes to 186.

The debate on the bill will now be suspended while government spokesman Baroness Stowell of Beeston repeats the statement on the EU council made by the prime minister in the House of Commons earlier today.

This will be followed by a Labour-tabled motion to regret the Care Quality Commission (Review and Performance Assessments) Regulations 2014.

A motion to regret, as they are known in the Lords, is a way for a peer to register their objection to some aspect of a statutory instrument, but it does not require the government to take action.

Not so rare recalls

Kevan Jones, the Labour MP for North Durham, is setting out his reasons for opposing Zac Goldsmith's rival recall plan.

Mr Jones contests the MP's assertion that recall would be rarely used, citing figures that show there were "at least 150 recalls" in the United States in 2011, with 30 in the state of Michigan alone.

He also rejects the notion that somehow the Westminster political system is "broken", and argues that most MPs "do their best for their constituencies".

Kevan Jones MP

Voting time

Peers have divided for a third time to vote on another of Lord Pannick's amendment. This one aims to reverse government plans to create a presumption that those who apply to the court to intervene in a judicial review case will have to pay their own costs.

The results are expected soon.

David Heath's amendments

Over to Liberal Democrat David Heath now to explain the group of amendments tabled in his name, which have cross-party support.

The Somerton and Frome MP says they offer a "new way" to give the public access to the recall process, so that it is independent of any parliamentary committee.

He proposes that a recall process could be triggered if one hundred constituents petition an Electoral Court in the event of "genuine misconduct" by an MP. If the court certified that "a prima facie case of misconduct has been made" a by-election could be held.

This would provide a filter for vexatious or party political claims, Mr Heath argues, but he notes there are some "significant" difficulties with the drafting of his proposals which he hopes could be addressed by report stage of the bill.

David Heath address the Commons

A third victory?

Fresh from his second victory over the government this evening, Lord Pannick is back on his feet and pushing for a third amendment.

He wants to reverse government plans to require those who apply to the court to intervene in a judicial review to pay their own costs, unless in "exceptional circumstances".

Under current rules any person who is interested in issues being considered in a judicial review can seek permission to intervene in the case, filing evidence or making representations. At the end of the proceedings the court decides who should bear the costs that arise from any intervention.

Lord Pannick's amendment would return the power to decide who bears the cost to the the High Court and the Court of Appeal, arguing that the current legal position is "fair and clear".

Government defeat

That's the second government defeat of the night as peers agree to crossbench peer Lord Pannick's amendment by 228 votes to 195, a majority of 33.

Another vote

Peers are now voting on another Lord Pannick amendment, aimed at curtailing the government's proposed changes to judicial review.

The government is proposing that applicants for judicial review should be required to provide information about their financial resources, in order to prevent people or groups bringing judicial review from evading costs they may be liable for, were they to lose. These financial declarations are not required in any other form of civil litigation.

Lord Pannick, who is a leading human rights QC working with judicial reviews, argues that if a claimant is able to show they have a legitimate case "they should not be further obstructed and deterred" by complex requests.

Labour concerns

Objecting to Zac Goldsmith's recall plan, Labour spokesman Thomas Docherty says the MP has been unable to "properly define" wrongdoing, which could open the door for well-funded campaign groups or vested interests to try to remove an MP "because they disagree with his or her view".

Labour proposals

Labour is proposing its own amendments designed to "strengthen" the bill, including a bid to ensure recall action could only be initiated against an MP in the instance of wrongdoing, rather than on the basis of their voting habits or political views.

A separate amendment - number 47 - would ensure that any MP convicted of making false expenses claims in future would be subject to recall. Thomas Docherty tells MPs that a "flagrant misuse of public funds by an elected representative is unacceptable".

Thomas Docherty