Politics live blog - Tuesday 2 November

8.59am: Good morning. Today Britain and France (ie David Cameron and Nicolas Sarkozy) will sign two new defence and security treaties signalling closer cooperation. Cameron told MPs yesterday the pact would not involve any loss of sovereignty. As my colleague Richard Norton-Taylor writes today : The treaties are the result of months of planning by officials, encouraged by the two leaders. Unlike the original entente cordiale, which was the product of mutual concern about a hostile power before the first world war, today's is the product of hard-headed pragmatism, designed to maximise each nation's military capabilities while saving money. It could lead to British and French planes flying from each other's aircraft carriers before the end of the decade, a joint expeditionary for and tests on nuclear warheads will be conducted jointly. Liam Fox, the defence secretary, insisted this morning that that the Conservatives had always backed co-operation on a national level. For any doubters, he insisted on BBC Radio 4's Today programme that it was not a question of British military assets "coming under the control of any other power than the United Kingdom". Fox said this deal works at two level: political and practical. The government wants to build on the fact that Sarkozy broke with French political tradition by taking France "back into the heart of Nato", which the government believes is good not only for Nato but for France and the UK too. Secondly, the two countries are responsible for about 50% of defence spending within EU countries, and 65% of the research and development funding, so "it makes a lot of sense" for the two to work together "where we can" to ensure value for money and greater "interoperability". Fox said: We've always been in favour of inter-co-operation if it's on a nation-to-nation basis, not if it falls as a supra-national issue, ie under the European Union. The difference is that defence has to be a sovereign capability. If we decide to make a defence deal with France, where we operate together when it's in our interest to do so but retain our capabilities to act independently when our nations require it, that's very different from having a European commission rule in our defence. Today's summit takes place at Lancaster House, rather than Downing Street. Sarkozy will arrive around 11am before joining the prime minister for bilateral talks for an hour. Then I understand they're going to join a meeting led by Nick Clegg for half an hour before the two leaders hold a joint press conference at 12.45pm, which we'll be covering here. A Downing Street spokesman said yesterday Cameron was looking forward to it. This summit marks a deepening of the UK-France bilateral relationship. Ours is now a strategic partnership tackling together the biggest challenges facing our two countries. How we take forward on cooperation on defence, based on a hard-headed and practical assessment of our national interests, is high on the agenda. On other fronts, news that the coalition set to confirm it is ready to change law to remove voting ban on more than 70,000 inmates of British jails is likely to prove divisive. More on that later. 9.35am: The Treasury select committee is taking evidence on the spending review this week. Tomorrow it will be Danny Alexander, chief secretary to the Treasury, and on Thursday it will be his boss, George Osborne. But today, the committee are going to hear from John Philpott, chief economist at the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development, who brings grim news, namely that the government's austerity measures will cost more than 1.6 million jobs over the next five years with the private sector taking the biggest hit. The CIPD has calculated that the impact of the government's spending cuts, and the imminent rise in VAT, on the nation's workforce will be greater than officially estimated. Research by CIPD has found that around 900,000 jobs will be lost from the private sector, with another 725,000 jobs expected to be cut across the public sector - the latter figure being far higher than the already dismal figure of 495,000 public sector job losses forecast by the Office for Budget Responsibility. Philpott will give evidence at today's session, which begins at 9.45am. Other witnesses include representatives from the TUC, the Confederation for British Industry, Citizens' Advice and the National Housing Federation. The spending review hasn't done much for the Tories' popularity, according to the latest poll. A ComRes survey in the Independent puts the Tories down five points since a similar poll a fortnight ago. They are now on 35%, trailing Labour on 37% (up three points on two weeks ago). It was the first time a survey by pollsters ComRes has put Labour in the lead since Gordon Brown's 2007 "bounce" when a surge in popularity led him to consider a snap election. And it was the second mainstream poll for a national newspaper to show the Tories slipping behind Labour since the 20 October spending review, in which Osborne announced £81bn in public spending cuts. Liberal Democrats were up two points since a fortnight ago, on 16%. But the poll also had bad news for the Lib Dem leader, Nick Clegg, finding that just 60% of voters who backed his party in the May general election would do so again, while 27% said they would switch to Labour. By contrast, 95% of those who voted Tory in May and 93% of those who backed Labour would do the same again if an election was held now. 9.46am: I've just noted details of a survey on PA whose findings suggest that having more money is still the key to happiness for most people. The BBC Radio 3 survey revealed that 63% of people feel they need a salary of £40,000 or more to be happy and 68% would need a better salary to make them happier in their employment. In addition, money was the one thing that would make 50% of respondents happier overnight – far outweighing spending more time with family, which was the top priority for only 9% of participants, better health (9%) or a new job (8%). 9.57am: I said earlier I would return to fact that the voting ban on UK prisoners is to be lifted. David Cameron is reportedly very unhappy about this but appears to have little choice because government lawyers have advised that failure to comply with a 2004 ECHR ruling could cost the taxpayer hundreds of millions of pounds in litigation costs and compensation. The Daily Telegraph reported that the ban could be retained for murderers and others serving life sentences and that judges may be given responsibility for deciding which criminals should be allowed to vote when they are sentenced. Responsibility for prisoners' voting rights was moved from Ken Clarke's justice ministry to the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister , which is in charge of electoral reform, last July. Joshua Rozenberg wrote an informative piece about the ban on Comment is free a couple of weeks ago in which he reminded us that the Liberal Democrats are known to be more enthusiastic about allowing prisoners to vote than the Conservatives. Jon Collins, campaign director for the Criminal Justice Alliance, which represents almost 50 organisations, said the decision was "long overdue". He warned that the last government's failure to remove the ban could saddle the coalition with compensation claims. It is more than six years since the European court of human rights ruled that the UK's disenfranchisement of all sentenced prisoners is illegal, yet that ban remains in place. The government cannot pick and choose which court decisions it complies with, and the failure to end the ban on prisoners voting ahead of this year's general election is likely to result in successful claims for compensation and significant legal costs. Delaying the decision any longer will simply lead to more legal wrangling at additional cost to the taxpayer. The UK's ban on prisoners voting serves no useful purpose, while damaging efforts to rehabilitate prisoners and reduce reoffending. Voting is a right, not a privilege, and the government is doing the right thing by acting now to overturn this outdated and illegal ban. John Hirst, who was convicted of manslaughter and took the case to the European court of human rights, told BBC Radio 4's Today programme: The whole thing about this is that in this system where you've got a democracy, that people can put pressure and lobby in parliament for changes in the law and improved conditions, but you can't do that if you haven't got the vote. All prisoners can do is riot, if they've got a complaint, so you've got to give them this legitimate channel to bring their issue in. 10.09am: I'm going to dip into the Treasury select committee. Philpott is in front of the panel now (see 9.35am). He says one thing that isn't in the spending review, and perhaps ought to be, is more regionally targeted support for businesses. He suggests there should be an increase in loan guarantees, for example. How much depends on how many small and medium businesses are covered in the region. What's the value of this supply side measure. Philpott is asked. He says for it to work it would have to be a fiscal stimulus over and above what is on the table, to avoid adverse consequences. He mentions a figure of £5bn a year for the next two or three years. So what would he be prepared to cut? He says he wouldn't be looking at the cut side, but at raising taxes. What those would be could be a variety of things. Green taxation, for example. Andrew Tyrie, the Conservative MP for Chichester, says you're proposing a tax on energy to fund regional support for businesses. Philpott is trying to establish what he thinks but Tyrie cuts him off. Philpott gets a word in finally. He would support energy taxes, yes. You have to look at the long term. A lot of work has been done to show switching taxation away from labour and onto pollution has merits. 10.17am: Lib Dem John Thurso asks Ian McCafferty, chief economist at the CBI, whether the government is right to scrap regional development agencies. McCafferty says perhaps some of their expenditure was wasteful and some were better than others. McCafferty thinks spending on infrastructure tends to yield good returns for the economy. What about small businesses, is the government spending enough on helping them? Over to Priyen Patel, policy adviser for economic affairs at the Federation of Small Businesses. He points out that the regional growth fund announced last week by Vince Cable, is less than the amount regional development agencies were getting before. Patel says on equity side, the government could do more. RDAs were quite good at that. He welcomes the bank taskforce looking at equity finance that allows small businesses to be more confident about accessing such funding and leveraging private finance. 10.23am: Adam Lent, chief economist at the TUC, says there is a gap in major public investment and says he is concerned that not enough is being done on capital spending. Patel makes the link between infrastructure investment and the growth of jobs, including from exporting and importing. McCafferty says of course it would be great to have more capital spending, but you have to be realistic. And he welcomes the fact that where infrastructure investment has been made, transport has fared well. It could have been a lot worse, he says. 10.32am: Lent, says it was a serious mistake of the previous government to cut capital spending, and the coalition government has gone down the same road. David Rutley MP asks whether plans to centralise government purchasing contracts will make it more difficult for smaller businesses. Patel says yes they would be worried if there was a bias towards giving all government contracts to the largest bidders. 10.34am: A question to Philpott and his claims around job losses (see 9,35am). He says past predictions by his organisation have been proven to be right in terms of the hit on the Labour market. Michael Fallon takes him to task over previous predictions. The Tory MP dismisses Philpott's claims about public sector job losses and says, slightly contemptuously, that gathering evidence from public sector managers is "not data". He tells him that his information is "less reliable than a dead octopus". Philpott defends himself robustly, but Fallon doesn't recant on his claims that there isn't much substance to claims made on qualitative data. Fallon keeps trying to say that Philpott is tacitly admitting it's nonsense, but he makes clear he agrees no such thing. 10.43am: Tyrie, another Conservative, asks whether he thinks it was a good idea to send out a press release just before the select committee warning of the impact of the VAT rise and the spending cuts (see 9.35am). Philpott says it's important to have discussions about the possible impact. Tyrie asks about the predicted 12% loss in jobs. Did he consider that as a first and second round effect? Philpott says it was over five years. Tyrie interrupts him to ask him whether when he conducted the survey it was a first round effect. I think he means the first year of the spending review? Philpott says yes, the second round effect could be "more or less". He says 40% of its 135,000 membership work in the public sector, so the information was gathered from that sample. 10.49am: Why does Philpott think the impact on public sector jobs is going to be higher? Philpott says on the Office for Budget Responsibility's forecast, the evidence his own organisation has compiled suggests a heavy impact on management and administrative posts, which has not been factored in. Administration and management cost account for around a quarter of public sector funding, he says. Even in the NHS, which has a ringfenced budget, there is a target of cutting administration costs by a third. Mark Garnier MP tells him evidence heard by the committee yesterday on this front suggested that administration cuts could prove beneficial overall. He then takes his turn on giving Philpott a lecture on his "scattergun" evidence. Philpott ignores the dig and says he will look at the OBR forecast and will broadly agree with the estimates they come up with. I will adjust my view in the light of that, he says. Garnier asks the other witnesses what they think. McCafferty says it is difficult to make such forecasts. The CBI view is to look at other periods of economic austerity. 10.54am: The TUC's Adam Lent admits that it is difficult to forecast what will happen. Will the job losses be absorbed by the private sector? Maybe they will, but unlike the CBI I wouldn't look back at the last two recessions and then project forward. After the 1990s recession, it took nine and a half years to create 2 million jobs, for example. And in both previous recessions, finance and public spending aided recovery. He's not convinced it will happen this time. Over to Patel, who says it takes time for those who lose jobs in the public sector to move over to the private sector. He mentions, as the CBI did, the issue of skills and regional mismatch. 10.57am: I'm going to leave the Treasury select committee. My colleague Graeme Wearden will be reporting on this later. 11.17am: The French president has just arrived at Lancaster house to be greeted by the prime minister. They've just gone in for that all important chat. 11.37am: More on the figures produced by the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development, which warns that cuts in public spending announced in last month's comprehensive spending review (CSR) and the rise in the standard rate of VAT to 20% due in January 2011 will result in the loss of almost 1.6 million jobs across the UK economy by 2015-16, with the private sector hit harder than the public sector. The release was issued on the day that its chief economic adviser, Dr John Philpott, gave evidence to the Treasury select committee. The CIPD tells me that its analysis was drawn from its quarterly labour market analysis, and additional work conducted by Philpott. Douglas Alexander (left), Labour's shadow work and pensions secretary, seized on the findings to warn that it reinforces the risks the government are taking with growth and jobs. Alexander said: With large-scale cuts to public sector jobs and direct knock on effects in the private sector, there are real concerns that this government is failing to take the action necessary to support the creation of enough jobs in the economy and to get unemployment down. We know that a rising dole queue means a higher welfare bill – even on the more modest OBR figures, the price of the government's action has already been shown to be an extra £700m spent on jobseeker's allowance alone. 12.34pm: Le Monde's report on today's summit appears to say that the French presidency has explained the military cooperation being signed off today between Britain and France as an opportunity to share development costs and enable them to be competitive "vis a vis" the US. But, like the British briefing, the report makes clear that each country's independence will not be compromised as a result of the deal. 12.41pm: Cameron and Sarkozy have just sat down for the signing session, to the click of cameras in the room.They've just exchanged the documents with a mutual smile to each other. Jim Murphy, the shadow defence secretary, was on the BBC just now expressing reservations. He hasn't seen the documents yet, but said it's right that Labour ask the big questions. He's worried about the long tie-in – 50 years – which he points out is a lengthy period of time. He's also worried about the issue of sovereignty, and what happens if the two countries don't agree on deployment. Who arbitrates on that? I'll come back to him later. Cameron has started speaking. 12.51pm: The two leaders are standing at two podiums with a meter of blue backdrop between them. Cameron says the events of the last 72 hours have shown the common ground between the two countries as he highlights closer cooperation. He cites the recent terrorist threat that emerged from Yemen. Armed forces will work closer together than ever before, with closer cooperation on nuclear weapons. This will allow them to strengthen their defences. This is not about weakening or pooling British and French sovereignty, or sharing nuclear deterrents, he says. He points to recent military operations that have been conducted as allies. Britain and France are natural partners, he says. France is a logical and practical partner. Both countries have a willingness and capability to play their part in international affairs. He rattles through a number of elements, which my colleagues have set out here earlier , for example a "combined joint expeditionary force" at brigade level under a British or French commander. The joint force would consist of troops already in each country's national armies and would only come together in the event of a crisis or emergency. Any decision to deploy the force would be taken jointly by the two governments. Cameron outlines other elements before concluding that the treaties are based on pragmatism. He hands over to Sarkozy, who claims an "exceptional relationship" with Britain (it's a bit hard to hear him because the volume is up for both Sarkozy's French and a translator speaking over the top). Sarkozy says the decision to adopt closer military cooperation is evidence of a confidence between the two nations unequalled in history. He refers to the joint expeditionary force, which will be able to undertake operations in the event of a crisis. He says the decision to maintain just one carrier able to take aircraft is very significant, he says. (The coalition government last month gave the go-ahead to two new large carriers for the navy, but planes will be able to fly from just one – the Prince of Wales – in 10 years' time. French Rafaele warplanes could fly from the Prince of Wales and British US-built joint strike fighters could be flown from the French carrier, the Charles de Gaulle. The ships will be maintained and refitted in their home countries.) Sarkozy says the decision is bold, historic and an opportunity to make savings. The two leaders will go to the Nato summit with a shared vision. No one would gain from the French and British being divided, he points out. 1.04pm: Sarkozy points to other common-ground issues that require co-operation, such as human trafficking going through France and Britain. The French president is referring to other areas where he wants Britain and France to work a bit more hand in glove, such as the G20. (How's Cameron's French I wonder? Cameron has a bit of a forced smile on his face, which I think is due to having to listen to the interpretation through an earpiece.) Questions from the media. Nick Robinson of the BBC is raising the thorny issue of what happens if the two countries have different military priorities. I think he was referring to the aircraft carrier issue. Cameron said the two countries would jointly commit to a taskforce if they were jointly committed to a mission. He lists a number of areas where there has been a joint view of a situation in the past, such as the Balkans. He says this deal reduces pressures on budgets and allows each country to do more, together and alone. Sarkozy says to Robinson that the two countries live on the same planet. He seems to reject the idea that such a conflict would arise in the face of a crisis. Cameron is lobbed another question allowing him to underline the benefits of these treaties. The next question is on the length of time that the two countries will be locked into the deal: 50 years. Are you sure you can trust the French, Cameron is asked. The prime minister says both countries have independent nuclear deterrents as an insurance policy. But it's obviously a huge financial commitment. With nuclear deterrents you do have to plan 50 years ahead and the more we can share the costs the better, he says. He refers to one of the two treaties signed today, on nuclear co-operation, which will combine the work testing nuclear warheads conducted at the atomic weapons research establishment at Aldermaston, Berkshire, and at its French equivalent at Valduc, Brittany. Aldermaston will concentrate on developing technology while Valduc will do the computerised testing. Cameron points out this is mutually beneficial. (Britain and France have different kinds of nuclear warheads and officials emphasised that the proposed co-operation would be limited to simulated construction and safety tests which, officials noted, cost a great deal of money.) 1.09pm: Over to Sarkozy, who also makes the case for a long-term commitment. We have to think out of the box and rely on common sense. He says to those who point out the US have more aircraft carriers, that so do the Russians. As France and Britain seek to maintain their capability, he can't see the logic of the two countries pursuing the same goals alone where they can efficiently join forces (pardon the pun). This is about two major military powers in Europe, and it will benefit Europe, he says. 1.21pm: A French journalist has just asked about the terrorist threat. Cameron says the terrorist alert is reviewed regularly and is currently quite high. The government is working extremely hard with its counterpart in Yemen and has to work on all levels: diplomatic, domestic security etc. There is no one single answer. You have to go for it on all fronts. He refers to the Cobra meeting he chaired yesterday, and stresses that, alongside economic recovery, this is his priority. Over to Sarkozy. The journalist refers to a letter bomb sent to the French president and his wife Carla Bruni-Sarkozy recently. But Sarkozy does not dwell on that other than to say the police are looking into it. He says he is having a security meeting tomorrow. That ends the Q&A. The two leaders are now off for lunch. 1.27pm: Here is a lunchtime summary . • David Cameron and Nicolas Sarkozy have reassured the press that closer defence co-operation as outlined in two treaties signed today makes sense – not least in terms of defence savings. But both underlined that this did not amount in any way to the pooling of the respective nations' sovereignty. They also defended the long lifespan of the treaties: 50 years. • Cameron said that a new joint expeditionary taskforce would have "troops who will train and exercise together". He also confirmed the UK's new aircraft carriers would be adapted so they could operate with French and American planes, and so that a joint UK-France integrated carrier strike group could be deployed. The two countries would also work together on equipment and capabilities, such as unmanned aerial vehicles and technology needed to counter threats from cyberspace. • On co-operation over the countries' nuclear arsenals, Cameron said a new joint facility would be built. The prime minister said: While we will always retain an independent nuclear deterrent, it is right we look for efficiencies in the infrastructure required to develop and sustain our separate deterrents. Rather than both countries building identical and expensive facilities to ensure the safety of our nuclear weapons, we will build together a joint facility, jointly owned and jointly managed, sharing our knowledge and expertise and saving millions of pounds. • Sarkozy hailed the decision on the two treaties, claiming that it reflected a level of trust and confidence between the two countries "unequalled" in history. He said the the treaties would deliver "a truly integrated aircraft carrier group", but reassured the press that the French were as touchy as the British about the notion that their sovereignty could be infringed in any way. Pressed on a scenario where the two nations were at odds over intervention, Sarkozy said it would be unlikely that Britain could face the kind of crisis that required the deployment of an aircraft carrier without it affecting France. The French president said: We are not identical; there are many things on which we don't agree and I know that there is the Channel between our two countries. However, our values are the same, we share the same values, our interests are fair. All my political life I have argued in favour of rapprochement between London and Paris. He went on to say: "If you, my British friends, have to face a major crisis, could you imagine France simply sitting there, its arms crossed, saying that it's none of our business?" • Asked for his views on the British rebate from the European Union, Sarkozy said he and Cameron did not agree on "every single minutest detail". "We've talked about it, we've had discussions, we're agreed on one thing, which is that we have to talk about our problems in order to find solutions together," the French president said. "I know the common agricultural policy is not the most popular thing here in Britain. But let me also share something with you: the British rebate is not something that basically brings the French that much closer to the British. "But we need to talk about it, as friends, as allies, as people who are responsible, as adults. I can see what Mr Cameron's red lines are and he knows perfectly well what the French government's red lines are." He said they had agreed to talk about their positions in order to find "common compromises". 1.43pm: Downing Street is sending out the treaty declarations, now signed. We'll put them up shortly. I'm off for a bit. À tout à l'heure. 2.38pm: The two treaties have come through: one is a UK-France declaration on immigration (pdf) which sets out the "firm determination" of both countries to fight against illegal immigration and against traffickers who exploit migrants and organise the trade in human beings. The then prime minister, Gordon Brown, agreed at the Evian summit in 2009 to step up the two countries' joint efforts to combat illegal immigration network. This document basically underlines a renewed determination to tackling illegal immigration and trafficking, but there is no new policy announcement in there. The other declaration is the one which has been widely trailed over the last few days covering defence and security co-operation (pdf) . It highlights the "many common interests and responsibilities of the two nations and an unprecedented level of mutual confidence between the two nations. Co-operation spans the sharing and pooling of materials and equipment through mutual interdependence, the building of joint facilities, mutual access to each other's defence and markets, and industrial and technological co-operation. The combined joint expeditionary force will see personnel join forces for a range of scenarios. The declaration covers cyber security, counterterrorism, and international security. 2.55pm: I see that the question of prisoners' voting rights will be discussed in the House of Commons today, after Speaker John Bercow granted an urgent question from the shadow justice secretary, Sadiq Khan. Conservative MP Robert Buckland, a member of the Commons justice committee, was on the radio at lunchtime to say he was "deeply disappointed" at the prospect of prisoners being allowed to vote. He told BBC Radio 4's World at One: "The loss of liberty is a punishment and voting is the ultimate expression of liberty. I think that with imprisonment should come the loss of the right to vote. If the government do have to accept this, then I would call upon them to limit it as much as possible." Voting could be restricted, for example, to those offenders sentenced by magistrates' courts, which can impose no more than six months' imprisonment, suggested the Swindon South MP, adding: "Extending it to more serious crime would be an affront to decent citizens." But the justice committee's Liberal Democrat chairman, Sir Alan Beith, told BBC News: "The real deprivation of liberty is locking somebody up. We believe in the rule of law and we signed up to the European convention on human rights half a century ago in order to make the rule of law prevail throughout Europe. We can't say, when we lock someone up, 'You have to obey the law and stay in prison but we are not going to obey the law because we are going to take away your right to vote'." Meanwhile, Mark Pack challenges the claim that prisoners have been banned from voting for 140 years. He says the ban was removed for a couple of years during the 1960s, when the Criminal Law Act 1967 and the Criminal Law Act (Northern Ireland ) 1967 abolished the division between felonies and misdemeanors and, as a result, removed that ban on voting in parliamentary elections. He writes: This was not an accidental oversight but followed a specific recommendation from the Criminal Law Review Committee in the mid-1960s that the specific penalties for felonies, such as being banned from voting for Parliament, did not need to be continued via other means. ban was however restored by the Representation of the People Act 1969. Oddly, it did not restore the ban on prisoners standing for election, which had also been rescinded in 1967; that was to become a political hot issue in the 1980s with the IRA. 3.21pm: The BBC has just reported that a suspicious package has been found at German chancellor Angela Merkel's offices. This comes a day after Greek police intercepted a booby-trapped parcel addressed to Sarkozy , after another package exploded at a courier company in Athens. Hopefully we will know more about the suspicious package in a bit. 3.23pm: Back to the joint UK/French pact outlined today. There appears some unease about the deal. Conservative MP Bernard Jenkin, a former shadow defence secretary, didn't hold back when he said the France has a "long track record" on duplicity. He made this point in a lunchtime interview when he was explaining that while he's all for tactical co-operation, yes, a line needs to be drawn because "we need to recognise that France has never and is never likely to share the same strategic priorities as the UK" "There is a long track-record of duplicity on the French part. When it comes to dealing with allies, we should never be under any illusion. The French act in what they see as their strategic interests," he told told BBC Radio 4's World at One. Jenkin also questioned whether France would make an aircraft carrier available for an operation like the relief of the Falklands, and warned that the US might "cut off" intelligence co-operation with the UK if it appeared secrets were being shared with Paris. It was left to Liberal Democrat peer and former leader Lord Ashdown to point out that the French may view the British as just as capable of being duplicitous. Ashdown is signed up to today's deal but he warned it may not please everyone. "Paris's view and long-term aims on this will be inimical to many in the Conservative party, including maybe our defence secretary." Jim Murphy, the shadow defence secretary, complained that parliament had been "kept in the dark". He said: "I welcome greater co-operation with France on defence matters; it is crucial for our national security. But it is wrong that parliament has been kept in the dark on issues with significant constitutional and national security implications. "It is right that the secretary of state is summoned to parliament to tell MPs of all parties detail of this fundamental issue." The treaties will be discussed in the House of Commons today, after Speaker John Bercow accepted an urgent question from Murphy. 3.43pm: The expected lifting of ban on prisoners voting has come up in the house. Sadiq Khan, the shadow justice secretary, has complained that this was pre-announced outside parliament. He is also annoyed that Nick Clegg, the deputy prime minister, is not there to discuss it in the Commons. He sets out a number of questions on the back of this morning's report. Will it be lifted for the most serious prisoners? Will it cover referendums? He notes that David Cameron is not happy about this situation, and Khan says it's being "imposed". Mark Harper, a Cabinet Office minister, responds to Khan to say all the media reports say that the government is prepared to comply with the law. It's true, as Khan says, that David Cameron is frustrated by this. He goes on to point out that the previous government failed to do anything about this for five years. The coalition government has been left in a position where prisoners will be able to vote and also to sue for damages (they weren't able to vote in the 2010 general election.) Yet again, these two parties, he says, pointing to his Tory and Lib Dem colleagues, are left to sort out the mess. Harper says this is not a choice, but an obligation, and the government will reveal how it intends to apply with the judgment. To recap the context, ministers are set to tell the court of appeal tomorrow that they do intend to lift the ban on convicted prisoners voting in UK elections to avoid a test case ruling that could see millions of pounds of compensation paid out to disenfranchised inmates. But the announcement is unlikely to spell out exactly how exemptions under the new system of prisoner voting will work.T he decision stems from a ruling by the European court of human rights five years ago that the blanket ban on 70,000 convicted prisoners in British jails was unlawful as a result of a case brought by John Hirst, who served a sentence for manslaughter. The failure of successive governments to do anything about the Strasbourg ruling since 2005 has led to repeated censure and demands for action from the Council of Europe, which oversees the Strasbourg human rights court. It is the longest outstanding unimplemented ruling involving Britain. 3.49pm: Mark Pritchard, Tory MP for Wrekin, asks: doesn't this mean it's time to scrap the Human Rights Act and put in place a bill of rights? Harper says even if the act were scrapped tomorrow, the government would still have to apply the judgment. Harper says Labour was in power for five years after the judgment was made, and did nothing. 3.50pm: Andrea Leadsom, another Conservative, asks what would happen if the government did nothing about this? Harper says the UK government signed up to the convention 60 years ago, and has to act accordingly. 4.00pm: There is concern about whether all prisoners will get the vote. Harper repeats that ministers are considering how to apply this. The view that having the right to vote is part of one's liberty has been raised by Robert Buckland, who was on radio earlier making the same point. There are also questions about how the general election results in constituencies might have been different if all those votes had counted. The idea that prisoners might get compensation for having been denied the vote has infuriated some. Then there is the question of whether the issue will be put to a free vote. Frank Dobson, Labour MP for Holborn and St Pancras, says it's odd to prioritise a bill on giving prisoners the right to vote rather than getting 3.5 million people eligible to vote onto the register. ( Allegra Stratton wrote about the missing millions of voters yesterday ) 4.19pm: Harper tells Dobson surely the previous government bears some responsibility for the fact that 3.5 million citizens are not registered to vote. He says ministers are neither happy or pleased about this but "we have to do it". And he won't be answering at this stage on which category of prisoners will be affected and which not. The debate finishes and we segue into the main issue of the day, the new entente between France and British. Fox first pays tribute to Sapper William Blanchard, a British Territorial Army soldier who was shot dead in Afghanistan, before highlighting some of the key points of the defence and security cooperation deal. He tells MPs achieving the envisaged level of cooperation will take time, and may involve new ways of working. He stresses that closer working with France is not at the expense of other relationships ie with the US, with Germany. Quite the reverse. It will make partnerships stronger. 4.44pm: Fox then bats questions from all parties. Jim Murphy, the shadow defence secretary, welcomeS the broad commitment to close co-operation but he wants more details. Bob Ainsworth, the former Labour defence secretary, welcomes the co-operation too, but he asks about the balance and costs of the deal. Fox said some of the information is sensitive due to contracts but he claims millions will be saved as a result of the deal. Sir Stuart Bell seems very much in favour and highlights all the merits of the arrangement, allowing Fox the pleasure of agreeing with him today. Some on Fox's own side want reassurances they aren't seeing the first steps to a European army. One hundred per cent not, says Fox, who seems to be experiencing more resistance from some fellow Conservatives than the opposition. Bernard Jenkin thinks the French and British strategic views are completely at odds, pointing to Fox to insist instead that there is a "huge overlap". 4.46pm: And that's it for today. Join us tomorrow for the next round of Miliband v Cameron at prime minister's questions, and Danny Alexander at the Treasury select committee, among other things. Andrew Sparrow will be back in the hot seat.