Courts should regard sending offenders to jail as a last resort, according to the the cross-party Justice Committee.

The SNP have been urged to reconsider plans to build a “super jail” near Peterhead

The MPs called for a radical shift in penal policy and described Government prison building plans, which will cost £4.24 billion, as a “costly mistake”.

The report, Cutting Crime: The Case For Reinvestment, called for millions of pounds to be diverted from prisons to programmes aimed at rehabilitating offenders and getting addicts off drugs and alcohol.

The committee chairman, Liberal Democrat MP Alan Beith, said: “Prisons are needed, and some very dangerous people need to be locked up for a very long time, but prison is no answer, for example, to persistent crimes driven by addiction.

“Long prison sentences do not make safer streets. Achieving the highest prison population in western Europe will not cut crime.”

There are currently around 84,000 prisoners in England and Wales, more than double the level of the early 1990s and the highest rate per head of population in western Europe. Reducing the total by a third would leave 56,000 inmates in jail and put 28,000 offenders on the streets.

Justice Secretary Jack Straw has committed to increasing the capacity to 96,000 by 2014. Female prisoners, repeat low-level offenders, drug and alcohol addicts and prisoners will mental illnesses should be let out first, said the report.

Community punishments would lead to fewer repeat offenders and cut the need for prison in the long term, it added.

Prison reform groups welcomed the report. Juliet Lyon, director of the Prison Reform Trust, said there was a “national addiction” to imprisonment. “Prison should no longer be treated as a free good and must be used sparingly,” she said.

By Cara Sulieman

MORE jobs could go as another big name company considers scaling back their operations.

With 412 employees, Jus-Rol has been the largest employer in Berwick since 100 new jobs were created there three years ago.

But because of a lull in the frozen pastry market, the company behind the brand – General Mills – say they are considering down-sizing the plant.

A spokesman said that they would try a range of cost-saving measures before resorting to redundancies.

“Relatively small”

But they warned: “General Mills Berwick Ltd (Jus-Rol) has announced to its workforce and union representatives that it will be entering into an official period of 30-day consultation to realign its business.

“One of the resulting options may involve a relatively small number of redundancies.

“This period of consultation will commence in early September, involve representatives of all affected employees and include regular communications to all employees.

“In recent years, our Jus-Rol business has consistently grown each year and remains strong despite a very challenging market place.

“However, in this period of persistent recession, sales have fallen slightly below forecast and that has led to higher stock levels with no apparent prospect of a sales upturn in the foreseeable future.

“We are now forced to consider how best to reduce production output in line with projected future sales levels.”

Remain viable

But despite their promises to minimise redundancies, politicians are worried about the effect it will have on the local economy.

Sir Alan Beith, Liberal Democrat MP for Berwick upon Tweed, said: “Any redundancies at the Jus-Rol plant are worrying.

“But the most important thing is for the factory to remain viable and to continue as a major source of employment and quality food producer in Berwick.”

The Jus-Rol puff pastry became famous in the 1950s after launching its first easy use product, and since expanded to manufacture shortcrust and filo pastry, pastry cases, sausage rolls and sweet deserts.

They specialise in the frozen section of the market but have suffered from the increased popularity of fresh pastry products.

See more of our pictures at our Flickr site and videos at our dedicated channel,  Deadline TV.

A Justice Committee report commends the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) for its collaborative working with the police, but raised concerns about a series of issues including consistency and the piecemeal way in which its functions are developing.

Sir Alan Beith, Chairman of the Justice Committee, said:

“The Crown Prosecution Service has come a long way since the early days in which it was much criticised, but it has taken on wider responsibilities, particularly in areas like conditional cautions, without there being a clear understanding of its role.

“It also has a difficult balance to strike between being a local community service with local discretion and a service which has central direction to maintain standards and ensure consistency.

“As the gatekeeper of the criminal justice system it needs to be robustly independent.”

The Committee welcomes CPS efforts to engage better with victims and witnesses, and calls for a major effort to do this consistently, but the Report says that government proclamations that the prosecutor is the champion of victims’ rights are “a damaging misrepresentation of reality” and risk raising expectations which will “inevitably be disappointed”.

The CPS, says the report, should be an independent arbiter representing the public as a whole rather than individuals.

The Committee was “deeply concerned” that victims and witnesses with mental health problems were often not recognised by prosecutors to be potentially credible witnesses, or provided with special measures to enable them to do so.

The Committee says people do not have a clear picture of the place of the Crown Prosecution Service within the criminal justice system.

Historically it has been seen as the minor partner, the handmaiden, to other organisations such as the police.

In reality, the decisions made by prosecutors are pivotal. They are the gatekeepers, determining which cases go forward into the system to be prosecuted at public expense.

Click here to read the report.

The Justice Select Committee’s report also condemned the number of unelected peers working as ministers and said the Commons needs fundamental reform.

The report said the recent Parliamentary Standards Bill, while a laudable attempt at restoring confidence, “should serve as a warning about the dangers of undertaking reform too quickly, and without adequate consultation to enable a full and thorough investigation of the constitutional implications.”

Reform must be underpinned by a set of constitutional principles and that individual reforms cannot be treated in isolation.

For example, the possibility of a written constitution, mooted by the Prime Minister, involves fundamental issues about the sovereignty of Parliament, the nature of the monarchy, the role of the judiciary and the rights of the citizen.

These issues require thorough debate.

The Committee said the experience of the passage of the Parliamentary Standards Bill offers broader lessons in terms of parliamentary and constitutional reform.

“The inappropriate handling of bills and proposals for reform specifically designed to restore public trust may further undermine that trust.”

The Committee said local government in England remains “relatively weak” with central government free to make major changes to local authorities without constitutional restraint – as illustrated by the abolition of the Greater London Council and metropolitan counties under a previous government and the imposition of unitary authorities by the present government.

This raises the question of whether the powers and structures of local government should be safeguarded in a written constitution.

The Committee drew attention to the eleven life peers appointed by the Prime Minister in order for them to become ministers, which, together with the phasing out of hereditary peers “accentuates the trend” toward an appointed second chamber, contrary to the view expressed by the three main parties and the House of Commons.

It said this is likely to lead to an “unsustainable” continuous trend in future governments to appoint peers in order to rebalance the numbers.

On reforming the House of Commons the Committee says the three key areas to consider are:

* The near total control of the Order Paper which determines the House’s business each day;

* The dual role of the Leader of the House as the main channel for all House business and as a member of the executive;

* The fact that the House itself has no mechanism for introducing effective motions relating to business and timing other than through the Leader of the House.

The Committee said the House of Commons needs its own ‘voice’.

It expects that the new committee on commons reform will examine the case for a business committee – without an automatic government majority – to carry out this function.

Chairman of the Justice Select Committee, Sir Alan Beith, said:

“While we welcome the Government’s interest in constitutional reform and renewal, and its desire to restore public trust in Parliament and the political process, we cannot have rushed and piecemeal changes which will affect the way our country is governed for generations to come, and we need a process in which the public is genuinely involved.

“The Parliamentary Standards Bill, as first presented, illustrated the dangers of party leaders, in an understandable response to public anger, getting involved in a “bidding war” on constitutional change.

“Issues like a written constitution, reform of the electoral system, how England should be governed following devolution, and the relationship of Parliament and the Executive, require wide consultation and careful consideration.

“Instead we are seeing a rush to legislate, and other changes – for example through the appointment of so many life peers to serve as Ministers – which run counter to the direction of reforms which had already been widely agreed.”

Click here to read the report.

Ming Campbell’s committee will report by the end of the year.

Former Cabinet ministers Michael Howard, Sir Malcolm Rifkind, David Blunkett and Patricia Hewitt are members.

Damian Green, shadow immigration minister, was arrested in November and his home and Commons office were searched by police officers investigating leaks from the Home Office.

They did not seek a warrant for the Parliamentary search, which “caused considerable disquiet and provoked a lot of media comment,” according to a Home Affairs committee report.

Mr Green was never charged with any offence.

MPs said the raid raised matters of freedom of speech for MPs and the questions of confidentiality of correspondence.

Many were unhappy with the reaction of Speaker Michael Martin to this perceived blow to Parliamentary independence, which contributed to the movement to remove him from the chair.

He stood down last month.

The creation of the committee was entered into the Parliamentary record yesterday.

(1) That, following the search of a Member’s office in the Parliamentary Estate by the police and the seizure of material therein, a committee be appointed to review the internal processes of the House administration for granting permission for such action, to consider any matter relating to privilege arising from the police operation, and to make recommendations for the future;

(2) That the committee have power to send for persons, papers and records; to report from time to time; to sit notwithstanding any adjournment of the House and to appoint one specialist adviser either to supply information which is not readily available or to elucidate matters of complexity within the committee’s order of reference;

(3) That Sir Alan Beith, Mr David Blunkett, Sir Menzies Campbell, Ann Coffey, Mr Doug Henderson, Ms Patricia Hewitt, Mr Michael Howard and Sir Malcolm Rifkind be members of the Committee;

(4) That Sir Menzies Campbell be the Chairman of the Committee; and

(5) That the committee report by 31 December 2009.

The creation of a new select committee to examine reform of the House of Commons was also placed in Hansard yesterday.

It will consider the appointment of members and chairmen of select committees; scheduling business in the House and enabling the public to initiate debates and proceedings in the House.

It will be chaired by Dr Tony Wright and will report in November 2009.

Mr Graham Allen, Mr Clive Betts, Mr Graham Brady, Mr David Clelland, Mr David Drew, Natascha Engel, Dr Evan Harris, David Howarth, Mr Michael Jack, Mr Greg Knight, Mr Elfyn Llwyd, Mr Chris Mullin, Dr Nick Palmer, Martin Salter, Dr Phyllis Starkey, Mr Andrew Tyrie, Dr Tony Wright and Sir George Young are members of the Committee.

The Commons Justice Committee has produced a report on the issue.

The current sentencing policy risks being driven by a “misconception of what people want” which is “not intelligent, appropriate or sustainable” the committee said.

There is “a lack of clarity from the outset of sentencing policy-making.”

The committee said the five aims of sentencing set out in the Criminal Justice Act 2003 are neither internally coherent, prioritised nor consistently applied.

“As a result the public, criminal justice organisations, victims, sentencers and the Government all have different expectations as to what sentencing is trying to achieve, which,  the Committee says, means that “someone, inevitably, will be disappointed.”

It is also concerned that, all too often, “political debates about sentencing descend into a counter-productive competition as to who can appear toughest on crime, measured by sentence length.”

The Committee states that the focus on sentence length in public debate will continue to damage public confidence unless ways can be found of  “combining within a sentence a clear signal as to the seriousness of the offence and a rational assessment of how effective the sentence will be in preventing further crimes.”

The Committee is currently conducting an inquiry, Justice Reinvestment, into how the finite resources available to deliver sentencing could be used to best effect to reduce re-offending and prevent the creation of further victims of crime.

The existing Sentencing Guidelines Council is under a duty to take account of the costs of different sentences and their relative effectiveness in preventing re-offending.

The proposed new council will be under further duties to publish guideline impact assessments and information on factors likely to affect prison, probation and youth justice resources.

These tasks, however, are bedevilled by a lack of reliable data and the Committee urges the Government to ensure structures and resources for effective data collection and analysis are in put in place.

Sir Alan Beith, Chair of the Committee, said: “The basic principles of sentencing laid out in the Criminal Justice Act 2003 are not consistent with each other and there is no clarity as to the primary goals of sentencing: nor do sentencers have the information to determine what works to prevent further crime.

“Media reports and opinion polls constantly tell us that people want longer custodial sentences. However, when asked about the appropriate sentence in specific cases, and given all the facts, people actually support sentencing at or below present practice.

“Sentencing policy should not be determined on the presumption that the public regard longer custodial sentences as more effective.

“Public confidence would be better served by ensuring, and then demonstrating, that sentencing is effective in preventing people from being victims of crime in the future.

“Pursuing a policy of sending more people to jail for longer is based on the misguided conception that it will increase public confidence in sentencing when in fact, paradoxically, it will only divert resources from the measures needed to prevent more crime, and therefore more  people becoming victims of crime.”

John Bercow was elected Speaker of the House of Commons yesterday.

In his first words to the House from the Speaker’s chair he pledged to be impartial and paid tribute to his wife and family.

“It is my first pleasurable duty to thank on behalf of us all Alan Williams for the magnificent and good humoured way in which he has conducted these proceedings.

It has been a very long night and those who are expecting a customarily lengthy diatribe will be sorely disappointed.

I should like to thank and pay a heartfelt tribute to all of the candidates who stood in this election.

It has been a constructive debate that we have enjoyed over the last few weeks.

I confess that I have the highest regard for all of the other candidates – each brought something to the occasion, each had a contribution to make and I can honestly say that each made that contribution in the most sincere and constructive fashion to the great and continuing benefit of this House.

Colleagues, you will understand that my thoughts at this time are with my family, my wife Sally and our three young children Oliver, Freddie and Jemima, not to mention my beloved mother who has been keenly interested in the proceedings.

Colleagues you have just bestowed upon me the greatest honour that I have enjoyed in my professional life.

I thank you from the bottom of my heart for the confidence that you have placed in me and I am keenly aware of the obligations into which I now enter.

I want just to say this about the responsibility of the office of Speaker.

I said only a few hours ago in my speech that if elected the Speaker has a responsibility immediately and permanently to cast aside all of his or her political views.

I said it and I meant it. My commitment to this House is to be completely impartial between members of one political party and another. That is what it is about.

I will do my best faithfully and honourably and effectively to serve this House in the period ahead.

We have faced quite the most testing time which has left many members feeling very sore and vulnerable but large sections of the public also feel angry and disappointed.

I continue to believe the vast majority of Members of this House are upright, decent, honourable people who have come into politics not to feather their nests but because they have heeded the call of public service.

For such people I shall always have the highest respect and it is on that basis, in that spirit, and with that conviction, that I shall seek to discharge my obligations in this House which I regard, as I have said, as the greatest privilege of my professional life to occupy.”

photo: parliament.uk

by Tony Grew

Buckingham MP John Bercow has been elected Speaker of the House of Commons on the third ballot.

He defeated fellow Conservative Sir George Young by 322 to 271.

After the second round Margaret Beckett, Sir Alan Beith and Sir Alan Haselhurst withdrew from the contest. Ann Widdecombe was eliminated.

MPs gathered in the Commons at 2.30pm to hear speeches from the ten candidates for Speaker. Candidates had to be nominated by 12 MPs, three of them from a different political party.

In the first round Parmjit Dhanda, Sir Patrick Cormack, Sir Michael Lord and Richard Shepherd were eliminated.

594 MPs voted in the first round, 599 in the second round and 593 in the third round. MP John Mann spoiled his ballot in the first two rounds.

The Prime Minister will now write a letter to the Queen announcing the election of a new Speaker.

Her Majesty will indicate her approval of the appointment and sign a writ authorising the Lords Commissioners to appear in the Lords and announce her approbation. The announcement is expected around 10pm.

Speaker-elect Bercow, in keeping with tradition, was dragged to the Speaker’s chair – the holder of the office is expected to give a show of resisting the appointment.

At 46, Mr Bercow is one of the youngest Speakers in modern times – on taking office Michael Martin was 55, Betty Boothroyd and Bernard Weatherill were both 63 and George Thomas and John Selwyn Lloyd were 67.

Mr Bercow is the first Jewish Speaker.

Alan Williams is the Father of the House, having been the MP for Swansea West since 1964.

As the Speaker stood down yesterday, Mr Williams will act as presiding officer, though he will not sit in the Speaker’s chair.

He will “invite all the candidates to address the House of Commons at 2.30pm in an order determined by lot,” according to the Parliament website.

“In the past candidates have usually confined themselves to an address of about 5-10 minutes, although there is no limit as to how long they can speak.

“Once everyone has spoken, the House will proceed to the first secret ballot.”

The candidate with the least amount of votes will be excluded, along with anyone with less than 5% of the votes.

MPs will then continue to vote, eliminating the least popular candidates, until there is a winner.

While Mr Williams is Father of the House, Sir Peter Tapsell actually first entered Parliament in 1959.

However, he was out of the Commons between 1964 and 1966.

Four 20th century Prime Ministers stayed on in the Commons to become Father of the House: David Lloyd George, Sir Winston Churchill, Ted Heath and Jim Callaghan.

Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman was both Prime Minister and Father of the House.

They are:

John Bercow

Sir George Young

Margaret Beckett

Ann Widdecombe

Sir Alan Beith

Parmjit Dhanda

Sir Patrick Cormack

Richard Shepherd

Sir Alan Haselhurst

Michael Lord

When the House meets at 2.30pm, each candidate will address MPs.

Then the voting begins.

The Exhaustive Ballot system will allow MPs to vote in secret for the first time.

If one candidate gains 50% or more of the votes in the secret ballot, they are the winner.

Otherwise the candidate with the least votes is eliminated and MPs will continue to vote until an outright winner is decided.

A result is not expected until at least 5pm.

Leader of the Commons Harriet Harman denied a behind-the-scenes operation was being staged to make the former Foreign Secretary the third Labour Speaker in succession.

Eight of the candidates for the post of Speaker of the Commons

But one Labour backbencher called on whips to stop “touting” the Derby South MP, who has emerged as the 11th-hour favourite, as support for Conservative John Bercow apparently ebbed away.

Candidates to succeed Michael Martin in the famous green leather chair were required to register their nominations with the Commons authorities and had to be backed by the signatures of between 12 and 15 fellow MPs, at least three of whom must come from outside their own party.

At the close of nominations, there were a total of 10 candidates in the race – Labour’s Margaret Beckett (Lab) and Parmjit Dhanda, Lib Dem Sir Alan Beith (Lib Dem) and Conservatives John Bercow, Sir Patrick Cormack, Sir Alan Haselhurst, Sir Michael Lord, Richard Shepherd, Ann Widdecombe and Sir George Young.

The new Speaker will be chosen for the first time by secret ballot, with MPs taking part in a series of rounds of voting which will take up the whole of Commons business for Monday.

In each round, the candidate with the lowest level of support will be eliminated, along with any receiving less than 5% of the vote.

The winner is the first to secure more than 50% of votes cast in any round. Whoever wins will be charged with restoring trust and confidence in Parliament in the wake of its battering over the expenses scandal.

The election will take place against the backdrop of criminal inquiries by the Metropolitan Police into a number of MPs’ expenses claims.

Mr Martin, Speaker since 2000, officially vacated the position on Sunday after being forced out by MPs angry at his handling of the crisis.

The method that will be used to elect his successor is new.

It was created after Mr Martin’s election in 2000, when the conflicting claims of more than a dozen candidates led to confusion.

The Exhaustive Ballot system will allow MPs to vote in secret for the first time.

Nominations will be handed to Commons authorities between 9:30am and 10:30am on Monday.

To be eligible, nominated MPs must have the backing of 12 MPs, three of whom must be from a different political party.

At 2:30pm, the candidates will address the Commons, then the voting begins.

If one candidate gains 50% or more of the votes in the secret ballot, they are the winner.

Otherwise the candidate with the least votes is eliminated and MPs will continue to vote until an outright winner is decided.

Leading candidates for the job are Tory MP John Bercow and former Cabinet minister Margaret Beckett.

Bookmakers William Hill said today they have cut the price of Margaret Beckett from 6/1 to 5/2 to become the next Speaker, with Sir George Young also now a 5/2 shot.

“It looks like a three horse race and at this stage we cannot decide between them,” said Hill’s spokesman Rupert Adams.

William Hill’s odds are:

5/2 John Bercow, Sir George Young and Margaret Beckett

6/1 Ann Widdecombe

12/1 Sir Alan Beith

20/1 Parmjit Dhanda

20/1 Sir Patrick Cormack

25/1 Richard Shepherd

33/1 Sir Alan Haselhurst

50/1 Michael Lord

photo: parliament.uk

Veteran Labour MP Margaret Beckett has revealed she is a candidate to succeed Michael Martin as Speaker of the House of Commons.

Ms Beckett, a government minister under Harold Wilson, James Callaghan, Tony Blair and Gordon Brown, stood down as Housing Minister in last week’s reshuffle.

MPs will elect a new Speaker on June 22nd.

Tory MP Ann Widdecombe has also declared she is a candidate for the job, despite the fact she is standing down from Parliament at the next election.

“My own retirement plans are very advanced and it’s quite true that until Michael Martin resigned, this idea had just never entered my head,” she told the BBC.

“And that’s why it’s taken me a while to make up my mind that I would put my hat in the ring, because I wasn’t entirely convinced that an interim was necessarily the right thing to do.

“But as I’ve talked to people, and people have responded positively, I’ve decided to do it.”

Yesterday Labour MP and former minister Parmjit Dhanda said he was a candidate for Speaker and claimed that recent Euro election wins by the British National Party had inspired him to throw his hat in the ring.

Sir Michael Lord, another candidate, said: “I have got strong support, and I am very serious about the contest.”

Declared candidates include Alan Beith and John Bercow and others known to be interested include Sir George Young, Frank Field, Sir Alan Haselhurst, Sir Patrick Cormack and Richard Shepherd.

Other potential Speakers include former Lib Dem leader Sir Menzies Campbell, Chris Mullin, Tony Wright and Sylvia Heal.

The method that will be used to elect Mr Martin’s successor is new.

It was created after the 2000 election, when the conflicting claims of more than a dozen candidates led to confusion.

The Exhaustive Ballot system will allow MPs to vote in secret for the first time.

On June 23rd, the day after Mr Martin leaves office, nominations will be handed to Commons authorities between 9:30am and 10:30am.

To be eligible, nominated MPs must have the backing of 12 MPs, three of whom must be from a different political party.

At 2:30pm, the candidates will address the Commons, then the voting begins.

If one candidate gains 50% or more of the votes in the secret ballot, they are the winner.

Otherwise the candidate with the least votes is eliminated and MPs will continue to vote until an outright winner is decided.

Small rural businesses must be provided with greater flexibility in promoting their facilities with road signs, Liberal Democrat MP Sir Alan Beith has argued.

Introducing his Ten Minute Rule Bill entitled ‘Road Signs (Tourist Destinations and Facilities), which would place obligations on the Highways Agency to help the promotion of local tourist facilities by providing them with appropriate road signs, he noted that tourism was absolutely vital to most rural communities, with many tourist businesses depending upon motorists finding their way off the main road to the facilities they had to offer.

Whilst he was not in favour of American-style billboards erected all over roads and fields, there was a completely different case to be made for local tourism signs, he said.

Whilst it was right for there to be planning controls, in too many cases, businesses were coming across obstruction and disproportionate action.

The House was told of the experiences of Berwick-upon-Tweed gold club, which attracted thousands of tourists each year and had paid £1,200 for brown tourist signs, promptly removed by the Highways Agency without consulting the club or allowing it to make representation.

“I took the matter up with the Highways Agency, which has apologised for its failure to consult,” he told MPs.

“So, that is all right: the signs will go back up, won’t they? Oh, no. They cannot go back up, because the Highways Agency says that they are no longer in line with its current policy on tourist signs.

“It says that the golf club should advise visitors through its website to look out for the road sign to Goswick and follow that route.

“That involves taking a dangerous turning off a single carriageway road, one of several turnings to places with confusingly similar names: Goswick, Cheswick and Fenwick. The idea that hundreds of visiting golfers should have to rely on their computer back home to spot the right turning is ridiculous.

“If the Highways Agency wants to prove my Bill unnecessary, it must abandon this ridiculous refusal to reinstate very necessary signs, and show more flexibility and helpfulness to rural businesses.”

A more tolerant attitude, and a simple approval process, was needed to ensure that signs provided direction to nearby tourist facilities, Sir Alan said, and were safely road sited and adequately designed.

Concluding, he reminded the House that the countryside depended upon tourism more than ever during a period of recession.

Too often, small businesses felt that the system was working against them when it should be helping them to make their services available to the motorist and contributing to tourism in the economy of the countryside, he said.

The 61-year-old, who said 18 months ago she was stepping down at the next general election, last night confirmed she was joining the growing list of candidates for the key Westminster job.

Ann Widdecombe: in the running

Ms Widdecombe told GMTV this morning: “We have got to restore the reputation of the House of Commons with the public and that means somebody who can connect with the public, which I believe I can do very well.”

She said she had delayed making her bid for the job while Gordon Brown was fighting for the support of his party.

“I wanted to see what would be the outcome of the goings on in the Labour Party because if there had been a change of Leader and any possibility of an election I wouldn’t have stood.”

She said as she still intends to retire at the next election and would be an “interim” candidate, she would need at least a year in the job to do it justice.

The Maidstone and The Weald MP said she had “no idea” if she had the support of Conservative leader David Cameron.

Mr Martin announced his resignation last month amid widespread criticism of his handling of the MPs’ expenses revelations.

He formally steps down on June 21, the day before a crunch Commons vote to elect the new office-holder.

Ms Widdecombe, who was first elected in 1987, is one of Westminster’s most recognisable figures and well-known for her no-nonsense manner.

She told the BBC the Speakership would be “an enormous challenge, because we do have to get the reputation of parliament restored in time for the next election”.

The former Tory Cabinet minister added: “My own retirement plans are very advanced and it’s quite true that until Michael Martin resigned, this idea had just never entered my head.

“And that’s why it’s taken me a while to make up my mind that I would put my hat in the ring, because I wasn’t entirely convinced that an interim was necessarily the right thing to do.

“But as I’ve talked to people, and people have responded positively, I’ve decided to do it.”

Her fellow Tory MP Sir Patrick Cormack has also announced his intention to stand for the job.

Others mounting bids are former Labour Cabinet minister Margaret Beckett, Tory backbencher John Bercow – seen as the favourite for the role – and Labour MP Frank Field.

Ex-minister Parmjit Dhanda, Tories Sir Michael Lord and Sir George Young, and Liberal Democrat Sir Alan Beith are also in the frame.

Mrs Beckett, who was sacked from the Government in Prime Minister Gordon Brown’s reshuffle last week, said she wanted to help Parliament face its “very considerable problems”.

Margaret Beckett hopes to be elected as the next Commons Speaker

“I will be sending a letter round to MPs asking for support,” she added.

The surprise move by a political heavyweight comes with less than a fortnight to go before the crunch Commons vote to decide Michael Martin’s successor.

Mrs Beckett said: “I think at the moment we have got very considerable problems in Parliament. We have got to make changes.

“After the next election, if we have a more finely balanced chamber than we have had in the recent past, it will be a very different ball game. I hope I can help us deal with that.”

Asked if controversy over her expenses claims for hanging baskets and pot plants would damage her prospects, the recently-departed housing minister replied: “Only time will tell.”

Ex-minister Parmjit Dhanda and Tory Sir Michael Lord also added their names to those vying for the powerful post.

Mrs Beckett was quickly installed as the 4/1 second favourite by bookies behinds left-leaning Conservative backbencher John Bercow. Other front-runners to take the chair include Labour’s Frank Field, Tory Sir George Young and Liberal Democrat Sir Alan Beith.

A free vote will be held on June 22 to decide the winner.

Gloucester MP Parmjit Dhanda threw his hat into the ring to succeed Michael Martin.

Parmjit Dhanda makes surprise bid for the Speaker’s job

He warned that none of the leading candidates were offering sufficient change to the system.

The 37-year-old father of two said he would hold debates at town halls around the country, urge law changes to massively boost the number of ethnic minority and female MPs, curb the powers of party whips and make Parliament more parent-friendly.

Mr Dhanda, who bemoaned the lack of ministers with Indian roots when he was sacked in a reshuffle last year, has written an email to all MPs setting out his stall ahead of the June 22 election.

Tory John Bercow is the bookies’ favourite to win the vote among MPs when Mr Martin, who announced last month he would step down amid anger over his handling of the Westminster expenses scandal, quits the role.

Other frontrunners include fellow Conservative Sir George Young, Labour ex-minister Frank Field and Liberal Democrat Sir Alan Beith.

In his email, Mr Dhanda admitted that he was not “an obvious choice” but told MPs: “Until I see someone more likely to win who will fight for the causes I spell out here, I’ll be in this contest.”

“Parliament is in crisis. Just a few days ago we saw the election of two members of the BNP to the European Parliament. But I don’t believe that the British people are racist,” he said.

“It’s too late for evolution and time for us to be brave. I believe that if we firmly shift the pendulum of power back to the public they are more likely to put their trust in us again. To put these changes in place we will need a Speaker who is comfortable in, and able to communicate with modern Britain.”

The backbencher claimed she had the support of many Conservative MPs to take over from shamed Michael Martin.

Candi-date: Ann Widde-combe

‘I have got a lot of support with my side, that’s why I’m still considering.

But I don’t quite know what the view is on the other side,’ she said.

She would take the role only on an interim basis until the next general election – and insisted her plan to retire the next time Britain goes to the polls was ‘non-negotiable’.

MPs will elect a new speaker in a secret ballot on June 22.

Other leading candidates for the job include Tories John Bercow, Sir George Young and Sir Alan Haselhurst, Labour’s Frank Field, Liberal Democrats’ Sir Alan Beith and the party’s former leader, Sir Menzies Campbell.

The person who I really hope does stand is Labour MP Frank Field.  Frank Field has yet to declare his intentions, but the latest post on his blog, (and it’s a nice looking website and blog that he has), makes it very clear that he is considering running.  The post also has that distinct feeling of someone who has already made up their mind but is going through that slightly false charade of looking as though they haven’t decided whilst in reality they are putting together a campaign team and building up an impressive list of supporters before actually declaring (just as happens in party leadership elections).  If what Frank says is true, that there will be a genuine period of campaigning and public debate before MPs vote (I thought Michael Martin had said the new speaker would be selected at the start of next week, but maybe I got that wrong), this could actually be a real opportunity to rebuild trust in parliament through people engaging with the process and being enthused by the debate.

My reasons for supporting Frank Field though are very simple.  He is someone seen as a genuine reformer, he is a bit of a maverick in his own party, but at the same time he is also a strong believer in parliament.  Whilst I do not yet know what he will advocate if he chooses to stand (I am sure I won’t agree with all of it), I am reassured by his belief in the importance of political parties whilst also encouraging proper scrutiny of government.  He could well be the first Speaker to enter the office with a real mandate, rather than simply to continue a centuries old office.

Lord Mandelson arrives for the State Opening of Parliament today

Peter Mandelson today waded into the row over the arrest of MP Damian Green by accusing the Tories of ‘colluding’ in the leaking of information by a Home Office mole.

Lord Mandelson claimed that Tories were using their protests over the raid on Mr Green’s Commons offices as a ‘smokescreen’ to cover their party’s alleged collusion in a breach of the law.

Speaking to Radio 4′s Today programme this morning, the Business Secretary said much of the furore was a ‘self-serving’ attempt by some Tory MPs to distract attention from their own involvement in the affair.

In comments certain to further inflame the row, Lord Mandelson said: ‘So whilst I recognise that the anger being expressed by some MPs is no doubt sincerely felt by some of them, I also think it is pretty self-serving by Conservative MPs who want to put up a smokescreen to hide their own party’s role in allegedly colluding with a Home Office official in breaking the law.’

His comments came as the acting head of the Met police, Sir Paul Stephenson, denied that it was his officers had been politically influenced in their decision to raid Green’s offices, as has been claimed.

Stephenson told the London assembly that he wanted to correct some of the claims made about the inquiry in the press.

Sir Paul said permission to search the MP’s parliamentary office was obtained from the Serjeant-at-Arms of the Palace of Westminster.

He said: “‘Officers have an obligation to look and secure evidence to avoid any circumstances where potential evidence could be lost.

‘With this in mind, the decision was taken to arrest and search the relevant addresses in accordance with the Police and Criminal Evidence Act.’

As the war of words over the affair intensified ahead of a possible demonstration after the Queen’s speech today, Jacqui Smith accused David Cameron of being ‘entirely unfit for high office’.

The Home Secretary last night wrote to her Tory shadow Dominic Grieve and said: ‘To assert that the systematic leaking of government material is not serious if it does not relate to national security, as you and David Cameron have done, is not just a cavalier attitude. It is a wholly irresponsible one.’

Mr Grieve has demanded that Miss Smith explain how much was known by the Government about the raid on Mr Green’s Parliamentary office.

The Home Secretary is due to give a statement to Parliament tomorrow over the affair.

On a day of pomp, pageantry and tradition, the Queen told MPs and Peers the Government was committed to ensuring’ the stability of the British economy during the global economic downturn’.

But after her speech, attention quickly turned to a possible protest when Speaker Michael Martin addresses the House about the Damian Green affair.

A group of Tory and Lib Dem MPs are planning a joint assault on the authority of Speaker Michael Martin over his role in the police raid.

Tory grandees – including former ministers David Davis, Douglas Hogg and Stephen Dorrell – are expected to mount today’s protest at Mr Green’s detention after the Queen has left the Houses of Parliament.

Senior Liberal Democrats, including former leader Sir Menzies Campbell, Alan Beith and David Heath, are also due to protest if the Speaker fails to explain how such an affront to democracy could have been permitted.

They will raise repeated points of order on the floor of the Commons, delaying the start of the traditional debate on the Government’s new legislative programme, as Prime Minister Gordon Brown is forced to look on.

Meanwhile, Commons Speaker Michael Martin has been warned ‘say sorry or you’re
toast’ over his failure to stop police raiding Green’s office.

Damian Green attends the State Opening of Parliament today

Tory and Lib-Dem grandees were today set to challenge the Speaker if he refuses to allow a proper debate on the decision to let detectives search shadow immigration minister Damian Green’s Commons room.

But backbench MP Richard Bacon, who is rallying support to challenge the Speaker’s authority, issued a blunt warning to him.

Mr Bacon, who sits on the all-party Commons public accounts committee, had sought a meeting with Mr Martin.

He managed to speak only to his secretary Angus Sinclair but left him in no doubt about the anger among MPs over the affair.

‘He needs to say sorry, it should not have happened, I take responsibility and it won’t happen again,’ the Conservative MP said he told Mr Sinclair.

‘If he says anything less than that I think he’s almost certainly toast and he may be toast anyway.’

Former Tory ministers including Ken Clarke and Michael Howard are expected to spearhead the backlash over Mr Green’s detention.

There is growing pressure on the Speaker to head off a row that some MPs believe could force him to quit.

The temperature increased as it emerged police launched their disastrous investigation only after being told by the Cabinet Office that leaks to the Opposition posed a ‘threat to national security’.

In fact, documents alleged to have been passed to the Tory immigration spokesman by a Whitehall whistleblower merely embarrassed the Government by exposing cover-ups and incompetence.

Sources also refused to deny that Cabinet Secretary Gus O’Donnell, Britain’s most
senior civil servant, and other top officials knew in advance that a Tory MP was to be
arrested.

There is widespread outrage in Westminster that centuries of tradition were trampled when counter-terrorism officers were allowed into the Commons to raid Mr Green’s office last week.

He was held for nine hours while his London and Kent homes and constituency office
were also raided, and made to give a DNA sample.

The embattled Speaker also faced renewed pressure today after a former chief prosecutor tore holes in the police inquiry into Mr Green.

The scathing criticism from Sir Ken Macdonald, who stood down as director of public prosecutions just weeks ago, raised further questions over Mr Martin’s
conduct.

The Speaker has bowed to demands for a debate on the row, according to his ally Lord Foulkes, although he said this had been a government decision which will inevitably reinforce the belief that ministers have too much influence over Mr Martin.

Speaking on BBC2’s Newsnight, Sir Ken raised serious doubts over whether any convictions would result from the leak investigation.

He also suggested the Metropolitan Police had blundered by failing to properly consult with the Crown Prosecution Service.

“If the police proceed in a case which is this sensitive without consulting prosecutors, then things will go wrong,” he told the programme.

Yesterday the Met effectively ran up the white flag over the arrest of Mr Green by announcing an urgent external review of whether it had been justified.

It is now expected to be a matter of weeks before police abandon their probe.

Gordon Brown, meanwhile, insisted that ‘no MP is above the law’.

Last night the Tories upped their attack over Mr Green’s treatment by releasing footage of police arriving to carry out the raid.

Mr Grieve said the images documented a “dark day for democracy”.

“MPs are not above the law,” he said. “But they must be allowed to bring the Government to account and to put into the public domain information which may be uncomfortable for ministers.”

Source

Scotland Yard forced into humiliating retreat over Damian Green affair

Caught on film: Video of the moment anti-terror police raided Tory MP Damian Green’s Commons office

MAX HASTINGS: Parliament has been corrupted by this assault on its historic freedoms. How CAN Michael Martin survive?

Sir Alan Beith, chairman of the House of Commons Justice Committee, said the Government lacked “a coherent sentencing policy”.

Justice Committee chairman said Government lacked ‘coherent sentencing policy’

He said ministers had failed to consult on plans for giant “Titan” prisons, which were presented as a “fait accompli”, and he criticised indeterminate sentences for the most serious offenders.

Community sentences were being undermined because the probation service lacked resources, he said.

Multi-million pound Titans include several smaller prisons within a large complex and could each hold 2,500 prisoners.

Sir Alan said: “We were promised a ‘national conversation’ (on Titans) – what we seem to have instead is a fait accompli.

“What has been lacking in this debate and was lacking from the Carter Review is policy based on solid evidence: to us and many others the evidence shows that in terms of rehabilitation and reducing re-offending – that is, preventing more crime – prison simply isn’t working.”

Sir Alan’s comments came after ministers responded to the Committee’s report, Towards Effective Sentencing, which was published in July.

Justice Minister David Hanson said: “We are unapologetic about our approach to law and order: it has made our communities safer and there is no greater priority for government. Prison sentences which punish and reform through education and training are a vital part of that strategy which has led to such a dramatic fall in crime.”

The Carter Review, carried out by Labour peer Lord Carter of Coles, recommended giant new prisons to handle the expanding prison population – a suggestion accepted by the Government.

Chris Huhne launched an extraordinary attack on frontrunner Nick Clegg in a rowdy exchange on BBC1′s The Politics Show.

Chris Huhne has clashed with fellow leadership contender Nick Clegg

The row came after Mr Huhne was confronted with a dossier apparently compiled by his campaign team entitled “Calamity Clegg” and detailing alleged policy shifts by his rival.

While insisting he had never seen the document before, Mr Huhne went on to accuse Mr Clegg of “flip-flopping” in areas like Trident and school vouchers.

The environment spokesman said: “I don’t support describing anybody else in the party a ‘calamity’, that’s absolute nonsense, but I do think we’ve had a series of flip-flops on this issue from Nick.”

Mr Clegg, Lib Dem home affairs spokesman, said he had repeated his positions until he was “blue in the face”, adding that he was “saddened” by the approach taken by Mr Huhne.

Turning to his opponent, he said: “With respect Chris, this contest is not about me meeting false challenges that you put up to me. It’s about me saying what I think the Liberal Democrats need to do to the country, for the country, to make Britain a more liberal place.”

He added: “I think there is a danger in an internal contest, particularly in these latter stages when people get terribly excited, of saying things to each other which, let’s remember, our opponents will use against whichever of us becomes leader. So I refrain from that.”

Meanwhile, Mr Clegg’s apparent lead in the race to succeed Sir Menzies Campbell was further bolstered as two more MPs – Jo Swinson and Alan Beith – backed his bid for the leadership.

Their announcement took Mr Clegg’s support in the Commons to 36, beside himself, well over half the 63 Lib Dem MPs.

The Government already faces court action by ethnic minority solicitors’ groups over an alleged failure to properly assess the impact of the shake-up.

And an influential Commons committee has now joined the criticism, raising fresh doubts over whether the changes are “necessary and proportionate”.

The Government is aiming to cut the £2 billion-a-year cost of legal aid by £500 million by moving to fixed fees and using fewer but larger firms.

Protests sparked by the move have warned many smaller firms will close, with black and ethnic minority (BME) practices and communities the worst hit.

It emerged last week that the Society of Asian lawyers and the Black Solicitors Network have commenced Judicial Review proceedings to challenge the proposed changes.

The report by the constitutional affairs committee found the reforms “may limit access to justice for members of ethnic minorities”.

It said BME-led firms provided an “essential link” between communities and the legal system and “contribute significantly to community cohesion and access to justice”. “It is imperative that reforms potentially affecting BME clients disproportionately should be robustly assessed on the basis of comprehensive and reliable statistical information,” it said.

The MPs, chaired by Liberal Democrat Alan Beith, concluded: “We are concerned that some of the reform proposals may contravene the prohibition of indirect racial discrimination under the Race Relations Act 1976.

“Some of the reform proposals, notably the introduction of minimum contract sizes, leave us in doubt as to whether they are a necessary and proportionate means to achieve the intended objective, which is the legal test.”