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.
Northern Ireland Minister Dr Andrew Murrison is responding to the debate, led by Ian Paisley MP, on behalf of the government.
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.
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.
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.
Zac Goldsmith loses the vote on his amendment, which is defeated by 340 to 166 - a majority of 174.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Cabinet Office Minister Sam Gyimah is responding to the debate - and the amendments proposed - on behalf of the government.
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".
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Cabinet Office Minister Greg Clark is representing the government at the despatch box, and responds to the amendments moved by MPs.
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".
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".
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.
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".
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.
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.
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 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".
Labour MP Dan Jarvis tweets: Crushing defeat for Chris Grayling's plan to dismantle #judicialreview. @UKHouseofLords votes against it by 247 votes to 181.
Thomas Docherty, shadow deputy leader of the Commons, is now speaking, and reaffirms Labour's support for the principles of recall.
He repeats calls - made during the bill's second reading last Tuesday - for an overhaul to the Commons' Standards Committee, including the removal of the government majority and an increased lay membership.
The committee would play a role in the recall process being proposed by the government, as it is the body which hands down Commons bans to errant MPs.
Hold MPs to account
As he brings his speech to a close, Zac Goldsmith tells the House that the government's bill "betrays a lack of confidence in voters", and insists the electorate should be allowed to hold MPs to account "more than twice a decade".
Conservative MP Nick de Bois tweets: Substantial opposition on Labour benches ( not by all) against real recall - why don't they trust voters?
Government defeat in Lords
That's another government defeat. Peers vote through Lord Pannick's amendment by 247 votes to 181 in the Criminal Justice and Courts Bill.
Peers have divided to vote on Lord Pannick's amendments, which would prevent proposed changes to judicial review.
Under the government's proposals, applications for judicial review can be denied 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, even if unlawful.
Lord Pannick claims that this change would undermine judicial review's ability to hold public bodies to account, reducing the "high standards of administration", and would slow down judicial review procedures by requiring the court system to conduct a detailed review of what would happen at the preliminary stages.
Results are expected shortly.
List of amendments
As is standard Commons practice, a list of the amendments to be considered in today's committee-stage debate has been published. The first grouping relates to clause one of the bill, and concerns how an MP becomes subject to a recall petition process.
The government proposes in its bill that an MP would face a by-election if 10% of constituents sign a petition after the MP is either sentenced to more than 12 months in jail, or banned from the Commons for a period of 21 days or more.
However, Zac Goldsmith is proposing a system whereby errant MPs would face a recall referendum if 5% of voters in a constituency sign a "notice of intent to recall" and 20% then sign a "recall petition". He says his plan has the support of a cross-section of more than 80 MPs.
Judicial review debate
Justice Minister Lord Faulks tells peers that he believes judicial review, when used properly, is an "essential component of the rule of law" but that it is not always perfect and needs reforming.
"It remains a simple fact that a well timed judicial review can delay the implementation of crucial policies or projects for months or even years" even when decisions are in line with proper procedure, he tells peers.
The need for reform has been emphasised by a recent three-fold increase in the number of applications for judicial review, up to 15,600 in 2013, Lord Faulks adds.
Zac Goldsmith, the MP for Richmond Park, is explaining the purpose of his amendments, which he argues would offer real recall rather than the government's "bogus" plans to make recall possible "only in the narrowest of circumstances and with prior permission of the Commons".
EU statement over
The PM's statement and questioning by MPs is over and the Commons turns its attention to committee-stage scrutiny of the Recall of MPs Bill.
Tory eurosceptic Philip Hollobone urges the PM to "have a good rummage " around the Downing Street cupboards to "dig out the prime ministerial handbag last deployed by its original owner in the 1990s" - a reference to Margaret Thatcher - and "clunk it round the head of the Commission".
David Cameron jokes that while the handbag is not "passed down in that way" there are times when the "metaphorical handbag" needs to be used.
Justice Minister Lord Faulks is now responding to what he calls "a glorious debate" for the government.
This debate is bringing out former minister from across the House now. Former Labour Minister Shirley Williams, now the Liberal Democrat peer Baroness Williams of Crosby, comes out against the measures, which she says will weaken the public's ability to challenge government.
Baroness Williams tells peers that her experiences with judicial review taught her to be "very careful and thoughtful" about any proposals that her departments were making, and taught her to have "great respect" for the process.
It looks like there's just a handful of MPs still to question the prime minister, who's been on his feet for nearly an hour and a half.
Coming down on the opposite side of the debate to his former cabinet colleague Lord Tebbit, former Conservative minister John Gummer, who sits in the House of Lords as Lord Deben, argues against the changes to judicial review.
"My problem with these changes is they ask judges to make an improper decision," Lord Deben says.
A judge's function is to make decisions on points of law. Asking them to make decisions on what the outcome of a ruling may have been is "very dangerous" Lord Deben argues.
"My constituents don't give a Yorkshire pudding about who said what and when," says Conservative MP for Colne Valley Jason McCartney, who urges the prime minister to hold firm on his rejection of the bill.
Adding to the bill
The payment being requested from the UK would add about a fifth to the UK's annual net contribution to the EU budget of £8.6bn.
David Cameron, taking further questions on his position, confirms that the government will not pay the figure either in full or by the 1 December deadline.
Debate in the Lords
Former Conservative Cabinet minister Norman Tebbit, now Lord Tebbit, has told peers that judicial review is being used by judges to put forward their view as a superior view than that of a public body.
Elected public bodies should not be displaced by unelected judges Lord Tebbit argues, telling peers the only three grounds on which judicial review should be granted is when : the act was contrary to law, beyond the power of the public body and considered to be unreasonable.
When did civil servants know?
Labour MP Andrew Gwynne cites media reports that the EU budgets commissioner had said UK civil servants knew the precise revised sum owed by the UK "some weeks ago".
David Cameron responds by telling him not all reports have been accurate.
Why is the UK suddenly being asked for extra cash?
Labour MP Ian Davidson, who chairs the Scotland Affairs Committee, welcomes David Cameron's decision not to pay the £1.7bn bill.
He says the PM should allow MPs a vote on the amount of money that he may be prepared to negotiate.
David Cameron tells him "we are some way away from that" as the government has to get to the bottom of the figures first.
Labour backbencher Ronnie Campbell criticises the "bureaucratic nonsense" of the EU and says the PM should hold an in/out referendum on the day of the election next year - 7 May 2015.
Eurosceptic Tory view
Philip Davies. the eurosceptic Tory MP for Shipley, complains that the UK already spends £20bn a year to the EU, which he describes as an "inward-facing backward-looking protection racket".
David Cameron should tell the EU "stick the money where the sun don't shine", Mr Davies insists, and draws laughter from colleagues when he says "what's the worst the EU could do if we did that, ask us to leave? In my dreams".
Replying, the PM quips that Mr Davies should "tell us what he really thinks", before noting that the two "don't agree" on Europe.
Labour MP Chris Bryant tweets: When I asked whether PM supports UK staying in European Arrest Warrant and whether he will table motion before #Rochester&Strood, he nodded.
Clive Efford, the Labour MP for Eltham, tells David Cameron it is "a bit rich" to question the methodology behind the budget adjustment recalculation given that it has been known about "for two years".
David Cameron repeats that the final figure was only made available last Friday.
Conservative John Baron asserts that Britain should not consider paying the £1.7bn bill until the EU gets it "shambolic" accounts "properly audited" and signed off.
David Cameron says urgent work is needed to "get to the bottom" of the figures.
'Only a month to go'
After a question from Labour MP Cathy Jamieson about whether the UK would be fined for not paying the budget adjustment by the 1 December date, David Cameron maintains that it is not acceptable for the EU to demand such a large sum "with only a month to go".
Peers are examining the Criminal Justice and Courts Bill.
Under the government's proposals, applications for judicial review can be denied if the defendant - usually a public body - can show that it is "highly likely" that action taken made no difference to the claimant's situation.
Critics claim that this change would undermine judicial reviews ability to hold public bodies to account, reducing the "high standards of administration", and would slow down judicial review procedures - as it would require the court system to conduct a detailed review of what would happen at the preliminary stages.
Views on the euro
Labour backbencher Kelvin Hopkins says the eurozone is proving to be an "economic disaster", with 25 eurozone banks on the "brink of failure".
He asks David Cameron if he is advising his European colleagues of the "advantages" of a national currency . David Cameron jokes that his view on the euro are well known.
EU fiscal union
David Cameron offers former Tory Welsh Secretary Cheryl Gillan a "guarantee" that the UK will never become part of an EU fiscal union, after she raises concerns about incoming European Commission president Jean Claude-Juncker's £300bn investment plan.
Sir Edward Leigh, the Conservative MP for Gainsborough, surmises that if there is no alterative but to pay the bill to the EU, the British public may move towards an exit.
Mr Cameron says he is not does not take such a "gloomy" view, and highlights successful efforts to get out of bail out schemes and cut the EU budget as examples of how Britain has "sent Europe in a different direction".
How is bill computed?
Conservative MP Anne Main asks her party leader and PM how the £1.7bn calculations were made. David Cameron tells her the figures are just estimates at the moment and "have to be checked carefully".
Labour's Gisela Stuart questions the PM's ability to renegotiate the UK's relationship with EU if he wins the 2015 general election, intimating that he has no allies in Europe.
"I am not accepting we should pay anything like what has been asked," David Cameron says of the EU budget demand.
The prime minister is flanked by his chancellor, George Osborne, and Education Secretary Nicky Morgan.
After further questioning on the EU budget, David Cameron attacks the former previous Labour government who "giving away" part of the UK's rebate, which is a system that provides the UK with a refund on a part of its contribution to the EU budget
Support for EU membership?
Lib Dem former leader Sir Menzies Campbell quotes a poll which suggests support for continued EU membership has "risen to a 23 year high" and says this should help the PM to combat UKIP and "anyone else who wants to bring Britain out unilaterally".
David Cameron reasserts his desire to renegotiate the terms of the UK's relationship with the EU.
Tory backbench question
Tory eurosceptic Bill Cash, who chairs the European Scrutiny Committee, calls for legislation to assert the primacy of the House of Commons over the European Parliament.
Sky News's political editor Faisal Islam tweets: did i just hear Ken Clarke one of most successful Tory Chancellors jeered by own side & shout of 'what a load of drivel' as he qd PM on EU?
Ken Clarke's intervention
Conservative heavyweight Ken Clarke offers his sympathy to the PM for being taken by surprise over the demand that "everybody in the Foreign Office and in the Treasury must've known was coming along".
David Cameron says the budget changes are expected every year but stresses that a change "on this scale" is unprecedented.
David Cameron says the precise figure being demanded by the EU was not known until Friday, telling the Commons that governments do not know what they are liable to pay until the European Commission has produced the figures for every country in Europe.
BBC's political correspondent Ross Hawkins tweets: Govt line here is: yes we knew about process but we didn't know how much Commission would demand
Ed Miliband accuses the prime minister of being "asleep at the wheel" and says it is the British public who are "paying the price".
David Cameron responds with an attack on Mr Miliband's leadership, claiming Labour has not said whether it would pay the bill.
Ed Miliband response
Labour leader Ed Miliband is on his feet to respond to the PM's statement.
He criticises the Commission's handling of the EU budget demand as "cack-handed and unacceptable". But he says the planned changes shouldn't have caught the government by surprise, and claims the Treasury was aware of the planned changes "seven months ago", quoting from an official letter.
UK's relationship with EU
David Cameron reiterates the need for EU reform and says that if he is PM in 2017 it will not be Brussels politicians but the British people who take the decision on the UK's future relationship with the EU.
BBC's political correspondent Ross Hawkins tweets: Cameron says rejects the scale of EU payment. Q is: would he pay anything and if so how much?
PM insists Britain 'will not pay' by 1 December
Britain will not pay the £1.7bn demanded by the EU by 1 December, and will challenge the demand "in every way possible", including the methodology used to calculate the sum, David Cameron insists.
Douglas Carswell MP tweets: Will PM rule out paying £1.7Bn, or convey that impression without ruling it out?
Background to EU demand
David Cameron is setting out the background to the EU's £1.7bn demand from the UK to be paid by 1 December. He repeats his opposition to the move, criticising the scale and timetable of the demand.
ITV's deputy political editor Chris Ship tweets: I hear Labour may be about to ambush Cameron again. Miliband will have evidence government knew about £1.7bn bill poss early as THIS SUMMER
Updating MPs on the EU summit, David Cameron sets out the EU's collective response to the Ebola outbreak in West Africa, including a pledge of more than £1bn in assistance.
David Cameron opens by paying tribute to the 453 British service men and women who lost their lives during the UK's 13 years of combat operations in Afghanistan.
David Cameron has entered the chamber and taken his seat on the front bench. In just a few minutes David Cameron he'll be on his feet to update MPs on last week's summit of European leaders. The chamber is steadily filling up ahead of the statement.
What is judicial review?
Judicial review is a type of court proceeding in which a judge reviews the lawfulness of a decision or action made by a public body - including those of government ministers, local authorities, other public bodies and those exercising public functions.
Peers have now moved to the final day of report stage scrutiny of the Criminal Justice and Courts Bill.
Conservative MP Philip Hollobone asks the government what it is doing to encourage the recruitment of more male primary school teachers.
Acknowledging the problem, Education Minister David Laws notes that only 15% of primary school teachers are currently male, but adds that there has been a 10% increase since 2010.
He says the government it trying to improve its communications and the level of bursaries to attract more men to teach at primary school level.
LabourLordsUK tweet: For those following #CriminalJustice Bill #judicialreview debate, key amendts are 146, 155, 157, 164, 165, 166, 176, 177 #Therewillbevotes
Commons question sessions
Most departmental question sessions in the Commons last for an hour, with the final fifteen minutes dedicated to topical questions of which ministers have no notice. Speaker John Bercow has just notified MPs that the session has moved on to topical questions.
Conservative peer Lord Horam winds up the days oral question session asking the government about the progress that's being made with the Troubled Families programme - the government's £448m three-year scheme to "turn around" 120,000 troubled families.
The government front bench is taking a lot of questions on academies. These are independent, state-funded schools, which receive their funding directly from central government, rather than through a local authority.
They have more freedom than other state schools over their finances, curriculum, length of terms and school days and do not need to follow national pay and conditions for teachers.
The programme began under Labour designed as a way to improve struggling schools but it has been changed radically and accelerated by the coalition.
Tabling a question on the benefits of being a permanent member of the United Nations Security Council, former Chief of the Naval Staff Lord West of Spithead warns that the 14% cut to defence spending since 2010 could jeopardise the "capabilities and attributes" that the UK needs to remain a permanent member of the council.
Education Secretary Nicky Morgan lists one of her priorities as ensuring that children leave school prepared for the world of work, as she responds a question from Labour former education secretary David Blunkett on the quality of careers advice.
Ms Morgan says education watchdog Ofsted has a duty to monitor the independent careers advice available to schools, but acknowledges there is "more that we can do".
Lib Dem MP Julian Huppert tweets: In the Chamber to ask about giving free school meals to all infant pupils, and how this affects achievement and the pupil premium #fb
Energy and Climate Change spokesperson Baroness Verman is answering questions on the Green Climate Fund - the new UN fund aimed at a providing money to the developing world, in order to assist the developing countries in fighting climate change.
Education questions continues
Labour view from the Lords
Baroness Jones tells peers that a small minority of academy heads are using that new system as a "cash cow", paying themselves "inflated salaries" and hiring family members and friends to provide school services.
She calls on the government to admit its centralised oversight of academy schools was a mistake, telling peers it makes it more difficult to supervise the schools.
Education Secretary Nicky Morgan and her opposite number, Tristram Hunt, are trading blows over the use of unqualified teachers in schools. They both label each others' responses "guff".
Labour's education Spokesperson Baroness Jones of Whitchurch kicks off the day's debates, asking the government a question on what steps it is taking to improve the financial regulation of academy schools.
He might have one in Dutch Prime Minister Mark Rutte. The Netherlands will have to find an extra 642m euros (£506m). Dutch officials are exploring legal options.
But the UK and the Netherlands may not encounter much sympathy.
One head of state said that these budget revisions happened regularly and there were winners and losers based on agreed rules.
Second new peer
And now Kathryn Pinnock, the first female leader of the West Yorkshire Kirklees council, has been introduced into the House of Lords.
She will take a seat on the Liberal Democrat benches and be known as Baroness Pinnock.
Chris Lennie, now Lord Lennie, the former deputy general secretary of the Labour party has just been introduced as a Labour peer into the House of Lords.
Labour MP Andrew Gwynne MP tweets: Asked Education Minister why Tories blocked my Bill to ensure public contracts of more than £1m include apprenticeships. Got bluster back!
Lib Dem MP Sir Andrew Stunnell has the first question to the government, on steps to increase the number and quality of apprenticeships. Education Minister Nick Boles is responding from the despatch box.
Peers will also hear the prime minister's statement on the European Council, repeated by Leader of the House Baroness Stowell of Beeston, before going on to debate a regret motion on the Care Quality Commission.
Labour have tabled the motion as they are concerned that there is no provision for the regular assessment of performance by clinical commissioning groups (CCGs) and local authorities.
Criminal Justice and Courts Bill
Following questions; peers begin the final day of report stage scrutiny of the Criminal Justice and Courts Bill, where the day's main business will focus on judicial review, and the government's plans to remove a court's discretion in some cases and cut down on legal aid costs.
House of Lords
At 14.30 GMT, the influx into the House of Lords continues as two more peers are introduced.
Former deputy general secretary of the Labour party, Chris Lennie, will join the Labour benches as Lord Lennie; while Kathryn Pinnock the first female leader of Kirklees council, will join the Liberal Democrat benches as Baroness Pinnock.
But first, MPs will question ministers from the Department for Education (DfE) from 14.30 GMT. The session will last for an hour and cover a range of topics relating to the department's remit, including apprenticeships, steps to improve school buildings and the DfE's policy on qualified teacher status.
The bill faces a challenge from a cross-party alliance of backbench MPs - led by Conservative Zac Goldsmith - to give constituents more power in the recall process.
The Richmond Park MP has tabled amendments which would, in effect, rewrite the bill. He wants MPs to face a recall referendum if 5% of voters in a constituency sign a "notice of intent to recall" and 20% then sign a "recall petition". A vote on his proposals is expected.
Recall of MPs Bill
MPs will spend most of the day debating proposed amendments to the Recall of MPs Bill, which aims to empower voters to sack MPs found guilty of serious wrongdoing.
Under the government's plans, an MP would face a by-election if 10% of constituents sign a petition after the MP is found guilty of "serious wrongdoing". The bill cleared its first parliamentary hurdle last week, after a debate on the general principles of the legislation. Committee stage - which begins today - allows for more detailed scrutiny.
In the House of Commons, David Cameron will update MPs at 15.50 GMT on last week's meeting of EU leaders. Expect the prime minister to be questioned over the EU's £1.7bn demand from the UK towards the EU's budget.