Extracts:

We must be realistic: rebuilding our energy infrastructure and rebalancing our economy will take time.

Because the capital investments are so huge, and the replacement cycle so long, change will sometimes seem glacial.

But it will come. And in the long term, getting off the oil hook will make our economy more independent, more secure and more stable.

Because the cost of investing in low-carbon energy and security of supply pales in comparison to the costs of dangerous climate change and energy dependency. And there are real economic opportunities up for grabs.

Already, we are making progress.

Carbon emissions are down. The international negotiations are back on track. The Green Deal is on the way. We are rebuilding our electricity market. Green growth is here to stay.

The transition to the low-carbon economy is underway.

It is up to us to see it through.

On Monday the second round of negotiations to establish an international arms trade treaty (ATT) began at the United Nations headquarters in New York. These negotiations, and the need for better regulation of the arms trade, could not be timelier.

The courage displayed in the popular uprisings across the Middle East and north Africa over the last month has been fascinating and inspiring. But the shocking retaliatory brutality, especially of the Libyan government, has rightly provoked outrage across the globe, and it is a difficult idea to stomach that for years the previous government sold defence equipment, like teargas and crowd control ammunition, to an unsuitable regime like Gaddafi's. Whether or not it is the very same British-made equipment being used in the repression, the potential consequences of our trade in arms should give us all pause for thought.

As the prime minister stated almost two weeks ago, this country has some of the toughest arms export controls in the world governing our trade in defence equipment. When processing export licences for arms, Britain considers and evaluates the risks and possible consequences of those sales. We consider factors like regional instability, internal repression, human rights violations as well as the possible effects on our allies and our own security. When situations change, we change accordingly. In response to the violent crackdowns in Libya and Bahrain, the Foreign Office revoked their export licences.

But the harsh reality of the global arms trade is that no matter how tight British arms controls are, we alone cannot stop guns, missiles and other arms from ending up in the wrong hands. Conventional arms are widely available through illegal markets because there is no international agreement on how strict export controls should be. Individual countries and some regions have their own criteria and regulations, but these are often inconsistent with each other and the black market exploits these variations. For example, in weak states like Somalia, a hand grenade can cost as little as £15.

This is why we believe in the need for an ATT and why Britain must continue to be a leader in its creation. The more we can do collectively to regulate the arms trade, the better we ensure our national security, the safety of our service members and the promotion of human rights.

To be clear, the ATT will not be a trade treaty nor is an arms control treaty, as commonly understood, to ban or prohibit the international sale of weapons. It is right that we support our allies in their national defence. There are also hundreds of thousands of highly skilled employees in our defence industry. So, in fact, the ATT will be a treaty to regulate and legitimise arms sales - to set legally binding parameters and criteria that states must take into consideration when making their sovereign decisions to export defence materiel.

But agreeing on common parameters and criteria will be difficult, and the UK's negotiating team in New York will have its work cut out. This round of negotiations is focused on the scope and criteria of the treaty - the weapons included and the activities it should cover, like importing, exporting, trans-shipment and leasing. Ideally we need a treaty with the highest possible standards and greatest scope, but also one that many of the 192 UN member states can support and implement. As one can imagine, there are multiple countries that remain sceptical about the ATT and, interestingly, Egypt acted as one of their lead spokesmen in earlier negotiation rounds. Nevertheless, we, along with our Liberal Democrat and coalition colleagues, support the UK negotiating team standing firm against such scepticism and doing all that they can to maintain the positive momentum behind this treaty.

Every government needs to consider its national security, promotion of human rights and support for business. The ATT will bring us another step closer to realising this aspiration of a more secure world and help to limit the prospects of a recurrence of the brutality suffered by peaceful protesters in the Middle East, north Africa and elsewhere where repression lingers.

Full text of Nick Clegg's speech

It is clear, as I stand here today, that we are witnessing potentially the biggest geopolitical events of the last decade.

It is a moment of huge significance for the people of North Africa and the people of Europe.

Just a few hundreds miles to the south, in Tunisia, Egypt and now Libya, people are seeking greater rights, fairer distribution of wealth and demanding more open political systems.

I intend to talk today about Europe's response.

That has been the focus of my meetings today with Council President Van Rompuy, Commission President Barroso and Commissioners Ashton and Fule.

I would like to very warmly welcome President Barroso's call this morning for a "pact for democracy and shared prosperity".

I especially welcome his insistence that we must have greater conditionality in our approach and much greater political and economic openness towards North Africa.

Like other European Governments, our immediate focus is on helping the remaining British nationals in Libya leave.

And doing whatever we can to ensure that the Libyan people are free from Colonel Qadhafi's malign rule as soon as possible.

We have seen today that Qadhafi is still waging war on his own people.

His continued brutality has now created a full-blown humanitarian crisis.

The UK is playing its part by flying in shelter, blankets and water, delivering aid today by ship to Benghazi and air-lifting six thousand refugees home from the Tunisian border.

I also welcome the increase in EU humanitarian aid announced earlier today by President Barroso.

This is a region vital to UK and EU interests.

If people in the UK ask why, I would point at the efforts in recent weeks to rescue British nationals caught up in the turbulent events,

at the level of human migration from North Africa to Europe,

at the level of trade and investment between Europe and North Africa,

and its importance to us in terms of energy, the environment and counter-terrorism.

North Africa is just 14 miles from Europe at its closest point, what happens to our near neighbours affects us deeply.

In the past, Europe has sought to build a partnership with North Africa, but failings on both sides have held us back.

Now that we have witnessed the immense courage of unarmed protestors raising their voices in Sidi Bouzid in Tunisia, in Egypt's Tahrir Square and the streets of Benghazi and Tripoli, we Europeans need to respond quickly and boldly to their bravery.

They have created an unexpected and game-changing turn of events in Europe's neighbourhood: we must provide a game-changing response too.

Our response must be guided by the nature of the changes that we are witnessing.

Although Tunisia, Egypt and Libya are very different countries, the root causes of these uprisings and demands for change elsewhere in the region are similar:

First, a lack of economic opportunity.

The region as a whole underperforms economically. The benefits of globalisation are passing these people by.

Economic growth per head was just 6.4% between 1980 and 2004 - that's less than 0.5% annually.

Second, the presence of youthful populations without a voice or a job: 60% of the population is under 25 and youth unemployment is high.

Third, an increasing sense of frustration at the closed and unjust nature of these societies.

No North African country is assessed as "Free" by Freedom House's most recent survey.

Egypt, Algeria, Tunisia and Libya are all judged as "Not Free".

Fourth, they have been effective precisely because the protests came from directions the regimes least expected - from people whom the regimes assumed had resigned themselves to the status quo.

Fifth, high food prices, the spark that lit the bonfire.

For some of us, there is a strong historical parallel here.

A similar movement of change swept across central and eastern Europe in the 1990s.

The European Community responded to that opportunity in magnificent fashion.

By offering a path to re-joining the European family, the European community ensured the entrenchment of liberal democracy across a swathe of our continent.

When it comes to North Africa, there is no certainty about the outcome.

Transitions take decades and they don't always turn out for the best.

Our own example, in Europe, tells us that from the rubble of war we can create a Union of prosperity, democracy and the rule of law.

But this is not always guaranteed.

Change can be for the worse, as well as the better.

The hunger of those living on the other side of the Mediterranean for freedom and opportunity is clear.

Our European model can help inspire them.

And that is precisely why Europe must play its part.

It is unquestionably in the EU's interests to uphold its liberal values - the right to peaceful protest, freedom of speech and of assembly, and the rule of law.

These values are sometimes referred to as 'Western values' - but only by people who do not know their history.

While much of Europe had still to emerge from the Dark Ages, the Baghdad of Haroun al-Rashid saw a flowering of free religious debate and openness to learning from non-Muslim sources.

The truth is that these liberal ideals of equality, law and self-determination cannot be claimed by any nation, or hemisphere. They are global values with global force.

The strategic context for Europe also compels us to be bold in our thinking.

For example a free, prosperous and stable North Africa can help in reassuring Israel that it can live in peace with neighbouring open societies and give Palestinians their rights.

For those of us concerned by Iran's activities in the region, a free North Africa will help isolate rather than entrench Iran's influence.

Recent events highlight the importance of other neighbours too, especially Turkey.

As a Muslim majority country, a NATO member and a country firmly committed to the path to EU membership, and a state with a vibrant multi-party democracy, it provides a valuable example for other societies.

Turkey's warm relations in the region offer benefits in terms of achieving the openness and respect for human rights that we all support.

Another tangible recent example of the help Turkey can offer is their readiness to represent the UK's interests in Libya when our Embassy was forced to suspend its operations, and I wish to warmly thank Turkey for that assistance.

Turkey has not just been helping us.

In total Turkey has evacuated over 3300 foreigners from at least fifty-two different countries, many of them European.

They are now sending significant aid to relieve the growing humanitarian crisis.

What, then, is Europe's recent record in building a partnership with North Africa?

Mixed at best.

We do have polices such as the European Neighbourhood Policy aimed at countries which, unlike Turkey, do not have a cast iron case for EU membership.

But our hopes for our southern neighbourhood policy and our approach towards North Africa as a whole have not been fulfilled.

Why?

Not because of policies, processes or money, but because of a lack of will, we have allowed autocratic regimes to get away with only making a pretence of reforming.

We have imposed minimal conditionality and then failed to insist even on those low standards.

We have failed because we did not express our belief in the values of open societies.

We have supported the important goals of economic opening and reform.

But the EU has done nothing like enough to use its weight to support open, plural societies more broadly.

We have also got our starting point wrong:

Rather than building a genuine partnership with North Africa, we have focused narrowly on certain areas of cooperation without engaging meaningfully on political reform.

This has given the impression that we seek to keep North Africa stable but distant.

The events of the past few weeks have demonstrated the short-sightedness of this approach.

Of course, the lack of will was reciprocated on the other side.

We were working predominantly with governments that paid lip service at best to our values and ideals.

But those governments have been swept away.

We now have a chance to work with partners who want our help, share our values and want a genuine partnership.

As we radically re-shape our approach to North Africa, the EU has to develop a strong, enticing offer that lies between warm words and blank cheques at one extreme and full EU membership at the other.

The UK will argue unashamedly for a full and engaging offer to be made.

This is not about imposing Western democratic models and prescribing outcomes, but about supporting those in the region who want a more open society.

We know that reform must be a home-grown process and leadership must come from within countries.

Yet the international community, especially the EU, can act as a powerful support and inspiration to those countries who want open, plural societies.

As Prime Minister David Cameron has said, you cannot impose democracy from 30,000 feet.

But you can support democracy from across borders.

Being adherents of the international rule of law does not mean being neutral about the kind of world we want to see and the kind of nations we want to deal with: open, free, democratic societies.

We should never hold back from advocating our belief that freedom and the rule of law are the best guarantees of human progress and economic success.

If we agree on the need for a full and engaging offer, what sorts of actions should we take?

In the UK we see three main areas for action:

First, values. EU policy should be guided by clear principles linking values - the values shown in Tahrir Square - to engagement: but this must come with conditionality.

We must never again accept paper thin commitments that are not pressed home.

But let me be clear that this is a conditionality based on the values the protestors in Tahrir Square and elsewhere have demonstrated their passion for: values they cherish and we want to support.

The EU should provide a more ambitious offer to those governments which work towards the values their people are insisting on, linked with tougher conditionality for those that ignore them.

So we must raise our ambitions for the European Neighbourhood Policy.

Second, a broad and inclusive economic offer that draws on the EU's position as a global economic superpower and supports a process of economic opening to complement and reinforce greater political openness.

There are many models of greater economic integration with countries that neighbour the EU - from Turkey and the Balkan states on a membership path to the east and to our northern EEA partners.

We should be looking at these models for inspiration when it comes to North Africa.

Successive UK Governments have been consistent advocates of dual economic and political liberalisations.

That may have many dimensions - and it is not for me at this stage to specify them.

However the UK is calling on the Commission and other Member States to look at bold alternatives to provide the people of North Africa with greater economic opportunity and prosperity.

We as Europeans also need to review urgently the institutions and instruments available to us or potentially available to us for working with the region, including the EIB, Union for the Mediterranean and ENPI funds.

All of need to reconsider how best they can support North Africa.

There are a number or proposals to do this.

We should act fast and not allow this to become the subject of familiar political wrangling.

We need real progress at the Special European Council on the eleventh of March.

Europe, together with other shareholders, should consider how best the EBRD's expertise in transition and private sector development could be shared to the south.

Let me be very clear here on one specific point.

Citizens of these North African countries - and migrants making their way through them - are not going to stay put in North Africa if there are few economic opportunities there: they are going to make their way to Europe through one means or another.

Our task is to help North Africa offer prosperity to its own people, not act as a stepping off point to Europe.

The region overall does not lack capital - this is in many respects a resource-rich region. What we need is a radical change in the way we provide assistance to make it more effective and to help unlock the potential that already exists.

Third, the EU must also do more to cultivate the civil, political and democratic institutions that underpin successful open societies.

The EU has an enormous amount to offer in terms of know-how and institution-building, not least because of its earlier experiences with central and Eastern Europe.

The UK will seek to lead by example.

On top of the short term humanitarian relief that we are providing for the Libyan people and those who have fled to Tunisia and Egypt, we have already pledged an initial £5 million of UK funding to support reform projects across the region.

Including in Tunisia and Egypt, to help support access to justice, freedom of expression, democratic institutions and civil society. But this is just a start.

We will transform the role and capacity of organisations such as the Westminster Foundation for Democracy, which can help to broaden political participation.

And as a Government we will make further resources available to further this work.

I have today written to all the leaders of the UK's main political parties urging them to encourage their parliamentarians to support this initiative.

While I believe Europe must be the centrepiece of our response to North Africa, it must not act alone.

The G8 and G20 will want to play a role too.

The UK Government, through its Department for International Development, is also already working closely with organisations like the Gulf Cooperation Council and the Islamic Development Bank.

Of course the process of deepening political and economic freedom cannot be delivered by Governments alone.

That is why I am delighted that the Open Society Foundations, under the leadership of George Soros, are supporting major new initiatives with emerging civil society in the region.

They are working with experts from previous transitions; supporting transitional justice and legal empowerment of the poor; bringing together Arab constitutional experts and lawyers; and strengthening journalists in newly open democracies to be critical 'watchdogs' in the transition.

These are exactly the sort of 'people to people' initiatives that the region needs.

The EU has always been at its best when responding to changes in the world around it. That is at the heart of its creation.

So it was in tackling German reunification.

So it was in responding to the re-emergence of the countries of Central and Eastern Europe.

So it must be again in response to events in the North Africa.

The EU cannot take for granted its effectiveness and legitimacy. It operates in a world in which power is shifting fast, in which there is greater uncertainty and unpredictability.

This is a pivotal moment in shaping the EU's long term purpose and role in the world.

And this is a precious moment of opportunity for the region.

Precious because it is the people, especially young people, who are speaking up, and they are doing so for the most part peacefully and with dignity.

They are showing that there is more to politics in the region than the choice between repression and extremism.

It is precious, but potentially fragile too.

There is no certainty about the outcome. This is why Europe must play its part.

Everyday on our television screens, we are witnessing the courage of ordinary people taking to the streets to demand greater freedom.

The countries of the European Union need to match their bravery and get behind this movement for change.

They are creating a new world.

We need a new response.

So: we need genuine partnership of values with conditionality, a bold new European economic offer and a step-change in our fostering of political pluralism and open societies.

What happens in North Africa impacts on every community in Europe.

This is happening in our back yard.

The EU, individual member states, businesses, and civil society - all of us need to step up to the plate.

2011 is certain to be a defining moment for North Africa and the region as a whole.

But it is a defining moment for Europe, too.

I hope together we can rise to the challenge.

Check against delivery

It is nearly two years since the expenses scandal broke but the damage it did to our politics remains.

The reputations of MPs and Parliament are still tarnished.

That's because the problems at the heart of our politics go deeper than expenses.

Cash for honours. Cash for questions.

Former cabinet ministers for hire.

Family members paid £40,000 a year to do nothing.

For years now, huge numbers of people have chosen not to vote because they think it doesn't matter. They think their voice will be ignored.

Who can blame them?

For years, politicians and parties have courted the votes of a few thousand people in marginal seats and ignored the rest.

For years, MPs with jobs for life have put their feet up and taken you for granted.

For years, single parties formed governments when barely a quarter of the people voted for them.

No wonder people have given up caring.

No wonder confidence in politics is so low.

No wonder people are so ready to believe the worst about their politicians.

Westminster is often referred to as the mother of all parliaments.

Our democracy should be a shining beacon to people across the world.

It should be something we can be proud of. Yet, so often, it is not.

There is no single way to solve our problems. They can't all be fixed over night. But there are changes we can make.

We can give people the right to sack corrupt MPs.

We can stop MPs speculating on the property market with your money.

We can bring democracy to the House of Lords.

We can make sure every vote is worth the same.

And we can change the way we vote so that no one's vote is wasted and MPs are forced to work harder to win and keep your support.

We have a chance to do that this May when the Fairer Votes referendum takes place.

What's wrong with First Past the Post?

The choice in May is between two ways of voting, the First Past the Post system we use now and a new way, the Alternative Vote or AV.

It is no secret that the Prime Minister and I come at this from different directions.

What we do agree on is that the people know best. We both want as many people as possible to get involved and make their feelings known at the ballot box.

And what we are clear about is that this referendum is not about the Coalition Government.

Whatever the result we will continue to work together in the national interest.

Before I talk about why I believe the Alternative Vote is a fairer system I want to talk briefly about the one we have now.

First Past the Post was perfect for a time when the choice was only ever between two parties.

But that hasn't been the case for a long time, not only because of the Liberal Democrats but other parties too - the SNP in Scotland, Plaid Cymru in Wales, the Green Party and UKIP.

Politics has changed and it has changed for the better.

It is more reflective of the broad range of opinions in British society.

In 1951 the two old parties shared 97% of the vote.

In 2010 they couldn't muster two thirds.

Research has found that the result of the last election was decided by fewer than 500,000 votes.

That's out of nearly 40 million eligible voters.

And last year more than two-thirds of MPs were elected with fewer than half the voters in their constituencies choosing them.

That means most of us are represented by an MP that most of us did not vote for.

Where is the democracy in that?

Where is the legitimacy in that?

What was fit for the 1950s is not fit for the 21st century.

First Past the Post leads to a whole host of problems.

It makes politicians more concerned with getting their own supporters out than to appealing to anyone else.

It means that MPs can go about their business without ever having to appeal to the majority of their constituents.

Surely we can all agree that MPs should work hard for your vote.
Yet increasingly First Past the Post makes it easy for MPs to ignore you altogether.

Under First Past the Post, there are huge numbers of MPs with jobs for life in places where one party wins election after election and no one else stands a chance.

If you live in one of these places and you don't support that party, what are you supposed to do?

You either vote, knowing deep down your vote is wasted, or you just don't even bother.

It is because there are so many MPs with jobs for life that there are so many who can take their constituents for granted.

And it is because there were so many MPs taking their constituents for granted that so many abused their expenses.

There was a clear link between how safe an MP's seat was and how likely they were to abuse the system.
When a person is corrupt they should be punished.
When a system makes corruption more likely it should be changed.

So no, First Past the Post is not working.

It is out of date and it is at the heart of so many of the reasons that people don't engage in or care about politics.

It means most MPs are elected without the support of most of the people they are supposed to represent.

It means millions of votes make no difference whatsoever.

It means millions of voices going unheard.

First Past the Post is not working and it's time to do something better.

Why AV is better

Under the Alternative Vote, politicians will need to aim to get half of their constituents to choose them.

That means they will have to work harder to appeal to more people than before.

It means they will have to reach out to people who were ignored under First Past the Post.

It means they will no longer be able to rely on just their core supporters and ignore everyone else.

They will be more legitimate and will carry a stronger mandate from a broader range of people.

That can only be good for our democracy.

Under the Alternative Vote, there will be fewer MPs with jobs for life in safe seats.

That means people whose voices have been ignored will be listened to again.

It means that parties will have to compete for votes in every corner of the country and not just those few marginal seats.

It means more people get listened to and more respect for the different opinions and feelings we share as a nation.

That can only be good for our democracy.

Under the Alternative Vote, there need never be another wasted vote.

That means you can use your vote positively.

It means you can feel confident voting for the person or party you want to win and not have to think tactically about who can win.

That can only be good for our democracy.

The Alternative Vote puts you back in charge.
You get a bigger say in who your MP is. A bigger foothold in our democracy. A bigger stake in our country.

And that will mean more people getting interested and involved in politics, knowing that their voices will be heard and that their actions can have a real impact.

And that can only be good for our democracy.

The Alternative Vote is a simple change that will make a huge difference. It means MPs working harder, more voices being heard and power put back where it belongs - with you.

Taking on critics

Opponents of AV say it is too complicated.

In fact it's really simple.

It's as easy as 1-2-3.

All you do is put a number one next to the person or party you want to win.

You put a number two next to your second favourite and a three next to your third favourite.

And if you only want to vote for one person then you can.

They use a form of AV in Australia and we use it to elect the Mayor of London.

It's not too complicated for Australians or Londoners.

This is not some strange, complex system. It's simple and it's fairer.

Opponents of AV say it is somehow against British tradition.

Nonsense.

The beauty of the Alternative Vote is that it is evolution not revolution.

It's a small change which will make a big difference.

It not only keeps the link between MPs and their constituents, it strengthens it.

Opponents of AV say that it will produce unstable governments.

This could not be further from the truth.

The Alternative Vote can and will produce strong, stable governments.

Research looking at every election since 1983 shows that if AV had been used the same party would have won and formed a Government, if with a different majority. But all MPs will have had to work harder for your vote.

The only election that would have resulted in a hung parliament was last year's, just as it did under First Past the Post.

Australia has had AV for 80 years and they've had fewer hung parliaments than we have with First Past the Post.

Summary

Do you remember how it felt when you heard about MPs spending your money on duck houses and having their moat cleaned?

Do you live somewhere where the same party wins every time and you feel powerless?

Do you ever look at politicians and parties and think these people don't care about me?

That's what this is about.

We deserve something different.

We deserve something better.

We deserve a new way of doing things.

First Past the Post doesn't work any more.

It leaves too many voices unheard.

It leaves too many people powerless.

It is at the heart of why so many people don't vote.

The Alternative vote is better, fairer.

It puts you back in charge and makes MPs work harder for your vote.

When we have the chance to clean up politics and make our democracy better we should take it.

We have the opportunity to do that in May by voting Yes to Fairer Votes.

Thank you.

Commenting on the publication of the Welfare Reform Bill, Co-Chair of the Liberal Democrat Parliamentary Committee on Work and Pensions, Jenny Willott said:

"For years, Liberal Democrats have been calling for the complex and outdated welfare system to be replaced with a more streamline and simplified one and the introduction of a universal credit achieves this.

"The reforms focus on helping people into work, ensuring they stay there, and adopts a more tailored approach to addressing people's welfare needs.

"It protects the poorest and ensures that work always pays, so people don't find themselves trapped in a complicated benefit system, where even if they want to work, they find themselves out of pocket for doing so."

The change, which will be entirely voluntary and will not force any religious group to host civil partnership registrations if they do not wish to do so, is being introduced as part of the Equality Act. It will give same-sex couples who are currently prevented from registering their civil partnership in a religious setting - the chance to do so.

As the Home Secretary says: 'This Government is committed to both advancing quality for LGB&T people and ensuring religious freedom of religion for people of all faiths -which is why we will be allowing religious organisations to host civil partnership registrations if they choose to do so'.

The government's LGB&T action plan, which was published last year, included a commitment to look at next steps for civil partnerships, and giving religious organisations the right to host registration is the first stage in that process.

We have also identified a real desire to move forwards to equal civil marriage and parnerships, and will be consulting further as to how legislation can develop, working with all those who have an interest in the area.

Over recent months I have spoken to many LGB&T people and campaign groups, and it quickly became clear that there is a real desire to address the differences between civil marriage and civil partnerships.

I have always been completely clear that equal rights means exactly that - the same rights not different rights.

So I am very, very pleased to be able to announce that we are going to be the fist British government to formally look at what steps can be taken to address this.

Commenting on the announcement to allow civil partnership ceremonies to take place in religious buildings and on the consultation to look at the next steps for civil partnerships and civil marriage, Liberal Democrat Equalities Minister, Lynne Featherstone said:

"Liberal Democrats have long campaigned for equal rights for same-sex couples and last autumn our Conference formally endorsed the Liberal Democrat policy to campaign for equal marriage.

"There is much demand from same-sex couples to allow civil partnerships to take place in a religious setting and to end the difference between marriage and civil partnerships. We have been listening to this.

"I am delighted that same-sex partners will now be able to hold their civil partnerships in religious buildings and that the Coalition will look at what the next steps for civil partnerships will be."

Liberal Democrat leader and Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg has welcomed the passing of the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill.

The Bill, which confirms a referendum on changing the voting system will take place on May 5, was granted royal assent last night.

"This is a real milestone in restoring trust in our political system and making our democracy fairer," he said.

"Constituencies will be redrawn, so that votes are more equal throughout the country.

"And, for the first time, through a referendum, voters will have a say in the system they use to elect their MPs.

"Together, these measures will help put the expenses scandal behind us and start to restore trust in our political institutions."