I approach this not because of an absolute aversion to the word 'Europe' and any institution that contains that descriptor is therefore wrong as a matter of principle and practice. My approach is somewhat different, although I did find Neil Hamilton's introduction to this debate at least had the virtue of an attempted argument on the basis of principle as well as waving newspaper headlines at us.

But let me say this: I think this is important—when I made a statement to this place as a Minister on 30 January last year, I made a statement that I hoped was rooted in principle and a philosophical commitment to the social justice and equality that should be the hallmark of this place. If we are to be a Parliament in the future, then the decisions we take and the approach we take to those decisions is of fundamental importance to the citizens of this country. For me, when we imprison somebody, when we incarcerate them, when we take away their liberty, we take away their liberty to do some of the things that Neil Hamilton described. What we do not do, and what we must never seek to do, is take away their identity, to take away their citizenship, to take away their rights as an individual and as a human being. That is a different proposition. The punishment they receive is a deprivation of their liberty, and that is the point at which we should begin.

But we should also begin at a different point of principle, a point of principle that is rooted in rehabilitation, and one of the weakest parts of the system we have for dealing with criminal justice in this country is the through-the-gate services as prisoners come to the end of their sentences and they are taken back to the community, and we discussed that with a topical and urgent question earlier this afternoon. For me, when I look at this issue, it is essential that we continue to treat people throughout their period in prison as citizens of this country and as citizens we hope will play an important part in their communities in the future, as responsible citizens. The proposal I made to this place I felt was a reasonable place to be, whereby somebody who is sentenced to prison for a period of time and where their release date is anticipated to be within the term of the authority—in this case it's local government, of course—being elected would be able to vote in elections to that authority. They will be citizens living in that place during the term of that authority being elected, and I thought that was quite an important principle, because we are not depriving somebody of their right to vote who will be held in prison over an extended period of time—a life sentence or a long sentence—but we're actually enabling somebody to choose the local authority, in this case, and to participate in an election where they themselves will live in that community during the term of that authority, and that is an important point to make. We already do this with remand prisoners, of course; they already do participate and are able to do so. They do so with a connected address—there are none of the issues that the leader of UKIP attempted to articulate in his contribution. None of those issues are either relevant or have been, at any time, issues where difficulties have arisen. And let me say this: it is important that we do this in a reasoned way that is rooted in principle, rooted in a philosophical commitment to social justice, but also where there is a practical application.

It is clear to me that the arrangements and structures are already in place, and certainly, as a Minister, I was very, very clear that there were no major practical impediments to this being delivered. The structures we have in place, the right of a prisoner to receive correspondence from an electoral returning officer already exists, the right of a prisoner to receive that correspondence in private and to make a determination on the basis of that correspondence already exists. The Electoral Commission have already made an assessment of how this could operate in practice, and the relevant legislation was already amended back in 2000 to enable this to happen. So, there are no practical applications and practical issues on this matter. It is who we are as a country, as a people, as a community that matters to me. I want to see prisoners who are being held at the moment in prisons either here or elsewhere to be released at a point at which they will become responsible citizens of this country. And we need to start treating them as responsible citizens not at the point at which they are released, but at the point where they are still held in custody, where we are able to begin the process of rehabilitation.

One of the real crises—and I'm sure Mr Hamilton is aware of this—is that rehabilitation's always started when it's been too late and when it's already going to fail. What we need to do is to ensure that we are able to do that as a cohesive and holistic approach from the beginning. So, I hope that we will vote this afternoon to support those principles and that the committee, during its work, will also come to that conclusion and we will be able to legislate on these matters before the end of this Parliament.