Graham Stuart, the Conservative MP for Beverley and Holderness, is of the opinion that the public should be trusted with the power of recall, but stresses that there must be suitable safeguards to ensure a tiny minority cannot abuse the mechanism to try to unseat MPs they disagree with politically.

He suggests there could be a sunset clause in the bill to allow its provision to lapse after a specified time, if it was found that recall was being used to challenge members for the way they vote.

Transport Spokesperson Baroness Kramer tells peers that ending mandatory licence checks for taxi drivers will "reduce the financial and administrative burden on taxi and private hire drivers."

She said the changes would not "in any way" affect the "tough" laws on vehicle licences, which already protect customers from unscrupulous drivers and taxi firms.

Peers begin debating the government's plans to end mandatory licence checks for taxi drivers, allowing licences to be updated every three years.

Labour want to scrap the plan as they say the reform is likely to make it "more difficult for licence officers to monitor behaviour, and ensure drivers are fit and proper" and hinder them in "taking action where appropriate."

The current debate on the Recall of MPs Bill is scheduled to conclude at 19.00 BST. About 20 minutes before, the wind-up speeches by the opposition and government front benches will begin.

Second reading debates are an opportunity for MPs and peers to debate the general principles of a bill. If either House agrees to approve a bill at this stage, it proceeds to a committee - where further, more detailed scrutiny is undertaken.

Transport Spokesperson Baroness Kramer tells peers that the government will be dropping its plans to allow taxi drivers to lend their vehicles to family members when they are off duty - to "lift the burden" of having to run a second family car - from the bill, with the view to introduce them as part of a wider package of changes to the law in the future.

Labour had previously claimed the reforms could put women and vulnerable passengers at risk of rogue drivers.

The next speaker is Lib Dem Mike Thornton, who jokes that "there is no such thing as a safe seat" for his party. The Eastleigh MP says there are "serious flaws" with the legislation, the key one in his mind being that the public will conclude that only parliament has the decision over who should be kicked out.

Mr Thornton insists there must be a way for voters to initiate a recall so that the public can see that "we are honourable". But he fears Zac Goldsmith's proposals are too "long-winded" and could be open to be political abuse. There needs to be a compromise between the two plans, to make recall "workable, practical and fair", he adds.

Peers have rejected a Labour-led attempt to scrap government plans to remove employment tribunals' power to make recommendations in discrimination cases which affect the employers' dealings with persons other than the claimant by 234 votes to 194, a government majority of 40.

Peers have divided on government plans to remove employment tribunals' power to make recommendations in discrimination cases which affect the employers' dealings with persons other than the claimant.

The government are trying to remove the power, which they say "complicates" the tribunal system and "serves no clearly defined purpose" as part of the drive to cut down on red tape.

Labour claims that the powers are an "effective way of preventing discrimination" and allow employment tribunals to address the root causes of discrimination in the work place.

Results are expected soon.

Former Commons Leader Andrew Lansley offers his support for the government's bill, and sets out his opposition to amendments proposed by party colleague Zac Goldsmith, which he said would "undermine" MPs if the mechanism is "used and abused".

Mr Lansley says the legislation proposed by the government offers an "objective and fair process" for recall and addresses a "perceived gap in the regulatory processes" relating to MPs who commit criminal offences or breach the code of conduct.

Responding for the government in the House of Lords, Lord Wallace of Saltaire tells the peers that employment tribunals' power to make wider recommendations in discrimination cases is "anomalous" in the tribunal system and has "proved problematic", "raised concerns" and "led to additional costs" since its implementation after the Equality Act 2010.

As part of the government's "red tape challenge", it is their duty to remove this legislation, as it "does not have a clearly defined purpose".

He reassures peers that what the government is proposing "will not result in a reduction in either the rights of complainants [in tribunals] or the effective power of tribunals."

Liberal Democrat peer Lord Avebury attacks the government's argument that restricting the powers of employment tribunals would reduce the burden on employers, saying the vast majority of recommendations were "helpful to the employers".

"We're not talking about an additional burden," he told peers. "We're talking about something that assists the employer to avoid similar tribunal cases in the future."

Speaking in support of recall - and the amendments being proposed to the government's bill by Richmond Park MP Zac Goldsmith - Mark Durkan, the SDLP MP for Foyle, argues that such a mechanism would "add to the standing" of MPs.

"We shouldn't be here trying to proof ourselves and protect ourselves against the scrutiny of democracy, against the standard of democracy," he argues.

Labour peer Lord Rooker tables an amendment to stop the government's plans to restrict the powers of employment tribunals.

Under the proposed changes, employment tribunals will no longer be able to make recommendations on work place changes that do not directly deal with the grievances of a tribunal claimant.

Lord Rooker, who was chair of the joint committee on the draft version of the Deregulation Bill, told peers that the power to make wider recommendations was an "effective way of preventing discrimination from occurring and helping employers to comply with their duties to treat the employees fairly".

Restricting these powers would "protect" and give "an easy ride" to "law breaking employees" he said.

Richard Drax, the Conservative MP for South Dorset, adds his voice to opposition of the bill - and laments that the Commons is "naval gazing" instead of discussing events such as the eurozone economy.

Mr Drax - who joined the Commons in 2010 - suggests it is a "knee jerk" reaction to the expenses scandal, and says honour - not legislation - is the answer.

Peers have rejected an attempt by Labour to scrap government plans to remove health and safety rules for some self-employed workers by 253 votes to 175, a government majority of 78.

Peers have divided on government plans to remove health and safety rules for self-employed workers.

Under the proposals self-employed people - excluding those self-employed working in certain sectors which are still potentially hazardous - will no longer be subject to certain parts of the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974.

The plans are based on an academic study which has been adopted in other countries and the government have argued that the change will reduce the burdens on business, helping them to achieve growth.

Labour Spokesman Lord McKenzie of Luton accused the government of "weakening health and safety laws that have stood the test of time for 40 years".

Labour's Frank Dobson provides a voice of opposition to recall.

The Holborn and St Pancras - who is standing down at the 2015 election - claims it would be undemocratic as "just 10%" of voters could trigger a recall even though the 90% may not want it. The threat to the MP is not that they might lose their job but that they would have to go through a horrible, expensive and personal process even if they survived the recall, he adds.

Mr Dobson also argues that a recall mechanism would "strengthen the hand" of rich individuals, pressure groups, "vindictive" media campaigns and "unprincipled and manipulated" social media targeting.

BBC's Norman Smith tweets, external: "The PM is confident Fiona Woolf will carry out her duties to the high standards of integrity required". - No 10

As the evidence sessions draws to a close Home Affairs Committee Chair Keith Vaz wishes Fiona Woolf "the best of luck" with her inquiry.

He tells Mrs Woolf that "if she ever needs anything" from the Committee she "just has to write" to them.