50 Most Recent Stories From News from the Liberal Democrats

Mon 30th Aug 2010:

New 111 service will be better than NHS Direct - Burstow.

Commenting Liberal Democrat Health Minister, Paul Burstow said:

"NHS 111 will build on NHS Direct but will go further providing a much more integrated service for the public.

"Unlike NHS Direct NHS 111 will be free to call.  Where NHS Direct can only signpost other services NHS 111 will be able to book a GP appointment and go straight through to local out of hours services.  If you do need an ambulance the 111 service will cut out the need to go through the 999 service assessment.

"NHS 111 will ensure people are put in touch with the right health professional first time.  By doing that the new service will reduce the pressure on 999 services and A&E departments.

"This is a simple, cost effective idea: from 2013 people can ring 111 for non life threatening health concerns and 999 when it is a matter of life or death."

Fri 27th Aug 2010:

Corus deal will get Teesside's heart beating again, says Swales.

Corus and Thai steel company SSI have signed a Memorandum of Understanding for SSI to buy the Teesside Cast Products plant from Corus.

Liberal Democrat MP for Redcar Ian Swales said:

"This is absolutely terrific news and something I have been tirelessly working towards since being elected in May.

"I am thrilled this deal has been done and that we will be bringing steel making back to Redcar. This will get Teesside’s heart beating again.

"This deal is the culmination of thousands of hours of hard work by Corus and SSI, with great support from both the trade unions and politicians.  Vince Cable and his team have done all they could to help facilitate this deal coming to fruition and I am grateful for their support.

"When I visited SSI in Thailand this May, I was impressed with their operation and people and saw the clear need that they had for the TCP output. Since then my regular contacts with SSI, Corus and Tata made me quietly confident that this day would come. However, such deals are complex and it was always going to take some time to agree the many issues involved.

"This is fantastic news for the area and will bring back the much needed jobs. When added to recent announcements and other potential projects, it looks as though Teesside has at last turned the corner from a very long period of industrial decline."

Rise in obesity operations shows Labour failed on public health.

Commenting on the 10-fold rise in the number of obesity-related surgeries carried out on the NHS in less than a decade, Liberal Democrat health minister Paul Burstow said:

"These are procedures that can transform lives, save lives and save money for the taxpayer.

"The 10-fold increase in less than a decade shows the last Government failed to get a grip on public health issues.

"Obesity is a serious issue in this country. Over the last 13 years we've become the country with the highest rate of obesity in the whole of Europe.

"We are committed to a real drive to consistently deliver public health messages about changes in lifestyles that people can make, both in diet and exercise, that can significantly reduce the need for these procedures."

Wed 18th Aug 2010:

Nick Clegg delivers speech on social mobility.

Nick Clegg said:

Check against delivery

As of today, the new Coalition Government is 100 days old. Inevitably there is a plenty of discussion about our performance to date. Everyone will have their own view about the start we have made.

I am proud of our achievements so far, from civil liberties, to political reform, to steps to reshaping our public services. And of course, our first Budget, which set out our plans to repair the public finances.

Our critics characterise us as being solely defined by our public spending cuts. So let me be clear: tackling the deficit is our immediate priority. But is it not our be-all and end-all. This Government is about much more than cuts.

This Government is committed to the long term – to making decisions today that will promote a better future: a more prosperous economy, and a fairer society. Our determination to fix the deficit is matched by our determination to create a more socially mobile society.

Today I will set out:

1)    How we are a Government focused on the long-term;

2)    Why our long-term social policy goal is social mobility;

3)    The key obstacles we face in promoting social mobility; and

4)    The next steps we will be taking as Government to overcome them.

Let me start by outlining what it means to be a government for the long-term.

My colleague David Willetts in his book, The Pinch, focuses on the theme of intergenerational justice. In the book David explains that the Tribal Council of the Iroquis, a North American tribe, believed that all tribal decisions should be considered in light of their impact on the next seven generations. The contrast with modern politics – in which, famously, seven days is seen as a long time – could not be greater.

I am not going to promise the introduction of a 7-generation rule into the British legislative process. But I am going to argue that the Coalition government’s approach to politics, and to policy-making, is moving beyond the short-termism that has disfigured politics in recent years.

Governing for the long-term means thinking not only about the next year or two, or even the next parliamentary term. Governing for the long-term means recognising that the decisions of one generation profoundly influence the lives and life chances of the next.

In economic policy, this means taking the difficult decisions to tackle the deficit and provide the conditions to create the jobs and opportunities of the future. There is no doubt that many of these decisions are painful. But let me tell you, there is nothing fair about saddling the next generation with our debts.

That is why we have set out a five-year trajectory for the public finances, and established an independent Office for Budget Responsibility. These are evidence of our determination to put economic policy - as well as the economy - onto a more sustainable footing.

Decisive action to address the deficit is what we have to do in order to do what we want to do. And what we want is to build a fairer nation. This means, in particular, creating a more socially mobile Britain. And this, by definition, is a long-term goal.

I am acutely aware that it is very much easier to declare political support for social mobility than it is to improve it. If social mobility were improved every time a politician made a speech about it, we’d be living in a nirvana of opportunity.

This is a complex and contested area of both research and policy. And action to improve social mobility will take many years to take effect. In policy terms, it is like turning the wheel on an oil tanker.

Promoting social mobility is a long-term business. And it is precisely for that reason that it is vital to establish now, at the beginning of our time in office, that promoting social mobility is at the top of our social agenda.

Given this commitment, it is very important to be clear about what we mean by social mobility, and why it matters so much.

As a term, social mobility has a more than slightly wonkish feel. It sounds – with apologies to my kind hosts – very much like a think-tank phrase.

And yet I think social mobility is the mark of a good society, the badge of fairness. My particular focus is on inter-generational social mobility - the extent to which a person’s income or social class is influenced by the income or social class of their parents. Social mobility is a measure of the degree to which the patterns of advantage and disadvantage in one generation are passed on to the next. How far, if you like, the sins of the father are visited on the son.

There is of course plenty of argument within the social science community about precise measures, international comparisons and preferred metrics. But I think inter-generational social mobility speaks to most people’s definition of fairness.

Fairness means everyone having the chance to do well, irrespective of their beginnings. Fairness means that no one is held back by the circumstances of their birth. Fairness demands that what counts is not the school you went to or the jobs your parents did, but your ability and your ambition.

In other words, fairness means social mobility.

And social mobility matters for both ethical and economic reasons. For me, an important strand of liberal ethics is that opportunities are detached from origins. As a liberal, I am optimistic about the capacity of people to shape good lives for themselves and deeply committed to tearing down the barriers – whether they are barriers of class, attitude, wealth or bureaucracy – that stand in their way.

Liberal optimism is founded on a conviction that children have unimaginable – unpredictable – potential. A socially mobile society is one that is waiting for them, open to their talents, ready for their determination.

As things stand, the evidence on social mobility is not encouraging, either historically or internationally.

There is some evidence of a worsening in rates of social mobility between income groups for people born in 1958 compared to 1970.

Other studies show that, at best, social mobility rates have flat-lined over the last two or three decades.

Data collected by the OECD shows that, of 12 developed countries, the UK is the one where the earnings of individuals are most strongly related to the earnings of their parents.

Every minute, another baby is born in this country. The question is: what future lies ahead of them? What will their lives be like? We should not already know the answer to this question. But, tragically, we can already predict the likely fortunes of too many of these children, because of the clear influence of social background.

For too many, birth and destiny are closely intertwined.

This is not to say that everybody’s life is determined from day one. But it is clear that the odds are stacked against some of those newborns, and in favour of others. And when that is the case, we are not just talking about inequality, but about what amounts to social segregation.

Social segregation occurs when inequalities become frozen across time, when people are trapped in the position of their birth.

As well as this clear ethical demand for social mobility, there is also an economic argument for action. If a talented person is unable to rise because of the barriers to opportunity, it is not only their life which is damaged, but the prosperity of the nation.

The Sutton Trust, for example, estimates that if we could narrow educational inequalities to the levels of countries with a better record on social mobility we could add significantly to the size and dynamism of the UK economy. 

The relationship between social mobility and a high-skill economy cuts both ways. One of the main engines of upwards social mobility is the creation of more professional and highly-skilled jobs, creating what social scientists call ‘more room at the top’. And this, in turn, increases the opportunities for people to move up.

It is also important to be clear about our objectives in social policy, and the difference between, for example, poverty reduction and the promotion of mobility. The goal of improving social mobility overlaps with other objectives for social policy, such as reducing poverty or narrowing income inequality. But it is not the same.

Labour, despite 13 years of government, billions of pounds of investment and a plethora of initiatives, schemes and credits, appears to have failed to move the needle on social mobility.

I think this was for two principal reasons:

First, they were confused about what they were trying to achieve. Sometimes social exclusion seemed to be the focus, sometimes poverty, occasionally income inequality. Social mobility only gained prominence towards the very end of Labour’s period in office – and by this time it was too late.

They were confused about their ultimate aims in social policy, which meant a diffusion of effort. It was stop-gap policy-making in an area where absolute consistency and a relentless focus on the main goal is required if the long term changes are to be delivered over time.

Second, there was too much reliance on standardised, centralised, universal solutions rather than putting power and resources in the hands of those who need them most. Draw a line here, set a target there, tick boxes everywhere. All with good intent, but too often, with precious little long-term effect. 

We saw this in the approach to targets for exam results, where, all too often, disproportionate emphasis was placed on  getting borderline cases over the Whitehall-determined 5-GSCE line, rather than on releasing the potential of all young people.

But it was visible in Labour’s approach to poverty, too. Poverty in the sense of current income levels can be tackled through the transfer of cash. And of course reducing poverty, at any particular point in time is hugely important in building a fairer nation.

This Government has made clear its commitment to tackling poverty. And I am delighted that Frank Field is working with the Government on the way that deprivation links to life chances.

But we also recognise that poverty reduction is not enough in and of itself.

Under Labour huge sums of money were spent pushing low-income households just above the statistically defined level of household income – sometimes by just a few pounds a week - but with no discernible impact on the real life chances of the next generation.

Tackling poverty of opportunity requires a more rounded approach. Welfare reform, for example, should be based on the need to improve people’s lives, not just raise their incomes. And I know this is what is animating the work of Iain Duncan Smith at the Department for Work and Pensions.

So the result of the last thirteen years has been lots of government activity, but too little social mobility. An important CentreForum report on this issue in 2006 concluded: ‘the rate of intergenerational social mobility has stabilised at levels in the UK that are unacceptable’. I agree.

Of course, no single political party should attempt to claim the moral high ground on this issue. This is not an area where any party or political philosophy can claim a monopoly of wisdom. But I do want to argue today that this government will take a distinctly different approach.

That means, above all, understanding the nature of the problem we face. Our national failure on social mobility, in spite of years of economic growth and investment in public services, has to be properly understood in order to be reversed.

I am not today going to offer you any definitive answers to the complex questions that have exorcised social scientists for decades. You would be rightly sceptical if I did. But I will identify what this Government believes to be five key sources of social segregation.

First, the diverging paths of different children in the early years. We now know a good deal about the widely varying rates of development for children, long before they hang up their coat for their first day at school. This is again an area where CentreForum has produced excellent analysis.

Early years investment also illustrates the distinction I made earlier between anti-poverty and pro-mobility measures. High quality pre-school education will not alter the statistics on income distribution or household poverty levels. But it will change the lives of the children who benefit.

Second, the different degree to which different parents invest in and engage with their own children’s development and progress. Parents are in the frontline when it comes to creating a fairer society, in the way that they raise their children.

According to one study, the amount of interest shown by a parent in their child’s education is four times more important than socio-economic background in explaining education outcomes at age 16.

This is not an area where the state can simply pull a lever or two and put things right. These are also potentially perilous waters for politicians. But at the same time we must not remain silent on what is an enormously important issue. Parents hold the fortunes of the children they bring into this world in their hands. All parents have a responsibility to nurture the potential in their children. 

I know, like any mother or father, how difficult it can be to find the time and the energy to help, for example, with your children’s homework at the end of a busy day.

But the evidence is unambiguous: if we give them that kind of attention and support when they are young, they will feel the benefits for the rest of their lives. 

Third, the impact of parental background on educational attainment in the school years. Formal educational outcomes remain profoundly shaped by the socio-economic backgrounds of young people.

A young person from a household in the top fifth of the of the income distribution is three times more likely to get 5 GCSE’s between grades A and C than a young person brought up in a household in the bottom fifth. Our education policy is squarely aimed at reducing these inequalities.

Fourth, the roles of Higher and Further Education.

The expansion of Higher Education has brought many benefits to the nation, and to those individuals who have become graduates.

But there is evidence, from Jo Blanden and others at the Centre for Economic Performance to suggest that – contrary to expectations – increased levels of attendance at university have not translated into higher levels of social mobility.

This is for two important reasons:

One: a disproportionate number of university students come from the middle and upper classes.

Two: higher education remains the primary entry route to high-quality jobs.

This is why I feel so passionately that we need to attack the educational apartheid that currently exists between vocational and academic learning in general, and between Further Education and Higher Education in particular. It also graphically demonstrates the need to reform the funding of Higher Education in a way that promotes greater social mobility.

Fifth, the closed nature of so many professions. We know that professions such as medicine, law, journalism - and yes, of course, politics - have become narrower in their social representation.

David Willetts writes that in the professions, ‘the competition for jobs is like English tennis, a competitive game but largely one the middle classes play against each other’.

Again, this an area where it is up to the professions themselves to get their houses in order, supported by appropriate government action. I therefore welcome the involvement of the expanded Gateways to the Professions Collaborative Forum, in which a considerable number of professional bodies have come together because they have realised that for too many professions, the dial is going the wrong way.

In each of these areas, there is a huge amount of work to be done. We are in the process of formulating a comprehensive social mobility strategy for the government.

But I just want to pick out two particular areas of reform that already make clear our direction of travel.

First: Tax reform. We are determined to reform the tax system so that it encourages social mobility, rather than entrenches social segregation. That means a tax system that rewards work and makes fairer demands on unearned wealth.

We took a first step towards that tax system at the Budget by raising the personal threshold for income tax by £1,000. This will remove 880,000 people from income tax altogether. At the same time, Capital Gains Tax has risen by a full ten percentage points to 28 per cent. And we are looking hard at the case for a General Anti-avoidance rule to ensure that large companies and wealthy individuals pay their fair share of tax.

Now as I said earlier, raising household income is not the same as raising mobility. But the income tax reform is targeted at those who are in paid work, which is the surest route out of poverty. Given the strong relationship between parental employment status and social mobility, the income tax reform should be seen not only as a measure to boost fairness today, but also as an investment in fairness tomorrow – in other words in social mobility.

Secondly: in education, we are committed to focusing resources on the most disadvantaged, both in the early years and during schooling.

We have learnt from other nations, like the Netherlands, that by targeting investment at disadvantaged children, especially when they are young, we can improve social mobility.

So we are introducing a Pupil Premium – explicitly designed to channel greater investment to the children and the schools who need it most.

The level of the premium will be announced as part of the October spending review. And we are currently consulting on how best to operate the premium, including which deprivation indicator to use. The outcome of that consultation will determine the number of children to benefit from the premium.

Schools will be able to spend the money as they see fit –  like, for example, on catch up classes and one-to-one tuition, the things we know can make a difference – but under the clear proviso that its purpose is to help pupils overcome the accidents of birth.

We are also committed to taking Sure Start back to its original purpose of early intervention, increasing its focus on the neediest families. 

These policies will not have an instant impact. We know that they will have to be carefully implemented, and that the results of these investments will take years, perhaps decades, to bear fruit. But as I said right at the beginning, we are a government committed to the long-term.

The depth of this Government’s commitment to social mobility should, I think, be clear both from what I have said today and from our actions to date. But clearly what matters most is what we do from now on.

To drive the social mobility agenda across Government, I will be chairing a new ministerial group, devoted to social mobility, which will have as its first task the development of a Social Mobility Strategy.

We are also taking steps to ensure that we are held to account on the progress we make, as well as the progress made by other institutions. For the benefit of anyone who was on their holidays over the weekend, I can formally announce today that I have appointed an independent, expert reviewer. And I am delighted that Alan Milburn – respected across the political spectrum for his tireless work on social mobility – has accepted this role.

Building on the enormous contribution he made in his report for the last government on fair access to the professions, Alan will now be holding the coalition Government’s feet to the fire.

Each year for the whole of this parliamentary term, Alan will consider our success in delivering that strategy, as well as identifying other work that needs to be done, and assessing the contribution being made by business, the professions and civil society.

Beginning in September 2011, Alan’s wholly independent findings will be laid before Parliament and will, I hope, form the basis of an annual social mobility debate in the House of Commons.

Alan is someone for whom the questions of fairness in general, and social mobility in particular, run very deep. I am in no doubt of his personal commitment to this cause, or indeed of his fierce independence in its promotion. I don’t think Alan will mind me saying that he is not somebody you appoint to this kind of role if you are in search of a quiet life! 

To conclude: we are a government taking measures for the long-term. I believe that the governments that are most effective in the long-term know what they are about from the outset. And in social policy, we are about promoting a fairer, more open, more mobile society. That, for us, is the long game.

So when the history books are written, we want them to say that we successfully paid down Britain’s budget deficit and that we restored stability to the economy. That while we acted decisively to restore the public finances, we also acted in a way that laid the foundations for economic prosperity in the years to come.

But in five years time we also want to be able to look back and say that the children born in 2015 are less constrained by the circumstances of their birth. 

We want to be able to say that true progress was made in making opportunity a right of the many, rather than a privilege of the few.

Thank you.

Tue 17th Aug 2010:

Coalition bans cowboy clampers.

The Coalition Government has announced that car clamping on private land is to be banned.

This long-standing Liberal Democrat policy and manifesto commitment will be introduced as part of the Freedom Bill this Autumn.

The Bill is designed to roll back the previous Labour Government’s intrusive and illiberal laws and curb the excesses of the surveillance state.

The announcement was made by Liberal Democrat ministers Lynne Featherstone and Norman Baker.

Home Office minister Lynne Featherstone said:

“The Government is committed to ending the menace of rogue private sector wheel clampers once and for all.

“For too long motorists have fallen victim to unscrupulous tactics by many clamping firms. Reports of motorists being marched to cash points or left stranded after their car has been towed are simply unacceptable.

“A ban on clamping and towing on private land will end this abuse and companies who decide to flout new laws will face severe penalties.”

Transport minister Norman Baker, who campaigned to ban private wheel clamping as Shadow Transport Secretary before the election, added:

“The rules governing parking on private land should be proportionate and should not result in motorists being intimidated or forced to pay excessive fines.

“Cowboy clampers have had ample opportunity to mend their ways but the cases of bullying and extortion persist.

“That is why we are putting an end to these outrageous practices once and for all to ensure that drivers no longer have to fear intimidation from rogue traders, allowing the parking industry to begin to restore its reputation with the motoring public.”

Wed 11th Aug 2010:

Chris Huhne delivers speech on Labour’s legacy.

“Labour were once a serious party.

“Whatever our disagreements, Labour wanted to tackle the real problems in our society. Independence for the Bank of England. Devolution to Scotland and Wales. A minimum wage.

“Labour once wanted to prove they could run the economy successfully. They said no more boom and bust.

“But over the 13 years of Labour’s government something changed.

“The need for a balanced economy gave way to the needs of the city of London. And when the global economic crisis struck, Labour seemed paralysed.

“A decade of spend, spend, spend meant Labour hid their heads. And they are still hiding them.

“Labour’s leadership candidates say that spending was not the problem. It was taxes. Nonsense.

“In just two financial years up to the election, public spending rose by 10 per cent in real terms. That’s a rise after inflation of £59 billion.

“Spending went from 44 pence in every pound generated by our economy in 2007 to 51 per cent in 2009. Taxes went down by 1 pence in the pound.

“The truth is that Gordon Brown tried to buy the election. Labour’s big spender went on a hell of a bender.

“It was goodbye prudence and hello hangover.

“The man who built his reputation on the strength of the economy saw his legacy in tatters.

“It is no wonder Brown could not face the problems he created. But it is inexcusable that Labour’s next leaders fail to face the problems.

“They are in denial about their role in creating this mess. They should take responsibility.

“But more important still, they should tell us how they would fix it.

“In 1979 the winter of discontent saw Labour lose power for a generation because Labour would not face up to the need for change.

“Unless Labour now face up to the challenge of fixing our nation’s finances, they won’t deserve power for another generation.

“Today, we face the biggest budget deficit in peacetime history.

“Bigger than any other country in the G7.  Bigger than any other nation in the G20. Bigger than every other EU country except Ireland. Half as big again as France. Nearly four times as big as Germany.

“We face the consequences of a housing bubble Labour failed to control and an economic boom built on unsustainable personal debt.

“It gives me no satisfaction that Labour are not willing even to talk about tackling the deficit. But they know what we know: the unavoidable cuts that are coming are Labour cuts.

“As Labour’s Liam Byrne said when he left the Treasury, there is no money left.

LIBERAL DEMOCRAT PRIORITY

“Now I did not come into politics to make cuts.

“As a Liberal Democrat my top priority is a strong and fair economy – caring for the vulnerable, protecting the environment.

“Yet we cannot deny the facts on the ground.  There is nothing progressive about a bankrupt economy.

“We inherited a record budget deficit. Add in the debt coming due that had to be refinanced, and we needed to borrow £185 billion from the financial markets this year.

“And in May Europe faced a sovereign debt crisis.

“The Greek government now faces a cost of borrowing twice its pre-crisis level. At the beginning of April – and our election campaign - the Greeks paid 7 per cent. 

“By the Friday after our election they paid 12 per cent. And in just those few days in which we were negotiating our coalition, Europe’s finance ministers had an emergency meeting to staunch a crisis spreading beyond Greece to Spain and Portugal. They announced a 500 billion euro rescue package.

“But we were different, say the Labour leadership hopefuls. No we were not.

“Spain had a lower budget deficit. And lower public debt. Yet it was swept up in the crisis.

“If we had not acted, the risk would have been to our financial markets, our interest rates, and our recovery.

“We cannot hide from these facts, however unpalatable they are. Labour has become so disconnected from reality that it thinks that if it simply refuses to face up to them, they will go away. They won’t.

“The fact is that we were borrowomg one pound for every four pounds the British government spent.

“We really could not afford to sit back and see our cost of borrowing double.

“Our choice was simple. Take swift action to stabilise the economy, or lose control and hand the job over to others to do it for us.

“That was Labour’s way when they had to call in the International Monetary Fund in 1976, imposing the biggest post-war spending cuts by far.

“Labour ducked the tough choices and lost the right to choose. That is not our way.

WORKING TOGETHER

“It only took one party to create this mess.

“Now our two parties – the Liberal Democrats and the Conservatives – have come together in the national interest to clear it up.

“Sayeeda Warsi will say more about what we are doing over the coming weeks to shine a light on Labour’s legacy.

LABOUR’S CHOICE

“Labour’s candidates cannot go on pretending that the budget deficit doesn’t exist. It does and it is the single greatest challenge facing Britain.

“They must take responsibility.

“You cannot keep spending when the money dries up. Write cheques you know will bounce. Put party advantage before the national interest.

“Labour’s last budget planned cuts of £50 billion, so why are they unable or unwilling to admit where they would fall?

“It is too easy to stand on the sidelines and criticise.

“The Labour candidates owe it to themselves and to the country to offer constructive solutions. I hope they will.

“I hope that Labour will come to terms with the truth of their legacy.

I hope they will come up with ideas to help lift Britain out of their economic slump.

“Where they do, we will listen.

“But until they come up with a credible economic plan, they are irrelevant to the biggest debate in our country – the future of our shattered economy.

“To be a credible leader of the Labour party, let alone leader of the country, they must show how they would plug the enormous hole in the nation’s finances.

“We must start with the world we are in, not the world we wish we had. In this world tough choices have to be made.

“This Government is willing to make them, with care and with a heavy heart.

“Labour must take responsibility for the legacy they have left and the damage it has inflicted on so many.”

Mon 9th Aug 2010:

Chris Huhne has called on councils to kick-start a local power revolution.

At present only 0.01% of electricity in England is generated by local authority-owned renewables, despite the scope that exists to install projects on their land and buildings.  In Germany the equivalent figure is 100 times higher.

At present local authorities are able to put any renewable electricity they generate to local use, and to benefit from the associated feed-in tariff for projects smaller than 5MW.  But they are restricted from selling any excess renewable electricity into the grid. 

The steps that are now being taken could mean up to £200m a year in income for local authorities across England and Wales.

In advance of a visit to Woking Borough Council’s clean energy projects, Chris Huhne said:

"For too long, Whitehall’s dogmatic reliance on 'big' energy has stood in the way of the vast potential role of local authorities in the UK’s green energy revolution. 

"Forward thinking local authorities such as Woking in Surrey have been quietly getting on with it, but against the odds, their efforts frustrated by the law.

"I've taken the early step of overturning the ban on local authorities selling renewable electricity to the grid.  

"This is a vital step to making community renewable projects commercially viable, to bring in long-term income to benefit local areas, and to secure local acceptance for low carbon energy projects."

Fri 6th Aug 2010:

Controversial children's database ContactPoint to be scrapped.

Liberal Democrats opposed ContactPoint from the start. At the last Lib Dem Autumn Conference a motion was passed calling for an end to the database and to invest the money in alternatives to help staff more effectively.

Commenting, Baroness Walmsley said:

“It is very important that we improve our child protection services and make sure that no abuse or neglect can fall through the cracks. However, ContactPoint was not the answer.

“We have campaigned against this database for a very long time. It was a waste of time and money that staff neither wanted nor needed. The privacy and security implications of such a large collection of personal data were another headache that those working to protect vulnerable children could have done without.

“Now we need to look for ways we can help the professionals do their jobs properly.”

RBS must use profits to help struggling businesses, says Williams.

Commenting on the £1.1bn pre-tax half year profits announced by Royal Bank of Scotland (RBS) today, Co-Chair of the Liberal Democrat Treasury Policy Committee, Stephen Williams said:

“RBS is almost entirely owned by the taxpayer, so these huge profits must be used for the national interest and not just to pay massive bonuses to senior staff.

“There is no excuse for RBS not to loan to good British companies that are struggling to get credit. We cannot simply allow banks to go back to business as usual while viable British firms are suffering.”

Thu 5th Aug 2010:

Vince Cable announces large investment in low-carbon jobs in the North East.

Of this package, £1.3m will help develop Carbon Capture and Storage technology, which will be vital in reducing carbon emissions while ensuring Britain's energy supply.

Before and during the General Election campaign, the Liberal Democrats made clear that one of the party’s absolute priorities was to help the economy recover and make sure Britain builds a secure, sustainable economy, creating new green jobs for those who have suffered in the recession. Now in Government, Liberal Democrat Cabinet Ministers Vince Cable and Chris Huhne, the Energy and Climate Change Secretary, have announced ambitious plans to ensure this happens.

Vince Cable said:

“Continued investment in the North East is extremely important as we rebalance our regional economies, but this needs to be the right kind of support. It’s vital that any grants will garner real benefits for businesses and communities by growing local economies and skills.

“That’s why I am delighted to announce this funding, especially for Carbon Capture and Storage, which the North East is well placed to capitalise on. These projects will create a wealth of opportunities for local businesses and create new highly-skilled jobs.”

Wed 4th Aug 2010:

We need to make girls feel confident about their own body, says Swinson.

Commenting, Jo Swinson said:

“I am delighted that Girlguiding UK is taking up this issue. I co-founded the Campaign for Body Confidence out of concern that people of all ages are feeling so much pressure over their body image - especially young girls.

“There is plenty of scientific evidence that being exposed to so many unrealistic images in the media can be harmful to people's health and wellbeing.

“We need to make girls feel confident about their own body and to help them realise that manipulated images are unrealistic and untrue. Girls need to stop being encouraged to aspire to the unreachable as they will only become more and more unhappy in the process.”

Liberal Democrat Equalities Minister Lynne Featherstone added:

“The Girl Guides have done an incredible amount of work over recent years with their annual 'attitude surveys' and their most recent survey showed that girls as young as ten are worried about their weight. I have sent them a message of support.”

Tue 3rd Aug 2010:

Liberal Democrat Party Elections 2010.

Under the Constitutional Amendments passed at the Spring Conference in 2006 the Party Committees elected this autumn will serve for a two-year term of office (2011-2012). The provisions of article 2.4 of the Federal Constitution regarding gender balance apply to all of these elections.

Nomination Papers available from - 1st September 2010

Close of Nominations - 29th September 2010

Dispatch of ballot papers - 12th October 2010

Close of ballot - 10th November 2010

Count - 13th November 2010

15 Places to be elected

The Federal Executive (FE) is responsible for directing, co-ordinating and implementing the work of the Federal Party, including overall strategy, campaigning, organisation and staffing. The Federal Finance and Administration Committee, Campaigns and Communications Committee and International Relations Committee all report to the FE.

The FE has 29 voting members: the Party President (who is the chair) and three Vice Presidents; the Leader and two other MPs; one peer; one MEP; two councillors; three state party reps; and fifteen members directly elected by conference reps.

15 Places to be elected

The Federal Policy Committee (FPC) is responsible for developing policy and overseeing the Federal Party’s policy making process. This includes producing policy papers for debate at conference, and drawing up (in consultation with the relevant parliamentary party) the Federal election manifesto for Westminster and European elections.

The FPC has 29 voting members: the Party Leader and four other MPs; the Party President; one peer; one MEP; three councillors; three state party reps; and fifteen members directly elected conference reps. It must be chaired by one of the five MP members, and is currently chaired by the Leader.

12 Places to be elected

The Federal Conference Committee (FCC) is responsible for organising the two Federal Conferences each year. This includes choosing the agenda from amongst the policy and business motions submitted by conference reps, local, regional and state parties, specified associated organisations and Federal committees, and also taking decisions on topics such as venues, registration rates and other administrative and organisational matters. It works with a budget set by the FFAC.

The FCC has 21 voting `members: The Party President: the Chief Whip; three state party reps; two reps from the FE and two from the FPC; and twelve members directly elected by conference reps. It elects its own Chair (currently Andrew Wiseman) who must be one of the directly elected or state party reps.

5 Places to be elected

The International Relations Committee (IRC) of the party is a sub-committee of the Federal Executive. It meets 4 times a year, and acts as the consultative and co-ordinating body of the party regarding its activities on the international stage. Additionally, meetings are called to prepare resolutions for Liberal International and ELDR Committee meetings and Congresses in conjunction with the Party's delegates to these occasions.

The committee consists of representatives of Federal Committees, relevant international bodies, parliamentary representatives and co-opted experts, and is led by a Chairperson elected by the Federal Executive. Five members of the Committee are elected by conference reps.

8 Places to be elected

The European Liberal Democrat and Reform Party (ELDR) is the European Political Party to which the Liberal Democrats belong. Since its beginnings in 1993, the party has grown, with current membership from 48 European Political Parties with common liberal, democratic and reform ideals and is the forum for member parties to develop a co-ordinated policy. Within ELDR, we have 11 Members of the European Parliament (MEPs). The membership of the ELDR Party is composed of member parties, affiliate parties and individual members, and also incorporates LYMEC, the youth movement, which brings together more than 170,000 young liberal Europeans.

15 places to be elected

People are elected to the panel for four years therefore everybody who was elected in 2008 remains a member of the panel until the 2012, also the Federal Executive has extended the term of office of those elected in 2006 until 2012 and therefore both these groups will be ineligible to stand in this election. All former Liberal Democrat members of the House of Commons, European Parliament, Scottish Parliament and Welsh Assembly are automatically members of the list and shall also be ineligible to stand in this election. Candidates are expected to answer the following questions as part of their election address:

1 How would your experience enable you to fulfil the role of a working Peer?

2 What would you aim to achieve as a Liberal Democrat member of the House of Lords?

3 To which policy areas would you wish to contribute?

4 How would your work as a Peer help the party in general?

Nomination Papers and further information will be available at Conference from the Membership Services and Information desks and they will be available on the Party Website.

They can be obtained prior to Conference and after 1st September by e-mailing Returning.Officer@libdems.org.uk or calling 020 7227 1339.

Fri 30th Jul 2010:

We must consider if Trident can be justified, says Campbell.

“This confirmation of what had already been predicted makes it essential that the case for like-for-like replacement of Trident should, as the Liberal Democrats have agreed, be part of the Strategic Defence Review.

“How can you possibly take on such a large financial commitment as Trident without considering the military and political implications?

“If fierce cuts are to be made in Britain’s conventional forces, surely we have to consider whether replacing Trident can be justified.”

Thu 29th Jul 2010:

Give workers freedom to choose retirement date, says Minister.

Commenting, Ed Davey said: “With more and more people wanting to extend their working lives we should not stop them just because they have reached a particular age. We want to give individuals greater choice and are moving swiftly to end discrimination of this kind.

“Older workers bring with them a wealth of talent and experience as employees and entrepreneurs. They have a vital contribution to make to our economic recovery and long-term prosperity.”

Wed 28th Jul 2010:

ASBOs are a failed policy, says Brake.

Commenting on today’s speech by the Home Secretary in which she said  it was ‘time to move beyond’ Anti Social Behaviour Orders (ASBOs), Co-Chair of the Liberal Democrat Parliamentary Committee for Home Affairs and Justice, Tom Brake said:

“The Home Secretary has listened to Liberal Democrat concerns. 

“With more than half of ASBOs breached in 2008, this was a policy more about posturing than effective policing.  Local communities know that other measures, such as Acceptable Behaviour Contracts can nip problems in the bud before they escalate. 

“Resorting to ASBOs was a sign of failure.”

Labour opposition to AV exposes staggering hypocrisy, says Hughes.

Commenting on Labour's decision to oppose legislation for a referendum on the alternative vote, which was a commitment in their manifesto, Liberal Democrat Deputy Leader, Simon Hughes said:

“This is staggering hypocrisy from Labour.

“Labour's shadow cabinet decision is not about principle, it is about naked opportunism.

“With most of their leadership contenders claiming to back AV for a fairer voting system, it is astonishing they now wish to block the legislation to make that happen.

“Each and every Labour MP campaigned on a manifesto committing to a referendum. Now they have the opportunity to make this happen but have chosen to say no for opposition's sake.

“Labour can no longer claim to be the party of reform. It is now the party of vested interests and shameless self-interest.”

Tue 27th Jul 2010:

Evidence released shows Labour neglected Armed Forces, says Tim Farron.

The documents show that Labour ministers were formally warned that the military needed an alternative to the Snatch Land Rover in Iraq and Afghanistan. In a reaction to the revelations, Tim Farron said:

“This is yet another damning sign that the Labour Government ignored advice from its top military officials on their equipment needs.

“As we long suspected, generals told ministers that they needed better equipment to protect their troops and to prevent more casualties. For years the Army had to make do with adding extra protection to their existing, unsuitable vehicles.

“This is unacceptable in any situation and led to unnecessary casualties. I look forward to working with my Coalition colleagues to put these kind of indefensible practices behind us by making sure our brave soldiers are properly equipped.”

To read the full document, please visit the Iraq Inquiry's website.

Coalition sets out ambitious climate change policies.

Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change, Chris Huhne today set out ambitious plans to tackle climate change and give the UK the secure, low carbon energy it needs.

In his first Annual Energy Statement to the House of Commons, Chris Huhne laid out "a clear strategy for creating the 21st century energy system that this country urgently needs for an affordable, secure, low-carbon future."

This included a series of measures to improve energy efficiency and boost renewables, protect vulnerable consumers, as well as pledging to push for ambitious action on climate change at home and abroad.

Commenting, Chris Huhne said:

“The coalition brings resolve and stability to energy and climate change policy.  Today’s Annual Energy Statement sets out 32 important actions, the beginnings of our efforts to introduce the transparency, certainty and long-termism needed by investors. 

“Our future energy system is too important to rely on crystal ball gazing.  The 2050 Calculator provides the most comprehensive, long term analysis ever undertaken by Government.  The decision to publish this material is a watershed in government’s honesty with the public about what’s needed in the long term.  It will guide the decisions we make during this Parliament about the energy system we want in 40 years’ time. 

“The challenge is ambitious but achievable.  We’re already on track to cut the UK’s emissions by 34% by 2020, and will do more if we can win the case for greater ambition across the whole EU.  But our line of sight needs to extend much further, through to the middle of the century.

“The era of cheap, abundant energy is over, we must find smart ways of making the energy we use go further, and value it for the costly resource it is, not taking it for granted.  And even as we reduce overall demand for energy, we may need to meet a near doubling in demand for electricity, as we shift industry, transport and heating onto the grid.

“There are big choices and big trade offs in how we do this.  The six pathways described today are only illustrative, but they highlight the scale and urgency of the task.

“Choosing the high carbon alternative would be high risk.  It would lock in exposure to volatile oil prices, declining global reserves and rapidly increasing global energy demand.  We’d risk having a dead end economy lagging behind those with the foresight to grab a share of growth in green industries.”

Co-Chair of the Liberal Democrat Parliamentary Committee for Energy and Climate Change, Andrew George added:

“Climate change is the greatest threat we face as a society and a planet. I am proud that Liberal Democrats in Government are taking this seriously and proposing radical steps to tackle it.

“The Coalition has today set out the most ambitious programme to create a secure, low carbon economy of any British Government in history.

“It is vital that as we tackle these issues we protect the most vulnerable consumers, which is why rolling out measures like home insulation and smart meters is so important.”

Mon 26th Jul 2010:

Coalition announces Pupil Premium to provide extra money for disadvantaged pupils.

The Coalition Government today announced a Pupil Premium to target extra money at schools taking disadvantaged pupils.

The proposed Pupil Premium would provide additional per pupil funding on top of the existing funding provided to schools. Schools will be free to spend the additional funding as they choose to raise the achievement of disadvantage pupils.

This was a key manifesto commitment and one that Nick Clegg made clear was one of his absolute priorities.

Liberal Democrats Children’s Minister Sarah Teather said:

“For too long social background has been a deciding factor in a child’s achievement and future prospects. In a fair society, it’s the Government’s responsibility to close the gulf in achievement, where the poorest children are almost three times less likely to leave school with five good GCSEs than their richer classmates.

“That’s why I’m delighted we are today announcing a new Pupil Premium, which will give extra funding to schools to help them tackle the inequalities that have been a part of our state system for far too long. Thousands of children will finally be getting the extra support they need to succeed.”

Co-Chair of the Liberal Democrat Parliamentary Committee for Education, Dan Rogerson added:

“Labour’s unequal education system left too many children falling behind.

“The Liberal Democrats made clear during the election campaign that a Pupil Premium to targeted at the most disadvantaged pupils was an absolute priority.

“This will allow schools to help all pupils in the way that they see fit, which could be reducing class sizes or providing more one-to-one tuition and catch-up classes.

“This is vital if we are to give all children the fair start in life that they deserve.”

Police commissioners must have tough checks and balances, says Brake.

Commenting ahead of the Home Secretary’s statement on elected police commissioners, Co-Chair of the Liberal Democrat Parliamentary Committee for Home Affairs and Justice, Tom Brake said:

“These proposals should lead to both more accountable and more effective policing.

“But elected police commissioners will need to be subject to tough checks and balances. 

“These proposals should not be seen as a green light for the election of Judge Dredd characters more interested in populism than effective co-operative policing.”

Wed 21st Jul 2010:

Deputy Leader Simon Hughes on 10 weeks that have revitalised politics.

Liberal Democrat Deputy Leader Simon Hughes has written of his pride at the huge achievements the Liberal Democrats have made in the 10 weeks since the formation of the Coalition Government.

Writing for the Guardian's Comment is Free website, Simon Hughes said the Lib Dems "have achieved greater political change than I could have ever imagined" and pointed to a host of the party's policies that are now going ahead.

These include the scrapping of ID cards and intrusive government databases, the ending of child detention for immigration purposes, the review of 28-day detention without charge, the referendum on voting reform, the right to sack MPs guilty of serious misconduct, a Pupil Premium to target money at poor children, a banking levy and the raising of the income tax threshold.

Simon Hughes said:

"In the last 10 weeks we have seen three refreshing changes in the politics of Britain.

"There has been change from a government which had lost direction and run out of steam, to a government clear about its direction and full of energy.

"There has been change from one party government to coalition government for the first time for 65 years – doing what many of the public often say they want and bringing political leaders to work together in the interests of the nation.

"And thirdly, we have seen Liberals enter government for the first time since the second world war. This is a huge opportunity for Liberals and Liberal Democrats.

"Our great party at last has the chance to make sure we build for the first time in decades a truly liberal Britain.

"As we tackle the three great challenges of the economic, environmental and political crises we inherited, we have all to play for. With confidence, but not with arrogance, we can help to deliver the fairer Britain our country desperately needs.

"We have only just begun to show what a real transformation for the better this can bring."

Click here for the full article.

10 weeks on the Lib Dems have had huge influence in Government.

In just 10 weeks since the start of the Coalition Government, the Liberal Democrats have exerted a huge influence over its agenda.

Going into the election the Liberal Democrats made clear that they had four key priorities: fairer taxes; a fair start for children with extra funding for disadvantaged pupils; a comprehensive clean up of our politics, including a fairer voting system; and a green, sustainable economy.

Thanks to Lib Dem involvement, the Government will deliver on each of these.

There are also a large number of other Lib Dem policies and pledges that will now begin to make a real, positive difference to people’s lives because of our role in the Coalition Government.

These include everything from rolling back the surveillance state and giving people back their civil liberties, to prison and NHS reforms, fairer pensions, the ending of child detention and the scrapping of the third runway at Heathrow.

Delivering on our promises

Fairer taxes

The Liberal Democrats promised to make the tax system fairer by ensuring no one pays tax on the first £10,000 they earn and closing loopholes that allow the wealthy to pay a smaller proportion of their income in tax than people on low and middle incomes.

The Coalition Government has already taken a huge step towards achieving this by raising the income tax threshold by £1,000 in last month’s Budget, saving low and middle earners £200 a year, and reforming Capital Gains Tax. The income tax threshold will continue to be increased every year during this Parliament.

The Liberal Democrats also promised to restore the earnings link to pensions, which the Government will now do.

We also promised wide scale banking reform, including a banking levy to make sure that banks pay for the financial support they received from the taxpayer. The levy, which will raise £2.5bn, was announced in the Budget.

A fair start for children

The Liberal Democrats promised to introduce a Pupil Premium to target extra money at disadvantaged children. The Coalition Agreement makes clear that this will now happen.

We also promised greater freedoms for teachers over the curriculum, which will also be brought in as a key part of the Coalition’s education reforms.

Fair politics

The Liberal Democrats promised a comprehensive clean up of the rotten political system. This is now a key part of the Coalition’s agenda for which Nick Clegg has responsibility.

The plans include:

·    A referendum on the Alternative Vote to take place in May 2011

·    The right to sack MPs guilty of serious misconduct

·    Fixed term parliaments of five years

·    Reform of party funding

·    Moving towards an elected House of Lords, elected by proportional representation

·    A statutory register of lobbyists

·    A radical devolution of power and greater financial autonomy to local government and community groups

A green, sustainable economy

The Liberal Democrats promised a raft of policies to help the economy recover and make sure that we build a new green and sustainable economy fit for the 21st century.

A huge number of these policies will now become a reality, including:

·    Tough action to tackle the deficit

·    The creation of a green investment bank

·    Reform of the banking system to make sure that banks lend to viable British businesses

·    An independent commission on separating investment and retail banking

·    Measures to improve energy efficiency in homes and businesses

·    Support for low carbon energy production and an increase the target for energy from renewable sources

·    Enabling the creation of a national high speed rail network

·    The creation of a smart electricity grid and the roll-out of smart meters

·    The establishment of an emissions performance standard that will prevent coal-fired power stations being built unless they are equipped with Carbon Capture and Storage Technology

·    Replacing Air Passenger Duty with a per-plane duty

·    The provision of a floor price for carbon, as well as working to persuade the EU to move towards full auctioning of ETS permits

Other Lib Dem policies that will now become a reality

The Liberal Democrats have long campaigned for the restoration of freedoms and civil liberties eroded under Labour and the rolling back of the surveillance state. A huge number of Lib Dem policies will now happen, including:

·    The abolition of Identity Cards, the National Identity register, the next generation of biometric passports and the ContactPoint Database

·    The repeal of unnecessary laws

·    Further regulation of CCTV

·    The outlawing of finger-printing of children at school without permission

·    Extending the Freedom of Information Act

·    Ending child detention for immigration purposes

·    Removal of innocent people from the DNA database

There are also a host of other Lib Dem policies that will now happen under the Coalition Government. These include:

·    Fair compensation for Equitable Life victims

·    The modernisation of the Royal Mail

·    Flexible working and promotion of equal pay

·    Reform of the NHS to strengthen the voices of patients and the role of doctors

·    A commission on long-term reform of social care

·    Cutting Quangos and government bureaucracy

·    Implementing the recommendations of the Calman Commission on Scottish devolution

·    A referendum on further powers for the Welsh Assembly

Yarl’s Wood closure a sign of Lib Dem influence in Government, says Brake .

Commenting on Deputy Prime Minister and Liberal Democrat Leader Nick Clegg’s statement that the child detention facility at Yarl’s Wood Immigration Removal Centre, where children are detained awaiting deportation, will be closed, Co-Chair of the Liberal Democrat Parliamentary Committee for Home Affairs and Justice, Tom Brake said:

“The ending of child detention at Yarl’s Wood is a victory for British decency.

“Locking up innocent children for months on end can lead to serious physical and psychological harm. It is a disgrace the Labour Government allowed this to take place in 21st century Britain.

“The Liberal Democrats have had a huge influence in Government and this announcement is a sign of that. I am proud to be in a party which will end the cruelty of child detention.”

Fri 16th Jul 2010:

Nick Clegg sets out the aims of a liberal Parliament.

In his speech at the liberal think-tank Demos, Deputy Prime Minister and Liberal Democrat Leader Nick Clegg set out his aims for a liberal Parliament.

Full text below:

Last year, I wrote a pamphlet for Demos, arguing that the liberal moment had come. I argued that demands for a new approach to politics, for a radical redistribution of power, would soon have to be met by a liberal agenda.

That moment arrived on May 7.

Our challenge now is to seize this moment, the liberal moment, and to ensure that we help to deliver a liberal parliament - a great reforming parliament that carries out a fundamental redistribution of power to the people.

Liberal ideas have of course influenced politicians in other parties since the Liberal Party was last in office. Think of Roy Jenkins, as Labour Home Secretary, one of the great Liberal reformers. And today, James Purnell, since his escape from Westminster, has been pursuing his idea of ‘power egalitarianism’, which overlaps strongly with liberal thinking. The Prime Minister has described himself as a liberal Conservative.

Now that the Liberal Democrats are in government, liberal ideas are being deployed directly. What you are seeing is liberalism in action. And I can tell you that as Deputy Prime Minister, my liberal instincts are stronger than ever. Our goal is clear.

By the time of the next election, on 7 May 2015, Britain will be a more liberal nation.

This goal will be delivered in partnership with the Conservative Party. Our two parties are distinct and independent, but we are united in our zeal for reform.

David Cameron and I just this week wrote an article together arguing in favour of a radical redistribution of power. Sometimes the differences between us are on matters of substance; but very often they are merely questions of language. David Cameron’s eloquent description of what he calls the Big Society is what I would call the Liberal Society.

Today I want to show how we are setting about working towards the goal of a more liberal Britain, against an extremely difficult economic backdrop, in alliance with our Conservative coalition partners. I will address four themes:

Liberalism as a philosophy for government.

Liberal Economics: the liberal thinking animating our economic policy

Liberal State: the role of the state in a liberal society

Liberal Politics: the liberalisation of politics and our political system

Liberalism

In my Demos pamphlet, I wrote that ‘the job of a liberal government is to disperse power’. Liberalism is based on the simple, profound belief that power should rest in the hands of people. Power is too often hoarded by elites, beyond the reach of citizens. When liberals see power hoarded in centralised political institutions, corporate monopolies, or unaccountable bureaucracies, we instinctively reach for the sledgehammer.

I recognise that recent political history is littered with examples of politicians who were strong decentralisers in opposition but centralisers once they were settled in their Whitehall departments. It is not enough to declare a decentralising agenda: we have to deliver on it.

Now that we are in government, I hope you will see that we meant it, and that this is an aspiration we share with our Conservative coalition partners. This Government is deeply committed to the decentralisation of power - in politics, economics and in public services. To take just a few examples:

More powers for Local Authorities

Greater autonomy in our schools

A radical dispersal of power in the NHS

Locally-based partnerships to promote enterprise

This desire to put power in the hands of people is based on an optimistic assessment of human nature, and human capability. It is an article of faith for liberals that people with power and capability will make better choices about how to lead their lives than government, or other institutions.

A free society is a better society, so long as people have the resources and opportunities to make the best of their lives.

Indeed, I believe illiberal politics is usually based on pessimism. When politicians or political parties fall prey to the idea that people are not capable of creating good lives and good communities for themselves, they resort to central government fiat and regulation.

I think the last government sometimes fell into this trap. One of the problems we face today is that the people do not trust politicians; but it is perhaps an even greater problem that politicians very often do not trust the people.

I said a moment ago that individual liberty requires not only freedom from interference but also resources. Independence requires knowledge, health, money, skills – these are described by the Nobel prize winner Amartya Sen as capabilities.

These capabilities do not emerge out of thin air. So liberal societies, populated by powerful citizens, must attend to the production and distribution not only of cash, but more importantly to the production and distribution of capabilities.

As Sen puts it:

“Responsible adults must be in charge of their own well-being; it is for them to decide how to use their capabilities. But the capabilities that a person does actually have depends on the nature of social arrangements, which can be crucial for individual freedoms. And there the state and the society cannot escape responsibility.”

I agree.  This is a vital element of the liberal approach, as opposed to libertarians, or neo-liberals if you prefer. Libertarians believe that simply clearing away obstacles will set people free. Liberals understand that for a person to have power over their life, they need capabilities too.

There is one further point to make on liberalism as a governing philosophy, which relates to responsibility. The Government’s programme will be based on the core values of freedom, fairness and responsibility. These values strongly reinforce each other.

It should be clear, for example, that responsibility goes hand in hand with freedom. Liberal societies only function when people take responsibility for themselves, and for others. An irresponsible society necessarily becomes either an anarchic or authoritarian one.

Jo Grimond, one of my predecessors, wrote that: ‘a corollary of freedom, just as important as order, is responsibility. Freedom entails the acceptance of responsibility. Responsibility is meaningless without freedom’.

This, then, is the liberal political vision: a society made up of powerful, responsible citizens.

Liberal Economics

This vision animates the legislative agenda of the government in a wide range of areas, from civil liberties and criminal justice, to the environment and public service reform.

But I want to look first at the economy, and in particular the colossal challenge of repairing the public finances. We are facing the biggest budget deficit since the Second World War. Britain will in 2010, carry the biggest deficit in Europe. For the financial year 2010/11, the structural deficit will be around 8 per cent of GDP. If we do not take action to tackle the deficit, by the end of this parliament we will be paying £70bn just to service our debts.

Everybody accepts that decisive action was required. The Labour government had set out plans for spending reductions representing two-thirds of the cuts proposed by the Coalition government – without specifying what those cuts would be.

David Cameron and I, along with our colleagues in both parties, decided that Labour’s plans did not go far enough. In our view, there was a clear and present danger to the economic sovereignty of the nation. It was called an emergency budget for a reason. It was a budget aimed squarely at retaining democratic control over the public finances. As a nation, we faced a real risk of losing control of the management of our economy to unaccountable financial markets.

I understand that these economic judgements are contested ones. Reasonable people can disagree about our assessment, our judgement, of the relative risks involved here.

But let me be crystal clear about where the Liberal Democrats stand. This was a Coalition budget, not a Conservative budget. The Liberal Democrats stand full-square behind the Budget judgement.

There would be, to my mind, absolutely nothing liberal about handing over £70 billion to the bond markets to service the debt we inherited from the previous government. That is money that should go on public services – on schools and on hospitals – not bond dealers’ bonuses.

The action we have taken on fiscal policy is also intended to keep down the cost of borrowing. The deficit outlook we inherited as a government was likely to force up interest rates, which would deal a devastating blow to families and businesses. Affordable borrowing – for the government, but also for businesses and families – is vital to the economic recovery.

There is some concern that the budget measures risk creating a ‘double dip’ recession. The opposite is the case. If we had not taken action in the budget, and interest rates had risen, that would have been the quickest route to an early double dip recession.

We are also committed as a Government to unlocking bank lending. Capital is the lifeblood of the economy, as we were reminded so brutally two years ago. We will be taking the necessary measures to get capital flowing again to British businesses. 

Of course, getting there will be a painful process. Nobody could possibly have wanted to enter government to find a huge budget deficit waiting. The temptation, especially for politicians, is to delay the pain, to put off decisions that will be unpopular. That is a temptation to which the previous government succumbed, and the mess we are now clearing up is their legacy. But by acting now, we are very much more likely to see strong economic growth in the medium-term. It is pain for gain.

It is absurd to claim that there is a chasm between the Government and the Opposition on the budget measures. We learn, courtesy of Lord Mandelson’s memoirs – produced, it has to be said, with a speed and efficiency sadly lacking by Labour in government – of Alistair Darling’s plans for last November’s Pre Budget Report.

Mr Darling wanted to cut income tax at the bottom and reduce corporation tax - while raising VAT over successive years to 19 per cent. He also opposed a rise in National Insurance on the grounds that it would be a ‘tax on jobs’. If this sounds familiar, it might be because Mr Darling’s preferred options are uncannily similar to those in last month’s emergency budget.

It is a shame Mr Darling could not persuade Gordon Brown. It is also shameful for Labour to attack the Coalition for measures their own chancellor wished to implement.

Let me now set out some of the thinking behind some of the tax changes, which are a good example of liberalism in action. The Government increased the income tax threshold by £1,000 to £7,475 and raised Capital Gains Tax by a full ten percentage points to 28 per cent. As you know, the coalition government has pledged to prioritise cuts to taxes on income, particularly low income, rather than cuts in inheritance tax.

In the budget we also announced that we would examine the case for switching aviation tax from per-passenger to a per-plane duty, as well as a review of the climate change levy to give more certainty and support to the price of carbon.

These reforms and reviews are in line with long-standing liberal views about taxation, and two preferences in particular:

for taxing ‘unearned’ income rather than ‘earned’ income; and

for taxing pollution rather than people

I don’t want to overstate the case on the basis on one emergency budget. But I do think it is reasonable to claim that the contours of a distinctly liberal approach to tax – of a fiscal liberalism – are now visible.

Liberal State

There have been some fears expressed that the Budget represents an ideological exercise, designed to shrink the state. But the Coalition deficit reduction plans are driven by economic necessity, not by ideology.

Too often, political philosophy is boiled down into these kind of binary questions: are you pro-state or anti-state? Do you want a small state or big state? The answer to these questions is then used a proxy for a political position.

To be on the left, in this analysis, is to be in favour of a big state, high public spending and high taxation to pay the bills. To be on the right is to believe the opposite to all of these.

For liberals, the questions are essentially meaningless. A liberal state cannot be equated to a particular level of government spending as a proportion of GDP. It is perfectly possible to have a state that spends small amounts on a highly authoritarian state apparatus. It is perfectly possible to have a state that spends large amounts in a manner that is liberating.

Take education. A centralized, dictat-driven school system with no diversity, no choice, and no flexibility would be illiberal no matter how much it cost. A system that allows for choice, freedom, and diversity is a liberal one – with the price tag a separate question.

Michael Gove’s plans to allow for greater autonomy in schools, along with more localized diversity of provision and more choice for parents is a quintessentially liberal approach. This is an area where the state needs to back off.

But the education system is also failing to promote social mobility. Too often, poor children end up with a poor education, compared to their more affluent peers. Here is an area where the state does need to intervene more aggressively, by providing a targeted pupil premium, giving more power to the most disadvantaged children in the system.

So: less state intervention in the running of schools, more state intervention in promoting social mobility. Is the state getting smaller or bigger in this scenario? To my mind, it’s a ludicrous way of framing the question. The liberal test for any form of state intervention is whether it liberates and empowers people.

So it makes no sense whatsoever to use a phrase like ‘small state liberal’. Someone with a fixed view about the size of the state is not a liberal. It is not the size of the state - it is what the state does that matters. Does it hoard and exercise its own power, or disperse power and build capability in our citizens?

Similarly, a liberal cannot hold a simple ‘for’ or ‘against’ view of regulation. It is clear that in many areas, we have not had enough regulation in the last decade – the banks and the housing market being the most obvious examples. On the other hand, we have seen far too much regulation for small businesses, and too much micro-management in the day-to-day lives of ordinary people. A liberal cannot say that a state is too big - but we can certainly say the state has become too big for its boots. Labour over-regulated in some areas, but under-regulated in others.

Liberal Politics

Last – but most definitely not least – I want to turn my attention to the urgent question of political reform. It is clear that a rotten political system has lost the confidence of the public, and rightly so. Power is hoarded in Downing Street, Westminster and Whitehall; the First Past the Post voting system is past its sell-by date; and the House of Lords is running behind the rest of society’s progress by approximately one hundred years.

As I have said, the driving liberal mission is to place more power in the hands of people. In politics this means:

More power to select, and deselect, their representatives

More power to choose local priorities, rather than being dictated to from the centre

More power for people to express their political preferences

In all of these areas, this parliament will see great progress. The referendum on the voting system next May will give people the chance to choose a new voting system. The proposal to equalize the size of parliamentary constituencies will give each vote a more equal weight.

The decentralization drive will put more power in the hands of local authorities, but also in the hands of community groups, neighbourhood associations and local public services.

House of Lords reform has been on the liberal agenda for well over a century. I am not going to hide my impatience on this issue. In some ways, I feel like we are back to help finish the job we as liberals started in 1911. We need a House of Lords that is fit for purpose, and fit for the 21st century. I am acutely aware that this is an area of reform that has defeated countless previous administrations over the last few decades. But those administrations did not have Liberal Democrats in them.

I am delighted, however, that today there is cross-party support for many of the measures I have mentioned. I look forward to working with people from all parties on the urgent task of political reform.

We should not imagine, however, that political reform is only concerned with the systems and structures of politics – urgent though that reform is. We also need to reform the conduct of political life.

For too long, British politics has been stuck in a stale, artificial duopoly. Differences of opinion within parties have been denied or hidden, disagreements between parties have been artificially inflated by what Grimond called ‘the distorting pressures of parliament’.

Politicians have seen little contradiction between lecturing the nation on the need for civility and responsibility while operating in a House of Commons that has too often resembled a cross between a bear-pit and a football terrace.

The fact of emergence of coalition government is changing the way politics is conducted, in a hugely positive direction. Of course it is challenging for all of us in government. It is challenging for the civil service. And it poses a challenge to the opposition parties too. But I am hugely excited not only by the measures being undertaken by the coalition government, but the way in which we are undertaking them.

The biggest change is in the way political decisions are made. Open discussion is encouraged, not thwarted. We want robust dialogue and dissent in politics: indeed, from a liberal perspective, argument is a critical tool of progress. But we do not need poisonous tribalism.

Sometimes we can agree to disagree. A compromise might sometimes be the best way forward, rather than representing a defeat for politician X and a victory for politician Y. Sometimes – and here I am going to court great controversy – we might even change our minds.

It is too easy for politicians to fall into the trap of knee-jerk opposition, to spend all their time in a combat stance, to stop listening to those with whom they disagree. But the time for this kind of politics has passed. There is a thirst for a new and different way of doing politics, and I think we are responding. Politics is changing before our eyes, and I am genuinely afraid that the Labour party is blind to the transformation.

This parliament will be a challenging one. But it is also set to be a truly reforming parliament – a liberal parliament. By 2015:

power will have been radically redistributed towards people

our civil liberties will have been restored

our broken political system will be repaired

our economy will be balanced, green and growing

If the coalition Government succeeds, by 2015 Britain will be a more liberal nation, a nation of stronger citizens living in a fairer society. I am under no illusions about the scale of this ambition. But I am also in no doubt that we can achieve it.

Thu 15th Jul 2010:

Vince Cable makes speech on higher education funding.

Vince Cable today gave his first speech on higher education since becoming Business Secretary, in which he suggested that a graduate tax might be a fairer system for funding universities than tuition fees.

An independent review, led by Lord Browne, is currently looking at how universities will be funded in the future and will report in the Autumn. Once it is published, the Coalition Government will judge its proposals against the need to: increase social mobility; take into account the impact on student debt; ensure a properly funded university sector; improve the quality of teaching; advance scholarship; and encourage a higher proportion of students from disadvantaged backgrounds.

Speaking at London South Bank University this morning, Vince Cable said:

“My generation had the remarkable privilege of being educated free.  There was an implicit assumption that we paid for the graduate premiums in our income through higher income tax. 

“But there was also a sense of unfairness articulated by Alan Johnson when he was Minister: why should a young postman contribute through his tax to pay for an already privileged group to avoid earning a living for three years and then emerge with higher earnings potential?

“In any event, a model designed for 10% of the population could not be applied to 40%: hence the move to a graduate contribution. 

“We currently have what is misleadingly called a system of ‘tuition fees’.  Many people believe, wrongly that when students arrive at university they or their parents are required to get out their chequebooks, or wallets, and pay more than £3000 for a year’s tuition. 

“The idea that students are repelled from higher education by fees owes much to this erroneous belief.

“In reality of course most students meet these costs by taking a student loan, payable direct from income after graduation when earning a reasonable salary.  In this sense, we already have a form of graduate tax. The problem is that it is a fixed sum – a poll tax – regardless of the income of the graduate. It surely can’t be right that a teacher or care worker or research scientist is expected to pay the same graduate contribution as a top commercial lawyer or surgeon or City analyst whose graduate premium is so much bigger. 

“The current system has the further disadvantage that it reinforces the idea that students carry an additional fixed burden of debt into their working lives.  Yet, most of us don’t think of our future tax obligations as ‘debt’.

“I am interested in looking at the feasibility of changing the system of financing student tuition so that the repayment mechanism is variable graduate contributions tied to earnings. I have spoken to Lord Browne about this and he has assured me that he is looking at this issue as part of his review.

“By looking at the periods of time over which contributions are made, the level of thresholds that trigger the contribution, the rate at which contributions are paid, and the other key variables, it may be possible to levy graduate contributions so that low graduate earners pay no more (or less) and high earners pay more. 

...

“I do not want to see a complicated new system or one that creates uncertainty over the future funding of universities. Or one which deters anyone from university with the ambition to go, irrespective of background. There is a long way still to go in this debate and no decisions have yet been taken. But I would urge universities to help us think creatively about fairer mechanisms than the current one, recognising that for students and their families a central issue is securing an equitable system of graduate contributions.”

Wed 14th Jul 2010:

Lord Ashdown to lead review of emergency aid .

Lord Ashdown will lead a taskforce of humanitarian experts from inside and outside Government to review all aspects of how the UK Government responds to disasters and work with the international community to speed up the delivery of aid.

The review will also look at how the UK can best work with international bodies and UN agencies in emergency situations and to ensure that the global response to disasters improves.

Commenting, Lord Ashdown said:

“The emergency response taskforce will ask searching questions of the UK and international response to ensure we are fully prepared and equipped, as well as providing value for money.

“As the number of natural disasters is set to increase dramatically, the emergency response taskforce will make sure the Government is well prepared for future catastrophes.”

Tue 13th Jul 2010:

Terror law review a big step towards making Britain fairer says Brake .

Commenting on the Home Secretary’s announcement of a review of counter-terrorism laws, Co-Chair of the Liberal Democrat Parliamentary Committee for Home Affairs, Tom Brake said:

“Under the Labour Government, hard won rights and liberties that have been a fundamental part of British life for centuries were eroded or simply cast aside.

“The Liberal Democrats have campaigned for years to give citizens back their freedoms, including scrapping control orders and reducing detention without charge. This review will be a big step towards realising these aims and making Britain a fairer country.

“The Government’s first duty is to protect its citizens. I have no doubt this review will ensure public safety is balanced with the rights of the British people.”

Wed 7th Jul 2010:

Court ruling secures freedom from persecution for gay asylum seekers.

Commenting on today’s Supreme Court ruling that it is not acceptable to refuse asylum to an individual on the basis that they can hide their sexuality to avoid persecution,  Simon Hughes, said:

“I am delighted this ruling recognises the rights of gay asylum seekers, ensuring their freedom from persecution around the world.

“This plight is one that my Liberal Democrat colleagues and I have campaigned on for years. It is an issue that the Coalition Government is committed to addressing as we seek to restore Britain’s reputation around the world as a leader in the protection of human rights. I believe that today’s ruling will go some way to restoring that reputation.

“Other countries around the world must now follow the UK’s lead and recognise freedom of expression and freedom of sexuality for all people.”

Tue 6th Jul 2010:

Torture inquiry to restore Britain’s reputation says Brake .

Commenting on the Government’s announcement that there will be an inquiry into the treatment of terror suspects, Tom Brake MP said:

“At long last we can hope to see an end to Labour’s shameful legacy on human rights.

“This Inquiry will be the coalition Government’s opportunity to get to the bottom of what are very serious allegations levelled at our security services.

“From Iraq to accusations of Government complicity in torture, Labour has left Britain’s international reputation in tatters.

“Hopefully, the implementation of this key Liberal Democrat manifesto pledge, with access to all relevant material and people, will start the process of restoring Britain’s standing in the world.”

Mon 5th Jul 2010:

Clegg announces welcome political reforms says Simon Hughes .

Commenting on today’s announcement of a referendum on AV, Simon Hughes said:

“After 13 years of Labour inaction, Nick Clegg today announced a welcome and major series of progressive political reforms.

“The coalition Government has decided in one move to give all voters a much greater say in who is chosen to represent them and to give Parliament a much greater say in the business of Government.

“With an easier and more up to date electoral register in the future, the whole of Britain will have a much more representative democracy.  We will also end the scandal where votes have been of unequal value and in many places of no value at all – and where many people have scandalously not even been allowed to vote.”

Nick Clegg's statement on Political and Constitutional Reform.

With permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to make a statement on the Government’s proposals for parliamentary reform.

Mr Speaker, every member of this House was elected knowing that this parliament must be unlike any other; that we have a unique duty to restore the trust in our political system that has been tested to its limits in recent times.  

And, if anything was clear at the General Election, it was that more and more people realised that our political system is broken and needs to be fixed. They want us to clean up politics. They want to be able to hold us properly to account. 

So the government has set out an ambitious programme for political renewal, transferring power away from the executive to empower parliament, and away from parliament to empower people.

That programme includes:

Introducing a power of recall for MPs guilty of serious wrongdoing.

Tackling the influence of big money as we look again at party funding.

Taking forward long overdue reform of the other place.

Implementing the Wright Committee recommendations, and taking steps to give people more power to shape parliamentary business.

Speeding up the implementation of individual voter registration.

And increasing transparency in lobbying, including through a statutory register.

Today I am announcing the details of a number of major elements of the Government’s proposals for political reform. 

First, we are introducing legislation to fix parliamentary terms. The date of the next General Election will be 7 May 2015.

This is a hugely significant constitutional innovation. It is simply not right that General Elections can be called according to a Prime Minister’s whims. So, this Prime Minister will be the first Prime Minister to give up that right.

I know that when the coalition agreement was published there was some concern at these proposals. We have listened carefully to those, and I can announce today how we will proceed, in a Bill that will be introduced before the summer recess:

First – traditional powers of no confidence will be put into law, and a vote of no confidence will still require only a simple majority. 

Second – if, after a vote of no confidence, a Government cannot be formed for 14 days, Parliament will be dissolved and a General Election will be held.

Let me be clear: these steps will strengthen parliament’s power over the executive.

Third – there will be an additional power for parliament to vote for an early and immediate dissolution. We have decided that a majority of two thirds will be needed to carry the vote, as opposed to the 55% first suggested, as is the case in the Scottish Parliament. These changes will make it impossible for any government to force a dissolution for its own purposes.

These proposals should make it absolutely clear to the House that votes of no confidence and votes for early dissolution are entirely separate. And that we are putting in place safeguards against a lame duck government being left in limbo if the House passes a vote of no confidence but does not vote for early dissolution.

I am also announcing today the details of the Government’s proposals to introduce a Bill before the summer to provide for a referendum on the Alternative Vote system and for a review of constituency boundaries in order to create fewer and more equally sized constituencies, cutting the cost of politics and reducing the number of MPs from the 650 we have today to a House of 600 MPs.

Together these proposals help correct the deep unfairness in the way we hold elections in this country. Under the current set up, votes count more in some parts of the country than others, and millions feel that their votes don’t count at all. Elections are won and lost in a small minority of seats. We have a fractured democracy: where some people’s votes count and other people’s votes don’t count; where some people are listened to, and others are ignored.

By equalising the size of constituencies we ensure that people’s votes carry the same weight, no matter where they live. Only months ago the electorate of Islington North stood at 66,472, while ten miles away, in East Ham, the figure was 87,809. In effect that means a person voting in East Ham has a vote that is worth much less than a vote in Islington North. That cannot be right. These imbalances are found right across the United Kingdom.

Reducing the number of MPs allows us to bring our oversized House of Commons into line with legislatures across the world. The House of Commons is the largest directly elected chamber in the European Union, and it’s half as big again as the US House of Representatives.

It was never intended that the overall size of the House should keep rising, yet that is precisely the effect of the current legislation – the Parliamentary Constituencies Act 1986. Capping the number of MPs corrects that, and it saves money too. 50 fewer MPs saves £12m a year on pay, pensions and allowances alone.

On the referendum, by giving people a choice over their electoral system, we give that system a new legitimacy. Surely when dissatisfaction with politics is so great, one of our first acts must be to give people their own say over something as fundamental as how they elect their MPs?    

The question will be simple – asking people whether they want to adopt the Alternative Vote, yes or no. And the precise wording will be tested by the Electoral Commission.

As for the date of the referendum, in making that decision we have been driven by three key considerations:

That all parties fought the General Election on an absolute pledge to move fast to fix our political system, so we must get on and do that without delay.

That it is important to avoid asking people to keep traipsing to the ballot box.

And, finally, that in these straitened times we must keep costs as low as possible.

That is why the Prime Minister and I have decided that the date for the referendum in the Bill will be 5 May 2011, the same day as the elections to the devolved legislatures in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland and local elections in England. That will save an estimated £17m. I know that some Honourable Members have concerns over that date, but I believe that people will be able to distinguish between the different issues on which they will be asked to vote on on the same day. 

Our Bill will make explicit provision for the Boundary Commissions to report on more equally sized constituencies for the process to be completed by the end of 2013, allowing enough time for candidates to be selected ahead of the 2015 election, and we will ensure the Boundary Commissions have what they need to do that. That means that, in the event of a vote in favour of AV, the 2015 General Election will be held on the new system, and according to new boundaries. Let me be clear: these are complementary changes - the outcome of the referendum is put in place as the new boundaries are put in place.

The Bill will require the Boundary Commissions to set new constituencies within 5% of a target quota of registered electors, with just two exceptions: Orkney and Shetland, and the Western Isles, uniquely placed given their locations. We have listened, also, to those who have very large constituencies – so the Bill will provide that no constituency will be larger than the size of the largest one now. And we intend that, in the future, boundary reviews will be more frequent to ensure that constituencies continue to meet the requirements we will set out in our Bill.

I understand that this announcement will raise questions on all sides of this House – these are profound changes. But let me just say this: yes there are technical issues that will need to be scrutinized and approached with care as these Bills pass through Parliament. But ensuring that elections are as fair and democratic as possible is a matter of principle above all else. These are big, fundamental reforms we are proposing, but we are all duty bound to respond to public demand for political reform. That is how we restore people’s faith in their politics once again. I commend this statement to the House.

For more information on the Liberal Democrat position on AV, please visit: www.fairervotes.org.uk.

Norman Baker announces £15m Government funding for green buses .

The funding is intended to put low carbon buses within the reach of as many operators and local authorities as possible throughout England.

Bus operators and councils can bid for the money which they can then use towards the additional up front cost of buying low carbon buses.

Transport Minister Norman Baker said:

"We want to support new transport technologies to help make our transport system greener and more sustainable.

"This investment will stimulate the market for low carbon buses by reducing some of the initial costs for operators and councils. It will deliver significant benefits, in particular reducing the impact of road transport on climate change and improving air quality."

Low carbon buses use at least 30 per cent less fuel and emit nearly a third less carbon than a conventional bus, yet they currently make up just 0.2% of buses on the road.

The funding will support investment in more low carbon buses as well as addressing the information gap about their performance by requiring the winning bidders to share information with others in the industry.

Sat 3rd Jul 2010:

Nick Clegg's message ahead of London Pride 2010.

Pride London is a special event with a proud tradition of 40 years - fighting, working and protesting for change, for recognition, for equality.

The Liberal Democrats are passionate supporters of equality for the LGBT community and strong supporters of Pride London. That's why we have been clear on opposing Section 28, supporting equal adoption rights, promoting civil partnerships, pushing for gay marriage, working against homophobic bullying and banning discrimination in the workplace.

I'm especially proud that the in the new Government it is Liberal Democrat MP Lynne Featherstone who is the new Minister for Equalities. In Lynne you have an effective champion who will work for equality for all.

Each year Pride seems to get even better and so it's genuinely a happy ruby anniversary on Pride's 40th Year.

Thu 1st Jul 2010:

Vince Cable to chair new cabinet committee on reducing regulation.

As the Deputy Prime Minister launched the “Your Freedom” campaign to change the balance of power away from the state, the Reducing Regulation Committee discussed its fundamentally different approach to regulation and began its major review of all regulations in the pipeline inherited from the last Government.

The Committee, which includes Chief Secretary to the Treasury Danny Alexander and Cabinet Office minister Francis Maude, will ensure that there is a robust case for any new regulations. It has the unprecedented power to send burdensome red tape back to Departments and also guarantees that all other options have been considered before more regulations are introduced.

Chair of the Committee, Business Secretary Vince Cable said:

“As the Deputy Prime Minister said today, we need to change the balance of power away from the state and back to individuals, businesses and communities.  For too long, there has been a misplaced notion that Government’s job is to regulate. That is not the case. Regulation should be the last resort.

“This committee, along with the new “challenge group”, will help change the culture of Government and find new ways of solving problems, reducing the red tape that is strangling enterprise.

“We need businesses to drive the growth our economy needs, not be tied up with form filling, and the Government is determined to do all it can to make that happen.”

Nick Clegg delivers speech on freedom in the UK.

This morning I want to talk about freedom.

For too long new laws and regulations have taken away people’s freedoms, interfered in everyday life, and made it difficult for businesses to get by.

The state has crept further and further into people’s homes, the places they work, their private lives.

That intrusion is wrong; it’s illiberal; it’s disempowering and it’s going to change.

This government is putting freedom under the spotlight in a way the previous government never did.

We want the British people have their say on where the state should step in, and where it should butt out.

We are asking people for ideas on restoring hard won liberties that have been lost...

On repealing unnecessary laws that have no place on the statute book...

And on stripping away the excessive regulation that stops businesses from innovating.

Your views will shape directly the steps we take.

It is a radically different approach.

Because this Coalition trusts people to get on with their lives…

It’s probably the thing Liberal Democrats and Conservatives have most in common.

We don’t think every problem can be fixed by passing a new law.

We understand that Whitehall doesn’t have all of the answers, and doesn’t have a monopoly on the best ideas.

So gone are the days of know-it-all, do-it-all government.

Because a liberal society, a prosperous society, is one where citizens and businesses have the space and power to thrive.

Today I am asking the people of Britain to help us to begin building that society. 

Protecting civil liberties, repealing unnecessary laws, and cutting restrictive red tape.

Civil liberties

First, civil liberties.

One of the Coalition’s immediate acts was to halt ID cards.

Plans are underway to restrict the storage of innocent people’s DNA; to properly regulate CCTV; to restore the right to non-violent protest; to protect trial by jury...

To end the scandal of children being fingerprinted at school without their parent’s consent.

The vetting and barring scheme for people wanting to work or volunteer with children is being scaled back to common sense levels.

And we are looking again at counter-terrorism and security legislation to make sure it can provide the necessary powers to the police and the security services…

Without inhibiting the freedoms it’s meant to protect.

As someone who has spent years campaigning for these changes, I am enormously proud to see them in motion. 

But I want us to go further.

Our ambition is to create a society where no law-abiding individual ever feels intimidated by the state, just for going about their day-to-day business.

Where people aren’t cast under suspicion simply because of who they are, or where they’re from.

But that means redoubling our efforts to restore the great British traditions of freedom and fairness.

The culture of snooping and mistrust has become so ingrained that we must tackle it with renewed vigour.

Don’t accept it.

If you’re sick of the state prying into your private affairs, tell us.

If you feel harassed when you haven’t done anything wrong, tell us.

If there are ways that we can better protect your dignity, tell us.

And tell us what you want us to do about it too.

Unnecessary laws

This isn’t just about the laws that make you feel under threat.

This is also about the laws that serve no real purpose.

Obsolete rules that are out of date or that are duplicated by other laws.

Take seditious libel – a 17th Century offence, under which writing something contemptuous about the government could be punished by life imprisonment.

Not only do such laws make a mockery of our justice system...

Just having them on our statute book gives succour to regimes in other parts of the world that use similar offences to restrict freedom of speech.

That’s why I was delighted to see campaigners successfully work to get those particular laws abolished last year.

And there are other laws that are now completely obsolete.

It’s a little know fact, for example, that under old laws that are still in place, failing to report a grey squirrel in your back garden is technically a criminal offence.

That’s one I think we could probably do without.

We need to work through legislation to identify laws we don’t need.

Looking, also, at how they work on the ground.

And, my colleague, Eric Pickles, will shortly be asking Councillors and Council staff to identify outmoded, outdated and obsolete secondary legislation which could be cut down to size.

On laws that have fallen into disuse, some people may ask ‘what’s the point?’

Why bother getting worked up about a law that just sits there and does no any harm?

But I say: that misses the point.

Squirrels aside, whether seemingly harmless or not, laws that serve no purpose obscure what legislation is for in the first place.

Over the last decade thousands of new laws have been added to the statute book.

Thousands of new ways of turning us into criminals.

Laws for the sake of laws – as if every problem can be solved by an Act of Parliament.

But it doesn’t work; it’s a distraction.

The purpose of the law is to protect and empower citizens.

That is the only time the state ever has the right to restrict your behaviour.

As soon as we forget that we open the door to state intrusion.

We lose that kneejerk indignation we should all feel when the state sticks its nose in where it doesn’t belong.

And that complacency is dangerous.

And so to end the habit of compulsive law-making, all new criminal offences and civil wrongs will now be specially screened.

They will only come into effect if we can demonstrate that they are needed, that there is no alternative, and that existing penalties are not sufficient.

And, because no one has been keeping track of new offences, we will start to keep count, making that information public.

Regulation

Third, regulation.

Regulation is enormously important; not least in protecting employees and ensuring standards.

But we have to get the balance right.

Too many of the business and voluntary groups I meet tell me that they feel overwhelmed with forms to fill out and boxes to tick...

Whether it’s a fledgling business looking to take on more staff…

Or a charity struggling with the complex record checks their volunteers have to undergo.

And too many ordinary people are burdened with costly bureaucracy... 

Which is why, within weeks of coming into office, the Coalition scrapped Home Information Packs – pointless red tape that was hampering the housing market.

We need regulation that makes sense.

Regulation that we can afford and that people can have confidence in.

Ensuring businesses and organisations are run fairly, offering high quality services...

But also allowing them the space to be creative and to adapt to changing circumstances.

According to the British Chamber of Commerce, the cumulative cost to business added since 1998 has now reached £88 billion.

That is an unacceptable drain on the entrepreneurs and innovators we need to get the economy back on track.

Today, our new Reducing Regulation Committee, chaired by Vince Cable, is meeting for the first time.

Their immediate task will be to look at all of the regulations approved by the previous government which are due to be introduced this year, to establish whether or not they are really necessary.

They will be central in helping to develop a one-in-one-out rule.

Ministers intending to bring in a new regulation will have to get rid of an existing one.

They will also need to convince the Reducing Regulation Committee that their proposed regulation is necessary.

That’s a fundamental shift in Whitehall: regulation will be the last, rather than the first, resort.

And I would also like to highlight the very good work that is going on in Defra, where an industry-led Task Force has been set up to reduce the burden on the farming community specifically.

More broadly, we are looking closely at the timing and implementation of new EU rules so that British businesses are not at a disadvantage compared to their competitors abroad.

But the key to all of this is you.

You – the small business owner, the social entrepreneur, the volunteer.

You know better than government departments, better even than Vince, what rules and regulations are holding you back.

The whole point of this exercise is to get Whitehall out of the driving seat.

We want to know where regulation works, where it doesn’t, and what we can do to help.

A new kind of engagement

And it isn’t just the outcome of this process that is important, it is the process itself.

This is the most ambitious online crowd sourcing exercise ever attempted by any British government.

It is an entirely new way for government to engage with people.

One we want to make a habit of…

And we will shortly be asking for your input into how we improve our public services and make savings to help get the public finances in order.

Something we started last week when the Prime Minister and I wrote to 6 million public sector workers…

Doctors, teachers, nurses – people on the front line who know best.  

Our aim is for the best suggestions on freedoms and regulations to be included in parliamentary bills, this year and in the future.

As for what they’ll look like, I don’t know.

The government may have got the ball rolling, but now the debate is totally out of our control.

We don’t know what ideas are going to end up on the site; how they will spread across other sites and forums; which of them will capture imaginations and which won’t.

If a specific reform is popular, Ministers won’t be duty bound to act on it, but we won’t be able to hide it either; it will be right there for everyone to see.

And, yes, there will be clashes – arguments over which ideas are good and which are bad; over what we can do and what we can’t.

But it is precisely because this process is so unpredictable that it is worth doing at all.

Real democracy is unspun; it is the raucous, unscripted debates that always throw up the best ideas. 

Conclusion

The Your Freedom project is part of our bigger political reform agenda.

It is one of a series of ways of transferring power away from government and the state and into your hands.

Part of the most radical shake up of our politics for decades.

The other steps we are taking – include, among other things, fixing parliamentary terms, giving people a choice over the system they use to elect their MPs, reforming the House of Lords, introducing the power of recall, getting big money out of politics...

And I will be making further announcements on some of that next week.

But today, let me end by saying this:

This government is determined to give people back their freedom.

But we cannot do it without you.

So be demanding about your liberty, be insistent about your rights...

This is about your freedom, and this is your chance to have your say.

Thank you.

Review of reducing short sentences welcome says Brake .

Commenting on today’s speech by Ken Clarke in which he outlined the need for radical prison reform, Tom Brake said:

“Stopping vast numbers of people being locked up for non-violent crimes on short sentences was a key Liberal Democrat manifesto commitment.

“The Labour Government liked to talk tough on crime while reoffending rates in this country rose sky-high. We know that short-term prison sentences don’t reduce reoffending or cut crime.

“Liberal Democrats believe that criminals should be caught and punished, but they should also be set back on the straight and narrow.  Prison places should be for violent criminals not first time petty offenders.

“Labour spectacularly mismanaged our prison system.  The Government’s decision to review the number of short sentences is a welcome first step to getting it right."

Tue 29th Jun 2010:

Nick Clegg launches £1 Billion fund to help regional business.

The fund, which will operate in 2011/2012 and 2012/2013 will help areas most dependent on public sector employment as the country makes the transition to private sector-led growth and prosperity. Both private bodies and public-private partnerships will be able to bid for funding by demonstrating that their proposal will bring in private investment and support sustainable increases in private sector jobs and growth in their area.

Speaking in Bradford after the first Coalition Cabinet meeting outside of London today, Nick Clegg said:

"While we sort out the nation's finances we can also help to foster a thriving and more balanced economy so that no region or community gets left behind.

"The Regional Growth Fund will create the conditions for growth and enterprise in the regions by stimulating investment and create sustainable private sector jobs.

"Alongside our commitment to waive some employment taxes for new businesses starting up in targeted regions of the country, this fund can make a real difference to companies during difficult times."

Nick Clegg also set out plans for Local Enterprise Partnerships (LEPs) that will bring together councils and business on an equal footing with one voice, replacing the current Regional Development Agencies (RDAs). In a joint letter sent to councils and business leaders today, Business Secretary Vince Cable and Communities Secretary Eric Pickles have asked them to consider forming new Local Enterprise Partnerships that can provide strategic leadership in their local areas and create the right environment for business success and economic growth.

Vince Cable, the Business Secretary said:

"We are determined to rebalance the economy towards the private sector, so it's important we create a more effective structure to drive economic growth and development across the country."

Thu 24th Jun 2010:

We will reinvigorate retirement says Steve Webb.

Liberal Democrat Pensions Minister Steve Webb signalled his intention to restore the earnings link and incentivise pensions saving. Today he outlined the bold steps the government plans to take to fundamentally reform and repair Britain’s outdated and inadequate pension system. Steve Webb said:

“I’ve worked all my life to get a fairer deal for pensioners.  Up to ten million people are not saving enough and we cannot allow this situation to continue.

“Our plans to reinvigorate pension saving will be underpinned by automatic enrolment into workplace pensions from 2012.  But we need to make sure we get the details right, which is why we’re announcing a thorough and speedy review, to make sure that it pays to save.”

Nick Clegg launches the 'Spending Challenge'.

Nick Clegg, Deputy Prime Minister has today written to every public sector worker in the country, asking them to help with the Spending Review set out in this week’s Budget.

The Chancellor announced a 25 per cent cut in spending for unprotected departments over four years. Now, as part of the Spending Review, the Government is launching a ‘Spending Challenge’ aimed at engaging the whole country in rethinking public services in order to deliver more for less.

The first phase of the Challenge aims to harness the experience and insight of those at the front line, including NHS workers, police officers and civil servants, who will be asked to look at three areas:

Government-funded activities that they believe are non-essential and should not continue. How the Government can better target activities or provide them more effectively. Activities that can be provided completely differently to save money, including by providers other than Government A website has been set up at where the country’s six million public sector workers can submit their answers to the question, “How do we rethink services to deliver more for less?”

Take part: Here

In their letter, The Prime Minister and Deputy Prime Minister say: “We want you to help us find those savings, so we can cut public spending in a way that is fair and responsible. You work on the frontline of public services. You know where things are working well, where the waste is, and where we can re-think things so that we get better services for less money.”

Tue 22nd Jun 2010:

Liberal Democrat policies at the centre of the budget says Nick Clegg.

Liberal Democrat Leader Nick Clegg has addressed party members about the budget. In a letter to members he said:

“We have had to take difficult decisions to tackle the deficit and lay the foundations of a fairer society. These are not decisions any government wants to take but we have no choice except to clear up the financial mess that Labour left us. Today’s Budget takes these difficult decisions in an honest and fair way and with the clear stamp of Liberal Democrat values running through it.

“In the past, efforts to tackle a big deficit have always hit the poorest the most. The coalition has ensured that – for the first time – this will not happen. The richest will pay the most, while pensioners and children will be protected.

“These measures will ensure that the burden of deficit reduction is shared fairly across society.

“This Government is being honest with people about the road ahead. Together, we can make it through these difficult times and restore health to our economy and to the public finances. These difficult choices are the foundation stones for the fairer Britain we will build over the next five years.”

Look through the Budget and you will see key policies we campaigned for being put into effect.

The £1,000 increase in the Income Tax allowance will mean that 880,000 low paid workers will be freed from Income Tax altogether. This is the first step towards delivering our manifesto commitment to ensure no-one pays tax on the first £10,000 they earn.

The Budget puts in place our promise of a new tax on banks, ensuring that they help to pay to clear up the mess left by the financial crisis.

Top earners will pay a full 10% more in Capital Gains Tax than under Labour, with no loopholes or tapers or get-out clauses. That change helps ensure those with the broadest shoulders take the greatest strain.

We will guarantee that pensioners get a fair deal, putting into effect the Liberal Democrat manifesto commitment for a “triple lock”, so state pensions rise every year in line with earnings, inflation, or by 2.5%, whichever is the highest. Never again will pensioners be allowed to fall behind.

The Coalition Government will not let regions, towns or cities that depend heavily on the public sector be forgotten. That’s why this Budget establishes a regional growth fund to ensure those parts of the country get meaningful support to help create jobs and opportunities for all.

Tackling Child Poverty remains at the heart of the government’s approach. So while we have decided to cut child tax credits for those who can most afford it, we have increased tax credits for the poorest families and put up to £ 2 billion into child tax credits to help ensure children of all backgrounds get a fair start in life.

Budget will protect the needy and the vulnerable says Simon Hughes.

Commenting on today’s budget, Liberal Democrat Deputy Leader Simon Hughes said:

“Today’s budget clearly reflects many of the tax priorities which won the Liberal Democrats almost seven millions votes at the election.

As a result of this budget millions of pensioners and those on low incomes will be helped and people with greater wealth will contribute most.

Of course today’s budget required compromise, but the country can clearly see the Liberal Democrats have a major influence on UK economic policy. From now on, Britain will be a fairer place.

Liberal Democrats made the correct judgement last month to be influential partners in a majority coalition, rather than be marginalised opponents of a minority Government entirely implementing Conservative policies.

We will make sure that the spending reductions reflect Liberal Democrat priorities and always protect the needy and the vulnerable.”

Thu 17th Jun 2010:

Nick Clegg's speech on supporting families and children.

Deputy Prime Minister and Liberal Democrat Leader Nick Clegg today announced a Government taskforce to look at ways to support families and give every child a fair start in life.

In his speech to Barnardo's this morning, Nick Clegg said:

On Monday I set out the need to get Britain's public finances in order, so that our children don't pay the price for our mistakes. I argued that, without swift and decisive action to pay down our Budget deficit, we condemn the next generation to higher interest rates, poorer public services, and fewer jobs.

So, this Government's first priority is pursuing sound fiscal policy for the sake of our children. But, my commitment to the future of Britain's children doesn't end there. In fact, it's one of the biggest reasons I'm in politics. When you're a parent, your first thought is for your children, and what kind of life they're going to have. That's what being a parent is all about: your fundamental responsibility to those you brought into the world.

I believe we have that responsibility not just as individuals but as a generation, too. We have to think about the world we are creating for those who will follow us. We have to think about the lives they will live as much - or even more than - we think about ourselves. And that's a responsibility I think this generation has neglected. We have built a Britain not fit for our children to grow up in.For too many British children, childhood has become a time of stress, anxiety and insecurity... When it should be a time of discovery, learning and adventure. My purpose in politics - and the job of this Coalition Government - is to change that.

To live up to our responsibility, as a generation, to lay the foundations for better lives for our children. Paying off debts instead of racking them up is just a first step.So today, I'm going to set out this Government's wider agenda for children and families to put this generational failure right. First I want to look at how childhood in this country has changed. Many British children now experience complex problems that undermine their self-confidence and their security.  Then, I will explain how this government plans to help children and families overcome these problems, putting this agenda right at the heart of the Coalition.

Let me say at the outset: we will not be limited in our ambitions; I want us as a country to rediscover the spirit of childhood, so we can give every child the best chance to flourish. But we are realistic: it is not Government's job to create happy families. Our job is to dismantle the barriers that prevent families from giving their children the best start. Where Labour nannied you, we will empower you. This government will make your choices possible.

So, let me start with the scale of the challenge - the legacy of the previous Government. Across the country dedicated and committed professionals work tirelessly, and with great skill, to improve the life chances of vulnerable children. But their aspirations for the children and families they work with are regularly thwarted.

Because they haven't had the support or the freedom to do the job in the way they know it should be done.  And because, frankly, there are just so many children who need their help. Out of every five children, one is currently living in poverty.  2 million live in poor housing - crowded rooms, squalid conditions, dangerous buildings too.

These kinds of beginnings can hold a child back for his or her whole life. At just 22 months a poor child's skills already trail behind those of better off toddlers.  At age 5 that poor child, even if he or she is very bright, will have been overtaken at school by a less talented but more privileged classmate. By 16 he or she is just half as likely to get five good GCSEs, including English and maths. And, at the other end of their life, a child born today in England, in the poorest neighbourhoods will still die, on average, 7 years before a child born in the richest.

Releasing these children from that trap, unleashing their potential, is critical if we are to create a society that is truly fair. That is why this government has committed to funding a pupil premium - money targeted specifically to disadvantaged pupils - despite the needs to make cuts elsewhere in public spending. It's why we want to refocus Sure Start Children's Centres on the most disadvantaged families, putting in place 4,200 new Sure Start Health Visitors to help achieve this. Because we recognise the importance of early intervention; the importance of helping families prevent problems, rather than just trying to pick up the pieces once it's already too late.

And it is why we are determined to reform welfare to get people into work. Creating a new Work Programme to give the unemployed tailored support... As well as making work pay, by increasing the income tax threshold for working families on low and middle incomes. Yes, some of these plans will cost money at a time when money is tight. But if we are taking action to pay down our deficit for the sake of the next generation - and we are - it makes no moral sense to abandon poorer children along the way. Equally, we have to realise that this isn't just about money.  And it isn't just about children from disadvantaged households - it's much broader than that.

 We, as a country, have stopped celebrating the innocence of childhood. In 2007, UNICEF ranked Britain bottom of the world's developed nations on child wellbeing. Last year, the OECD conducted similar research, and while we were not at the bottom of the table, the UK was still only middling compared to other countries. Despite the best efforts of parents, teachers, and children's charities too... Nearly half of British children report having been bullied; teenage obesity is on the rise; and one in ten children suffer from a diagnosable mental health disorder.

There are surveys that show that at age 11, a fifth of boys and a quarter of girls think they're fat - at age 11. And the number of children contacting Childline has shot up; twice as many boys compared to 1997, that's tens of thousands more. These children are being subjected to the kind of stress we associate with adulthood. When it is introduced into a child's world so early on, it takes seed and it does damage. And when growing up becomes so much harder, it is inevitable that being a grown up becomes harder too.

There's no single explanation; childhood has evolved because of a number of trends that have shaped our society over time:

One is the pace of modern life, and the difficulties it creates for parents seeking to juggle work and home. Children have also lost the support that in the past came from traditional community networks... Where friends, relatives and neighbours played a much more hands on role in their upbringing. And the explosion in advertising and marketing has meant that children see themselves as consumers - and are treated that way by companies - at an extraordinarily young age. Government can't undo all these changes. And it's not up to us to tell people how to live their lives. But we can empower parents so that they can better navigate this less forgiving, less supportive world...

Recognising that what happens in the home has a profound affect on a child's outcomes. I know there are many parents already doing a fantastic job at raising their children - and we should be proud of that success. But I also know how hard it is - I have three young sons myself. Britain has just had thirteen years of a government so busy trying to micromanage the country from Whitehall, they forgot what families out there, in the real world, really need. They just didn't get the balance right. I don't doubt their good intentions, and resources were allocated to education and to helping families... But all that was offset by far too much regulation far too many central targets.

And while many parents and frontline staff do enormously well at working around these constraints, aren't we better off giving them the freedom to get on with the job in the first place? And we need to recognise that it isn't just parents who raise children - it's the whole family, the whole street, the whole community. That's why the Government has this week halted the vetting and barring scheme planned by our predecessors...  Allowing us to scale the scheme back to common sense levels. If parents, for example, want to help each other out by taking it in turns to pick up their children from school sports matches, they shouldn't be treated like criminals. Yes, we need to protect our children, but we need to maintain a sense of proportion too. And, crucially, we need to reverse the trend of making families ever more dependent on the state.

The previous Government believed social change must always be driven from the centre. But that's government at its worst - insecure government, government that creates needy families. Take tax credits. Under the old regime around nine out of ten families with children were eligible for child tax credits.  To put that another way, the previous government thought that it was right for 90% of all families with children to be dependent on means tested benefits. That's madness. Instead we should be giving families their independence, giving them much more control over how they live their lives. That's why this Government is going to raise the income tax personal allowance so that families can keep more of the money they earn.

And on tax credits, we have also said that we are going to scale back tax credits for higher earners. In light of the giant black hole in the public finances, there is simply no other choice. So, independent but supported families. That is this government's approach. And it's one that the Coalition arrived at very naturally.

Liberal Democrats and Conservatives believe that we strengthen our society by giving people the power to make choices over their lives. We both place great value on the informal networks that can be such a tremendous source of support... As well as the strong sense of community identity that helps make children feel secure. Both the Prime Minister and I have made the welfare of the next generation central to our individual political identities...

He has talked many times about making Britain more family-friendly; I have always made it clear that I believe a society must be judged on how it treats its children... And one of our very first acts in office together was to declare an end to child detention for immigration purposes. So it should come as no surprise that this agenda is being driven right from the heart of government.

I can announce today that we are setting up a Childhood and Families Task Force, chaired by the Prime Minister, and made up of senior Ministers from across Government departments, including myself. The role of this group will be to identify and prioritise a small number of specific policy proposals that will make the biggest difference to children and families... A hardcore of everyday bottlenecks that frustrate family life. That will include proposals that have already been put forward in Coalition Programme for Government...

Working out how to take these forward, as quickly as possible, and as effectively as possible, in order to deliver practical help for families. And the group will also explore new thinking on how we can empower families in a meaningful way. That work will be completed over the autumn, and the proposals will be developed in the context of the upcoming Spending Review. Without wanting to prejudge the action that will be taken by the Task Force, I would like to set out some of the areas we are going to be looking at. It's not an exhaustive list, by any means. But these are the problem areas we can already identify, where we know that we can help.

The first is parental leave. The Coalition is committed to encouraging shared parenting from the earliest stages of pregnancy - including through the promotion of a system of flexible parental leave. The Task Force is going to look at how we now put that commitment in to practice. Many couples find it enormously difficult to strike the right balance between work and home. And traditional arrangements that see mothers take the lion's share of leave simply don't suit everyone's needs. I know from my own experience - my own measly two weeks off following the birth of my third son - how frustrating it is for fathers who want to spend more time with their young children. Breaking down the old, outdated attitude to who-should-give-up-work-when is hugely important for men, hugely important for women... But most importantly, children benefit enormously from having both parents actively involved from day one.

We're also going to extend the right to request flexible working to all employees, consulting with business on the best way to do that. By encouraging more people to work flexibly, we make it more commonplace... And that in turn will help eliminate the stigma that still discourages men from asking for these arrangements. And, on the role of men more generally, I also believe we need more men in childcare. Men currently make up just 2% of the childcare workforce. That's not good enough.  We need a diverse range of providers, with a greater gender balance, surrounding children with a range of role models - different people to learn from and relate to.

Secondly, the Task force is going to look at how we can provide greater support to disabled children. So many of these families are under enormous pressure. That's why the Government agreed very early on that we would find a way of using direct payments to carers and better community-based care to give them more support. And it's why we have since announced that we will invest in respite care for these families, an additional £20m a year, starting in 2011-12. That money will be recycled from the ending of the Government's contributions to Child Trust Funds. While our towering deficit means we can no longer afford these payments across the board... It is right that we make special provision for children with disabilities. For them and their families, respite care can be a lifeline.Â

Third, we need to look at how we can protect children in the event of family breakdown.  Preventing breakdown where we can, making it as painless as possible where we can't. Separation and divorce can be deeply traumatic for any family...  Healthy, loving relationships are the cornerstone of any happy childhood... And we know that family breakdown plays a big part in cycles of disadvantage.

Families, of course, come in all shapes and sizes. And when couples come up against difficult times, only they can ever know what is right for them. But every couple also knows how tough it can be to get through those difficult patches. So where government can help, it should. That's why we want to improve the access families have to help and advice.

Across the country there are organisations - charities and faith based groups - who provide counselling and support for couples and families whose relationships are under stress. But they don't manage to reach everyone who could benefit from their help. This is partly a cultural problem. People feel, rightly, that relationships are private and personal.

So if things begin to go wrong, they don't like to ask for outside help. They wait until their relationship has completely broken down. As a society we need to say that it's ok to ask for help sooner. And many of the organisations that could help don't have a secure funding basis.  They have to spend a lot of time fundraising and often have to charge for their services.  That means it's especially difficult for poorer families to use them.

So we have committed to putting funding for relationship support on a stable, long-term footing. And we also want to foster greater networks of support, valuing the role that the all the people who don't necessarily live inside the family home - grandparents, neighbours, friends, community organisations, charities - the role they play in keeping that family strong. There is also already a comprehensive review of family law underway... Looking at how we can increase the use of mediation when couples do break up...  And how best to provide greater access rights to non-resident parents, and grandparents too.

Fourth, every parent understands the importance of a secure environment for their children. Spaces where they can play, where they can feel completely free, where they can safely push at the boundaries, learning and experimenting. Places where different generations can meet, binding the community together... If you ask adults if they used to play near their homes as children, 71% will tell you they did. Every single day. That compares to just 21% of children now. It's not right, and it has to change. But, despite how obvious that is, I do appreciate that there's no easy answer.

It isn't up to central government to start handpicking the areas where children across the country should play. Given the lack of money in the Treasury's coffers, we wouldn't now be able to do that, even if we wanted to. But isn't that even more reason to get the Task Force looking at this? There's no more money to throw at these problems, and even when there was money, Labour didn't fix them.

So we have to be innovative, we have to find new solutions. No, we need to work out how we can empower people to deliver these changes in their own neighbourhoods... By giving councils more power over how they spend their money.. By giving communities more control over what gets built in their neighbourhoods... And by making it easier for volunteers and charities to get involved.

Finally, we need to take steps to help children avoid the adult pressures that force them to grow up too quickly. Like the irresponsible advertising that sexualises children... That makes them anxious about how they look... That encourages them to place too much value on brands. I see it for myself when my own children remember the adverts better than they remember the programme. And I know lots of other parents will know exactly what I mean. We are committed to cracking down on irresponsible advertising and marketing... Drawing on previous reviews, including Dr Tanya Byron's review on internet safety. And Professor Buckingham's review of commercialisation. If we are really going to restore and protect the innocence of childhood, action here is absolutely key.

So, these are the areas we'll begin with. But I don't want to present the Task Force's agenda as in any way limited. This is about practical help, in whatever way we can deliver it. Because, in five years time, I want us to be able to turn around and say that Britain is a place every family wants their children to grow up in.

I want us to be able to look back and say: we tackled the deficit, we protected our children's future, and we rediscovered childhood, so that every child gets the best start. These are big ambitions. But if we're not in government to do this, what are we here to do?

Thank you.

Fri 11th Jun 2010:

Nick Clegg wishes England good luck at World Cup.

He said:

“I’d like to join millions of people across the country in wishing the England team good luck in the World Cup. And I hope to be wishing them good luck again for the final in a month’s time.”

Thu 10th Jun 2010:

Liberal Democrat Peers re-elect Lord Dholakia as Deputy Leader.

Following elections yesterday , Lord Alderdice was elected to the new position of Convener, who will chair a backbench forum for Liberal Democrat peers.  Baroness Bonham-Carter was elected to the position of Deputy Convener in the same vote.

Lord Dholakia will continue to support Lord McNally in his role as Leader of the Liberal Democrats in the House of Lords.

Lord Alderdice and Lady Bonham-Carter will provide an essential link between backbench Liberal Democrat peers and Liberal Democrats in Government.

Commenting, Lord Dholakia said:

“There was an overwhelming turnout in support of the new structure for the Liberal Democrat Paliamentary Party in the House of Lords.

“Lord McNally and I are looking forward to working with the new team.”

Lord Alderdice said:

“I am honoured by the confidence my colleagues have shown in me and excited by the opportunity to contribute to the work of the party in the Lords, especially with new and challenging opportunities of coalition government.

“The Liberal Democrat Parliamentary Party has a broad and invaluable range of skills, experience, ability and integrity. I am proud to be part of it and delighted to have the opportunity to serve it in this new role.”

Wed 9th Jun 2010:

Simon Hughes elected as Liberal Democrat Deputy Leader.

Speaking after the vote, Deputy Prime Minister and Liberal Democrat Leader Nick Clegg said:

“I am delighted Simon has been elected as deputy leader.

“Simon has been a huge figure in the Liberal Democrats for decades. He’s a tireless campaigner, a relentless fighter for the vulnerable and marginalised in our society, and one of the hardest working MPs Parliament has ever seen.

“There are huge challenges and opportunities ahead for our country and our party, but with Simon by my side I am sure that we can meet those challenges and work to build a fairer, more equal Britain.”

Liberal Democrat Deputy Leader Simon Hughes said:

“It is an honour and a privilege for me to follow Vince Cable as the new Deputy Leader of the Liberal Democrats. This is not a responsibility I will ever take lightly.

“I will fight every day for the principles which underpin our party: fairness, freedom, openness, equality, stewardship of our environment and standing up for those who cannot stand up for themselves.

“I will work tirelessly with Nick Clegg and all other Liberal Democrats to help liberal democracy blossom and flourish throughout the land.”

Mon 7th Jun 2010:

Nick Clegg's speech on radical political reform plans.

The plans include:

A referendum on the Alternative Vote

The right to recall MPs who break the rules

Fewer, more equal-sized constituencies

Making the House of Lords wholly or largely elected

Fixed five-year parliaments

Devolving greater powers to the Scottish Parliament by implementing the recommendations of the Calman Commission

A referendum on devolving more powers to the Welsh Assembly Key extracts of Nick Clegg’s speech are below:

We all share a single ambition: to restore people’s faith in their politics and their politicians. This government’s plans will do just that. Because our programme turns a page: On governments that hoard power. On parliaments that look inwards rather than outwards. On widespread disengagement amongst people who feel locked out of the decisions that affect their everyday lives.  So this is a moment when we have a real opportunity to change our politics for good...

…This government is determined that no government should be able to play politics with the dates of a General Election. Parliamentary terms should be fixed for five years. So we need a new right for parliament to request a dissolution, taking away the Prime Minister’s traditional right to call an election when he or she wishes…

…We plan to strengthen the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly too, implementing recommendations from the Calman Commission’s Final Report.

And, equally, Wales will get a referendum on further devolution. A decision that will be taken by the Welsh people...

…It’s time to finish what was started three years ago in the cross party talks on party funding. Every party has had its own problems, but we all now have an opportunity to draw a line under them. So we’ll seize that opportunity - we will pursue a detailed agreement on limiting donations and reforming party funding in order to remove big money from politics for good…

…We will bring forward legislation to ensure that, where it has been proven that an MP has been engaged in serious wrongdoing...Their constituents will have the right to organise a petition to force a by-election.  When people have been let down by their MP in that way, they must not be made to wait until the next election to cast their judgement…

…The power of recall is just one of a range of reforms intended to shift power directly to the British people. We also want people to be able to initiate debates here in the Commons through public petitions. We want a new public reading stage for bills. We want people to be able to instigate local referenda on issues that matter to their neighbourhoods. And, we want people to decide directly if they want to change the system by which they elect their MPs, which is why there will be a referendum on AV, and I will be announcing the date of that referendum in due course...  

…It should be up to the British people to elect their second chamber. To that end, I want to announce the following: One: I have now set up a committee, which I will chair, to take forward this reform, composed of members from all three major political parties, as well as from both Houses. Two: it will be explicitly charged with producing a draft bill by no later than the end of this year. The first time legislation for an elected second chamber will have ever been published… I will not hide my impatience for reforms that are more than a hundred years overdue.

Thu 3rd Jun 2010:

Nominations sought for recognition of outstanding service to the Lib Dems.

Nominations are sought for:

Harriet Smith Liberal Democrat Distinguished Service Award

Open to any Party Member never elected to public office

President’s Award

Open to any Party Member elected to public office

The Belinda Eyre-Brook Award

Open to political assistants to Liberal Democrat Council Groups

These awards are awarded to members of the Party who have given outstanding service in promoting liberal democracy.

The awards are normally made at the Party’s Autumn Conference.

To nominate a candidate for either of these awards, please download this form, complete it in full and return it to Kate Heywood at kate.heywood@libdems.org.uk.

The closing date for receipt of the nomination papers is July 12, 2010.

Tue 1st Jun 2010:

Welcome to our new Liberal Democrat Peers.

Liberal Democrat life peers:

Richard Allan, Nick Clegg’s predecessor in Sheffield Hallam and Chairman of the Information Select Committee.

Matthew Taylor, Chairman of the National Housing Federation and former MP for Truro and St Austell.

Phil Willis, former MP for Harrogate and Knaresborough who chaired the Science and Technology Select Committee.

Liberal Democrat working peers:

Floella Benjamin, Charity worker and former presenter of children’s television programmes.

Mike German, former Deputy First Minister in the Welsh Assembly.

Meral Ece, councillor in Islington and Commissioner for the Equality and Human Rights Commission.

Sir Ken Macdonald, former Director of Public Prosecutions.

Kate Parminter, former director Campaign to Protect Rural England and Trustee of the Institute for Public Policy Research.

John Shipley, Leader of Newcastle city council.

Thu 27th May 2010:

Victory for Liberal Democrats as ID cards to be scrapped within 100 days.

The Liberal Democrats have campaigned against the introduction of ID cards since they were first announced by the previous Labour Government.

Commenting on today's announcement, Liberal Democrat Leader and Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg said:

"The wasteful, bureaucratic and intrusive ID card scheme represents everything that has been wrong with government in recent years.

"By taking swift action to scrap it, we are making it clear that this government won't sacrifice people's liberty for the sake of Ministers' pet projects.

"Cancelling the scheme and abolishing the National Identity Register is a major step in dismantling the surveillance state - but ID cards are just the tip of the iceberg. Today marks the start of a series of radical reforms to restore hard-won British freedoms."

Wed 26th May 2010:

Vince Cable stands down as Deputy Leader.

The text of Vince Cable’s letter is below:

Dear Nick,

I am writing to offer my resignation in my role as Deputy Leader of the Liberal Democrats.

It has been an honour to serve as the Deputy Leader of our party. However, in joining the cabinet I have taken on many new challenges and responsibilities and it is right that I focus wholeheartedly on the job in hand.

These are exciting times to be a Liberal Democrat, and despite all the challenges we face we have a real opportunity to change Britain for the better. There are great opportunities for the party alongside our working in coalition.

I wish my successor all the best in what is a rewarding and important role.

Yours ever,

Vince Cable

Commenting, Liberal Democrat Leader Nick Clegg said:

“Vince has been a fantastic Deputy Leader during an exciting time for the party. I look forward to us continuing to work together in government.”

Earlier Stories

Complete archive on the official site.