New 111 service will be better than NHS Direct - Burstow

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."

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.

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.”

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.

“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.


“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 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.”

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."

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.”

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.”

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.”

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.




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.


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.


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.


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.


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.


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.

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.”

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.”

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.”

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.”

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.”