19/09/2016 - Live Afternoon Session

:00:07. > :00:12.New technology baffles old chair. Good afternoon everybody. I'm your

:00:13. > :00:18.chair this afternoon. Paul is my aide. In the hall is Jenny Lang to

:00:19. > :00:32.help out the debate. We will try to get through this as quickly as we

:00:33. > :00:38.can. There is a separate vote later on lines 16 and part 17, taking

:00:39. > :00:46.those out and Steve Walter will tell you why in due course. Without more

:00:47. > :00:49.ado, can I ask Lynn Fatherstone to move the motion and David Grace to

:00:50. > :00:53.stand by. Thank you, James. Good afternoon,

:00:54. > :01:00.conference. I would say close your eyes, but you might go to sleep. I

:01:01. > :01:05.want you to imagine, as the ordinary citizen leaves his or her home in

:01:06. > :01:08.the morning, the commute to work has changed radically. In large urban

:01:09. > :01:14.centres, there are car pools of electric cars that anyone can rent

:01:15. > :01:18.and rentals and clubs and shared ownership schemes have proliferated.

:01:19. > :01:22.Occasionally, people still own cars, but they use them far less and all

:01:23. > :01:26.cars are electric. The buses, the tubes, trains are no longer the

:01:27. > :01:33.cattle trucks of yesteryear, as people share time slots in order to

:01:34. > :01:37.share familial roles with many couples and non-couples sharing the

:01:38. > :01:41.working day - I wish - and with the completion of HS2 and cross-rail,

:01:42. > :01:51.the heavy loadings have all but disappeared. The third runway at

:01:52. > :01:55.Heathrow never did get built. And a national obesity - anti-obesity

:01:56. > :02:01.campaign got everyone to get off their bus stop early and walk. Cycle

:02:02. > :02:07.lanes are part of every major route. Houses are carbon neutral. Gas fired

:02:08. > :02:11.central heating and cooking now comes mostly from greening gas.

:02:12. > :02:16.Renewable energy is the standard form of energy generation, solar,

:02:17. > :02:22.wind, geothermal, tidal, hydrodominate the market. Prices

:02:23. > :02:27.have plummeted over the last two decades. Hinckley Point sadly did

:02:28. > :02:31.get built with vast public subsidy, thank you for this morning, by the

:02:32. > :02:35.way and came in at six times the original price, but thankfully it

:02:36. > :02:38.was to be the last of its kind, because before the construction was

:02:39. > :02:44.completed nuclear had already been overtaken by massive changes in the

:02:45. > :02:50.energy market. Urgent and huge uplift in the provision of

:02:51. > :02:54.interconnectors took place in 2017/18. Fracking, guess what,

:02:55. > :02:59.turned out to be a disastrous waste of time. The big companies abandoned

:03:00. > :03:04.their efforts as the geology proved too complicated and too costly, not

:03:05. > :03:09.to mention the years thankfully tied newspaper local objections. Local

:03:10. > :03:14.people finally gained local control of the supply and delivery of their

:03:15. > :03:18.own energy. Moreover, each household has its own battery storage and

:03:19. > :03:23.charging facility. It's been years since any carbon escaped in the

:03:24. > :03:29.atmosphere, as the technology of the 2020s saw capture and storage reach

:03:30. > :03:34.maturity. And the growth in renewables created an economic boom

:03:35. > :03:40.of such huge proportions and we lead the world in the supply of renewable

:03:41. > :03:45.PV and off-shore wind and our expertise is sought worldwide, that

:03:46. > :03:52.lass bit is true by the way. -- last bit is true by the way. We are going

:03:53. > :03:58.to match our Paris agreement climate change agreement. It was ratified in

:03:59. > :04:00.the Autumn of 2016 by the new May Government at their Conservative

:04:01. > :04:03.Conference. Theresa I hope you're listening. And I am the Christmas

:04:04. > :04:06.fairy. LAUGHTER

:04:07. > :04:10.Back in the real world, sadly we do have a Tory Government who are so

:04:11. > :04:13.committed to combatting climate change that they strap the

:04:14. > :04:20.department of energy and climate change. And that is how Government

:04:21. > :04:24.signal what their priorities are. And this Conservative Government

:04:25. > :04:28.pulled the rug from growing green industries, it moved the goal posts

:04:29. > :04:32.by suddenly and untimely withdrawal of support for many forms of

:04:33. > :04:36.renewable energy. The planned privatisation of the Green

:04:37. > :04:39.Investment Bank, they dropped their manifesto pledge to investors in the

:04:40. > :04:47.car ban capture and storage programme by axing the 1 billion

:04:48. > :04:51.proposed for R We can't get to zero carbon without capture and

:04:52. > :04:56.storage. Add to that the huge uncertainty created by Brexit, then

:04:57. > :04:59.this Government really needs to act fast and answer urgently many

:05:00. > :05:06.questions to mitigate that uncertainty and to make it charrion

:05:07. > :05:13.clear to the world that we are open for green business and completely

:05:14. > :05:17.submitted to decarbonisation. Britain's future needs to be

:05:18. > :05:19.entrepreneurial, internationally open, environmentally sustainable

:05:20. > :05:24.and where the benefits this afternoon growth are shared fairly

:05:25. > :05:28.across the country and with future generations. Our membership of the

:05:29. > :05:32.EU guaranteed our commitments to climate change. It was a safeguard

:05:33. > :05:35.against this Government, any Government, that appeared to be

:05:36. > :05:44.undermining our ability to deliver on our legally binding targets.

:05:45. > :05:49.Outside the EU, what is our guarantor? Let's show that we are

:05:50. > :05:54.world leaders on action on climate change. We must improve the

:05:55. > :06:00.efficiency of resource use and decarbonise our economy. That will

:06:01. > :06:04.help create high skills, high value added industries able to compete in

:06:05. > :06:08.global markets for low carbon and resource efficient products,

:06:09. > :06:13.technologies, services and create jobs throughout the country. There

:06:14. > :06:19.is a huge, huge opportunity out there and we need a new, green,

:06:20. > :06:24.industrial strategy targeting technologies that underpin emerging

:06:25. > :06:28.green industries. Let us establish a clear and consistent commitment to

:06:29. > :06:33.policies that create long-term demand for low carbon transport and

:06:34. > :06:38.energy efficiency and thus giving the investors the confidence they

:06:39. > :06:43.need. The Government must strengthen support for green innovation and

:06:44. > :06:48.encourage the creation of green financial products to bring consumer

:06:49. > :06:52.capital into green industries. The green agenda is worth absolutely

:06:53. > :06:56.trillions in the decades to come. George Osborne never believed in the

:06:57. > :07:04.green economic miracle that is on offer. Let's just hope that Theresa

:07:05. > :07:09.May has more sense. We need a new economic policy. If we are to be, we

:07:10. > :07:15.Liberal Democrats, I should say, need a new economic policy, if we

:07:16. > :07:19.are to be relevant as a force in politics. This is vital to the

:07:20. > :07:23.Liberal Democrats story. This is vital to our narrative. The low

:07:24. > :07:32.carbon economy needs to be right at the core of that policy. Conference,

:07:33. > :07:35.support the motion. Thank you. APPLAUSE

:07:36. > :07:40.Thank you for that vision of the future and all you do on our

:07:41. > :07:44.behalves in the House of Lords. Can I ask Steve Bolter to stand by.

:07:45. > :07:51.David Grace will move amendment one in your daily announcement sheet.

:07:52. > :08:00.GAFCON frens, that is for the benefit of you who like me are

:08:01. > :08:04.celebrating talk like a pirate day. -- good afternoon conference. I'm

:08:05. > :08:08.going to talk like a European. During the campaigning for the

:08:09. > :08:11.referendum and I did a lot of it. I felt the case for the environment,

:08:12. > :08:14.we didn't hear enough of it, stronger in didn't use it. Tories

:08:15. > :08:20.didn't use it. Some of us used it. But it just didn't get the airing it

:08:21. > :08:24.needed, because really, European environmental policy and legislation

:08:25. > :08:28.is the back bone of our environmental protection in Britain.

:08:29. > :08:33.Not only is it the back bone, it has the strongest degree of public

:08:34. > :08:35.support. Wherever polls were conducted asking people what

:08:36. > :08:38.competence they thought Europe should have, the environment always

:08:39. > :08:45.came very high up. Yet we didn't make enough of it. It covers nature.

:08:46. > :08:49.And as we all know nature does not respect national boundaries. It

:08:50. > :08:54.covers energy, waste, standards used in production. All of these things

:08:55. > :08:59.we have to maintain. This amendment makes that point and says we should

:09:00. > :09:07.do that. It is necessary because the Tories, if they can, will undermine

:09:08. > :09:11.them. They're already doing so. This is mentioned in the motion at line

:09:12. > :09:14.15. The amendment number one clarifies that a bit. They're

:09:15. > :09:20.already attacking on renewables. We need to protect that. We've added a

:09:21. > :09:23.bit about planning to give local authorities stronger powers to bring

:09:24. > :09:28.in environmental standards in planning. So I'm asking you to

:09:29. > :09:37.support this amendment to protect all these things, because if we

:09:38. > :09:42.don't, the Tories will slowly, quietly, consistently undo this

:09:43. > :09:47.legislation bit by bit. They will undermine all the progress that

:09:48. > :09:51.we've made from the European Union. They'll undermine rot gross made

:09:52. > :09:55.during the coalition Government. They will undercut other countries.

:09:56. > :09:59.The temptation to reduce all these standards so that Britain becomes

:10:00. > :10:03.the dirty man of Europe and that we produce things more cheaply but more

:10:04. > :10:07.dirtily. That will be there. That temptation is already there for

:10:08. > :10:10.them. We need to protect all those standards that we've achieved so far

:10:11. > :10:14.and all the progress. What I say to you is support amendment number one.

:10:15. > :10:21.It isn't the jolly Roger that we have to fear, it's the jolly Andrea

:10:22. > :10:24.Leadsom and her crew who are trying to make us walk the plank.

:10:25. > :10:31.APPLAUSE Thank you very much. Can I ask Jay

:10:32. > :10:37.Dias from Twickenham and Richmond to stand by. I call Steve Bolter who

:10:38. > :10:41.wishes you to remove the words in lines 16 and 17, "And the

:10:42. > :10:45.abandonment of previous commitments to investors in carbon capture and

:10:46. > :10:49.storage programme". Apologies from FCC, that isn't in your daily

:10:50. > :10:55.announcements, I will reread those at the end of the debate. I

:10:56. > :10:58.apologise too because I understood that my application for a separate

:10:59. > :11:04.vote on those words had been rejected. So I was - so this is a

:11:05. > :11:10.complete surprise to me as they weren't there. I have just spent the

:11:11. > :11:15.last hour, which is why I arrive here red faced and breathless listen

:11:16. > :11:20.to Ed Davey talking about carbon capture and storage. He's almost

:11:21. > :11:26.convinced me about it, not quite. I realise it has a role to play. My

:11:27. > :11:32.fear always is that carbon dioxide stored under the North Sea is

:11:33. > :11:36.probably more of a danger than nuclear waste scores are if there's

:11:37. > :11:43.an earth tremor. I fear that from carbon capture and storage. However,

:11:44. > :11:48.there are a lot of arguments for it. There is a big argument against not

:11:49. > :11:53.suddenly with drawing funding from a project that people have started

:11:54. > :11:59.investing in. While I deplore the Osborne decision to withdraw the

:12:00. > :12:05.funding at a stroke, I do, would like to say that I think it is quite

:12:06. > :12:10.reasonable as it is industry, the fossil fuel industry and the heavy

:12:11. > :12:17.energy users who will benefit most from carbon capture and storage, the

:12:18. > :12:24.idea that the Government funding should gradually go away from carbon

:12:25. > :12:29.capture is I think a reasonable one. On balance, I think, having listened

:12:30. > :12:35.to Ed Davey for an hour, a lobbyist on this matter, I'm not quite sure -

:12:36. > :12:42.I still think, I have some reservation about those words. I'm

:12:43. > :12:46.not so unhappy as I was. The other things, cutting investment in

:12:47. > :12:52.renewables is, and cutting investment in energy saving is much

:12:53. > :12:56.more serious. I feel that adding that rather doubtful thing in there

:12:57. > :13:01.just weakens the motion slightly. Overall I support the motion and I

:13:02. > :13:07.ask you all to think about whether that should be included or not. I'm

:13:08. > :13:10.not going to tell you to now. I'm less anti it before I learned. You

:13:11. > :13:15.need to learn about things before you vote about things.

:13:16. > :13:20.APPLAUSE The proof of debate and the power of

:13:21. > :13:25.dialogue. Claire Thomas from Hull please to stand by. I now called Jay

:13:26. > :13:31.Dias wishing to speak against the motion. I know, I thought I'd get

:13:32. > :13:37.that reaction. Good afternoon, conference. I think I'm known as an

:13:38. > :13:41.old newbie, I joined ten days prior to the referendum. It's an honour to

:13:42. > :13:45.be up here today. I run a private equity fund in London. I came across

:13:46. > :13:47.this motion and I thought it was interesting to have the opportunity.

:13:48. > :13:51.I don't want you to get me wrong much the spirit of the motion has

:13:52. > :13:53.clear merit. It really does, especially when talking about carbon

:13:54. > :13:59.and managing it and moving forward. and managing it and moving forward.

:14:00. > :14:02.However we're in a world of binary questions, Brexit, the US thinking

:14:03. > :14:07.about their election, it's our time to grasp, shape and reframe those

:14:08. > :14:10.policies not just to echo what the Tories and what Labour have done

:14:11. > :14:15.previously and are currently doing. Firstly, we need to commitment to

:14:16. > :14:18.overturning the privatisation of the Green Investment Bank, not simply

:14:19. > :14:25.say we want a voice within it. The private sector, on a whole, use

:14:26. > :14:29.thesels -- models to bolster their ethos and not broaden their

:14:30. > :14:32.appetite. I urge you to build our internal human cam tall to see how

:14:33. > :14:36.to manage these funds appropriately. This means taking equity in

:14:37. > :14:39.companies, understanding their business model thoroughly and

:14:40. > :14:43.assessing their performance, but not with the simple, one size fits all

:14:44. > :14:47.score card. It's very difficult for you to have that level of

:14:48. > :14:51.opportunity with that model. If we can build such a base, we will get

:14:52. > :14:57.investor confidence in the businesses that we want to see.

:14:58. > :15:03.We need to encourage the green innovation throughout the value

:15:04. > :15:06.change, not just the businesses we love to hear and talk about but

:15:07. > :15:10.thinking about it all the way through. When you look at the motion

:15:11. > :15:14.and the papers supporting it, of the ten examples, there are only two

:15:15. > :15:19.macro companies looking at the value chain and everything else talks

:15:20. > :15:23.about the latest technology. There are fundamental good businesses that

:15:24. > :15:28.can innovate and create this better environment. I want to make sure we

:15:29. > :15:41.do not forget the lessons we can see from Port Talbot. During the 1970s

:15:42. > :15:43.and 1980s, the skill industry would have declined while successive

:15:44. > :15:46.Labour and Tory government closed down the mines. All they did in

:15:47. > :15:48.response was put on a sticky plaster and they were not waterproof. It was

:15:49. > :15:50.ridiculous. We need to find an appropriate strategy and industries

:15:51. > :15:56.to put into the relevant communities around the UK. We can then be the

:15:57. > :16:00.natural party to be brave and explore the unforeseen blisters out

:16:01. > :16:04.there. We need to answer the question, how can we influence these

:16:05. > :16:08.communities and future generations? Following the events this year, we

:16:09. > :16:13.have a broader electorate. New -- we must see the world through their

:16:14. > :16:17.eyes, we cannot continue with tired policies of the past, we are obliged

:16:18. > :16:22.to do more with this. I believe we can be the party both locally and

:16:23. > :16:29.nationally for all businesses, all individuals and most importantly all

:16:30. > :16:35.unfortunately, I do not think this motion does that. Thank you very

:16:36. > :16:39.much. APPLAUSE. Can I ask Elizabeth Wilson from East Lothian to stand by

:16:40. > :16:50.and I called Claire Thomas? Claire is our prospective candidate for

:16:51. > :16:54.Hull. Good afternoon, conference. We

:16:55. > :16:56.recognise the need for a good, strong local economy for our

:16:57. > :17:02.communities. Not just for the sake of it but to create jobs, to give

:17:03. > :17:07.young people if you chat and to build strong local communities. It

:17:08. > :17:11.seems to me the Conservative attitude to green economic policies

:17:12. > :17:17.show they think green policies in some way weaken our economies. But

:17:18. > :17:23.that is just not true. So I am from Hull and some people talk Hull down.

:17:24. > :17:27.But I really believe in the people of Hull. I believe in our young

:17:28. > :17:32.people who are currently learning new skills to get jobs in the new

:17:33. > :17:38.industries coming to our city. And in Hull, that new industry is

:17:39. > :17:42.manufacturing wind turbines blades. And that has been embraced by

:17:43. > :17:46.everyone, the whole community has come behind that project and it is

:17:47. > :17:51.really fantastic to see. Together, we are building a green economy.

:17:52. > :17:55.Green jobs for the people of Hull who desperately need them.

:17:56. > :18:00.Regenerating our local economy and building hope for the future. For

:18:01. > :18:05.me, one of the good things about building green jobs is they are

:18:06. > :18:11.across the country, so creating jobs in the North as well as the South.

:18:12. > :18:15.Green port Hull is creating a base for green energy from the place that

:18:16. > :18:20.used to be a base for exporting coal. What better sign can there be

:18:21. > :18:25.of the positive impact of green industries for the future, creating

:18:26. > :18:30.jobs for young people and green energy for the future of our planet?

:18:31. > :18:36.It is essential that we look to the future. What good is it if we create

:18:37. > :18:40.a stronger economy now that builds up problems for the future? A policy

:18:41. > :18:43.that does not secure long-term investment for green energy is not

:18:44. > :18:48.one doing the best for future generations. But the good news is

:18:49. > :18:56.that investing in green energy is good for the economy, both now and

:18:57. > :19:02.for the future. The Siemens investment in Hull has been huge.

:19:03. > :19:06.Investing in offshore wind and manufacturing wind turbines. It is

:19:07. > :19:10.changing the city and the region, it is creating more jobs, it is

:19:11. > :19:17.creating more businesses that supply the industry. It is creating more

:19:18. > :19:22.confidence in Hull, which is really good to see. And by the way, we City

:19:23. > :19:28.of Culture in 2017 so I hope you will come and visit! What we have

:19:29. > :19:34.learnt in the process of getting that investment from Siemens in the

:19:35. > :19:38.Hull is that investment is about a long-term planning and the companies

:19:39. > :19:42.that will invest in these sorts of industries, they need that policy

:19:43. > :19:46.framework for the long-term in order for us to attract that sort of

:19:47. > :19:51.investment. They need commitment from government that they can rely

:19:52. > :19:55.on, they can invest in and they can plan for. The Siemens investment in

:19:56. > :19:59.the wind turbine manufacturer in Hull is transforming our city's

:20:00. > :20:05.economy but I doubt they would invest so easily now. The damage of

:20:06. > :20:09.Brexit and uncertainty about government policy is making it more

:20:10. > :20:15.difficult, so I am proud to be a Lib Dem in a party looking positively to

:20:16. > :20:23.the future in this area, thank you. APPLAUSE.

:20:24. > :20:26.Thank you very much. Can Doctor Susan from Stratford-upon-Avon

:20:27. > :20:29.stand-by, I call now Elizabeth Wilson from East Lothian.

:20:30. > :20:34.Fellow Liberals, I am standing here to support the motion and I will

:20:35. > :20:41.talk about the preamble. I'm going to talk about referees, rubbish,

:20:42. > :20:46.waist. We have all learned to recycle but the default position is

:20:47. > :20:50.to throw it away. But there is no way. Whether it is a landfill on our

:20:51. > :20:55.doorstep or an incinerator in the next county, or in my case just over

:20:56. > :21:00.the hill, or exporting to low income countries where there is unsafe

:21:01. > :21:07.dismantling, away is our planet. We are currently using 1.5 of the

:21:08. > :21:12.resources the planet can regenerate. Throwing it away, I would contend,

:21:13. > :21:15.is an example of linear thinking. We need to change the circular

:21:16. > :21:20.thinking. We need to embrace the circular economy. There is a very

:21:21. > :21:27.good course online if you want to learn more about it. I think this is

:21:28. > :21:32.implicit in the motion but I want to make it more explicit. Waste must be

:21:33. > :21:37.seen as a resource, as part of decarbonising the economy. An

:21:38. > :21:42.example I will give is one I am involved with locally in zero waste

:21:43. > :21:46.Dunbar, a pilot project funded by the Scottish government and dare I

:21:47. > :21:55.mention it to the European regional development fund, thank you! My

:21:56. > :21:58.interest is that I am a trustee of the parent organisation which is a

:21:59. > :22:05.charity sustaining Dunbar, the clue is in the name. Zero Watse Dunbar

:22:06. > :22:09.aims to reduce, reuse and recycle and initial activity in the first

:22:10. > :22:13.couple of years is to increase recycling both in local businesses

:22:14. > :22:18.for instance on the High Street, and also with local schools, actually

:22:19. > :22:23.improving recycling and embedding ideas about reuse within the

:22:24. > :22:32.curriculum. Both locally and is part of a national task force. There has

:22:33. > :22:37.been the diversion of food to a local food project and clothes swaps

:22:38. > :22:42.and props for a local opera production. In the last year of

:22:43. > :22:47.funding, we have got to move forward and make sure this is viable. So we

:22:48. > :22:52.are going to go into a sophisticated social enterprise to divert from

:22:53. > :22:55.landfill. A range of partners had been identified and we have lots of

:22:56. > :23:06.ideas, pop-up shots and other things. There will be links to

:23:07. > :23:10.repair workshops. Don't think this is going to be some glorified scrap

:23:11. > :23:15.yard. Just think of the well-known Scandinavian furniture store we have

:23:16. > :23:20.already referred to, that is the kind of facility we want to offer

:23:21. > :23:26.local people. So to summarise, we need some low-tech community-based,

:23:27. > :23:30.small-scale initiatives, as well as high-tech solutions that require

:23:31. > :23:34.substantial investment. We need collaboration, we need innovation

:23:35. > :23:40.and we need creativity. We need to change our thinking the circular

:23:41. > :23:43.thinking. We need her open our hearts and have an emotional

:23:44. > :23:47.commitment to change, and we need to answer the call to action.

:23:48. > :24:00.APPLAUSE. Thank you very much. I now call

:24:01. > :24:06.Susan, speaking for the motion. I am speaking for the motion and I

:24:07. > :24:12.want to address lines nine, 20-22 and 42-44. I want to address the

:24:13. > :24:20.need for an industrial strategy that encourages innovation, promotes low

:24:21. > :24:25.carbon and the technology, research and services of the future. The UK

:24:26. > :24:29.is in dire need of a resource strategy. A forward-looking,

:24:30. > :24:36.strategic framework for resource management. Fully integrated into an

:24:37. > :24:40.industrial strategy that looks at waste, energy, skills, water and the

:24:41. > :24:44.circular economy. We need a symbiotic relationship where the

:24:45. > :24:49.by-products of one process become the raw materials of another. To the

:24:50. > :24:56.benefit of everybody and the UK economy. However, we need attention

:24:57. > :25:00.paid to material quality, skills development and the facilitation and

:25:01. > :25:06.partnerships needed to ensure that the best practices already used by

:25:07. > :25:10.some of our world leading practitioners in this country spread

:25:11. > :25:16.to everybody. We need a much more collaborative approach across supply

:25:17. > :25:20.chains. And improve the design. And we need the research as well to make

:25:21. > :25:27.it all happen, to benefit the UK economy. Centres of excellence can

:25:28. > :25:35.generate the innovation required and nurture best practice and research.

:25:36. > :25:39.This should be the time, and it is the government Department for

:25:40. > :25:43.business, energy and industrial strategy, they should be seizing the

:25:44. > :25:47.opportunity to developments of a vision for the future within a green

:25:48. > :25:53.industrial strategy. But if they do not, then we should and hold them to

:25:54. > :25:59.account. Such a strategy needs to also look at market costs. The

:26:00. > :26:07.drivers and the benefits to fully drive a circular economy. Above all,

:26:08. > :26:11.there has to be both commitment and certainty, and consistency. We have

:26:12. > :26:14.lacked a lot of that in recent years. So please support this

:26:15. > :26:21.motion. And thank you for your vision. I already have the electric

:26:22. > :26:25.charge, they already have the PB, we already have the electric cars, now

:26:26. > :26:26.let's move something far greater, thank you!

:26:27. > :26:37.APPLAUSE. Thank you, Susan, and Jo Kenrick

:26:38. > :26:44.stand-by? Jane Nel is all prospective candidate for Bath.

:26:45. > :26:49.APPLAUSE. -- J. Hello, conference. Not only am I

:26:50. > :26:54.going to be the next Liberal Democrat MP for Bath, yes, we are

:26:55. > :26:59.going to win, for sure! But I am also a green entrepreneur. You can

:27:00. > :27:07.tell because I am wearing a green suit! I have run a green business

:27:08. > :27:10.for 27 years. And I have to say, the economic and market conditions for

:27:11. > :27:15.the green economy, they are really no better today than they were when

:27:16. > :27:23.I started out. We did some good work in coalition on creating a green

:27:24. > :27:26.energy market. But now that has been picked by the Conservatives. We need

:27:27. > :27:33.to get those sort of policies back into government again. The policies

:27:34. > :27:37.in this motion will help me and many people like me to start creating the

:27:38. > :27:44.green economy and they will support us as we go forward. So I urge you

:27:45. > :27:51.all to vote for this motion. But this is only the start, we have to

:27:52. > :27:56.go much, much further than this. There are substantial problems in

:27:57. > :28:01.our economy that mean that those who create the damage to the environment

:28:02. > :28:09.gets rewarded and those who do the right thing are penalised. How is it

:28:10. > :28:15.right that people and companies that produce massive amounts of packaging

:28:16. > :28:20.and waste dump that cost onto local authorities for them to pay for its

:28:21. > :28:27.disposal or recycling? How is it right that food manufacturers can

:28:28. > :28:30.put sugar and fats into their products and not pay a penny towards

:28:31. > :28:37.the cost of dealing with the problems of obesity and heart

:28:38. > :28:44.disease and diabetes? And how is it right that motor manufacturers can

:28:45. > :28:50.produce vehicles that belch out particulates and they do not pay a

:28:51. > :28:55.penny to the NHS to dealing with those problems? We need to create a

:28:56. > :29:01.situation where those who do the right thing rewarded and we need to

:29:02. > :29:06.stop, we absolutely need to stop people making fast personal profits

:29:07. > :29:11.from creating vast public costs. Thank you very much for listening.

:29:12. > :29:20.APPLAUSE. Thank you. Now Jo Kenrick from

:29:21. > :29:28.Hammersmith and Fulham wishes to speak to lines 53 and 60.

:29:29. > :29:31.Conference, during the coalition, Liberal Democrats enabled billions

:29:32. > :29:36.of pounds of investment in the green infrastructure across the UK. The

:29:37. > :29:39.Green Investment Bank, the biggest increase in renewable energy ever,

:29:40. > :29:42.and ambitious climate change targets. As we have heard today,

:29:43. > :29:48.unfortunately the Conservatives are now doing their best to destroy that

:29:49. > :29:51.investor confidence. This motion would increase our commitment to the

:29:52. > :29:54.low carbon transition and I fully agree with the magic and the

:29:55. > :30:01.privatisation of the Green Investment Bank.

:30:02. > :30:09.As the drafting amendment says, we must now ratify the Paris agreement

:30:10. > :30:12.as a matter of urgency. This motion once again shows we're the only

:30:13. > :30:17.party that recognises the transition to a green economy, not only crucial

:30:18. > :30:21.for the planet, but for our future prosperity too. We all know about

:30:22. > :30:27.the environmental impacts of climate change, soy want to focus on the

:30:28. > :30:31.hard nosed financial impacts too. In 2008 the great recession was caused,

:30:32. > :30:35.in part, by the subprime mortgage crisis. Regulators struggled as

:30:36. > :30:42.banks went bankrupt and governments spent billions on bail out. The G20

:30:43. > :30:47.leaders met for the first time seeking to address that crisis.

:30:48. > :30:53.Today some economists and Central Bankers are seeking to prevent the

:30:54. > :30:59.next major risk to the financial system, the subclimb crisis. Mark

:31:00. > :31:02.Carney claimed climate change a material financial risk. He high

:31:03. > :31:08.lited the risks to investors who own oil fields and coal plants as they

:31:09. > :31:14.become stranded assets. It's not just a theoretical threat. In the US

:31:15. > :31:19.the Dow coal index has fallen 97% over the last four years. In that

:31:20. > :31:24.time, 50 US coal producers have filed for bankruptcy, including pea

:31:25. > :31:29.body, once the world's largest private sector coal company valued

:31:30. > :31:33.at $20 billion. Luckily regulators are realising we must act now to

:31:34. > :31:39.prevent this crisis. The G20 in China this year made green finance a

:31:40. > :31:43.priority. China itself has set out guidelines to restrict investment in

:31:44. > :31:49.polluting sectors, there has been a taskforce set up on climate replated

:31:50. > :31:53.climate disclosures. The taskforce is likely to recommend that

:31:54. > :31:58.companies report on carbon emissions and whether their business plans are

:31:59. > :32:04.compatible with a two degree world. I urge you to support lines 53 to 60

:32:05. > :32:08.to give investors the tools they need to protect themselves against

:32:09. > :32:13.the subclimb crisis. In coalition we fought the Tories tone sure large

:32:14. > :32:18.companies disclosed their carbon emissions data, announced by Nick

:32:19. > :32:24.Clegg in 2012. We must ensure that the UK remains a global leader by

:32:25. > :32:28.making it mandatory for companies to disclose their business plans too.

:32:29. > :32:34.Let no-one say that Liberal Democrats didn't see the subclimb

:32:35. > :32:43.crisis coming. Thank you. Kara Genkinson, please

:32:44. > :32:51.stand by. I call Seb Bench, wishing to speak for the motion.

:32:52. > :32:58.Hello, conference. We've already heard a lot this week about the need

:32:59. > :33:03.to make globalisation work for us, to work for everyone, the need to

:33:04. > :33:06.have a real strategy. Here we have with green energy a perfect

:33:07. > :33:12.opportunity to put that into action. We have the opportunity as a country

:33:13. > :33:17.to become real world leader in this technology and to find an industrial

:33:18. > :33:22.aspect of industry, we can really lead the world in and export to the

:33:23. > :33:26.rest of the world. In fact, we had begun to do this before subsidies

:33:27. > :33:30.were cut. But if we do want to really lead the world on this again

:33:31. > :33:34.and make this a key part of our new economic strategy, we need bold

:33:35. > :33:38.action from the UK Government. Unfortunately, the evidence so far

:33:39. > :33:45.would suggest that won't be forth coming, which is where we come in.

:33:46. > :33:48.We need bold action from the UK Government on major environmental

:33:49. > :33:53.economic proinjects like the Swansea tidal lagoon. We need the UK

:33:54. > :33:58.Government to be better in facilitating smaller SMEs in their

:33:59. > :34:02.work on environment energy by revisiting their decisions to cut

:34:03. > :34:06.subsidies, particularly since many of these proinjects as they become

:34:07. > :34:12.more viable need far less support than they did before. So only a

:34:13. > :34:16.small amount of subsidies will yield great benefits. Of course, in the

:34:17. > :34:22.long-term, we need to look at providing the skills necessary to

:34:23. > :34:27.promote green economy and green, small and medium enterprises by

:34:28. > :34:30.ensuring that our sector is fully supported and we encourage

:34:31. > :34:34.sufficient people to go down that path to ensure we have the skills

:34:35. > :34:40.necessary to continue to lead on the green economy. Finally, I'd like to

:34:41. > :34:44.include an example from Wales, where I used to work until May this year

:34:45. > :34:48.for the Welsh Liberal Democrats. The Welsh Government pass aid bill

:34:49. > :34:52.called the future generations act, which ensures every bit of

:34:53. > :34:57.legislation must be checked to see how it affects the future

:34:58. > :35:01.generations, which in terms of the environment, means in terms of how

:35:02. > :35:08.any legislation affects the environment. We talk a lot about the

:35:09. > :35:14.fact that climate change will impact most on future generations, so an

:35:15. > :35:18.approach that really ensured every bit of legislation really did

:35:19. > :35:23.consider the future impact on our environment would surely mean that a

:35:24. > :35:27.green economy and environmental business initiatives were considered

:35:28. > :35:31.far more, with far greater priority. Thank you, conference. I urge you to

:35:32. > :35:36.support the motion. Thank you very much. Can Cathryn

:35:37. > :35:43.Smart from Cambridge please stand by. I call Kara Genkinson from

:35:44. > :35:49.Haringey. Good afternoon, conference. This is a good motion,

:35:50. > :35:53.which acknowledges the importance of energy efficiency alongside the

:35:54. > :35:57.perhaps more fashionable green technologies such as energy storage

:35:58. > :36:01.or anything with the word "smart" in it.

:36:02. > :36:04.LAUGHTER In 2012, nearly two million homes

:36:05. > :36:09.were helped through Government support to become more energy

:36:10. > :36:19.efficient. In 2015, it was just 350,000. That's a drop of 75%.

:36:20. > :36:22.Levels of wall and loft insulation have plummeted with the loss of

:36:23. > :36:27.thousands of jobs. This is terrible news for hitting our climate change

:36:28. > :36:33.targets. It's even worse for the fuel poor. The cheapest way to cut

:36:34. > :36:38.carbon is by reducing energy use. 70% of all gas usage is in our homes

:36:39. > :36:43.and most of the homes that we'll be living in in 2050 have already been

:36:44. > :36:49.built. So refurbishing these homes to make them energy efficient is an

:36:50. > :36:54.absolute priority. As Lynn said, one of Theresa May's first acts, when

:36:55. > :36:59.she became Prime Minister was to get rid of the pecky Department of

:37:00. > :37:04.Energy and Climate Change. The new department, BEIS does not have the

:37:05. > :37:07.words climate change in it, not too surprising from this Tory

:37:08. > :37:11.Government. But it is also interest that energy was merged with business

:37:12. > :37:15.and industrial strategy. Whilst there may be some logic there, in

:37:16. > :37:21.terms of the groan economy, there is a real danger that energy is

:37:22. > :37:25.associated only with big business. Nuclear, fracking and big

:37:26. > :37:29.infrastructure projects. Much of energy efficiency is a lot less

:37:30. > :37:33.glamorous. Working with small building firms to boost their skills

:37:34. > :37:38.and encouraging everyone improving their home to think about energy

:37:39. > :37:42.efficiency. One of the reasons that the Green Deal failed was that it

:37:43. > :37:48.was shaped by big business, the British Gass of this world. Experts

:37:49. > :37:51.warned we should listen to the small businesses, the builders who work

:37:52. > :37:56.every day in homes. But those voices were ignored. I also think that

:37:57. > :38:03.cladding your house with ten centimetres of solid wall insulation

:38:04. > :38:07.at a cost of 15,000 is a hard sell. We need thinner insulation

:38:08. > :38:10.technologies. This motion focuses on green innovation and how to exploit

:38:11. > :38:14.green technologies to boost the economy. I absolutely support it.

:38:15. > :38:18.But let's keep up the pressure on the less exciting stuff and

:38:19. > :38:21.highlight the Tories' complete lack of strategy on home energy

:38:22. > :38:29.efficiency. Lynn, I know I can count on you to do that. Thank you.

:38:30. > :38:41.Thank you. Can Neil Stockily stand by. I call Cathryn Smart.

:38:42. > :38:45.Thank you. As you'll have realised our amendment is in two parts. The

:38:46. > :38:51.first is dealing with the planning system and rather well follows on

:38:52. > :38:57.the previous speaker. It's basically wanting to alter the default busson.

:38:58. > :39:04.At the moment, the Tories have moved the default button to usually

:39:05. > :39:08.negative. If something comes up in the green economy in planning, then

:39:09. > :39:11.the assumption is that it will be turned down unless there's very good

:39:12. > :39:15.reasons for it not to be. What we want to do is turn the default

:39:16. > :39:19.button the other way, so that it's going to be accepted unless there's

:39:20. > :39:24.very good reasons for it not to be. Very straightforward. Very simple.

:39:25. > :39:30.It makes an enormous amount of difference to what actually happens.

:39:31. > :39:35.The other part of our motion is, again, very straightforward, very

:39:36. > :39:39.simple, those who were in the RSPB lunch time meeting will have heard

:39:40. > :39:44.it all before any way, so many of the directives that are in the EU

:39:45. > :39:48.are absolutely essential for our health, for our well being, for our

:39:49. > :39:55.environment, for our economy, for everything. But we know - do we

:39:56. > :40:02.trust the Tory Government? Ha, ha, no. Let's have a big effort to

:40:03. > :40:10.persuade them that what they need to do is to bring those directives into

:40:11. > :40:13.EU law and then whatever the three Brexiteers or muskateers whatever

:40:14. > :40:19.you like to call them start fiddling around, at least that's safe. It's

:40:20. > :40:25.clear. At least business knows where they are. I think that is actually

:40:26. > :40:28.something that's very important. I didn't hear anybody disagreeing, so

:40:29. > :40:34.I'm assuming you're all going to vote for it. I hope so, any way.

:40:35. > :40:39.Thank you. Thank you, I now call Neil Stockily

:40:40. > :40:44.from Bromley borough to summiate on the debate. Thank you, James. Thanks

:40:45. > :40:47.to everybody who's contributed to this debate. Thanks to those who put

:40:48. > :40:52.in drafting amendments and for amendment one, which we accept. This

:40:53. > :40:56.afternoon, WWE reaffirmed our commitment to building a green

:40:57. > :41:01.economy. We understand how environmental goods and services can

:41:02. > :41:06.kick the economy into life and keep it going. We understand what a green

:41:07. > :41:11.economy means for our children, creating jobs, saving money,

:41:12. > :41:14.preserving the planet. We understand the energy revolution that's going

:41:15. > :41:18.on all over the world. Fossil fuels, especially coal, are on the way out.

:41:19. > :41:24.Clean sources of energy are falling in price. We understand that the

:41:25. > :41:28.investment needed for the green economy may be 100 billion by 2020

:41:29. > :41:32.alone won't happen by magic. When we're in Government, we put in place

:41:33. > :41:36.policies on energy, finance, transport to bring forward low

:41:37. > :41:41.carbon investment and Joel reminded us about those. As Lynn said, as

:41:42. > :41:46.soon as we'd left office, the Tories took a torch to our green growth

:41:47. > :41:48.programme. We've seen the results - investor confidence has fallen

:41:49. > :41:52.across the energy sector. Thousands of people on the sole -- in the

:41:53. > :41:58.solar industry have lost their jobs. We need action to reassure

:41:59. > :42:03.investmentors and re-- investors and restore confidence. First ratify the

:42:04. > :42:09.Paris climate change agreement. To get that into international law and

:42:10. > :42:12.re-establish confidence in the UK's ability to deal with tackling

:42:13. > :42:16.climate change. Second, to make sure that Brexit, when we find out what

:42:17. > :42:24.it means, doesn't place our low carbon future at risk. We support

:42:25. > :42:27.David Grace's amendment to maintain existing environmental protections

:42:28. > :42:32.from EU law. We need to think about the future too though, for instance,

:42:33. > :42:36.we need to stay part of the European energy union, because if we go out

:42:37. > :42:41.the clean energy sector will be placed at risk. Third, bidding a

:42:42. > :42:45.green, industrial strategy to drive new investment, jobs and export

:42:46. > :42:48.growth. The motion captures a lot of areas. In the debate we've heard

:42:49. > :42:52.about areas where we need further work. Yes, Susan, thank you very

:42:53. > :42:59.much for your contribution on the circular economy. Some very useful

:43:00. > :43:03.suggestions there, very specific. Kara Genkinson spoke on home energy

:43:04. > :43:09.efficiency, yes, it's common sense. The cheapest way to cut emissions is

:43:10. > :43:12.not to use energy at all and the most cost effective solution. We

:43:13. > :43:17.have to admit the Green Deal was a policy failure. That was largely

:43:18. > :43:26.because of treasury. We will need a new solution and that is a tank for

:43:27. > :43:28.us in coming years. Jay going further, making polluters pay.

:43:29. > :43:34.Couldn't agree more. We need to come back with proposals on green

:43:35. > :43:38.taxation. Thank you for that. The gentleman from Kingston wanted

:43:39. > :43:43.innovation across the economy, yes, couldn't agree more. But the motion

:43:44. > :43:48.in clause three already embraces that. I do agree with you however

:43:49. > :43:56.about developing policies that will shape and influence low carbon in

:43:57. > :44:01.developments in specific community. Thank you for your comments on the

:44:02. > :44:06.skills base, Seb. Very useful. Steve has called for a separate vote on

:44:07. > :44:12.carbon capture and storage. I listened carefully to what you said

:44:13. > :44:19.and I can hear you're having an argument with yourself, fine. I say

:44:20. > :44:23.we have to keep those words in. I hear what you say. But we have to

:44:24. > :44:29.keep those words in, because carbon capture and storage is essential to

:44:30. > :44:32.meet our 2050 commitments on emissions and they're essential for

:44:33. > :44:36.doing it in a cost effective way. Lynn has been very vocal on what the

:44:37. > :44:41.Government did pulling the rug out on investors and we should support

:44:42. > :44:45.what she said and not compromise the position she's taken on carbon

:44:46. > :45:00.capture and storage. I oppose that dleegs. One thing -- deheating. The

:45:01. > :45:06.Tories are building bridges to the past. It's down to us, to be the

:45:07. > :45:07.party of the new green economy, embracing the low carbon revolution,

:45:08. > :45:17.thank you very much. APPLAUSE.

:45:18. > :45:22.Thank you, we are now moving to a series of votes so get your voting

:45:23. > :45:28.badges ready. The first vote I will take is the vote on the separate

:45:29. > :45:32.votes, in lines 16 and 17, deleted words, and the abandonment of

:45:33. > :45:36.previous investments of carbon capture and storage programme. That

:45:37. > :45:43.is the first vote, all those in favour of deleting those lines,

:45:44. > :45:50.those words? And those in favour of retaining those words? Those words

:45:51. > :45:57.will clearly be retained. Now a vote on Amendment one. Those in favour of

:45:58. > :46:04.amendment one? Thank you very much. And those against? A couple, but

:46:05. > :46:11.that is clearly carried. Now on the motion as you have just amended it,

:46:12. > :46:16.those in favour please. Thank you very much. And those against. Again,

:46:17. > :46:21.I can see one but that is clearly carried, thank you for a very

:46:22. > :46:25.enlightening debate. We had twice as many cards as it was possible to

:46:26. > :46:31.call so I apologise to those who were not called. Thank you for my

:46:32. > :46:36.helpers and I am pleased to ditch her -- to hand the chair over at

:46:37. > :47:18.Lindsey Norton from the leader of our Scottish party.

:47:19. > :47:27.Conference, we now move on to agenda item F 30. And I am absolutely

:47:28. > :47:32.delighted to introduce Willie Rennie, MSP, leader of the Scottish

:47:33. > :47:37.Liberal Democrats. His victory in the Scottish elections in May in

:47:38. > :47:48.North East Fife was a wonderful beast for others -- boost for ours.

:47:49. > :47:50.APPLAUSE. And he gives is inspirational leadership in

:47:51. > :48:01.Scotland. Willie Rennie.

:48:02. > :48:08.APPLAUSE. Thank you. I made a fifth this year, in Scotland, Liberal

:48:09. > :48:15.Democrats started winning the game -- on May the 5th. APPLAUSE. Not

:48:16. > :48:21.only did I win in North East Fife with a by-election standard 9.5%

:48:22. > :48:27.swing. But the exceptional Alex Hamilton crushed the SNP in

:48:28. > :48:36.Edinburgh, securing a 3,000 vote majority. APPLAUSE.

:48:37. > :48:41.Look what happened in the Northern Isles. Cavendish Scotland Liam

:48:42. > :48:55.McArthur, they confounded the critics and pundits to win their

:48:56. > :48:59.seats with almost 70% of the vote. -- Tavish Scott. 70% of the vote

:49:00. > :49:05.when everybody told us we would be wiped out. No one is supposed to

:49:06. > :49:13.beat the SNP, but we did. North East Fife and Edinburgh West lost last

:49:14. > :49:19.year and they gained this year. The first games in a decade. It was not

:49:20. > :49:27.in the script, we tore up the script, Liberal Democrats back to

:49:28. > :49:37.winning again. APPLAUSE. So how did we do it? No, it wasn't just a

:49:38. > :49:43.couple of amorous pigs in the background of my daily TV election!

:49:44. > :49:52.But like those, we won by casting aside any inhibitions! We were able

:49:53. > :49:58.to shed any lingering coalition caution. We told people what we

:49:59. > :50:06.stood for. Progressive, optimistic, outward looking. And we told people

:50:07. > :50:12.with huge smiles on our faces. We said what we wanted. We wanted to

:50:13. > :50:16.make Scotland the best in the world again. The best in the world. Isn't

:50:17. > :50:23.that what Liberals should always aspire to?

:50:24. > :50:29.APPLAUSE. Scottish education used to be one of the best in the world. But

:50:30. > :50:35.with the SNP, it is now just average. College places have been

:50:36. > :50:40.cut, nursery education flagging and schools have seen massive cuts to

:50:41. > :50:45.their budgets. We said a transformational investment using a

:50:46. > :50:50.progressive penny on income tax for education would project Scotland

:50:51. > :50:57.right back up to the best game. Progressive, optimistic, outward

:50:58. > :51:03.looking. Scotland's police were once the pride of the nation, helping to

:51:04. > :51:11.train other forces across the world. But with the SNP, the new force is a

:51:12. > :51:16.shadow of its former self. Our plans would bring back democracy into the

:51:17. > :51:22.police and would put that pride back. We would guarantee our civil

:51:23. > :51:30.liberties by rejecting the intrusive super ID baked -- database.

:51:31. > :51:36.Industrial scale stop and search and armed police on routine duties.

:51:37. > :51:41.Progressive, optimistic, outward looking. With renewable energy

:51:42. > :51:48.resources in abundance in Scotland, we could make Scotland a world

:51:49. > :51:53.leader on tackling climate change. The SNP have struggled to meet their

:51:54. > :52:00.own targets, and what is their response? It is to add 60,000 tonnes

:52:01. > :52:05.of CO2 into the atmosphere through tax cuts for the aviation industry

:52:06. > :52:14.with their proposal to end at passenger duty. And the SNP is

:52:15. > :52:20.keeping the door open for fracking. They should take a stand against the

:52:21. > :52:24.new frontier of fossil fuels that fracking represents. We say no

:52:25. > :52:35.fracking in Scotland! APPLAUSE. Progressive, optimistic,

:52:36. > :52:40.outward looking. Now, hundreds of young people in Scotland have to

:52:41. > :52:48.wait over a year to get the mental health treatment that they deserve.

:52:49. > :52:56.A mother told me about her son. Regularly, he would lie curled up on

:52:57. > :53:01.the floor, screaming. She had to the phone every day for weeks on end to

:53:02. > :53:07.get the mental health support he needed. This is a disgrace and an

:53:08. > :53:16.embarrassment to our country. APPLAUSE.

:53:17. > :53:24.But he is not alone. The waiting list grows. People weight and age.

:53:25. > :53:29.You won't believe this, the SNP committed just 22 words the mental

:53:30. > :53:32.health in the long programme for government last week -- people

:53:33. > :53:37.weight forever. Scotland used to have a world leading mental health

:53:38. > :53:46.strategy. Now it doesn't even have one any more. And as a result, ?70

:53:47. > :53:50.million available for mental health remains unspent because they do not

:53:51. > :53:57.know what to do with it. I know what to do with it. Our plan to put

:53:58. > :54:02.mental health professionals in the Accident and Emergency, in primary

:54:03. > :54:07.care, alongside emergency workers and in the Child and adolescent

:54:08. > :54:16.mental health services, we will give people the support that they need.

:54:17. > :54:25.APPLAUSE. Progressive, optimistic, outward looking. After almost ten

:54:26. > :54:29.years in government, the SNP talk a good game. But they are not

:54:30. > :54:35.progressive. I want to make Scotland the best again so that everyone can

:54:36. > :54:39.have the opportunity to succeed, no matter what their background. Where

:54:40. > :54:43.people can live as they wish, as long as it does not cause harm to

:54:44. > :54:48.others. And where we pass on the planet in a better state than we

:54:49. > :54:51.found it, it is why we were clear on mental health, clear on that

:54:52. > :54:58.transformational investment for education, clear on the future of

:54:59. > :55:02.Scotland's together in the United Kingdom. We were progressive,

:55:03. > :55:09.optimistic, and outward looking. That is why we won. It was a big,

:55:10. > :55:14.bold, progressive programme of Liberal values and Liberal Democrat

:55:15. > :55:19.action. No more timidity, no more coalition caution, proud of our

:55:20. > :55:27.values, proud to be Liberal. APPLAUSE.

:55:28. > :55:33.Now, just as I did in the Holyrood elections, I intend to use the next

:55:34. > :55:38.five years to provide progressive, optimistic and outward looking

:55:39. > :55:45.leadership. And it will be a voice for the United Kingdom and a voice

:55:46. > :55:48.for Europe as well. In a no borders approach, we will oppose

:55:49. > :55:56.independence and we will support stronger relationships with Europe.

:55:57. > :56:03.APPLAUSE. Tim Farron is spot-on and Europe. He spoke for every bereft

:56:04. > :56:11.Remain voter in the hours after the result. He was a tall statesman when

:56:12. > :56:17.others never looked so small. In the direct interests of the country, and

:56:18. > :56:20.of our democracy, he wants to give voters the democratic choice to

:56:21. > :56:25.accept or reject the deal that the Tories finally agreed with the

:56:26. > :56:30.European Union. He is right to demand that the British people

:56:31. > :56:35.should have their say on the final deal in a referendum. Voting for

:56:36. > :56:39.departure is not the same as voting for a destination. This is not an

:56:40. > :56:44.attempt to rerun the first referendum, it is to enable the

:56:45. > :56:51.public to vote on the final deal. Now, you will have seen our First

:56:52. > :56:57.Minister over the Summer. When our leader Tim Farron was making the

:56:58. > :57:01.case for cleaning up after the chaos of Brexit, our First Minister was on

:57:02. > :57:06.a mission to make it a lot worse. Nicola Sturgeon's responds to

:57:07. > :57:12.breaking up Europe is the break-up of Britain as well. After

:57:13. > :57:16.withdrawing from Scotland's second economic -- biggest economic market,

:57:17. > :57:20.the EU, she thinks it would be a good idea to compound that by

:57:21. > :57:25.withdrawing from our biggest market, the UK. I had hoped before the

:57:26. > :57:32.Summer that she meant what she said. About building a broad consensus on

:57:33. > :57:36.seeking solutions on Brexit. I had hoped she would act in the interests

:57:37. > :57:41.of the entire country and not just the interests of the SNP. But with

:57:42. > :57:47.her actions, she has trashed that consensus. I want to be clear, there

:57:48. > :57:52.is no place on the independence fence for this party. We won a

:57:53. > :57:56.mandate in May to oppose independence and stand up for our

:57:57. > :57:59.place in the United Kingdom and we will step to that men don't -- and

:58:00. > :58:07.we will stick to that mandate like glue.

:58:08. > :58:15.APPLAUSE. After everything that we have been through, I can tell you I

:58:16. > :58:21.meant what I said. And that is know to independence.

:58:22. > :58:29.APPLAUSE. In the face of a belligerent

:58:30. > :58:33.destruction -- destructive campaign from the SNP, we will oppose

:58:34. > :58:38.independence. Nicola Sturgeon has adopted a special code, a new

:58:39. > :58:43.dictionary of National is. And I am going to help you translate it. --

:58:44. > :58:49.nationalism. When they say all of us should keep an open mind, they mean

:58:50. > :58:54.independence is back on the table. When they say everyone else,

:58:55. > :58:59.everyone else should consider all the options, they mean that

:59:00. > :59:03.independence is back on the table. When they say, good faith, that

:59:04. > :59:09.means independence is back on the table. But every reasonable sounding

:59:10. > :59:11.phrase is code for breaking up Britain. And I can tell Nicola

:59:12. > :59:24.Sturgeon, we are not falling for it! I have already explained that if we

:59:25. > :59:31.leave progressive politics to the SNP, then that will fail. If we

:59:32. > :59:38.leave the campaign for Scotland's place in the United Kingdom to the

:59:39. > :59:43.Conservatives, it will fail too. When Prime Minister David Cameron

:59:44. > :59:49.had the chance to heal the nation, after the bruising Scottish

:59:50. > :59:55.referendum campaign, he made a grubby appeal to English nationalism

:59:56. > :00:00.instead. Exactly two years ago today, at one of the most

:00:01. > :00:07.significant constitutional moments since the formation of the United

:00:08. > :00:12.Kingdom, David Cameron put his party's interests before our

:00:13. > :00:16.country's. The Tories compounded that misjudgment by seeking to scare

:00:17. > :00:23.middle England with the prospect of the rise of the Scots. Their

:00:24. > :00:29.election poster of a Scotsman pick pocketing an English taxpayer was a

:00:30. > :00:33.reckless act, it was an inaccurate characterisation of Scots and was a

:00:34. > :00:43.disgrace - how on earth does that help keep our country together?

:00:44. > :00:48.APPLAUSE Conservatives were only interested

:00:49. > :00:54.in election victory and never mind the damage done to the relationship

:00:55. > :01:00.between Scotland and the rest of the UK. In the final arrogant

:01:01. > :01:05.misjudgment, the Tories divided the country in an attempt to heal the

:01:06. > :01:11.divisions of the Conservative Party. That dragged us out of Europe, which

:01:12. > :01:17.has put further strains on the unity of the United Kingdom. No amount of

:01:18. > :01:21.draping themselves in the Union flag and singing Rule Britannia will hide

:01:22. > :01:26.their record of putting the future of the United Kingdom at risk. The

:01:27. > :01:36.Tories are not unionists. They are divisionists.

:01:37. > :01:42.APPLAUSE I have a warning to you here today

:01:43. > :01:48.in Brighton, it is an alarm that should sound across the whole of

:01:49. > :01:55.Britain and should worry all of us. With the blow of Brexit, and the

:01:56. > :01:59.threat of another Scottish independence referendum, it remains

:02:00. > :02:03.that divisive, constitutional politics remains at the centre of

:02:04. > :02:11.our national debate. It is a dismal scene that has been visited upon us

:02:12. > :02:19.by the Conservatives and the SNP, stalled investment, uncertain future

:02:20. > :02:21.for EU citizens, divided families, split communities, economic

:02:22. > :02:25.instability, tensions between the nations of the UK. This is the work

:02:26. > :02:31.of the terrible twins of divisive politics.

:02:32. > :02:35.APPLAUSE The Tories and the Nationalists have

:02:36. > :02:43.so much in common. They have a shared interest. The Tories and the

:02:44. > :02:47.Nationalists need to scare people in England with the Nationalists. The

:02:48. > :02:54.Nationalists need to scare the Tories to scare voters in Scotland.

:02:55. > :03:02.It's a campaign based on fear not hope. Our future will be a divided

:03:03. > :03:08.one if we leave it to the Tories and the Nationalists. The terrible twins

:03:09. > :03:15.of divisive politics. The threat to the UK by a politics dominated by

:03:16. > :03:20.those two should be taken seriously by all liberal minded, progressive

:03:21. > :03:24.people in Britain. This is why we need progressive, moderate,

:03:25. > :03:28.optimistic, hopeful voices that advance a no borders approach. That

:03:29. > :03:33.is why we need the Liberal Democrats. Progressive, optimistic,

:03:34. > :03:38.outward looking, that progressive alternative to the terrible twins of

:03:39. > :03:43.division is what our country needs and it is the progressive

:03:44. > :03:48.alternative that we will provide. Liberal Democrats will provide that

:03:49. > :03:52.clear voice, a clear voice to guarantee our civil liberties, for

:03:53. > :03:57.our environment, for education, and for mental health, a clear voice for

:03:58. > :04:01.Europe and a clear voice for the United Kingdom. Progressive,

:04:02. > :04:13.optimistic, outward looking in Scotland and for the whole of the

:04:14. > :04:28.United Kingdom. Thank you very much. APPLAUSE

:04:29. > :04:37.Thank you very much indeed Willie. Can I now thank my aide Liz Lynn and

:04:38. > :04:41.pass on to the next debate. The chair for the next debate is Justine

:04:42. > :05:48.McGuinness. Thank you very much indeed.

:05:49. > :05:56.Conference, could I ask you please to leave quietly so we can get

:05:57. > :06:05.started on the next debate. My name's Mary Reid. We've done a swap.

:06:06. > :06:13.We're now going to be looking at F 31, mending the safety nets, based

:06:14. > :06:19.on the Social Security policy paper. You can find the motion on page 46

:06:20. > :06:25.of the agenda. There are three amendments and one drafting

:06:26. > :06:31.amendment. You can find the amendments on conference extra, page

:06:32. > :06:38.17 to 18 or on today's conference daily, pages 9 to 10. There will be

:06:39. > :06:42.an opportunity for interventions, those are short, one-minute

:06:43. > :06:46.speeches, from the mic over there. You do need to put in an

:06:47. > :06:53.intervention card and you have another ten minutes in which to do

:06:54. > :06:55.that. If you haven't put a card in within ten minutes, you've got no

:06:56. > :07:03.chance of being called for one of those. We do also have two requests

:07:04. > :07:13.for reference back and we will hear from one of those later in the

:07:14. > :07:19.debate. So, would Kirsten Johnson please stand by to move the First

:07:20. > :07:30.Amendment. I call Kelly Marie Blundel to propose the motion.

:07:31. > :07:41.I don't know about you, but I'm sick of Tories bashing the poor.

:07:42. > :07:44.APPLAUSE The Liberal Democrats are the

:07:45. > :07:53.forefathers of the Welfare State. Labour may have implemented it, but

:07:54. > :07:58.it was Beverage who conceived of it. Unlike Labour who backed the

:07:59. > :08:04.Conservative ?12 billion cuts, we believe in evidence-led policy and

:08:05. > :08:10.that is what today's motion is all about. When Beverage wrote the

:08:11. > :08:14.Welfare State it was the 1940s and life was very different. It was fine

:08:15. > :08:20.if you could go into a job and work your way up through one company,

:08:21. > :08:24.staying with them for life, but it's now a Welfare State that cannot flex

:08:25. > :08:29.for a single mother with a disabled child. A Welfare State that cannot

:08:30. > :08:36.flex for someone on a zero hours contract. In other words it's a

:08:37. > :08:41.Twentieth Century square peg for a 21st century round hole. We believe,

:08:42. > :08:46.as Liberal Democrats, that there is a line below which no-one should be

:08:47. > :08:54.allowed to fall. And tackling poverty goes right to the heart of

:08:55. > :09:01.this motion and this paper. Did you know that 103,000 children across

:09:02. > :09:04.the UK are registered homeless. That's an entire constituency's

:09:05. > :09:12.worth of children without a roof over their heads. Which is why our

:09:13. > :09:20.motion calls to scrap the two-child limit on child benefit. It's why our

:09:21. > :09:24.motion calls to scrap cuts to the family allowance element of

:09:25. > :09:30.universal credit. It's why our motion introduced a second earner

:09:31. > :09:35.allowance to bring families out of poverty. Children are not the only

:09:36. > :09:44.victims of the Welfare State at the moment. The work capability

:09:45. > :09:49.assessment is not fit for purpose. APPLAUSE

:09:50. > :09:53.I don't know how many of you have been through one, but I have. Do you

:09:54. > :09:58.think that Damian Green, Stephen crab or Iain Duncan Smith know if I

:09:59. > :10:05.can do this it makes me fit to have a job. Which is why our motion

:10:06. > :10:08.proposes the scrap the work capability assessment as it is and

:10:09. > :10:12.decentralise it to local governments, where the people know

:10:13. > :10:17.the people they're dealing with, the jobs that are available and not only

:10:18. > :10:22.that, but it tackles the work capability assessment to make it fit

:10:23. > :10:26.for purpose as a real world test. Looking at whether someone has a

:10:27. > :10:31.fluctuating disability, whether it's a mental health condition, or

:10:32. > :10:39.whether they're up to commuting. Not whether they can put their arm over

:10:40. > :10:43.their head. This paper makes great strides into mental health,

:10:44. > :10:46.improving and increasing access to work funding, so people with mental

:10:47. > :10:53.health conditions get the support they need to get back into the

:10:54. > :10:58.workforce. Demanding better occupational work provisions for

:10:59. > :11:02.people with mental health problems and ensuring that the employers

:11:03. > :11:11.provide the right services and address mental health going forward.

:11:12. > :11:14.Did you know that 80% of people who claim jobseeker's allowance are

:11:15. > :11:20.those who are unemployed for six months or less. It was this evidence

:11:21. > :11:25.that led to the conception of an opt-out insurance policy that would

:11:26. > :11:30.help the bulk of people who access jobseeker's allowance get back into

:11:31. > :11:35.work as soon as possible. We took evidence from Scandinavian countries

:11:36. > :11:39.and this policy Muslimics a lot of their -- mimics a lot of their

:11:40. > :11:43.welfare services. It will put power and choice back into the hands of

:11:44. > :11:49.the short-term unemployed, allowing us to focus our attentions on the

:11:50. > :11:55.people who need longer term support. You'll hear a lot today about

:11:56. > :11:59.citizens' income. Apparently someone doesn't like this motion. We

:12:00. > :12:02.listened to a lot of evidence much we spoke to organisations around the

:12:03. > :12:06.country. We spoke to other countries about a basic income and we made

:12:07. > :12:14.sure that all of our decisions were evidence led. The simple truth is

:12:15. > :12:21.that a basic income, a subsistence level for every person leaves the

:12:22. > :12:28.most vulnerable in society in poverty. In other words, it creates

:12:29. > :12:32.a poverty trap. For homeless people, for those with long-term conditions,

:12:33. > :12:38.for single mothers, this policy leaves them with a minimum income

:12:39. > :12:44.and no opportunity to escape. In other words, they're enslaved by

:12:45. > :12:51.poverty. Our policy and our Working Group believed that we should help

:12:52. > :12:57.everybody, not a blanket policy that harms the most vulnerable. Now

:12:58. > :13:02.unlike the Conservatives and unlike Labour, our policy paper today is

:13:03. > :13:07.born from evidence across the UK in consultation with people from other

:13:08. > :13:11.countries. It's born from hours of deliberation, of ideas, of

:13:12. > :13:14.statistics and of conversationses and investigation. -- conversations

:13:15. > :13:18.and investigation. Let the Liberal Democrats lead the way on

:13:19. > :13:25.evidence-led policy and police pass this paper today unamended.

:13:26. > :13:35.APPLAUSE Thank you. That was Kelly Marie

:13:36. > :13:42.Blundel. She's the vice chair of the Social Security Working Group. Could

:13:43. > :13:47.Tony Harris please stand by. I call Dr Kirsten Johnson from Oxford east

:13:48. > :13:52.to propose amendment one. Greetings conference. I stand to

:13:53. > :13:59.move amendment one, which proposes to delete lines 20 to 23 and insert

:14:00. > :14:04.instead a new clause five, which reads, "Sanction as plied to

:14:05. > :14:08.benefits are fundamentally wrong and leave people destitute who are

:14:09. > :14:12.already in poverty. The sanctions system should be scrapped and

:14:13. > :14:19.replaced with an incentivised scheme." Sanctions were introduced

:14:20. > :14:23.in coalition to punish people for not fulfilling tick box criteria.

:14:24. > :14:28.Being late for or missing appointments is one of the most

:14:29. > :14:32.common reasons for sanction. These include cases where the claimant had

:14:33. > :14:36.not been informed about the appointment, of being sanctioned

:14:37. > :14:41.whilst attending a hospital appointment, even if you had

:14:42. > :14:44.informed Jobcentre Plus, in cases where dependents were unwell and

:14:45. > :14:49.claimants couldn't keep their appointment. Not doing enough to

:14:50. > :14:56.look for work and not taking part in an employment or training scheme or

:14:57. > :15:00.are other main reasons for sanctions. Sanctions are purely

:15:01. > :15:08.punitive. They do not support job seeking. We believe an intersent

:15:09. > :15:15.viced system -- incentivised system would be a better system to not

:15:16. > :15:20.drive them into poverty. A recent report revealed that the majority of

:15:21. > :15:23.job seeker allowance interviewees found the emphasis on sanctions

:15:24. > :15:27.unnecessary and counterproductive, since they were already keen to find

:15:28. > :15:31.a job and were actively seeking work.

:15:32. > :15:39.This report goes on to say that sanctions had a range of negative

:15:40. > :15:45.effects, including financial poverty, financial hardship and

:15:46. > :15:51.poverty, and debt, eviction threats and homelessness, food bank use,

:15:52. > :15:57.mental and physical ill-health. The sanctions system, conference, it is

:15:58. > :16:08.inhumane. APPLAUSE. Here is one woman's take

:16:09. > :16:12.on being sanctioned. It puts you into a panic. You have got the

:16:13. > :16:18.children, the husband, but you have got to think not just about

:16:19. > :16:23.yourself, but how they are as well. Without food on the table, how are

:16:24. > :16:27.they going to survive? And without clothes on the back, how they meant

:16:28. > :16:33.to go to school? It all plays in head and it has caused me a few

:16:34. > :16:40.problems with depression and anxiety and with my husband as well. It is

:16:41. > :16:44.important to hear some of the stories behind statistics and to

:16:45. > :16:49.give a human face to the numbers. David Clarkson was living on

:16:50. > :16:52.benefits. He had worked for 29 years and he had lost his job when he

:16:53. > :17:00.began to care for his elderly mother. He missed one meeting at a

:17:01. > :17:04.Job Centre. His jobseeker's allowance of ?71 per week was

:17:05. > :17:10.stopped. He was not able to put credit on his electricity card and

:17:11. > :17:14.his fridge stopped working. David was a diabetic and he needed his

:17:15. > :17:21.fridge to maintain his insulin effectively. So three weeks after

:17:22. > :17:26.the cut, David died from diabetic acidosis caused by a severe lack of

:17:27. > :17:33.insulin. The coroner found his stomach had no food in it. And next

:17:34. > :17:40.to his body was a pile of CDs. In his flat's kitchen was ?3 64, six

:17:41. > :17:47.tea bags, a can of soup and a tin of out of date sardines. We must, we

:17:48. > :17:49.must, we must scrap benefit sanctions.

:17:50. > :18:06.APPLAUSE. It is the moral and it is the decent

:18:07. > :18:13.thing to do. Please vote for amendment one, thank you.

:18:14. > :18:21.APPLAUSE. Thank you, Kerstin. And could Nick

:18:22. > :18:33.Taylor please stand by? I now called Tony Harris from Newbury and West

:18:34. > :18:37.Berks to move amendment two. Good afternoon, conference. I

:18:38. > :18:40.recently heard somebody claimed that members of the policy working group

:18:41. > :18:44.who prepared a 31, mending the safety net, didn't know anything

:18:45. > :18:48.about the welfare system. They had no experience of it. We were

:18:49. > :18:53.disconnected from it. Conference, I am glad to tell you that this claim

:18:54. > :18:59.is not true. I have been a member of this working group for the last year

:19:00. > :19:02.and I was brought up on welfare by a mother so mentally scarred by her

:19:03. > :19:07.experiences as a Japanese prisoner of war that she was never able to

:19:08. > :19:10.work. Until I was 18, my mother and I struggle to navigate a welfare

:19:11. > :19:16.system that provided a safety net but was done on fair, unresponsive,

:19:17. > :19:19.unemotional and unsympathetic. I continued to negotiate the same

:19:20. > :19:25.system on my elderly mother's behalf which keeps me up to date and sadly

:19:26. > :19:31.demonstrates not a lot of change. The working group also comprises

:19:32. > :19:34.recent benefit claimants, politicians with welfare caseloads,

:19:35. > :19:39.support agency representatives, retired lawyers, members of claim

:19:40. > :19:43.and tribunal is and those with immediate experience of working tax

:19:44. > :19:47.credits and disability benefits. You can be confident that a working

:19:48. > :19:51.group could not have been more connected, more committed and more

:19:52. > :19:56.coordinated in the way that the F31 motion was researched and prepared

:19:57. > :20:01.and I commend it to you. Conference, the other day, I heard somebody

:20:02. > :20:05.claimed that F31 was picked out of thin air and is not evidence-based.

:20:06. > :20:10.I am also glad to be able to tell you that this is not true. The

:20:11. > :20:15.working group has taken evidence from stakeholders such as Citizens

:20:16. > :20:19.Advice bureau, shelter, Child Poverty Action Group, scope, Job

:20:20. > :20:23.Centres and many others. I have personally interviewed the homeless,

:20:24. > :20:28.the unemployed, the elderly, disabled and the agencies who

:20:29. > :20:36.support them. We have taken evidence from 22 separate organisations and

:20:37. > :20:39.examined nearly 1800 pages of written submissions. You can be

:20:40. > :20:42.confident what you see before you is evidence based policy. And so it is

:20:43. > :20:47.with this amendment to retain the benefits cap. Something the group

:20:48. > :20:51.voted to retain, but was deleted by the federal policy committee, but

:20:52. > :20:57.something that I believe conference should have the ability to vote on.

:20:58. > :21:01.Conference, I have never personally heard a support agency asking for

:21:02. > :21:06.the benefits cap to be removed. I have heard them ask for it not to be

:21:07. > :21:10.reduced, to be made fairer, to take more account of the disabled and the

:21:11. > :21:17.long-term sick, to be made more flexible, to be repaired, but not to

:21:18. > :21:20.be removed. Conference, the idea behind the cap is nobody should be

:21:21. > :21:26.able to receive more in benefits than they would receive in full-time

:21:27. > :21:29.employment. Without a cap, we run the risk of trapping more claimants

:21:30. > :21:34.in the system because there is no incentive to get out and because of

:21:35. > :21:37.the corresponding drop of income if they do. Recent government and

:21:38. > :21:43.support agency reports demonstrate more claimants have returned to work

:21:44. > :21:49.since the cap was introduced and a 2015 report by Shelter indicated the

:21:50. > :21:53.cap of 26,000 was manageable for a model family of four but nothing

:21:54. > :21:57.less. This amendment seeks to keep the cap in place while removing the

:21:58. > :22:04.most vulnerable from its effects and increases the cap in line with the

:22:05. > :22:06.UK average household earnings and excludes benefits received by the

:22:07. > :22:10.disabled. The long-term sick, expectant mothers and the

:22:11. > :22:14.bereavement allowance given to people who lose husband, wife, civil

:22:15. > :22:19.partner. And most importantly, it commits that the Liberal Democrats

:22:20. > :22:22.will never cut the benefits cap. Like the policy paper, this

:22:23. > :22:28.amendment is evidence-based, experience based, and I move you to

:22:29. > :22:34.support amendment two and motion F31 as a whole, thank you.

:22:35. > :22:41.APPLAUSE. Thank you, Tony. Could Johnny Oates

:22:42. > :22:50.please stand by and I call Doctor Nick Taylor from Calderdale to

:22:51. > :22:59.speak, to move amendment three. Conference, I believe that both the

:23:00. > :23:06.working group FCC and others have in their mind, deflated Citizen's

:23:07. > :23:10.Income, which is a commitment to a certain standard of income for

:23:11. > :23:15.everybody, and negative income tax, which is a method of assessment and

:23:16. > :23:24.allocation of both tax and benefits. This amendment is not about

:23:25. > :23:33.Citizen's Income. Negative income tax was long the policy of the

:23:34. > :23:40.Liberal Party. And that was in the days when all the calculations had

:23:41. > :23:47.to be made on paper. And we believe it worked then and I believe it will

:23:48. > :23:56.work now. Because we would be bringing together the tax and

:23:57. > :24:08.benefit system into one. It would be carried out by unified her Majesty's

:24:09. > :24:17.tax, customs and benefits. On the basis of that assessment, which is a

:24:18. > :24:24.means test, everybody would do it, HM RBC would be able to carry out an

:24:25. > :24:30.assessment of need and would be able to decide either whether people

:24:31. > :24:39.changed, got taxed, or whether they received benefit. As now, of course,

:24:40. > :24:42.circumstances and changes in circumstances would be notable --

:24:43. > :24:53.notifiable to the new authority just as they now are to HMBRC. In the

:24:54. > :25:01.paper, it has been argued this is too complicated. Nonsense. The

:25:02. > :25:06.current HMRC makes regular assessments of the tax liability of

:25:07. > :25:14.millions of people and that reflects people's income, their circumstances

:25:15. > :25:20.and the different issues. So for example, I get a lower tax code than

:25:21. > :25:32.a non-pensioner. Because I received my state pension free of tax. That

:25:33. > :25:40.happens all the time. I see no difference in doing that for

:25:41. > :25:47.benefits. Now, since the days when the Liberal Party wanted a negative

:25:48. > :25:50.income tax, the advent of technology means it is a relatively simple

:25:51. > :25:56.matter to assess tax liabilities and benefit entitlement. There is no

:25:57. > :26:03.problem having different levels of housing benefit, as was mentioned in

:26:04. > :26:08.the paper. And if a large number of people are able to do their tax

:26:09. > :26:14.returns online, or that income assessments on mine, that will make

:26:15. > :26:20.it so much simpler. -- online. This policy enables an annual assessment

:26:21. > :26:29.of people's liabilities, it is fair to everyone, as well as

:26:30. > :26:34.complementing, completing the separation of employment assistance

:26:35. > :26:41.from benefits, as is desired in the resolution and which we support. So

:26:42. > :26:46.what is not to like, ladies and gentlemen? A simple system, able to

:26:47. > :26:50.deal with income tax and benefits, all at once. I beg to move the

:26:51. > :26:59.amendment. APPLAUSE. Thank you, quit Evan

:27:00. > :27:02.Harris please stand by? I'm now called Johnny Oates, a member of the

:27:03. > :27:08.House of Lords, from Kingston Borough. Johnny is going to speak

:27:09. > :27:13.against amendment one. Thank you, Mary, I am speaking

:27:14. > :27:18.against amendment one and in favour of the motion as a whole. I had the

:27:19. > :27:21.opportunity of serving on the working group which produced this

:27:22. > :27:25.policy paper and I pay tribute to Jenny Willett, who was a fantastic

:27:26. > :27:30.chair, and the work of its members, the party staff who put the policy

:27:31. > :27:33.paper together. And very importantly, the many organisations

:27:34. > :27:38.who took the time to give evidence to us. Conference, I understand the

:27:39. > :27:42.motivation behind the amendment which as we have heard, it looks to

:27:43. > :27:48.scrap sanctions completely from our welfare system. I understand it

:27:49. > :27:51.because the current system is causing injustices so it needs to

:27:52. > :27:58.change. But I don't support it. I don't support it because the policy

:27:59. > :28:01.paper we are discussing does not propose that we keep the existing

:28:02. > :28:07.system. It proposes radical changes which replace the current fixed

:28:08. > :28:14.penalties regime, to allow greater flexibility and discretion. It would

:28:15. > :28:17.restrict sanctions so a minimum claimant would continue to receive

:28:18. > :28:21.housing benefit and Child tax credit, it would end the situation

:28:22. > :28:25.where Job Centre Plus staff employee employment support and the sanctions

:28:26. > :28:30.regime which has undermined trust between the claimants and advisers.

:28:31. > :28:36.Instead, the decisions would be taken at a senior level in Job

:28:37. > :28:39.Centre Plus and discussed with the claimants support workers. And we

:28:40. > :28:44.would introduce an Independent appeals system, giving claimants the

:28:45. > :28:48.right to appeal to Independent tribunal is. Finally, we would

:28:49. > :28:56.introduce the positive incentives talked about in the amendment. All

:28:57. > :28:59.these changes will ensure that we replace the existing and flexible

:29:00. > :29:06.and unjust system with a system that is flexible, effective and fair.

:29:07. > :29:10.Movers of the amendment clearly believe despite the safeguards,

:29:11. > :29:15.sanctions remain inappropriate. I disagree with that view. Just as the

:29:16. > :29:20.working party disagreed with it. We concluded sanctions safeguarded as

:29:21. > :29:24.we proposed were important within the welfare system, we did not come

:29:25. > :29:30.to that view arbitrarily but on the basis of evidence from a wide range

:29:31. > :29:33.of organisations. We heard among others from Crisis and the Child

:29:34. > :29:38.Poverty Action Group, both to the existing system to make sure it was

:29:39. > :29:42.flexible. They wanted to reform and did not propose abolition. If we

:29:43. > :29:46.reject sanctions entirely, the public will think we have gone mad,

:29:47. > :29:47.claimants will think so as well, please reject the amendment and

:29:48. > :30:01.support the amendment as a whole. Incentivise, I call Evan Harris now

:30:02. > :30:05.who is going to speak against amendment two.

:30:06. > :30:10.Thank you. Those of you who've seen me speak before know I normally

:30:11. > :30:14.quick off with a quote from my policy guru Woody Allen or Roy

:30:15. > :30:16.Jenkins. I will start with a quote from the Sun this time...

:30:17. > :30:22.LAUGHTER Close. The war on scroungers will

:30:23. > :30:28.not let up even if the Lords vote against the benefit cap tonight.

:30:29. > :30:33.Iain Duncan Smith. So much more evidence based policy behind the

:30:34. > :30:37.evidence base. If you gooing the the CAB, if you Google Child Poverty

:30:38. > :30:41.Action Group or Shelter and put benefits cap, you will find their

:30:42. > :30:45.position. Their position sets out how many vulnerable people have been

:30:46. > :30:50.damaged by the arbitrary imposition of a maximum amount that people who

:30:51. > :30:53.need welfare can get. There's a point of principle here which is

:30:54. > :30:58.very important for Liberal Democrats. Welfare should be based

:30:59. > :31:03.on need. It should not be based on an arbitrary limit no matter how

:31:04. > :31:07.smug, no matter how tabloid, no matter how targeted it might be

:31:08. > :31:10.claimed to be by the right-wing press against so-called benefit

:31:11. > :31:14.scroungers. Not a shred of evidence that this is about benefit

:31:15. > :31:18.scroungers whatsoever. And going with this policy just plays into

:31:19. > :31:24.that narrative. We must resist it. Because the benefit cap says that no

:31:25. > :31:28.family, in matter how vulnerable, no matter what their circumstances,

:31:29. > :31:34.should receive what they actually need in food, clothing and shelter

:31:35. > :31:40.if that is more than an arbitrary percentage, in this case 100%, of a

:31:41. > :31:44.certain figure, in this case median income, chosen for political

:31:45. > :31:49.reasons. It's just wrong. The idea that this is because no family on

:31:50. > :31:54.benefits should be better off than the average hard-working family is

:31:55. > :31:58.nonsense. Housing Benefit doesn't go to give people disposable income. It

:31:59. > :32:02.goes to the landlord, often directly. The idea that people in

:32:03. > :32:06.this sort of need are better off than people in work is absurd.

:32:07. > :32:13.Principle two... APPLAUSE

:32:14. > :32:18.Do not sacrifice essential Liberal Democrats principles because the

:32:19. > :32:23.policy is popular. That way lies madness. If we just ditch key

:32:24. > :32:27.policies because of opinion polls based on tabloid rabble rousing or

:32:28. > :32:31.the way that the megaphone is held by our political opponents, we will

:32:32. > :32:36.have no grounding. If you're worried about a poverty trap, deal with that

:32:37. > :32:42.by tapering. You don't create a cliff by removing welfare benefits

:32:43. > :32:48.on an arbitrary basis. Finally, did we get it? Did we get what people

:32:49. > :32:52.said in 2015, our core voters turned against us because we seemed happy

:32:53. > :32:56.to support Tory policies. This was never a Liberal Democrat policy. It

:32:57. > :33:00.was something imposed on the coalition by the Conservatives.

:33:01. > :33:05.APPLAUSE Were we listening? Have we listened?

:33:06. > :33:11.We must reject the benefit cap. It saves very little money. It punishes

:33:12. > :33:15.ethnic minorities, women and children. Please oppose amendment

:33:16. > :33:21.two. Thank you, Evan. Could Celia Thomas

:33:22. > :33:26.please stand by and go to the Speaker's table for access to the

:33:27. > :33:31.back stage. I now call Lucy Nessinger who is going to speak

:33:32. > :33:36.against amendment three. Good afternoon. For the past year, I

:33:37. > :33:39.have been a member of the working party who developed the policy paper

:33:40. > :33:44.before you. When I started as a member of that group I was very

:33:45. > :33:49.supportive of the idea a citizens income or negative income tax. I

:33:50. > :33:53.liked the concept of every member of society being entitled to a basic

:33:54. > :33:56.income. I liked the apparent simplicity of the administration of

:33:57. > :34:00.such an idea. However, over the course of the year, as we took

:34:01. > :34:04.evidence, first from groups who had done significant work on the

:34:05. > :34:07.concepts and then from other organisations working in the area of

:34:08. > :34:12.poverty reduction, I realised that while the concept is attractive, at

:34:13. > :34:18.first glance, the more you explore, the less it is delivered on what is

:34:19. > :34:23.promised. Negative income tax cannot deliver on the twin promises of a

:34:24. > :34:28.basic income and simplicity. As a result it fails utterly to provide

:34:29. > :34:32.the safety net that is required of a welfare policy. After listening to

:34:33. > :34:36.evidence from the Resolution Foundation, the citizens income

:34:37. > :34:41.trust, and the Adam Smith Institute, as well as the High Commission in

:34:42. > :34:45.Canada, it became clear that a citizens income could only be

:34:46. > :34:49.universal if it was set at a level way below the actual cost of living.

:34:50. > :34:54.There would need to be a vast range of additional means tested benefits,

:34:55. > :34:58.for housing, family support, disability support and these would

:34:59. > :35:02.operate on a similar basis to the current welfare system. In addition,

:35:03. > :35:07.because the negative income tax gives income to a large group of

:35:08. > :35:11.individuals, for example, stay at home mums, who receive no benefits

:35:12. > :35:16.in the present system, because they are Notts in need, the overall pot

:35:17. > :35:21.available for those in need is reduced. After taking evidence from

:35:22. > :35:25.groups like the Joseph Rowntree Foundation, it was clear that those

:35:26. > :35:32.who faced the most acute poverty in Britain in 2016 are families with

:35:33. > :35:36.young children. Child poverty has serious detrimental impact on

:35:37. > :35:40.educational attainment and as a result, an increase in child poverty

:35:41. > :35:45.which we are facing, is not only bad in the short-term, but locks in

:35:46. > :35:49.cycles of poverty and deprivation over generations. It is for these

:35:50. > :35:53.reasons that the working party chose to focus on policies which would

:35:54. > :35:56.increase the quality of the safety net for the most vulnerable. By

:35:57. > :36:01.choosing the second earners allowance and the abolition of the

:36:02. > :36:06.second child limit, increasing child support by ?5 a week we are

:36:07. > :36:10.targeting resources at those most in need. It has been suggested that

:36:11. > :36:15.this policy payer is not radical enough. I believe there is a real

:36:16. > :36:19.need to highlight what is happening to families in poverty now. This

:36:20. > :36:23.policy paper is radical in the support offered to the most

:36:24. > :36:28.vulnerable, to young children, to careers and to the disabled. These

:36:29. > :36:32.aare the people to whom a safety net matters the most. They need a policy

:36:33. > :36:38.now which will allow us to champion their needs this year and not in 18

:36:39. > :36:45.months. I urge you to support this motion unamended. Thank you.

:36:46. > :36:51.Thank you, Lucy. Could Jenny Rig stand by. I call Celia Thomas, a

:36:52. > :36:56.member of the House of Lords and from Stretton.

:36:57. > :37:01.Good afternoon, conference. I hope I don't go over the edge. I think I'll

:37:02. > :37:07.be all right. This is a thoroughly well thought out paper in my view

:37:08. > :37:12.and I congratulate the Working Group on giving us such an innovative,

:37:13. > :37:19.practical and humane road map for the sort of welfare system we want

:37:20. > :37:25.in this country. There are big ideas and smaller proposals, including, of

:37:26. > :37:31.course, one which in the end, didn't make the cut. I am persuaded by the

:37:32. > :37:36.reasoning given as to why the citizens income proposal was not

:37:37. > :37:43.endorsed, even though initially the Working Group was attracted to it.

:37:44. > :37:49.But don't be fooled into thinking that this makes the paper just

:37:50. > :37:54.tinkering at the edges. Of the current system. It is not just

:37:55. > :38:01.tinkering. It is the most radical plan I've ever seen for welfare

:38:02. > :38:09.reform, including universal credit and I say that from some experience,

:38:10. > :38:15.as I am veteran of the last ten years worth of legislation in this

:38:16. > :38:19.field. It is difficult to pick out the specific proposals in such a

:38:20. > :38:26.short speaking time. But I will mention one or two. The first is

:38:27. > :38:31.scrapping the hated work capability assessments which we've heard about,

:38:32. > :38:37.particularly on disabled people and replacing it with a real-world test,

:38:38. > :38:42.based on a pioneering system in the Netherlands. The test would be

:38:43. > :38:48.administered locally to take employment conditions in the

:38:49. > :39:00.locality into consideration. Obviously, there would have to be

:39:01. > :39:04.national elgentleman built -- eligability cry teara, but it would

:39:05. > :39:08.help ensure claimants are not put through impossible hoops to get

:39:09. > :39:14.non-existent jobs. Second, there is the wholly radical idea of devolving

:39:15. > :39:19.the design, targeting and delivery of employment support to local

:39:20. > :39:25.authorities, while keeping benefits delivery with Jobcentre Plus.

:39:26. > :39:29.Conference, let's start campaigning on this paper straight away. There's

:39:30. > :39:35.a great deal in it and you need to read the whole paper. It is bold and

:39:36. > :39:44.radical. We should not waste another minute. I urge you to support the

:39:45. > :39:50.motion as a whole. Thank you, Celia. If Jenny could just hold for a

:39:51. > :39:54.minute. I'd like to to be able to read out the list invited to give an

:39:55. > :39:58.intervention. If they could make their way to the mic on that side of

:39:59. > :40:04.the room in this order. I'm afraid we've had more cards than we can

:40:05. > :40:12.take. Not everybody will be there. Lucy Tom, Tony Lloyd, Joanna brie

:40:13. > :40:16.son, Brian stokes, Denis lore eo, Andrew sosen, Francis Hague, Joey

:40:17. > :40:24.Dunlop, Nick bar low and Susan Fletcher. Thank you.

:40:25. > :40:27.Could Matthew Clark stand by. I call Jenny Rigg from Calderdale, who is

:40:28. > :40:35.going to speak against the motion as a whole.

:40:36. > :40:44.Thank you. Conference, who here is familiar with the television sitcom

:40:45. > :40:50.Red dwarf? Do you remember the episode quarantine? Rimer thinks

:40:51. > :40:57.that the appropriate punishment for any minor infraction is two hours

:40:58. > :41:00.WOO. For those of you who haven't watched that's "without oxygen".

:41:01. > :41:05.That's what benefit sanctions are like. If someone turns up late to an

:41:06. > :41:10.appointment or is ill or has a family member die, or is incapable

:41:11. > :41:14.of filling in a form properly or looks at a Jobcentre advisor in a

:41:15. > :41:19.funny way, we punish them by removing their access to the basic

:41:20. > :41:23.things they need to survive, for up to three months. Now I don't know

:41:24. > :41:26.about the rest of you, but as Kelly said in our opening speech, I signed

:41:27. > :41:31.up to a party which promises to fight for a world in which no-one is

:41:32. > :41:35.enslaved by poverty, ignorance or conformity. Clap clap --

:41:36. > :41:42.APPLAUSE . When did it become acceptable to

:41:43. > :41:46.members of this party to punish people for ignorance or

:41:47. > :41:50.nonconformity by pushing them into the kind of poverty which means they

:41:51. > :41:57.need to use food banks or starve to death? Johnny Oakes referred to the

:41:58. > :42:00.safeguards that are in the paper. Those safeguards are restricted

:42:01. > :42:06.sanctions where you get your Housing Benefit and child tax credit and ?5

:42:07. > :42:12.a week. ?5 a week is not enough for anybody to live on.

:42:13. > :42:16.APPLAUSE Frankly, I think benefit sanctions

:42:17. > :42:20.as a whole are unjustifiable, inhumane and immoral. I want no part

:42:21. > :42:28.of any motion which supports their use. This motion does exactly that.

:42:29. > :42:33.Aha, I see you thinking, but we can fix that by voting for amendment

:42:34. > :42:37.one. Well, partly. But since amendment one doesn't remove lines

:42:38. > :42:44.47 to 49, we would still be saying we support the use of sanctions.

:42:45. > :42:46.Amendment one also won't fix the motion's unjustified and

:42:47. > :42:51.unjustifiable attack on the concept of negative income tax. Now perhaps

:42:52. > :42:56.we could fix that by voting for amendment three. Well, yes. But that

:42:57. > :42:59.won't fix the situation of disability assessments and if you

:43:00. > :43:05.devolve those down to local councils, that's not going to make

:43:06. > :43:09.them any better. Or any of the myriad problems with our benefits

:43:10. > :43:14.system. Conference, this motion is fundamentally flawed. It fails to

:43:15. > :43:18.offer a distinctive liberal vision. It is mired in coalition think. I'm

:43:19. > :43:22.actually ashamed that the federal policy committee put it in front of

:43:23. > :43:28.us in the form that it's in. CHEERING AND APPLAUSE

:43:29. > :43:32.You can amend this motion, if you like, but I submit that if you do,

:43:33. > :43:35.you will be merely applying the proverbial lipstick to the

:43:36. > :43:40.proverbial pig. You can refer it back, if you like. But when a motion

:43:41. > :43:45.is this bad, I would say that that's the coward's way out. Conference,

:43:46. > :43:50.vote this motion down. Vote it down and send the message that Liberal

:43:51. > :43:55.Democrats believe... Would you bring your comments to a close please. ...

:43:56. > :44:03.Even benefit claimants Thank you, Jeniment --

:44:04. > :44:05.Jenny. I call Matthew Clark and following that we will have the

:44:06. > :44:24.interventions. That's not a good start.

:44:25. > :44:28.LAUGHTER Thank you, conference. As someone

:44:29. > :44:34.who has benefitted from the conference access fund to be here

:44:35. > :44:35.today, I'm very proud to be able to make my first speech on...

:44:36. > :44:48.APPLAUSE Thank you. On how owl party's

:44:49. > :44:53.supported principles can be applied to serve the entire country. Social

:44:54. > :44:56.Security should not merely be a safety net to catch people, it

:44:57. > :45:01.should be a trampoline that helps them jump up high and achieve

:45:02. > :45:09.greater. Too often however, the Tory ideology is in fact creating a

:45:10. > :45:14.sticky web, trapping and entrenching vulnerable people who can be and

:45:15. > :45:18.deserve better. As a beneficiary of Social Security, I have been

:45:19. > :45:27.invested in so that my disability does not distract, does not distract

:45:28. > :45:30.from developing my potential so that I have a bright future and can

:45:31. > :45:37.therefore help the country towards the same. But in being rigid,

:45:38. > :45:41.centralised and impersonal, I have wasted valuable time not developing

:45:42. > :45:45.myself, but learning how to jump through the Hoops of the system,

:45:46. > :45:49.whether being punished for being positive about myself in my first

:45:50. > :45:55.work capability assessment and needing family to support me through

:45:56. > :46:00.a year-long battle to regain the benefit. Then against that outcome

:46:01. > :46:06.of a tribunal which it went to two years later, I was later forced to

:46:07. > :46:12.reapply again and go through the entire process due to having the

:46:13. > :46:18.Social Security taken away as a result of taking a ten week paid

:46:19. > :46:22.internship. My first paid work experience didn't leave me feeling

:46:23. > :46:28.great and looking to the next step. It left me picking up the pieces.

:46:29. > :46:33.The too many of my peers who live with sight loss or clients I helped

:46:34. > :46:38.at Citizens Advice, this complex system is not one may fight, it is

:46:39. > :46:44.one of the year. So many people were not asked the simplest questions for

:46:45. > :46:49.fear of sanction. So they come to myself as a friend or Citizens

:46:50. > :46:58.Advice, the cost to society of this ill and loss of potential,

:46:59. > :47:01.unacceptable. I interned this Summer at the Royal National Institute of

:47:02. > :47:06.Blind people and the employment advisers do great work to set bought

:47:07. > :47:12.my peers into work but as an intern, a witness them wasting valuable time

:47:13. > :47:18.completing the DWP processes, not living and working locally on the

:47:19. > :47:22.ground, with customers, to make and create stronger outcomes and working

:47:23. > :47:26.opportunities for them. Matthew, you have 30 seconds left.

:47:27. > :47:33.If these people to reach their potential and our country its

:47:34. > :47:37.potential, Social Security in this motion's light must reflect their

:47:38. > :47:43.needs. Circumstances and reality. If we catch them when they fall and

:47:44. > :47:47.help them jump up again. Support amendment to two, reject amendments

:47:48. > :47:52.one and three, only in this way can we break the Tory web with a

:47:53. > :47:56.credible policy that is palatable to all the voters which we need to

:47:57. > :48:00.convince that we are the real opposition in time to come. Thank

:48:01. > :48:03.you, conference, and thank you to everyone who supported the access

:48:04. > :48:16.fund. APPLAUSE.

:48:17. > :48:21.Thank you, Matthew. We are now going to move to the interventions. But

:48:22. > :48:27.David stand-by to speak after the interventions? You have one minute

:48:28. > :48:32.each and the microphone will catch you. Just to say that we ritually

:48:33. > :48:39.chose these cards at random shuffling them. -- literally. The

:48:40. > :48:44.first speaker is Lucy, from Bedford. I would like to speak in support of

:48:45. > :48:47.the scrapping of work capability assessments and replacement with

:48:48. > :48:52.something that takes more into consideration the fact that a one

:48:53. > :48:56.size fits all assessment doesn't cover the range of disabilities and

:48:57. > :49:00.illnesses people suffer from. I suffer from a chronic and mostly

:49:01. > :49:05.invisible illness, narcolepsy, which can fluctuate from not just

:49:06. > :49:09.day-to-day but from hour to hour. Having gone through an assessment

:49:10. > :49:14.and disabled student allowance assessment, and being told that was

:49:15. > :49:20.the best assessment to get, but even that, the fact... I am optimistic

:49:21. > :49:24.and have got the University, I am told that will be used as something

:49:25. > :49:28.to hold me back from being able to get as much support as I could

:49:29. > :49:32.because I seem to be able, I am mobile and it doesn't take into

:49:33. > :49:35.consideration a lot of symptoms people suffer from for various

:49:36. > :49:40.illnesses which are not visible and you cannot assess them in two hours

:49:41. > :49:47.telling you to write passages and put your hand above your head. That

:49:48. > :49:52.is not enough to judge... APPLAUSE. Sorry, that is what

:49:53. > :49:56.happens! Next is Tony Lloyd, from Lewisham.

:49:57. > :50:00.The morality of sanctions is well rehearsed, I want to touch on the

:50:01. > :50:05.practicalities. I am an accountant and we had a big, big problem with

:50:06. > :50:10.many different petty -- floats getting out of control. The solution

:50:11. > :50:14.was to chuck ?50 in tins and people took the money and paid it back when

:50:15. > :50:20.they got it back on expenses. We did that because it was cheaper. Even if

:50:21. > :50:26.the entire petty float was nicked once a month. It strikes me that the

:50:27. > :50:31.sanctions regime is not only immoral, but it cannot be

:50:32. > :50:36.cost-effective. We are talking about making it better, which means we

:50:37. > :50:39.will be spending more money on sanctioning fewer people. I just

:50:40. > :50:47.don't believe it is going to work. APPLAUSE.

:50:48. > :50:52.Next, Joanna Bryson, from Bath. Conference, basic income should be a

:50:53. > :51:00.flaw, not a ceiling. It shouldn't attract anyone. It proposes to move

:51:01. > :51:05.the benefits of Artificial Intelligence to the rest of the

:51:06. > :51:11.population. There is evidence that people, poor people when they get

:51:12. > :51:15.money, they are in fact helped. However, if we go to some

:51:16. > :51:19.libertarian fantasy of dismantling the safety net, the poor will be

:51:20. > :51:24.heard. So while in the future we should aspire towards basic income,

:51:25. > :51:29.we need a new income stream for it, possibly from the multi-income tech

:51:30. > :51:32.companies, but that will take a much longer time than the immediate

:51:33. > :51:37.requirements of bill. APPLAUSE. Thank you, and is now

:51:38. > :51:44.Brian Stokes, from York. As someone who was once sanctioned

:51:45. > :51:49.for attending Lib Dem conference, and very happy to see the desires

:51:50. > :51:53.from people in the room for serious reform to scrap it altogether. But

:51:54. > :51:57.my main point is it is good to see amendment three, but we do need a

:51:58. > :52:03.serious debate on negative income tax on its own. And possibly to

:52:04. > :52:08.develop a framework for it. We cannot allow ourselves, prevent

:52:09. > :52:12.ourselves an opportunity to develop an innovative, exciting and

:52:13. > :52:14.eye-catching idea and we need a debate on another day for this

:52:15. > :52:24.purpose. APPLAUSE. Thank you, Dennis Loreto

:52:25. > :52:28.from Bermondsey. Everyone here wants those who forced

:52:29. > :52:33.to depend on benefit to be treated fairly and humanely, would that

:52:34. > :52:37.enough tax monies be available to sweep away all restrictions and all

:52:38. > :52:41.limits whatsoever. In the real world, it doesn't. I agree with most

:52:42. > :52:46.of this resolution, and will vote for it, but I do have doubts. One is

:52:47. > :52:50.the restoration of housing benefit at 18. Housing benefit has escalated

:52:51. > :52:54.enormously recently and in this sad world, more young people are

:52:55. > :52:58.choosing to leave the parental home. Of course there should be special

:52:59. > :53:03.cases to be looked at and is dealt with. But to allow complete

:53:04. > :53:07.restoration of housing benefit for those at 18, I think is a bridge too

:53:08. > :53:10.far, and I think some issues should be looked at carefully. We cannot

:53:11. > :53:15.simply afford to sweep all restrictions away.

:53:16. > :53:21.Thank you. Andrew, from Chelmsford. The motion

:53:22. > :53:28.has I think 13 proposals to spending. Two proposals to reduce

:53:29. > :53:33.spending. Before I give it wholehearted support, and would like

:53:34. > :53:39.to know how much they would cost. Best estimates. And other people can

:53:40. > :53:44.work out what the tax increases they would apply, increases in capital

:53:45. > :53:50.gains, corporation tax, etc. Thank you. APPLAUSE. Thank you.

:53:51. > :53:55.Next, France, from Horsham and Crawley.

:53:56. > :53:59.Thank you, conference. So much of this motion is filled with how we

:54:00. > :54:05.would correct or tinker with Tory policy. Instead, we should be

:54:06. > :54:08.stating loudly and clearly how we as Lib Dems would help our neighbours

:54:09. > :54:14.and communities without micromanaging their lives and

:54:15. > :54:21.adapting for the big economy. What we will do to help those who will be

:54:22. > :54:23.in hardship or struggling with disabilities, in life, stuff

:54:24. > :54:28.happens. We should be helping people. Where is the clear message

:54:29. > :54:34.we can deliver on the store steps about what we are about as Lib Dems

:54:35. > :54:40.so that we can win again? -- doorsteps. APPLAUSE. Thank you.

:54:41. > :54:44.Joey Dunlop from Dulwich. I want to talk about something which

:54:45. > :54:48.has not been mentioned. Helping people with sickness and disability

:54:49. > :54:53.back into work. Something I care about from losing my own job 18

:54:54. > :54:57.months ago through mental health. I really do believe in the value of

:54:58. > :55:02.work for the individual to have something to do. I work for a

:55:03. > :55:05.charity that helps people now with arthritis and muscular conditions

:55:06. > :55:13.back into work. The government's Green paper on health in work, there

:55:14. > :55:16.is aces suspicion Damian Green has been sweeping the childhood obesity

:55:17. > :55:20.strategy on it and keep our focus on holding the government to account

:55:21. > :55:22.and not take the easy option of saying nothing, and to stand for

:55:23. > :55:30.this motion today. Thank you. APPLAUSE. Thank you. Nick

:55:31. > :55:34.Barlow, from Colchester. Thank you, the problem with being last, at the

:55:35. > :55:38.end of the queue for interventions is someone in front of you says what

:55:39. > :55:43.you are going to say! And would like to associate myself with everything

:55:44. > :55:46.Louise said. When Lloyd judge -- when Lloyd George and Beveridge came

:55:47. > :55:51.up with the social security system, they did not take small steps, they

:55:52. > :55:55.came out and made something radically different from what came

:55:56. > :55:59.before and that is what we should be doing as a party, coming out with

:56:00. > :56:03.something radical, distinctive and Liberal to empower individuals, not

:56:04. > :56:09.just tweaking the system we have already got.

:56:10. > :56:13.APPLAUSE. Thank you. Finally, Suzanne Fletcher, from Stockton.

:56:14. > :56:19.Whatever ways we can mend the safety net, it is no good at all if letters

:56:20. > :56:24.about benefit are not understood. I was a see a B worker over 40 years

:56:25. > :56:28.and I have seen sanctions given, appeals not made, because of letters

:56:29. > :56:33.and language I have sometimes not understood, never mind the claimant

:56:34. > :56:38.-- Citizens Advice bureau. A testing panel made up of claimants could

:56:39. > :56:41.meet and let professionals know what they think the proposed letters

:56:42. > :56:49.mean. Not only would this help all claimants, it would empower and be

:56:50. > :56:55.truly Liberal, thank you. APPLAUSE. Thank you. Could try Messer please

:56:56. > :57:00.stand by? I called David Matthew meant, from Leighton and Chingford,

:57:01. > :57:04.who is going to speak against amendment two.

:57:05. > :57:08.Conference, I will hopefully keep this short as Evan Harris has said a

:57:09. > :57:13.lot of what I was going to say, very well. The benefit caps calculated on

:57:14. > :57:16.the basis benefits paid out should not exceed the level of national

:57:17. > :57:21.income, that might seem fair at first sight. The two figures are not

:57:22. > :57:27.equivalent, they do not do the same job, it is comparing apples not even

:57:28. > :57:31.with ridges but an egg whisk! -- oranges. They are calculated

:57:32. > :57:34.piecemeal based on the needs of the recipient, wages are calculated

:57:35. > :57:42.based on the Labour market. It will be very unusual to base my salary

:57:43. > :57:46.directly on my rent, number of children I have, adjustments and

:57:47. > :57:49.need for disabilities. If I were in receipt of benefits, those are the

:57:50. > :57:55.things that would feed directly into my payments. To put a cap on the

:57:56. > :57:58.benefits, you are saying to a person, we have assessed you. And

:57:59. > :58:02.calculated the level of benefits we think you need. But I am afraid we

:58:03. > :58:06.are not going to give you that because it is a bit more than the

:58:07. > :58:09.average somebody in a completely different circumstances would be

:58:10. > :58:13.paid as a salary. If someone is assessed to need a high level of

:58:14. > :58:20.benefits, they need a high level of benefits. If you think ?13,400 or

:58:21. > :58:24.?20,000 or ?26,000, ?40,000 is too higher figure, justify that based on

:58:25. > :58:31.the individual benefits you do not think that person needs. But it

:58:32. > :58:34.makes no sense. Conference, it makes no sense to deny that person money

:58:35. > :58:40.they need based on the measure that has nothing to do with me -- with

:58:41. > :58:43.need. The benefit the vulnerable in society to spread the Imagine

:58:44. > :58:49.sensibilities of the electorate and no Liberal should have any truck

:58:50. > :58:51.with it, pleased vote against amendment two.

:58:52. > :58:58.APPLAUSE. Thank you. Could I ask Vince Cable

:58:59. > :59:04.to stand by? Ryan Messer, from Putney now.

:59:05. > :59:07.Thank you. Last year, I had the privilege of being Liberal use's

:59:08. > :59:12.representative to the federal policy committee at the time you set up

:59:13. > :59:15.this working group. Our aim was to define a uniquely Liberal Democrat

:59:16. > :59:21.approach to welfare. This would not be defined by our opposition to

:59:22. > :59:25.other parties or by tinkering with the status quo. Instead, it should

:59:26. > :59:34.be a Liberal agenda for tackling poverty. In a fantastic speech to

:59:35. > :59:37.open this debate, we invoked memories of the Beveridge report

:59:38. > :59:41.which identified giant challenges our country was facing and came up

:59:42. > :59:48.with giant solutions such as the NHS which lives with us to this day. It

:59:49. > :59:51.is with great sadness I say that the motion and the policy paper that

:59:52. > :59:56.have been created do not live up to this legacy.

:59:57. > :00:05.The name of the motion gives a clue - mending the safety net. The safety

:00:06. > :00:12.net has had so many holes poked into it by Conservative governments and

:00:13. > :00:18.before that under Thatcher and unambitiousness - that's not a word

:00:19. > :00:22.- but the New Labour governments of the late 90s and 2000s. We don't

:00:23. > :00:29.need to mend this broken safety net. We need to replace it with something

:00:30. > :00:34.far more ambitious, something that actually delivers on our aims and

:00:35. > :00:43.values of the party to tackle poverty and ensure that no-one is

:00:44. > :00:47.constrained. We are rightly proud, I can only believe we have allowed

:00:48. > :00:51.bold and creative thinkers on the Working Group to be constrained by

:00:52. > :00:55.previous commitment in coalition. We are rightly proud of our party's

:00:56. > :01:00.record in Government, but this pride does not mean we should continue to

:01:01. > :01:05.swallow the Conservative prejudice against the most vulnerable in

:01:06. > :01:07.society which defined welfare policy in recent years.

:01:08. > :01:11.APPLAUSE By limiting the Working Group to the

:01:12. > :01:15.compromised spending position of 2015, we prevent any measure they

:01:16. > :01:20.take to remove the bedroom tax, it has to come from elsewhere in

:01:21. > :01:23.working age benefits. By compromising as our starting point,

:01:24. > :01:28.this motion, no matter what amendments we make, can never be a

:01:29. > :01:32.truly liberal motion. APPLAUSE

:01:33. > :01:36.It is for that reason, conference, I urge you to vote down the motion as

:01:37. > :01:39.a whole so we can get back to defining what we believe in and come

:01:40. > :01:42.up with an approach that will actually tackle the challenges of

:01:43. > :01:48.this country that is not defined by the Conservatives. Thank you very

:01:49. > :01:52.much. APPLAUSE

:01:53. > :01:57.Thank you, Ryan. After Vince Cable has spoken, we will be dealing with

:01:58. > :02:01.the reference back. I will call Vince Cable from Twickenham. I think

:02:02. > :02:05.known to most of you. Delegates, I just want to warn against the

:02:06. > :02:10.deceptively attractive citizens income. Alm the lessons we've

:02:11. > :02:17.learned from welfare reform, Gordon Brown's tax credits, a negative

:02:18. > :02:20.income tax, from Iain Duncan Smith' universal credit, ideas like flat

:02:21. > :02:25.taxes, is that if they're simple they're not fair. If they're fair,

:02:26. > :02:31.they're not simple. They're not simple for obvious reasons, because

:02:32. > :02:33.society is complicated. People do messy things like having children

:02:34. > :02:38.and different numbers of children in the same family. People get old and

:02:39. > :02:44.disabled with different levels of need. They pay different levels of

:02:45. > :02:48.rent, such that the same basic income can be comfortable in one

:02:49. > :02:53.place but impoverishing somewhere else. We have to take account of

:02:54. > :02:58.that complexity. Instead of thinking in terms of slogans, let's think

:02:59. > :03:04.about basic numbers. If you had a generous citizens income, half the

:03:05. > :03:08.average per Capita income, about 16,000 a year. That would be very

:03:09. > :03:11.generous. That would mean that the basic state pension, for comfortable

:03:12. > :03:16.pensioners like me would more than double. But for people in work,

:03:17. > :03:23.who'd have to pay for it, the modelling shows the basic tax rate

:03:24. > :03:27.would have to rise to 50%. About 70% of all income would flow through the

:03:28. > :03:33.state. If you get it down to a more moderate level, let's say 30%, of

:03:34. > :03:37.average income, about 10,000 a year, think about what a basic income of

:03:38. > :03:44.10,000 a year means. It means that if you are a single parent with

:03:45. > :03:49.children, you currently have a welfare cap of about 26,000. Under

:03:50. > :03:57.these proposals, you'd be cutting it to 10,000. I mean, it is bizarre,

:03:58. > :04:02.cruel, unjustifiable, we're arguing for, most of us, against the

:04:03. > :04:05.cruelties of the welfare cap, that through this academic abstraction of

:04:06. > :04:08.the citizens income, you'd actually make the situation a great deal

:04:09. > :04:12.worse. So you then have to correct. It then you get into more

:04:13. > :04:19.complexity. So you get us back to the status quo. What I urge you to

:04:20. > :04:22.do is think about the substance, the sophisticated substance which is

:04:23. > :04:32.reflected in this motion and reject slogans. Thank you.

:04:33. > :04:37.APPLAUSE We now come to the reference back

:04:38. > :04:42.for those of you not familiar with that, you will have a chance in a

:04:43. > :04:46.minute to decide whether you want to hear more about reasons for asking

:04:47. > :04:52.for reference back. If you do agree to a reference back, at that point,

:04:53. > :04:59.the debate will halt and the matter in hand will go back to the

:05:00. > :05:04.committee for further debate. I have to read to you the request that I've

:05:05. > :05:10.received in writing from Sarah Noble of Calderdale. It's to the federal

:05:11. > :05:15.policy committee policy Working Group. "The policy paper fails to

:05:16. > :05:21.provide a radical and liberal alternative to the current system in

:05:22. > :05:25.which claimants are stigmatised. Even if all amendments were

:05:26. > :05:32.considered and passed, the policy would not be effective in working

:05:33. > :05:38.towards the party's constitutional aspiration to eradicate poverty. The

:05:39. > :05:44.policy should be referred back and at next conference, delegates would

:05:45. > :05:51.be given a choice between basic income, negative income tax or

:05:52. > :05:55.neither." In a moment I will ask you whether you would like to hear a

:05:56. > :06:02.mini debate on the reference back. If you agree to that, we will have a

:06:03. > :06:07.short mini debate with two speakers and vote on it. If we do not wish to

:06:08. > :06:14.hear it, then we will just carry on with the debate as it is. So could

:06:15. > :06:21.you all please have your cards ready with the voting part facing me. What

:06:22. > :06:26.we are voting on now is whether to hear, whether the conference wishes

:06:27. > :06:34.to hear a mini debate on the reference back. All those in favour

:06:35. > :06:41.of hearing a mini debate on the reference back, please hold up your

:06:42. > :06:45.cards. Thank you. And all those against holding a mini debate on the

:06:46. > :06:54.reference back. Thank you. That's quite close. Shall we ask again?

:06:55. > :06:59.Could you just show that once more. Because it was fairly close. Could

:07:00. > :07:08.all those in favour of hearing the mini debate please show. Yes, thank

:07:09. > :07:14.you. And those against hearing it? Yes. Thank you conference. You wish

:07:15. > :07:23.to hearer the mini debate on the reference back. So I will, I need to

:07:24. > :07:27.have a Speaker from the federal policy committee to respond to this.

:07:28. > :07:32.I've not yet been given a name for somebody who might do that. If they

:07:33. > :07:37.could stand by. And I now call Sarah Noble, who has two minutes to

:07:38. > :07:42.explain why are you calling for a reference back. Thank you, Sarah.

:07:43. > :07:46.Conference, first as a mathematician, I want to briefly

:07:47. > :07:49.challenge the idea of minimum income doesn't mean we can offer more

:07:50. > :07:54.support. That's the definition of the word minimum. It's a flaw. Like

:07:55. > :07:58.many of you, I have severe misgivings with this policy paper,

:07:59. > :08:02.enough to vote it down in fact. Even with amendments one and three. But

:08:03. > :08:09.I'm an optimist. You have to be in this party. I want to give FPC

:08:10. > :08:13.another chance to give conference more than the false dichotomy

:08:14. > :08:18.between approving or rejecting a policy paper so soggy you would

:08:19. > :08:21.think that it was printed in David Owen's basement.

:08:22. > :08:26.LAUGHTER Where is the talk in this policy

:08:27. > :08:31.paper about fixing the housing system, broken so much by Margaret

:08:32. > :08:35.Thatcher? Where is the talk of land value tax, which our forefathers of

:08:36. > :08:40.old supported? Where is the option in this policy paper for us to

:08:41. > :08:45.choose for ourselves whether we want a basic income or negative income

:08:46. > :08:50.tax or just this very soggy policy paper, this party policy? Not only

:08:51. > :08:55.does this policy paper not give any of those options, but if we pass it,

:08:56. > :09:02.we won't have an option to debate it again for another two years. Two

:09:03. > :09:06.years in which the Tory commitment to economic suicide through a hard

:09:07. > :09:11.Brexit can change the we fair debate entirely. Two years in which

:09:12. > :09:16.automation can change the welfare debate entirely. We must be forward

:09:17. > :09:21.looking, not sliding backwards into this coalition think. Please refer

:09:22. > :09:28.the motion back and if we don't refer it back, please vote it down.

:09:29. > :09:33.We need a radical alternative to our failed and discriminatory welfare

:09:34. > :09:43.system. This is not it. Tell FPC, we want a real debate, not one

:09:44. > :09:49.constrained by wishy, washy for the sake of it. Thank you, Sarah. I

:09:50. > :09:55.understand Evan Harris will respond on behalf of the federal policy

:09:56. > :10:02.committee. Woody Allen said...

:10:03. > :10:08.LAUGHTER Misquoting grouchy Mar you wouldn't

:10:09. > :10:12.want to belong to a club that would have someone like you for a member.

:10:13. > :10:16.Here I am opposing a reference back. I do so for good reasons. You

:10:17. > :10:24.elected me and others to the FPC to do a job, to look at every Working

:10:25. > :10:28.Group paper and see that it's evidenced basened and -- based and

:10:29. > :10:32.done appropriately. We did. We removed a call for the benefits cap

:10:33. > :10:36.to stay. We tightened it up in other areas. There wasn't a huge amount to

:10:37. > :10:40.do because it was a well conducted policy group that took a lot of

:10:41. > :10:48.evidence. There are reference backs can be good, bad or ugly. It's

:10:49. > :10:52.inindividualious for me to say, let me -- invidious for me to say, but a

:10:53. > :10:57.good reference back doesn't call for all amendments, when for example, we

:10:58. > :11:01.know the movers of the reference back are opposed to amendment two. A

:11:02. > :11:05.good reference back is not supposed to be a poor relation it a coherent

:11:06. > :11:10.amendment or indeed other votes you will have the chance to have if you

:11:11. > :11:16.reject this reference back. A good reference back doesn't reject the -

:11:17. > :11:21.doesn't dismiss the extensive work, 22 oral evidence session, 786 pages

:11:22. > :11:26.of written evidence, 80 people at our consultation session and 500

:11:27. > :11:30.people responding online, the way this Working Group talked to other

:11:31. > :11:34.countries like Canada and Finland and the Netherlands, including our

:11:35. > :11:38.sister parties. A good reference back doesn't expect work to be done

:11:39. > :11:43.in four months, because it calls for this to be debated at our next

:11:44. > :11:49.conference, deadline January. That would take 12 months yet again. A

:11:50. > :11:53.good reference back doesn't ignore what's been done in this, which is

:11:54. > :11:57.limiting or scrapping, depending on amendment one, sanctions. The

:11:58. > :12:00.abolition of the benefit cap, tackling the work capability

:12:01. > :12:04.assessment and a huge range of other things, which I believe, as you

:12:05. > :12:07.heard before, is a rejection of the sort of welfare policy that was

:12:08. > :12:14.imposed on this party in the coalition. A good reference back is

:12:15. > :12:17.one which recognises that the FPC, when it's done a good job has done a

:12:18. > :12:21.good job and the Working Group has. You don't have to agree with

:12:22. > :12:26.everything in the paper, but let's debate this properly and let's vote

:12:27. > :12:29.on it properly. Let's not have procedural devices which are either

:12:30. > :12:34.bad or ugly instead of having the votes and debates. Please oppose the

:12:35. > :12:40.reference back. Thank you, Evan. We now come to a

:12:41. > :12:44.vote on the reference back. As has been explained, if you vote in

:12:45. > :12:50.favour of a reference back, the debate will finish at that point. If

:12:51. > :12:55.you vote not to refer it back, the debate will continue. So I would

:12:56. > :13:01.like, if you would, please, to show if you are in favour of the

:13:02. > :13:07.reference back. Please show. Thank you. And those against the reference

:13:08. > :13:10.back, please show. It is clearly you are voting against a reference back.

:13:11. > :13:18.So... APPLAUSE

:13:19. > :13:24.So I need to ask Helen Flynn to stand by and I call cordon Leishman

:13:25. > :13:44.speaking against the motion as a whole

:13:45. > :13:54.It's always a delight to listen to Evan and his articulateness when his

:13:55. > :13:59.tongue is so far in his cheek it's coming out the other side is a

:14:00. > :14:03.wonder to behold. The problem with this proposal is not that it fails

:14:04. > :14:10.to be a reasonable answer. It's that it was asked the wrong question.

:14:11. > :14:14.That was shown by Johnny Oates when he said, "If we say a particular

:14:15. > :14:21.thing in amendment, the public will think we've gone mad." What he was

:14:22. > :14:25.saying is that the framing of the question was defined according to

:14:26. > :14:34.public prejudice about what the welfare system is. And as soon as we

:14:35. > :14:41.accept that prejudice, we have lost our fundamental argument. The

:14:42. > :14:49.argument about welfare is not one about shirkers and strivers. It is

:14:50. > :14:54.not one that is about people who don't work as distinct from that

:14:55. > :15:01.much larger number of recipients of welfare who do work.

:15:02. > :15:07.It is an argument that is about a Universal service called the

:15:08. > :15:11.national health service. It is an argument that is about the pensions.

:15:12. > :15:18.As soon as we accept the language that says this debate is about

:15:19. > :15:23.benefit caps, this entire debate is about how we make it difficult for

:15:24. > :15:29.certain people to do better out of it and we would like. As soon as we

:15:30. > :15:37.accept that, we move away from the fundamentals of trying to find a

:15:38. > :15:40.great settlement, a great sense of social solidarity that goes across

:15:41. > :15:47.our whole society and that is about how all of us are helped when we

:15:48. > :15:51.need that help. Whether that is about our health, whether it is

:15:52. > :15:57.about our employment, whether it is about the nature of that employment

:15:58. > :16:02.which creates poverty. We cannot accept the Tory framing of the

:16:03. > :16:07.question which appears to be what was in the minds of our Federal

:16:08. > :16:12.Policy Committee. What our Federal Policy Committee should have done is

:16:13. > :16:17.to answer the question they were instructed to take up at our last

:16:18. > :16:25.York conference, which is how we create a new Beveridge for a new

:16:26. > :16:31.World and a new society. APPLAUSE. And that means addressing the issues

:16:32. > :16:38.about social solidarity, about the mutual support. And if we do not

:16:39. > :16:45.have that sense of a single wider community, if we base our policy on

:16:46. > :16:51.the demonisation of a small number of people, by any definition, within

:16:52. > :16:54.this system, if we base our policy on that small number, we will have

:16:55. > :17:02.lost our principles and we will have lost our argument.

:17:03. > :17:09.APPLAUSE. Thank you, Gordon. Could Judith bunting the police stand by?

:17:10. > :17:18.I call Helen Flynn on Amendment one. From Harrogate. Thank you. Good

:17:19. > :17:23.afternoon, conference. Vesely, I am here to get you to vote for

:17:24. > :17:27.Amendment one. Kirsten Johnson, in proposing the amendment, brought

:17:28. > :17:32.forward by the social Liberal forum, quite rightly drew examples in her

:17:33. > :17:36.speech that gave a graphic insight into the human effects of the

:17:37. > :17:41.sanctions system. It was not easy to listen to those stories. And quite

:17:42. > :17:47.frankly, it is shocking to realise that totally avoidable axe of human

:17:48. > :17:52.suffering and even death happening now because of the imposition of the

:17:53. > :17:59.Conservative led sanctions system. To allow this system to endure is to

:18:00. > :18:04.intrinsically accept, as Gordon has said, the Conservative rhetoric of

:18:05. > :18:08.workers and shirkers, benefits diverse. Conference, surely we

:18:09. > :18:18.Liberal Democrats do not buy into this Conservative rhetoric? In the

:18:19. > :18:23.debate, we heard from several people who were in support of amendment one

:18:24. > :18:28.and Jenny from Calderdale described the inhumanity of the sanctions

:18:29. > :18:31.system. And Tony, in interventions, talked about the lack of cost

:18:32. > :18:36.effectiveness of the sanctions system. Johnny Oakes spoke against

:18:37. > :18:41.our amendment and he said it would be madness to vote for the

:18:42. > :18:45.amendment, but my belief, conference, is it would be, apart

:18:46. > :18:51.from anything else, political madness not to vote for it. We need

:18:52. > :18:59.clear water politically between us and the Conservatives and he is a

:19:00. > :19:05.great opportunity to establish that. I am asking you to vote, in asking

:19:06. > :19:09.you to vote for our amendment, I ask you to refer to line ten of the

:19:10. > :19:13.motion which says, we are calling for a Social Security system that, I

:19:14. > :19:20.quote, treats claimants with dignity. Conference, it is axiomatic

:19:21. > :19:24.that a sanctions system cannot treat a claimant with dignity. The two

:19:25. > :19:31.things do not inhabit the same space. And an incentivised system

:19:32. > :19:36.does treat claimants with dignity. Let's make a real statement for what

:19:37. > :19:42.we as a party believe about humanity in its most basic form. Let alone

:19:43. > :19:49.mutual respect and understanding. And banish this ridiculous system of

:19:50. > :19:52.sanctions for good from our civic society.

:19:53. > :20:03.Please support Amendment one. APPLAUSE. Thank you, Helen. Would

:20:04. > :20:11.Alistair McGregor stand-by? I call Judith Bunting, who boasts a mate

:20:12. > :20:17.for amendments two. -- who will summarise.

:20:18. > :20:21.Conference, I am here to some mate for amendments two and to ask you to

:20:22. > :20:27.support it. Although having heard the speech is, I would admit I feel

:20:28. > :20:34.slightly more like the sacrificial goat put out as a snack for some

:20:35. > :20:37.good high principled lip-smacking gods and goddesses, Liberal

:20:38. > :20:43.Democrats. Here today. However, let's have a go! Verse, I would like

:20:44. > :20:47.to thank the young man with sight difficulties, I am sorry I did not

:20:48. > :20:52.catch on them, for supporting the amendment. He called it back, he

:20:53. > :20:57.called it credible. -- catch your name. That is what is important, we

:20:58. > :21:01.are a credible party and we need to carry on being that way. But I love

:21:02. > :21:07.this... Thank you, I love this motion. I like the way they are

:21:08. > :21:11.reworking the system. Another lady said, it is radical, one of the most

:21:12. > :21:18.radical re-weightings of welfare for many years. Hear, hear! --

:21:19. > :21:23.re-writings. Then we had Gordon and Evan and another person, sorry for

:21:24. > :21:29.not catching the names. Maybe I have got a problem. Sorry. Gordon quoted

:21:30. > :21:35.a son and he pushed our buttons. Evan quoted the Sun and pushed our

:21:36. > :21:39.buttons and he said the cap was unfair and it was arbitrary. Gordon

:21:40. > :21:50.said that we had lost our principles. Well, I agree. I would

:21:51. > :21:55.agree if we were talking about and stating the benefit caps as it is.

:21:56. > :21:58.Evan, sorry, with your eye for detail, you have not read the

:21:59. > :22:05.amendment. The amendment specifically limits the cap by

:22:06. > :22:11.excluding benefits aimed at the most vulnerable in society. And those

:22:12. > :22:15.benefits include, not exclusively, but they include severe disablement

:22:16. > :22:22.allowance, maternity allowance and bereavement allowance. Conference, I

:22:23. > :22:28.support this, but I support it if we exclude disability allowances and if

:22:29. > :22:33.we exclude housing benefit. I agree that housing benefit skews the

:22:34. > :22:38.benefit cap up and down the country. It should be excluded and the cap

:22:39. > :22:44.should be moved separately. So, conference, support this motion,

:22:45. > :22:49.support a fixed, fair and reasonable benefit cap. In support therefore

:22:50. > :22:56.Amendment two. Thank you. APPLAUSE. Thank you,

:22:57. > :23:00.Judith, from Newbury and West Berks. Can I ask Jenny well at the

:23:01. > :23:08.stand-by? I call Alistair McGregor from Calderdale talking about

:23:09. > :23:13.Amendment three. Conference, I am going to do something unusual and

:23:14. > :23:20.ask you to vote for the amendments and to vote the entire motion down

:23:21. > :23:23.regardless. APPLAUSE. It is a Liberal Democrat conference, I can

:23:24. > :23:28.get away with it! The reason I will ask you to do this is unfortunately,

:23:29. > :23:34.you only actually have about a third of the original amendment in front

:23:35. > :23:39.of you. FCC gutted the substantive parts of it. Ultimately, this is not

:23:40. > :23:43.actually about the text of the motion on the agenda, this is about

:23:44. > :23:50.the policy paper. You have all read the policy paper, right? I am not

:23:51. > :23:59.hearing that many of you! After we have done this, take it away and

:24:00. > :24:04.read through section 1.3. It spends three pages talking about Citizen's

:24:05. > :24:08.Income. And then comes to the inclusion negative income tax is not

:24:09. > :24:14.workable. They are not the same thing! -- the conclusion. I have the

:24:15. > :24:20.address bins, you spent exactly the same amount of time as I have got

:24:21. > :24:24.talking about Citizen's Income not working -- I have the address Vince

:24:25. > :24:29.Cable. We are not proposing that so it is not the text of the amendment.

:24:30. > :24:32.What I am asking you to do, conference, is to reject the knee

:24:33. > :24:36.jerk response the Federal Policy Committee have come up with of

:24:37. > :24:41.outright rejecting the negative income tax because Kellie said. I do

:24:42. > :24:44.not know how the hell they got you to propose this! When I propose

:24:45. > :24:52.something more left-wing than you are, you know something is wrong,

:24:53. > :24:59.Darling! Now, negative income tax has in-built the taper you were

:25:00. > :25:02.caught saying was the problems with Citizen's Income not having and that

:25:03. > :25:07.is why I propose negative income tax. It is not the same policy as

:25:08. > :25:10.Citizen's Income. Yes, there are similarities, but it has the

:25:11. > :25:15.in-built taper that addresses the problems people seem to think they

:25:16. > :25:20.have with the amendment putting -- we are putting forward. Please vote

:25:21. > :25:25.for Amendment three because it is now about the principle. And vote

:25:26. > :25:30.down the entire amendment, vote for Amendment one as well. Vote down the

:25:31. > :25:38.entire motion, send it back, because we have to do Social Security

:25:39. > :25:46.policy, and it will... And elect a better FPC to do it. On a related

:25:47. > :25:53.note, I am standing for FPC! So thank you very much, conference.

:25:54. > :25:57.Vote for Amendment one, vote for Amendment three and don't vote for

:25:58. > :26:05.amendment two and voted on the whole thing anyway! Thank you!

:26:06. > :26:10.Thank you, Alistair. Jenny, to sum up on the motion as a whole. She is

:26:11. > :26:14.from Cardiff and she was the chair of the Social Security working

:26:15. > :26:17.group. Good afternoon, conference, I

:26:18. > :26:25.apologise for coughing, I promise I do not have pneumonia! We have had a

:26:26. > :26:28.very passionate and wide-ranging debate this afternoon. With so many

:26:29. > :26:33.very different and strongly held views. It was very similar to a

:26:34. > :26:37.number of our group discussions over the last year in the working group.

:26:38. > :26:41.It has been very hard work, but I have to say I personally and very

:26:42. > :26:47.proud of our final paper. It has strong policies in it and it has a

:26:48. > :26:51.Liberal heart. It focuses, if you read the paper, on breaking down

:26:52. > :26:57.barriers, tackling stigma, so that as it says in our party's preamble,

:26:58. > :27:01.nobody shall be enslaved by poverty, ignorance or conformity. That is at

:27:02. > :27:05.the heart of the paper. It was great to hear Matthew Clark is a

:27:06. > :27:09.first-time speaker at conference support in the motion and the paper

:27:10. > :27:14.and I predict that he go far! Is a number of people have said, the top

:27:15. > :27:19.priority in the paper is to invest more in families with children and

:27:20. > :27:24.expert after expert, but the evidence we took, said they are the

:27:25. > :27:27.ones who need help the most. And as Liberal Democrats, it must be our

:27:28. > :27:33.mission to make sure your children will be held back by the lifelong

:27:34. > :27:37.barriers created by poverty. This paper would take 13,000 children out

:27:38. > :27:43.of poverty and that is something we can be proud of. It would also stop

:27:44. > :27:48.the benefit freeze which would put billions of pounds into the pockets

:27:49. > :27:53.of those who need it most. It is about ?13 billion I 2020, a huge

:27:54. > :27:57.amount of money which would change and make a difference to the most

:27:58. > :28:01.vulnerable families in our communities. And one of the most

:28:02. > :28:04.important and bold measures in the paper is the scrapping of the work

:28:05. > :28:08.capability assessment for those claiming disability benefits. Why

:28:09. > :28:14.did we propose this? Because it doesn't work. As an MP, I saw so

:28:15. > :28:19.many people who are clearly far too sick being declared fit for work by

:28:20. > :28:24.someone who had spent just a few minutes checking whether they could

:28:25. > :28:29.take their coat on or off and this centralised assessment has to go. No

:28:30. > :28:34.more tinkering around the edges. So we propose local assessments, which

:28:35. > :28:39.take into account local circumstances. Not only considering

:28:40. > :28:44.whether someone, whether there is any work in the area fit for them.

:28:45. > :28:51.We tackling stigma that basis people who claim benefits. As Gordon just

:28:52. > :28:55.said, but never brand people scroungers or split them into the

:28:56. > :28:59.deserving and the undeserving poor, that is not the Liberal approach and

:29:00. > :29:03.that is not something that anyone in our working group would ever dream

:29:04. > :29:07.of doing. Claimants are not just statistics or straw men for the

:29:08. > :29:12.Tories to win votes, any of us could end up claiming benefits and the

:29:13. > :29:17.awful treatment of normal people by the media and, yes, by some

:29:18. > :29:21.politicians, has to stop. Today, we have heard about the stigma and

:29:22. > :29:26.difficulties faced by claimants from speakers like Joey Dunlop and this

:29:27. > :29:32.has life changing implications. We can treat claimants better and we

:29:33. > :29:35.should. And that is why we will personalise mental health support,

:29:36. > :29:39.combining it with health care and not abandon people once they have

:29:40. > :29:42.found a job. It is why we have called for the expansion of

:29:43. > :29:51.unemployment and income protection insurance, making sure that if you

:29:52. > :29:52.lose your job, you do not lose your home. And there is another area

:29:53. > :30:02.where things really must People were being sanctioned,

:30:03. > :30:06.evicted because they were being sanctioned. I saw people who were

:30:07. > :30:10.mentally ill completely fall apart because they'd been sanctioned and

:30:11. > :30:15.can no longer keep themselves warm, eat or communicate. And often for

:30:16. > :30:23.minor, petty, ridiculous infringements. We've heard some

:30:24. > :30:27.awful examples today from Kirsten Johnston and Jenny Rigg of cases

:30:28. > :30:31.like this. Examples when claimants weren't treated with dignity and

:30:32. > :30:38.respect and that has to change. I think we would all agree with that.

:30:39. > :30:42.That's why we're proposing to remove the cruel fixed penalty sanctions

:30:43. > :30:45.system, reduce significantly the number of people sanctioned,

:30:46. > :30:49.introduce a minimum level below which people can't fall by

:30:50. > :30:54.protecting child payments and housing and introduce a positive

:30:55. > :30:59.incentive scheme, so people can get extra payments, if they make

:31:00. > :31:03.exceptional job search efforts, so that we're encouraging and

:31:04. > :31:07.incentivising people not just penalising them. Amendment one

:31:08. > :31:12.suggests going further and scrap sanctions entirely. I'll be honest,

:31:13. > :31:19.if it were a choice between that and the current system, I'd agree. But

:31:20. > :31:25.the paper offers a real alternative. As Johnny Oates said we had evidence

:31:26. > :31:28.from a number of NGOs that they believe conditionality can have a

:31:29. > :31:31.role to play to ensure that vulnerable people have to engage in

:31:32. > :31:36.those programmes that can lift them out of poverty. I believe we should

:31:37. > :31:40.listen to the evidence and create a sanctions regime that is a complete

:31:41. > :31:44.last resort but one that is fair, that's reasonable and focussed on

:31:45. > :31:49.encouragement not just on enforcement, so that there are steps

:31:50. > :31:51.that JCP can take to encourage people to get involved in those

:31:52. > :31:56.things that will make their lives better. I urge you to vote against

:31:57. > :31:59.amendment one. Amendment two would retain the benefit cap at the

:32:00. > :32:03.current level but exempt key benefits such as maternity pay and

:32:04. > :32:10.severe disability payments. We had a very close fought debate on this in

:32:11. > :32:14.the Working Group and in FPC, and we heard strong arguments from both

:32:15. > :32:21.sides today from Tony Harris and Evan Harris, I assume no relations,

:32:22. > :32:26.and others, FPC is asking you to vote against amendment two. In many

:32:27. > :32:30.ways, today's debate on negative income tax and citizens income has

:32:31. > :32:33.mirrored what happened in the Working Group except that we went

:32:34. > :32:40.into more detail. When we started there was a lot of support for

:32:41. > :32:43.schemes like the citizens income and negative income tax. We spent time

:32:44. > :32:49.on them. More time on that than any other issue that we looked at.

:32:50. > :32:52.Alastair McGregor and Mick Taylor said we conflated negative income

:32:53. > :32:56.tax and citizens income in our paper. That's not true. We examined

:32:57. > :32:59.different models. We looked at a range of different ways time plement

:33:00. > :33:03.these schemes. We heard evidence from people who have looked at how

:33:04. > :33:08.you could implement it in the UK. We examined trials that are taking

:33:09. > :33:12.place in Finland, Ontario, and in Utrecht. It was this looking at all

:33:13. > :33:16.of the evidence, looking at the different models and how it could

:33:17. > :33:24.actually work in practice that convinced us that such a scheme

:33:25. > :33:28.wouldn't work. As Lucy said it boils down to the fact that in every model

:33:29. > :33:33.or proposal we've seen people lose out. Those who lose out the most are

:33:34. > :33:38.those who can afford it the least. If you have an affordable flat rate

:33:39. > :33:44.system, those who currently receive disability benefits could lose out

:33:45. > :33:48.by as much as ?180 a week. That's nearly ?10,000 a year. Totally

:33:49. > :33:52.scandalous. It would hit single parent families and those who live

:33:53. > :33:55.in more expensive areas. As Vince Cable said, if you tackle this by

:33:56. > :34:02.making the system either more generous or more complex in order to

:34:03. > :34:07.recognise different situations, it become far Too Good expensive. Yet

:34:08. > :34:11.again those on the lower end had hard hit by accompanying tax rises.

:34:12. > :34:16.We're not saying never in the paper. What we're saying is that until

:34:17. > :34:19.someone comes up with a model that is affordable and fair and doesn't

:34:20. > :34:24.see vulnerable people lose out, we as a group, could not support it. We

:34:25. > :34:29.could not see a model that we felt was fair and supported the most

:34:30. > :34:33.vulnerable in society. We need radical policy. I think we'd agree.

:34:34. > :34:37.But that's not the negative income tax or citizens income. It's the

:34:38. > :34:41.paper that is before you today, that is radical. It's got concrete

:34:42. > :34:46.policies that would work now and work for the people that need it the

:34:47. > :34:51.most. So I am proud of this paper. It will enable us to go out and

:34:52. > :34:56.campaign for a fairer benefits system now, protecting the most

:34:57. > :34:59.vulnerable, lifting children out of poverty, treating claimants with

:35:00. > :35:03.respect and scrapping one of the most heinous parts of the system in

:35:04. > :35:06.the work capability assessment and better supporting those with

:35:07. > :35:11.disabilities either physical or mental, so I urge you all to reject

:35:12. > :35:16.all the amendments and vote for the motion as a whole so we can have a

:35:17. > :35:27.welfare policy of which we as a party can be truly proud. Thank you.

:35:28. > :35:33.Thank you, Jenny. We are now coming to a series of votes. First of all,

:35:34. > :35:37.we'll vote on amendment one, then amendment two, then amendment three.

:35:38. > :35:44.Then finally on the motion as a whole, if it has been amended by

:35:45. > :35:48.those amendments. So first of all, amendment one. Would all those in

:35:49. > :35:57.favour of amendment one, please show. Thank you. And those against

:35:58. > :36:08.amendment one. That was clearly carried. Amendment one is carried.

:36:09. > :36:15.Amendment two, all those in favour of amendment two, please show. All

:36:16. > :36:24.those against amendment two, please show. That has clearly failed.

:36:25. > :36:29.Finally, amendment three, all those in favour of amendment three, please

:36:30. > :36:36.show. And all those against amendment three. Now clearly a

:36:37. > :36:42.majority against amendment three. So amendment one has been passed.

:36:43. > :36:49.You'll now be voting on the motion as a whole and amended by amendment

:36:50. > :36:56.one. So all those in favour of the motion as a whole, as amended,

:36:57. > :37:01.please show. Thank you. And all those against... Yes, that's clearly

:37:02. > :37:20.carried, thank you. Thank you, everyone. Out. We know

:37:21. > :37:28.the procedures for a counting haven't been fulfilled as yet.

:37:29. > :37:39.We do need to have 50 people standing in order to call for a

:37:40. > :37:41.counted vote. Thank you. Thank you. So we will have a counted vote then,

:37:42. > :37:55.please. Could you just wait while the

:37:56. > :38:06.stewards get into position to carry out the count. Please ensure that

:38:07. > :38:15.you're sitting down, your vote won't count unless you're sitting down. We

:38:16. > :38:20.can go ahead with the count. So all those in favour of the motion as

:38:21. > :38:23.amended, please show now. Keep your hands in the air until we

:38:24. > :39:45.say we've finished counting. Thank you for your patience. Keep

:39:46. > :40:05.your hands there, please. Thank you, you can put your hands

:40:06. > :40:08.down. Now would all those who are against the motion as amended,

:40:09. > :41:16.please show, and leave your hands in the air until we tell you.

:41:17. > :41:27.Thank you, everyone. We will just wait until we get the numbers.

:41:28. > :41:36.Whilst we're waiting, I'd like to thank my aides, Jeremy Hargreves and

:41:37. > :42:15.Paul Tillsly. A couple of announcements, this is a

:42:16. > :42:22.good moment to do it. The left luggage address has been changed.

:42:23. > :42:26.This is for tomorrow, I assume. Those of you who wish to leave

:42:27. > :42:39.luggage pending leaving Brighton. You need to go to the platform it's

:42:40. > :42:44.either Wagner or Vagner hall, regency rode Brighton. It's off West

:42:45. > :42:49.Street just behind Wetherspoons. I've also had a note that there were

:42:50. > :42:54.a number of phones going off during that last debate. So, could I please

:42:55. > :43:27.remind everybody to keep your phones switched to silent, thank you.

:43:28. > :43:39.I have the result here everyone. Those for the motion, 363. Those

:43:40. > :44:57.against the motion, 202. So it is carried. As amended.

:44:58. > :45:02.Conference, good afternoon, we are running a little late, so I would

:45:03. > :45:09.like to get started on the next item. As quickly as possible. Before

:45:10. > :45:17.we start, I just want to give you the announcement about the left

:45:18. > :45:23.luggage address being changed again. You will see notices around the

:45:24. > :45:31.conference hall. And the coffee area outside as well. But the left

:45:32. > :45:43.luggage address is now the platform, why can a hole, Regency Road,

:45:44. > :45:48.Brighton. -- Wagner Hall. And that is of West Street, just behind the

:45:49. > :45:58.Wetherspoon is. But please note there is a ?1 charge. Moving on to

:45:59. > :46:05.item F32. That is the report of the diversity engagement group, and may

:46:06. > :46:17.I ask Adrian to present the report? Thank you.

:46:18. > :46:22.Good afternoon, conference. I am here to present the Diversity

:46:23. > :46:30.Engagement Group report on behalf of Baroness Hussain who is unavailable

:46:31. > :46:34.to be here today, sadly. Firstly, I want to say the Diversity Engagement

:46:35. > :46:39.Group is one of the most important functions within our party. I am

:46:40. > :46:44.delighted to see the new governance report which we will all be looking

:46:45. > :46:49.forward to for two hours tomorrow morning discussing a new weight

:46:50. > :46:53.diversity will be put throughout the party and streamlined through every

:46:54. > :46:56.part of our party from the leadership downwards, the local

:46:57. > :47:05.party executives and regional parties. Firstly, I would like to

:47:06. > :47:11.thank the specified Association Dasher associated organisations who

:47:12. > :47:18.do incredible work for our party. Including LGBT, Liberal Democrat

:47:19. > :47:22.women and Liberal Youth. There is more we need to do across all

:47:23. > :47:27.diversities. What I would say is diversity should not be, all

:47:28. > :47:30.diversity should be treated equally, there should not be a hierarchy and

:47:31. > :47:36.one that is more important than another. That means we all have to

:47:37. > :47:40.work very hard to ensure that that is what the party produces. From its

:47:41. > :47:45.candidates and committees and from every part of the party. We all sing

:47:46. > :47:52.from the Hain -- from the same hymn sheet. Furthermore, the Diversity

:47:53. > :47:56.Engagement Group will also hopefully be looking at further proposals of

:47:57. > :47:59.ensuring that regions put more diversity at their regional

:48:00. > :48:02.Executive levels as well and making sure there are more strands and

:48:03. > :48:09.diversity in terms of the different equality strands but forward to help

:48:10. > :48:12.enable unconscious bias training throughout the entire party. So we

:48:13. > :48:18.all feel it is crucial and will help everybody understand how this

:48:19. > :48:21.training works, and not just from the higher echelons of the party,

:48:22. > :48:27.but right down the local party executives. We need help from

:48:28. > :48:32.everybody in that area. I would also like to add further that the

:48:33. > :48:37.diversity motion we passed at conference in York is extremely

:48:38. > :48:41.important. And I want to ensure that the ramifications from the motion

:48:42. > :48:45.will be fully put through at all levels of the party. I know there

:48:46. > :48:49.are some levels were there seems to be some reluctance to do that and I

:48:50. > :48:56.personally am happy about that and I am sure others in the room or so. We

:48:57. > :49:00.must ensure that is put forward and the implications of that motion gets

:49:01. > :49:05.put forward into the diversity channels. But at the same time,

:49:06. > :49:09.understanding regional differences. I am aware of areas where there are

:49:10. > :49:13.difficulties in different regions and we have to make that appropriate

:49:14. > :49:17.and understand and have those conversations, which is really

:49:18. > :49:23.important. As I mentioned, the governance review is tomorrow

:49:24. > :49:29.morning and I am sure we will be up at 9am for that. Apart from that, we

:49:30. > :49:35.need to ensure diversity is central to our message from the party at the

:49:36. > :49:40.leadership level as well. That includes our dear leader, who I am

:49:41. > :49:46.sure will put through that. But at the same time, through the Lords and

:49:47. > :49:53.our MPs in Parliament, we need to have that consistent message that

:49:54. > :49:57.diversity is part of our party and our values, and one of our key

:49:58. > :50:03.strengths. And we have to highlight that across the party and not just

:50:04. > :50:09.in pockets in certain areas. I think we end up losing valuable

:50:10. > :50:13.candidates, valuable people to the party, when we don't think about

:50:14. > :50:18.everybody. And not always thinking about ourselves. I'd put forward to

:50:19. > :50:23.you the diversity -- I put forward you the Diversity Engagement Group's

:50:24. > :50:25.proposals and I hope they will be more strategically streamlined

:50:26. > :50:30.across all areas and I look forward to working with you on this in the

:50:31. > :50:36.coming year, thank you very much. APPLAUSE.

:50:37. > :50:42.Thank you, ageing. Normally, we would now move on to questions on

:50:43. > :50:47.the report -- ageing. Nobody has submitted any questions for the

:50:48. > :50:51.Diversity Engagement Group and so let's move straight to the vote. Can

:50:52. > :50:59.I see a show of hands for people happy to accept the report? Thank

:51:00. > :51:09.you. Anybody who is not? So that has passed. Let's move on

:51:10. > :51:24.straightaway... Sorry, one against. Any abstentions? OK, that has

:51:25. > :51:34.passed. I love conference! Let's move onto the next item. The report

:51:35. > :51:36.of the campaign for gender balance, may I called Joyce to move the

:51:37. > :51:44.may I called Joyce to move the report.

:51:45. > :51:54.Thank you. Moving this report on behalf of a colleague busy training

:51:55. > :52:00.at the moment so could not be here. You have all read the report and I

:52:01. > :52:05.would like to highlight that the campaign for gender balance is going

:52:06. > :52:10.strong. We continue to give training, coaching and mentoring to

:52:11. > :52:14.women. We have now run inspiration days and I am standing here in front

:52:15. > :52:24.of you because a year ago, I attended an inspirational day by --

:52:25. > :52:29.by Campaign for Gender Balance. And after a year because of that and all

:52:30. > :52:32.the support, I am now a prospective Parliamentary candidate.

:52:33. > :52:38.So it really is going strong. APPLAUSE.

:52:39. > :52:44.We keep striving to get more women elected. And I am happy to say that

:52:45. > :52:50.we now have a record number of women who have applied and have been

:52:51. > :52:54.approved, in fact, since the referendum, we have had to 10%

:52:55. > :53:00.increase. So that is really, really promising. And we hope to continue

:53:01. > :53:03.to get more women elected. And if you take away nothing else from

:53:04. > :53:10.this, if you are a woman, or a man, if you can make your way to Witney,

:53:11. > :53:16.they are having an election there and you can see the Lib Dem

:53:17. > :53:20.campaigning machine in operation. And for learning, it is important

:53:21. > :53:23.and especially for women and people here for the first time to go. I

:53:24. > :53:32.would encourage everybody to meet me in Witney! I think that is all. I

:53:33. > :53:38.would please ask you to accept this report.

:53:39. > :53:45.APPLAUSE. Thank you, Joyce. Again, nobody has submitted any questions

:53:46. > :53:48.for the report for the Campaign for Gender Balance so can I ask for a

:53:49. > :53:53.show of hands if you are happy to accept the report? Thank you. And

:53:54. > :54:00.anyone not happy to accept the report? Yes, we have the same

:54:01. > :54:04.gentleman at the back who is not happy to accept the report and we

:54:05. > :54:11.don't have any abstentions. Thank you very much. That is

:54:12. > :54:14.overwhelmingly carried. That concludes the business. I now hands

:54:15. > :54:24.the chair over for the next item to Donncha O'Callaghan, and may I thank

:54:25. > :54:28.my aid layers and thank her for coordinating so colourfully the

:54:29. > :54:30.jackets this afternoon! -- the next item to my colleague.

:54:31. > :54:49.APPLAUSE. Good afternoon, conference, now

:54:50. > :54:56.moving on to the last debate of the day, item F34, as part of the

:54:57. > :55:01.constitutional review. The governance review. You will see the

:55:02. > :55:05.text of the motion on pages 50 and 51 of your agenda, there are no

:55:06. > :55:11.amendments, it is a straightforward debate. Would Joshua Dixon, from

:55:12. > :55:17.Haringey please stand by and I call to move the motion Dawn Barnes on

:55:18. > :55:25.behalf of the federal Executive. Thank you, chair, it is obviously a

:55:26. > :55:30.day for Greenjackets! So, diversity quotas, I did not think I would be

:55:31. > :55:34.at a conference asking for diversity quotas, asking for you to support

:55:35. > :55:38.them, because I did not think we needed them, but we do. After almost

:55:39. > :55:45.ten years as a member, I have witnessed that we cannot and we do

:55:46. > :55:49.not get women, ethnic minorities and enough LGBT plus and enough people

:55:50. > :55:54.with disabilities elected. That is obvious in our councillors and

:55:55. > :55:59.especially in our Parliamentary party. We need more of them elected.

:56:00. > :56:03.But what we need to do and what we can control, because we cannot

:56:04. > :56:08.control outside the electorate, they will vote as they do, as they wish.

:56:09. > :56:12.We can't do anything about that externally, we can get more

:56:13. > :56:16.candidates in place to support but it is ultimately up to the public.

:56:17. > :56:21.Internally, we can make a difference. We can be in control. It

:56:22. > :56:26.is not about taking back control, it is about having some. What we are

:56:27. > :56:30.proposing is that we have quotas for our federal boards. We want our

:56:31. > :56:35.leadership to look like we want to be. We want to throw out an external

:56:36. > :56:40.vision of us is a diverse party which we are not at the moment. We

:56:41. > :56:47.have proposed that we have quotas, I am sure you have seen it, 40% will

:56:48. > :56:53.be elected and they shall self identify as men or non-binary people

:56:54. > :56:59.and another 40% as women or non-binary people respectively. Not

:57:00. > :57:01.less than 10% of those from underrepresented ethnic backgrounds

:57:02. > :57:09.and not less than 10% shall be disabled people and not less than

:57:10. > :57:11.10% on the boards and executives committees people from

:57:12. > :57:16.underrepresented sexual orientations and identity police including trams

:57:17. > :57:21.are non-binding re-identities. We need to look different and we do not

:57:22. > :57:24.at the moment. It is not about having the quotas, it is important

:57:25. > :57:28.we offer the training and support which I know and has been referenced

:57:29. > :57:36.already by Joyce for the sport she has had and congratulations on your

:57:37. > :57:41.candidacy. We need the training and support and we need to make sure

:57:42. > :57:45.people from these diverse groups put themselves forward for committees. I

:57:46. > :57:49.will make a pledge right now, if you are one of these people who will be

:57:50. > :57:53.affected and can go for a committee that you have not thought about

:57:54. > :57:58.previously, if you want advice or support, because I have done it, I

:57:59. > :58:02.am very happy to help. I cannot offer it to everybody, first-come,

:58:03. > :58:06.first-served. I will help find people who can help with your

:58:07. > :58:10.campaigns and your aspirations, whether that is to get onto a

:58:11. > :58:14.federal Executive or Federal Policy Committee or conference committee.

:58:15. > :58:18.Or to get elected. I am happy to do the best I can because I want us to

:58:19. > :58:24.look like the country we look to represent. I love our MPs, they are

:58:25. > :58:31.fantastic, eight of them doing the best job they can. But they really

:58:32. > :58:39.do, they really are all white men. And this is something we have got to

:58:40. > :58:43.change. APPLAUSE. So we will continue to encourage and

:58:44. > :58:47.inspire more minorities and diverse people to go for positions. Give

:58:48. > :58:51.them the confidence and courage they need, give them the opportunity,

:58:52. > :58:55.make sure we have them for as long as it is necessary to have quotas.

:58:56. > :59:01.And who knows, they might go on to be elected to public office. Meaning

:59:02. > :59:05.our Parliamentary party might finally looked a little less pale

:59:06. > :59:09.and male. So let's vote for this motion and not let the party down

:59:10. > :59:13.now, this is not the time to have arguments about who can and cannot

:59:14. > :59:17.stand and whether we want to make sure it is all white men for

:59:18. > :59:22.evermore, this is the moment to make a change. You have the opportunity

:59:23. > :59:25.now to make sure next time we walk into those rooms on those various

:59:26. > :59:31.executives, we are not walking into a room that is all white men, it is

:59:32. > :59:35.a room full of colour and different agendas and people who have perhaps

:59:36. > :59:41.different disabilities you can and cannot see. It does not matter, we

:59:42. > :59:43.need their views represented, we need better policies because those

:59:44. > :59:48.people will give a different perspective. We cannot continue to

:59:49. > :59:52.be a world run by and for white men and we need to show we believe it

:59:53. > :59:58.not just by saying it, but by doing it. So I urge you to vote for this

:59:59. > :00:04.motion, thank you. APPLAUSE. Sophia Nash from Vauxhall.

:00:05. > :00:06.I now call to speak in favour of the motion Joshua Dixon from Haringey,

:00:07. > :00:11.also a member of the federal Executive.

:00:12. > :00:15.Thank you, chair. I have also been on a bit of a journey with this

:00:16. > :00:19.issue as well, when I first got into politics and I joined the party, I

:00:20. > :00:21.thought quotas and positive action was not very Liberal, I thought this

:00:22. > :00:35.was meddling and missing the point. When you see on our committees or

:00:36. > :00:42.like mine in the FE, when you walk fwh the room -- walk in the room,

:00:43. > :00:44.you think, ah, this looks similar to every other meeting, because

:00:45. > :00:49.generally there's quite a lot of white men in there. It gets to a

:00:50. > :00:55.point where you think, actually, if we are not tapping into all of the

:00:56. > :00:59.experiences and all of the views of people from all corners of society

:01:00. > :01:03.you are not leading to better decision making. We know that quotas

:01:04. > :01:08.is a difficult thing. We know that it is not ideal. But as long as we

:01:09. > :01:12.live in a society with discrimination, that organic change

:01:13. > :01:15.to ensure better representation is simply not going to happen because

:01:16. > :01:20.discrimination exists and there are still people that allow for it to

:01:21. > :01:26.fester in this party as well. Now, one of the criticisms of quotas is

:01:27. > :01:31.that it's seen as tokenism. Now for me, tokenism is about having someone

:01:32. > :01:37.present and represented for the sake of it. This is the absolute to what

:01:38. > :01:40.quotas is. Quotas isn't about saying to someone, because you're under

:01:41. > :01:45.represented you need our help to get on and help us. It's actually about

:01:46. > :01:49.saying we need your help to make our party more representative and ensure

:01:50. > :01:56.that, in turn, we can one day make our society more representative as

:01:57. > :01:59.well. So, conference, it is uncomfortable to support a measure

:02:00. > :02:03.like this. But in this day and age in the state of our party with so

:02:04. > :02:07.many people so resistant to the type of change we need, we need the

:02:08. > :02:11.radical action to make sure we get there. We can get there now by

:02:12. > :02:19.supporting this motion, thank you. Thank you very much. Would Sarah

:02:20. > :02:27.Noble please stand by. I now call Sophia Nash to speak against the

:02:28. > :02:31.motion. Hi conference. I'm not going to lie, this is terrifying. It

:02:32. > :02:33.probably wasn't a good idea to speak on my first conference, but I felt

:02:34. > :02:38.like... APPLAUSE

:02:39. > :02:42.But I felt like hi to say something about this motion. This time last

:02:43. > :02:48.week, I was in hospital. I was sectioned under the mental health

:02:49. > :02:52.act. It was doubtful that I would be at conference, but here I am. My

:02:53. > :02:55.disability affects everything I do every day. I appreciate what this

:02:56. > :03:01.motion is trying to do. It's trying to help people like me, people who

:03:02. > :03:05.are young and disabled, women, ethnic minorities, LGBT, helping

:03:06. > :03:12.them to uplift them. But this motion does the exact opposite thing. At

:03:13. > :03:15.Spring Conference many of my friends spoke against introduction of

:03:16. > :03:21.all-women short lists. I'm using the same arguments they used then. I'm

:03:22. > :03:24.not your token woman. I'm not your token LGBT disabled woman. When I

:03:25. > :03:29.run for positions in this party, I don't want to get in simply because

:03:30. > :03:33.of who I am, or what my mental health or sexuality is. I want to be

:03:34. > :03:37.successful by myself not because of policies trying to help me. Before I

:03:38. > :03:42.joined the Lib Dems I was in the Labour Party, where quotas to

:03:43. > :03:45.increase diversity are common, but they didn't stop me feeling like a

:03:46. > :03:51.minority in my party. They didn't stop me being bullied and harassed

:03:52. > :03:54.out of the party. Quotas did nothing to protect minorities nor make them

:03:55. > :03:59.more respected. Instead you are given positions because of who we

:04:00. > :04:06.were. Trust me, it does not do good things for your self-esteem. Quotas

:04:07. > :04:11.haven't fixed environmental parties before, we need to fix the

:04:12. > :04:15.atmosphere instead. We need to call out sexism and misogyny when we see

:04:16. > :04:19.it, prejudice against ethnic minorities or disabled people. We

:04:20. > :04:24.have to talk about these issues within our party or fix then from

:04:25. > :04:28.within not gloss over them with superficial quotas designed to

:04:29. > :04:33.increase representation but do nothing to address the attitudes

:04:34. > :04:36.that cause the problem. I'm not your token woman nor token disabled

:04:37. > :04:40.woman. I want to get positions from my own merit not because of some

:04:41. > :04:48.policy. Conference, I urge you to vote against this motion. Thank you.

:04:49. > :04:54.Would Richard Gnansten please stand by. Not conference, you'll be aware

:04:55. > :04:59.of the additional quota that every debate at conference must feature at

:05:00. > :05:06.least one speaker from Calderdale, I now call square Noble to speak in

:05:07. > :05:12.favour of the motion. I promise you I will not ask for a count on this

:05:13. > :05:20.motion. I heard that Alastair. All right. OK. Thanks a lot. There's a

:05:21. > :05:25.very important part to this motion that many of you may have glazed

:05:26. > :05:31.over because it doesn't affect many of you. It doesn't even affect me.

:05:32. > :05:36.Though, this was in response to Jenny Rigg's brilliant speech in

:05:37. > :05:42.Glasgow two years ago about gender balance rules then. This time round,

:05:43. > :05:46.our gender balance rules exclusive accommodate for non-binary people.

:05:47. > :05:51.Moreover, if you are non-binary and you stand for committee elections

:05:52. > :05:58.you will automatically benefit from any gender balancing rules. This is

:05:59. > :06:07.really important for people, we need trans to -- to ensure that the

:06:08. > :06:11.people who represent us represent us and for those who are non-binary,

:06:12. > :06:18.that is doubly important. I cannot think of a single organisation,

:06:19. > :06:25.outside LGBT campaigning that cater for non-binary people so sclis

:06:26. > :06:32.Italy. If you need to -- explicitly. I will give you an example of quotas

:06:33. > :06:39.that don't do that. The NUS, not really the most popular people.

:06:40. > :06:45.There is only one trans person this academic year who is non-binary on

:06:46. > :06:50.the NUS, National Executive Committee, out of 25. That's why

:06:51. > :06:59.their campaign for a trans officer was so important. Otherwise there

:07:00. > :07:04.are more Tories than trans people on the NUS's nuck. If you know the NUS,

:07:05. > :07:12.there aren't that many Tories at all. Of course, a good old dose of

:07:13. > :07:16.transphobia in Labour didn't help either. The reck turn said we are

:07:17. > :07:24.all together, open, tolerant and united. And we need to be open for

:07:25. > :07:29.non-binary people. We need to be saying that to trans people would

:07:30. > :07:35.look at us and say, oh, you have a lot of good policies, yes, I wrote

:07:36. > :07:42.half of them. We need to be saying, we are open to you, because it's

:07:43. > :07:45.very important because we need to make sure that we look forward and

:07:46. > :07:52.we look after our own. Thank you very much, conference.

:07:53. > :07:56.Thank you, Sarah. Would Dr Chris pin Allard from bra stand by. I call to

:07:57. > :08:04.speak in favour of the motion, Richard Gansten. Not that you can

:08:05. > :08:14.tell from the spelling, it's Blakely. Yeah, sorry. Conference,

:08:15. > :08:23.I'm really here to speak the language that this is written with.

:08:24. > :08:27.It's perfectly fine for a well experienced returning officer as

:08:28. > :08:30.will be the one who conducts the federal committee elections, but I

:08:31. > :08:40.promise you, because I've seen it happen before, we'll very quickly

:08:41. > :08:44.see this language be adapted and adopted by specified associations,

:08:45. > :08:46.associated organisations by local parties, regional parties, state

:08:47. > :08:51.parties because everyone will just say oh, this is the standard

:08:52. > :08:54.diversity language, we'll write that into our constitution. Then a

:08:55. > :08:58.returning officer will have to implement it who is not as

:08:59. > :09:01.experienced or skilled. I speak from experience, when I was a good deal

:09:02. > :09:07.younger, trying to implement the previous version of these rules,

:09:08. > :09:13.which was a 33% quota for women, when I was a lot younger trying to

:09:14. > :09:16.do that in LDYS, as it was then was, and finding that the rules were not

:09:17. > :09:20.easy to understand or follow. This language is not easy to understand

:09:21. > :09:28.or follow. Can I please beg you, it will be a lot easier to understand

:09:29. > :09:36.if you said a maximum of 60% men, a maximum of 60% women, a maximum of

:09:37. > :09:39.90% straight people, a maximum of 90% non-disabled people and a

:09:40. > :09:48.maximum of 90% white people. We all know what it would mean then, it

:09:49. > :09:55.would be easy. Please. I now call to speak on the motion,

:09:56. > :09:59.Dr Chris pin Allard from Bristol. I'm here as an electoral systems

:10:00. > :10:04.geek, which is possibly an overrepresented group in the party.

:10:05. > :10:11.LAUGHTER Let me start by saying I fully

:10:12. > :10:16.support the objective of increased Diversity which is the intention of

:10:17. > :10:21.this motion. But I have a concern that setting the gender quotas at

:10:22. > :10:25.40%, when combined with the other quote was for under -- quotas for

:10:26. > :10:31.under represented groups, runs the risk of perverse results due to the

:10:32. > :10:35.effects of multiple overlapping constraints applied to an election

:10:36. > :10:39.conducted by a Single Transferable Vote. I do have experience as the

:10:40. > :10:45.previous speaker referred to. In such results, if they occurred,

:10:46. > :10:50.would undermine the case for quotas. I would like to ask if the Federal

:10:51. > :10:56.Executive has taken advice on the possible impact of this combination

:10:57. > :11:01.of quotas or even looked at possible scenarios, such as how previous

:11:02. > :11:06.voting patterns might have affected the results under these new rules,

:11:07. > :11:11.to understand what might happen and to see whether my concerns might be

:11:12. > :11:15.justified or not. Now I know the intention is to apply these quotas

:11:16. > :11:19.to the elections for federal committees which are coming up very

:11:20. > :11:22.shortly, later this year. That's why I'm not opposing the motion, because

:11:23. > :11:27.that would delay it a further two years. However, I would appreciate

:11:28. > :11:31.an assurance that the federal board will keep these quotas under review

:11:32. > :11:34.and will bring back revised proposals to conference if they give

:11:35. > :11:42.rise to any perverse results. Thank you.

:11:43. > :11:54.Thank you. Would Dr Ann Morrison stand by. Adrian is chair of LGBT

:11:55. > :12:00.Lib Dems. GAFCON frens. It's the second time this afternoon, doesn't

:12:01. > :12:06.happen very often. But I wanted to support this motion particularly as

:12:07. > :12:12.chair of LGBT plus over the past four-and-a-half years, we have

:12:13. > :12:18.really tried to ensure that non-gender, binary and trans people

:12:19. > :12:23.are in the party. As someone as a transgendered gay man I am trying to

:12:24. > :12:29.ensure that our parties are the most representative of all the LGBT plus

:12:30. > :12:34.descriptions we can possibly manage. I think what's really clear is that

:12:35. > :12:38.I've come on a journey. I was particularly against any short list

:12:39. > :12:46.of any type when I first joined the party in 2006. I was against quotas.

:12:47. > :12:49.I have come on the journey that says our party needs to do that because

:12:50. > :12:54.that is the only way we are going to be fully representative. Even though

:12:55. > :12:56.I am sure returning officers will have headaches over some of these

:12:57. > :13:00.percentages, which I don't even understand and I'm not going to try

:13:01. > :13:05.to explain them, I think it's something we must do. It's the only

:13:06. > :13:09.way of getting our committees looking like our party. I'm afraid

:13:10. > :13:14.for those who see this as meddling in the system, it isn't. It's making

:13:15. > :13:17.it fairer, better, open and tolerant for everyone and for everyone in our

:13:18. > :13:24.party. I completely support the motion. Thank you very much.

:13:25. > :13:28.Thank you, Adrian. Would Colin Rosensteel stand by. I call to speak

:13:29. > :13:36.in favour of the motion Dr Ann Morrison from south-west Birmingham.

:13:37. > :13:40.Hi everybody. I want to make a few points, so I'm going to be quite

:13:41. > :13:47.quick. I've been a political activist, a liberal for more than 50

:13:48. > :13:51.years. Now the people who object to quotas, particularly quotas for

:13:52. > :13:55.women, are often young members of the party and I sympathise. But when

:13:56. > :13:58.you've been waiting 50 years for change and it doesn't happen, let me

:13:59. > :14:07.tell you, as you age, you become more and more in favour of quotas.

:14:08. > :14:15.Secondly, there is no problem with a shortage of competent people in this

:14:16. > :14:20.party, be they gay, straight, binary, non-binary, utility, pink,

:14:21. > :14:26.green, yellow, spotted, I don't care. I have met so many competent

:14:27. > :14:32.who do not get located. It's not -- get elected. It's not competence and

:14:33. > :14:36.ability that's lacking, in some cases it's institutional prejudice

:14:37. > :14:41.in this party. Many of you may remember my friend Trevor Sword who

:14:42. > :14:45.used to come to conference with me, disabled, severely disabled and gay.

:14:46. > :14:51.We used to ask him, please be a single parent too.

:14:52. > :14:56.Because we're short of minorities in our party, but he was our

:14:57. > :15:01.Parliamentary candidate in north field Birmingham three times, an

:15:02. > :15:04.excellent candidate. Lynn Featherston was chair of his

:15:05. > :15:11.approval panel and said he was one of the best candidates she'd ever

:15:12. > :15:18.approved. Shortly afterwards, in an unguarded moment, forgetting who I

:15:19. > :15:21.was, the chair at that time of the Parliamentary candidates

:15:22. > :15:34.association, in this party said to me, "How did that get selected? "

:15:35. > :15:40.I am not naming him, he goes white every time he sees me. I will quote

:15:41. > :15:50.from a hero of mine, Martin Luther King. Have read regrettable

:15:51. > :15:54.conclusion that the he goes greatest stumbling block in sight of freedom

:15:55. > :15:59.is the white moderate. Do I have reached. The person who is more

:16:00. > :16:04.devoted to order than justice. Who prefers a negative piece to a

:16:05. > :16:08.positive piece which is the presence of justice. Who constantly says, I

:16:09. > :16:15.agree with you in your goal, but I can't agree with your methods. Who

:16:16. > :16:20.feels they can set a timetable for someone else's freedom. Who wants

:16:21. > :16:30.you to wait for a more convenient time. It is over time. I've been

:16:31. > :16:33.waiting 50 years! APPLAUSE. And I am fed up of people saying the Liberal

:16:34. > :16:37.Democrats are not relevant because you are full of white men. We are

:16:38. > :16:41.full of able people, let's just get on with it and start looking like

:16:42. > :16:47.the people we want to represent and help because if we do not, they will

:16:48. > :16:52.not elect us and we can't help them! APPLAUSE.

:16:53. > :16:57.Thank you. Which Katy Gordon from Glasgow sells stand-by? Against the

:16:58. > :17:05.motion, Colin Rosenthal from Cambridge. I stand before you as the

:17:06. > :17:09.person who had to devise as part of the electoral reform Society's

:17:10. > :17:15.experts the system we used until the 2010 equality act which barred the

:17:16. > :17:21.previous system of quotas we had in this party. The system we used was

:17:22. > :17:26.devised from scratch in 1998 and I think is a model of a way to combine

:17:27. > :17:32.the power of the single transferable vote for the electors to choose who

:17:33. > :17:37.represents them, and we are only talking here, unlike the previous

:17:38. > :17:40.speaker, of elections by party members of committee members so

:17:41. > :17:45.let's concentrate on that, please. We did that in a way which ensured

:17:46. > :17:53.that there were enough in that case just women as well as to the maximum

:17:54. > :17:55.extent possible to the wishes of the people voting were fully

:17:56. > :18:00.implemented. For most of the time we had those rules in place, they were

:18:01. > :18:04.not required to be implemented because the voters agreed with the

:18:05. > :18:10.rules and voted accordingly. And that is exactly the point. Because

:18:11. > :18:14.that rule ensured that not only was there a guaranteed one third,

:18:15. > :18:19.proposed 40% now, of women and men on committees, but voters also had

:18:20. > :18:25.to be given a choice. This rule being put before you, if there are

:18:26. > :18:31.not more than four men standing for the SEC, they will all get a free

:18:32. > :18:37.ride on to the committee. Because the quota of 40% of 12 is four and

:18:38. > :18:42.if there are only four candidates in the example I gave as men, they will

:18:43. > :18:46.be elected automatically. That is two things, it gives people a free

:18:47. > :18:49.ride on the committees and it undermines the proportionality of

:18:50. > :18:53.the whole election which is to try and ensure that any opinion across

:18:54. > :19:01.the motion of this party in relation to the candidates of that committee,

:19:02. > :19:06.that there is 1/12, or 1/13 Strictly of the views of the electorate which

:19:07. > :19:11.has a representative on that committee. Male, female, equality,

:19:12. > :19:14.whatever. As soon as you give a block of 40% a free ride on toy

:19:15. > :19:19.committee, you undermine that proportion. That will only leave

:19:20. > :19:24.eight places proportional to the views of the whole party. This is a

:19:25. > :19:29.great idea. I am totally in favour of trying to make this party more

:19:30. > :19:32.like the country as a whole, I am obviously male and obviously white

:19:33. > :19:36.and also from an ethnic minority and if you cannot work out which one,

:19:37. > :19:41.that is your problem. The rules we have to do this must be fair. If we

:19:42. > :19:45.want to say we are collecting committees, that means the voters

:19:46. > :19:50.must have choice. I am afraid that means this amendment is not capable

:19:51. > :19:57.of doing the task it is trying to perform, sorry.

:19:58. > :20:01.Thank you. Chris Wright from St Albans, please stand by. Now in

:20:02. > :20:04.favour of the motion does the motion, Katy Gordon from Glasgow

:20:05. > :20:09.South. I will talk about my experience of

:20:10. > :20:12.the last five years, I was until this year the convener of Scottish

:20:13. > :20:17.Liberal Democrat women and campaigns and candidates in Scotland and I was

:20:18. > :20:23.the vice convener of the party. We do things in a smaller group in

:20:24. > :20:28.Scotland! During that time, about four years ago, I put to the

:20:29. > :20:33.Scottish Executive proposals to increase diversity and that included

:20:34. > :20:40.on committees, particularly on committees. We wanted a duty on

:20:41. > :20:44.party conveners to consider diversity any time they had a

:20:45. > :20:48.vacancy. We did not have quotas at that time and we do not now and it

:20:49. > :20:52.would have been a lot easier if we had. I think the important thing is

:20:53. > :20:56.if you do not have underrepresented groups in the room, they do not get

:20:57. > :21:03.involved in the debate and they often get forgotten about. In my

:21:04. > :21:07.experience, we had over the last four years a very, very gradual way

:21:08. > :21:11.of people understanding how important it was to have more

:21:12. > :21:15.diversity on the committees. Because every time there was a vacancy, we

:21:16. > :21:21.would talk in the Executive and initially it was fairly dismissed

:21:22. > :21:25.even by the convener we had at the time in the Scottish party. It was

:21:26. > :21:29.like, for goodness sake, going on about that again? Having to insist

:21:30. > :21:34.all the time that we agreed to this and we have a duty to consider it,

:21:35. > :21:38.it took a lot of persuasion and encouragement and reminders. And

:21:39. > :21:42.actually, not just me but a number, a small number of women in the room

:21:43. > :21:47.on the Scottish Executive could sometimes feel incredibly undermined

:21:48. > :21:51.and belittled. I am a fairly strong person and that will not prevent me

:21:52. > :21:56.doing anything. I did not need quotas to get into these positions

:21:57. > :21:59.and I am not saying it has to be on merit, it is about saying you need

:22:00. > :22:09.people in the room. We need this extra boost. We then also introduced

:22:10. > :22:14.every year and annual reports the conference specifying what the

:22:15. > :22:16.percentage of women and ethnic minorities and those with

:22:17. > :22:21.disabilities on each committee work and it highlighted to the whole

:22:22. > :22:29.party howl and diverse we were and that helped boost the drive for

:22:30. > :22:33.diversity. It is going to give others a really big boost. If you

:22:34. > :22:37.are not happy with it, in a couple of years, let's see if it works, for

:22:38. > :22:41.goodness sake. But you do need people in the room, we need to do

:22:42. > :22:45.something radical, we have done it for candidates and it is important

:22:46. > :22:49.we do it within our own structures. So please, we need a two thirds

:22:50. > :22:54.majority to pass this so please can I urge you to support the motion as

:22:55. > :23:00.a whole today? Thank you. APPLAUSE. Thank you, Katy. We will

:23:01. > :23:06.move to the vote after the next speaker so get your voting cards

:23:07. > :23:10.ready. In summary of dosh on behalf of the Federal Executive, Chris

:23:11. > :23:15.White, from St Albans. I was at a Federal Executive all-day meeting

:23:16. > :23:18.and I do what we all do at those meetings and I lose concentration

:23:19. > :23:23.for a moment, photographed the meeting and put it on Facebook to

:23:24. > :23:30.impress my mum possibly where she on Facebook! It was pointed out however

:23:31. > :23:34.that the photograph showed virtually only men at the Federal Executive

:23:35. > :23:40.meeting. Partly the camera angle. More troublingly, I have not noted

:23:41. > :23:43.that when I posted it and that is the problem for people like me, the

:23:44. > :23:47.white men who have been running this party and who now say we think other

:23:48. > :23:54.people should run it as well. APPLAUSE. Like Josh, I have been on

:23:55. > :23:59.a journey, this nonsense of quotas, and voted against it like everybody

:24:00. > :24:04.else in the past. I have not waited 50 years because I am not a patient

:24:05. > :24:09.man. Many people will attest to that. The idea that it is going to

:24:10. > :24:16.get better in Time isn't persuasive. What I did find persuasive is the

:24:17. > :24:21.quotation from Martin Luther King. We are in danger if we oppose this

:24:22. > :24:25.being more devoted to order them justice. And that is not a Liberal

:24:26. > :24:31.way forward. APPLAUSE.

:24:32. > :24:37.Now, Sofia, thank you for expressing your concerns. We have all felt

:24:38. > :24:42.these. Nobody is suggesting it will be tokenism. We want to make sure

:24:43. > :24:47.talented people get elected. Believe you me, I have sat on federal

:24:48. > :24:53.committees, local executives, and some people are not as talented as I

:24:54. > :24:55.would like! So we need people like Sofia to be talented and be

:24:56. > :25:01.confident that they will have a chance because given the chance, and

:25:02. > :25:06.I have an anecdote I will not say in public about local selections, our

:25:07. > :25:11.members still choose a man in a suit rather than a younger woman. For

:25:12. > :25:15.instance. Richard worries about how returning officers will cope.

:25:16. > :25:21.Compliance will help with that sort of thing. We probably need a rule

:25:22. > :25:25.book to go alongside the actual rules we have created. Running

:25:26. > :25:29.elections is not simply a question of saying, these are the rules,

:25:30. > :25:33.apply them. It has to be painting by numbers. Anybody who has run a count

:25:34. > :25:38.knows it is more complicated than just writing numbers as the

:25:39. > :25:43.returning officer. Particularly the candidate who withdraws partway

:25:44. > :25:47.through, but that is my story! Chris asked whether there has been any

:25:48. > :25:53.advice about how the quotas locked together and previous results. Yes,

:25:54. > :25:56.there has, the Executive and its officers looked at this very

:25:57. > :26:00.carefully because nothing is as persuasive as looking at what would

:26:01. > :26:05.have happened in previous elections. This will work. Colin, yes, the 2010

:26:06. > :26:10.equality act. Under the previous rules, there was a trigger and there

:26:11. > :26:15.will not be under these rules. The point is we have talked to the THR

:26:16. > :26:21.see about this, we have taken advice, and I would say finally the

:26:22. > :26:25.idea that there will be a free ride in the already heavily contested

:26:26. > :26:30.federal elections for anybody is frankly fanciful. And if I find

:26:31. > :26:33.there are only four men standing for the federal conference committee,

:26:34. > :26:37.Duncan, I will stand against you in order to make sure there is a

:26:38. > :26:42.contest, that is my pledge to you today. Thank you very much, please

:26:43. > :26:48.support these changes. APPLAUSE. Thank you, Chris, I am not

:26:49. > :26:50.even on a federal conference committee!

:26:51. > :26:55.We will now move to the votes, thank you to everybody who has spoken. It

:26:56. > :27:00.is a straightforward vote on the item, this requires a two thirds

:27:01. > :27:06.majority. Soap when you hold up your voting cards, hold it up with the

:27:07. > :27:13.word voting and can I now see all those in favour of item F34? Thank

:27:14. > :27:19.you. And all those against F34. That is very clearly a two thirds

:27:20. > :27:22.majority, the motion is passed. I would apologise to those we did not

:27:23. > :27:28.have time to call, but we called everybody who had a card and so

:27:29. > :27:32.thank you to my helpers. Thank you to you, conference. This concludes

:27:33. > :27:33.conference, we start again at nine o'clock tomorrow morning, have a

:27:34. > :28:36.good evening. Good morning, conference. Welcome to

:28:37. > :28:41.the emergency motion for today, which is the one on nuclear power at

:28:42. > :28:48.Hinkley Point. If you haven't seen the text, you can get it from the

:28:49. > :28:54.stewards. There is no amendment to this, we don't take amendments on

:28:55. > :28:58.emergency motions. Tomorrow morning at nine o'clock, we will be doing

:28:59. > :29:05.the emergency motion on local communities welcoming refugees. You

:29:06. > :29:13.will find the motion, as I said, on page five, and also Conference Extra

:29:14. > :29:20.on page 22. So I am going to call Martin Hall, who is moving the

:29:21. > :29:27.motion. And Woody Gideon Amos please stand by? Good morning, conference.

:29:28. > :29:33.Good morning, conference. Good morning. Feeling nostalgic for the

:29:34. > :29:37.coalition yet? Go on, you are! Never mind equal marriage and tax cuts, on

:29:38. > :29:41.energy and the environment, we achieved the biggest carbon

:29:42. > :29:43.reduction ever and launched the first Green Investment Bank unlocked

:29:44. > :29:48.investment in low carbon energy through the energy act, created

:29:49. > :29:49.200,000 green jobs and planted 1 million trees and more than doubled

:29:50. > :30:00.renewable energy in the UK. They sent powerful signals to

:30:01. > :30:04.investors that took us to the top ten places in the world to invest in

:30:05. > :30:09.renewables. We promised, we delivered and we should be proud of

:30:10. > :30:13.our green record. On nuclear, both Liberal Democrat and coalition

:30:14. > :30:19.policy was garted. The -- guarded. The deal was nuclear could be part

:30:20. > :30:24.of low carbon mix, but only alongside investment, energy

:30:25. > :30:27.efficiency and storage and crucially, without public subsidy.

:30:28. > :30:30.What has happened since the Tories took power on their own has been

:30:31. > :30:34.heart breaking for Liberal Democrats, bad for the environment

:30:35. > :30:38.and potentially disastrous for Energy Bill pairs. They've ditched

:30:39. > :30:42.the Green Deal without replacing it, cut solar subsidies early and

:30:43. > :30:47.encouraged local opposition to windfarms while stamping on local

:30:48. > :30:50.opposition to fracking. Just the kind of policy inconsistency,

:30:51. > :30:55.contradictory approach, mixed messages a recent Select Committee

:30:56. > :30:58.report said had damaged investor confidence and taken us out of the

:30:59. > :31:02.top ten places in the world to invest in renewables. In the last

:31:03. > :31:06.ten days, the same Select Committee says we're now on course to miss our

:31:07. > :31:10.renewable energy target. That's half the deal on nuclear broken that we

:31:11. > :31:15.backed renewables too. What about the other half the deal? No public

:31:16. > :31:19.subsidy for nuclear? There's mounting evidence things are going

:31:20. > :31:26.wrong. National Audit Office report earlier this year spelled out the

:31:27. > :31:31.bill for British bill pairs just for Hinckley C, ?6 million in 2013,

:31:32. > :31:34.nearly 30 billion projected now. The problem is the contract for

:31:35. > :31:37.difference, a guaranteed energy price designed to help the new,

:31:38. > :31:42.innovative and competitive renewable ind Troy viability and lower prices

:31:43. > :31:46.and renewable costs have fallen, faster than anyone imagined and

:31:47. > :31:51.there's more innovation coming in wind, solar, geothermal, wave,

:31:52. > :31:56.Bayeux gas, ocean, thermal conversion, tidal flow turbines and

:31:57. > :31:58.more. Because their contracts for difference are shorter, bill payers

:31:59. > :32:06.will benefit from the falling costs in time. The contract for Hinckley

:32:07. > :32:09.by contrast, was awarded to electricity de France on a

:32:10. > :32:13.staggering 35-year time scale. We're going to be paying this state-owned

:32:14. > :32:16.French energy company and its state owned Chinese partner for a

:32:17. > :32:20.generation. The final bill could reach ?40 billion. It will burden

:32:21. > :32:24.our children and grandchildren with higher Energy Bills for decades,

:32:25. > :32:29.quite possibly tipping some into fuel poverty. You see the nuclear

:32:30. > :32:33.industry is not new, innovative or competitive. In 60 years there has

:32:34. > :32:37.never been a single Nuclear Power Station built anywhere in the world

:32:38. > :32:43.on time, on budget and without public subsidy. And the Hinckley C

:32:44. > :32:48.model of an EPR reactor hasn't been built at all. France and Finland in

:32:49. > :32:51.progress, are billions over budget and years behind schedule. The

:32:52. > :32:56.contract for difference wasn't enough for EDF. Astonishingly the

:32:57. > :33:00.Tories have obliged them. In a foot note to a statement last October,

:33:01. > :33:05.they officially dropped the coalition's pledge to no public

:33:06. > :33:10.subsidy. Just the previous day, energy ministers Andrea Ledsom,

:33:11. > :33:14.remember her? She said it wasifiedal energy companies stood on their own

:33:15. > :33:19.two feet. She was justifying cutting renewable subsidies. For Hinckley,

:33:20. > :33:23.the cheque book was open. George Osborne announced a Government loan

:33:24. > :33:28.guarantee estimated at ?2 billion now but likely to rise. The Hinckley

:33:29. > :33:31.deal already included a funded decommissioning deal that promised

:33:32. > :33:36.future taxpayers would foot the bill if the cost of closing it down and

:33:37. > :33:44.cleaning it up overran as well. George Osborne will be history by

:33:45. > :33:47.then. The recent report says energy efficiency and storage and

:33:48. > :33:52.interconnection with other countries would save the UK ?1 billion a year

:33:53. > :33:56.while keeping the light on and meeting climate targets. Four new

:33:57. > :34:01.large windfarms would bring us much electricity into the grid as

:34:02. > :34:07.Hinckley. Conference, as the motion says, Hinckley C is a bad deal. We

:34:08. > :34:11.need a UK energy policy based on energy efficiency, renewable energy,

:34:12. > :34:14.storage and interconnection. Please live up to that proud, green record

:34:15. > :34:24.in Government and support this motion. Thank you very much.

:34:25. > :34:29.APPLAUSE Thank you. Martin is hoping and we

:34:30. > :34:37.all hope he will regain that seat for us. Could counsellor Jayne Lock

:34:38. > :34:43.stand by. I call Gideon Amos. Conference, this time last year, I

:34:44. > :34:49.stood before you as a former member of the now shamefully abandoned UK's

:34:50. > :34:53.zero carbon homes taskforce. I'm here this year because I want to

:34:54. > :34:59.talk to you about carbon reduction and how one of our most important

:35:00. > :35:02.carbon reduction proinjects in this country, Hinckley, cannot be

:35:03. > :35:08.completely opposed and attempted to be stopped by Liberal Democrats. My

:35:09. > :35:12.suggestion to you is today in this short, half hour, emergency motion

:35:13. > :35:17.debate is not the way to change our long standing policy that this party

:35:18. > :35:22.has debated at great length. For many of us, for many

:35:23. > :35:27.environmentalists like James Lovelock, for our party, we have

:35:28. > :35:33.come to recognise the importance of nuclear in our energy mix, as a way

:35:34. > :35:39.first and foremost of achieving the low carbon road that we have to go

:35:40. > :35:43.down, achieving the 80% reduction in emissions by 2050. That is a target

:35:44. > :35:46.that is apparently being abandoned by the Conservatives. It is not a

:35:47. > :35:53.target that this party should be willing to abandon. It's essential

:35:54. > :35:57.not just for our carbon emissions targets and vierltal targets, this

:35:58. > :36:00.is essential for the communities around the world who will suffer

:36:01. > :36:04.most from carbon emissions and climate change and they are, of

:36:05. > :36:09.course, the poorest countries, the countries like Bangladesh and other

:36:10. > :36:13.countries which will suffer most if we fail to achieve global carbon

:36:14. > :36:19.emissions reductions targets. I welcome the opportunity to debate

:36:20. > :36:23.this and am grateful to the local party for bringing this motion

:36:24. > :36:31.forward and much of what it has to say is valuable. But to simply

:36:32. > :36:35.oppose the Hinckley project as is stated in lines 24 to 26, I would

:36:36. > :36:39.suggest a separate vote should be taken on those if possible, is not a

:36:40. > :36:45.realistic policy to be made on the basis of the evidence. It is not

:36:46. > :36:49.correct to say that the project is entirely dependent on public

:36:50. > :36:54.subsidy. It has a huge amount of private investment. It is not the

:36:55. > :36:58.case to say, it's not true to say it's unconstructible. There are two

:36:59. > :37:04.in China nearing completion at the moment. I could go on. But the most

:37:05. > :37:09.important point for me is that we need a transformation in our energy

:37:10. > :37:13.provision in this country. We need to see a transformation which was

:37:14. > :37:18.indeed led by Ed Davey, our brilliant Secretary of State, who

:37:19. > :37:21.tripled renewable energy in this country, who brought about the

:37:22. > :37:26.beginning of the kans formation we need to see, more renewables, more

:37:27. > :37:30.low carbon energy and backed up by base load that nuclear, clean, safe

:37:31. > :37:35.nuclear power can provide. The one irony of this motion, if it was

:37:36. > :37:38.passed, we would end up as a party more antagonistic to the peaceful

:37:39. > :37:42.use of nuclear power than we would be to the use of nuclear weapons.

:37:43. > :37:48.Let us get our priorities right, conference, and let us back the

:37:49. > :37:50.low-carbon agenda, by all means we must criticise the policies coming

:37:51. > :37:57.out of the Government and the way they've been handled. But complete

:37:58. > :38:00.opposition to this policy, project, instead of an agenda about

:38:01. > :38:04.transforming our energy mix and basing that on a zero, low carbon

:38:05. > :38:09.energy supply is the route we have to go down. Thank you.

:38:10. > :38:15.APPLAUSE Thank you. Our PPC for Taunton Dean.

:38:16. > :38:19.I should just point out we can't take a request for a separate vote

:38:20. > :38:26.at this stage, I'm afraid they have to be submitted in writing the day

:38:27. > :38:33.before, sorry about that. Could I ask John Shoe smith to stand by. I

:38:34. > :38:44.now call counsellor Jayne Lock, the leader of Somerset County Council.

:38:45. > :38:50.Good morning conference. Slight correction to that, you're

:38:51. > :38:54.pre-empting it by a few months. I will be leader of Somerset County

:38:55. > :39:01.Council next May. APPLAUSE

:39:02. > :39:06.I was first elected as a Liberal Democrat counsellor in 1987 and in

:39:07. > :39:10.that election we were fighting the development of Hinckley C. As the

:39:11. > :39:14.Liberal Democrats we were successful then. I'm now leader of the Liberal

:39:15. > :39:19.Democrat group in opposition on Somerset County Council and here we

:39:20. > :39:24.are 30 years later, building a Nuclear Power Station, using the

:39:25. > :39:28.same technology as then. That is why I am supporting the motion to

:39:29. > :39:33.conference to oppose the construction of Hinckley C. The

:39:34. > :39:39.construction of similar power stations in France and Finland are

:39:40. > :39:43.years behind schedule and substantially over budget and

:39:44. > :39:48.clearly, are not working. On the very reasonable assumption that

:39:49. > :39:52.these issues will apply to the proposed Hinckley Point power

:39:53. > :39:56.station, it seems un-Lukely it -- unlikely it will be operational

:39:57. > :40:02.until at least 2030 and cost far more than the current budget, the

:40:03. > :40:07.estimated final cost is 25 billion, the cost of the Severn Barrage less

:40:08. > :40:11.tan 20 billion. Hence Hinckley C will not contribute to solving the

:40:12. > :40:16.need for base load electricity generation in the 2020s and any

:40:17. > :40:20.electricity it generates will be far more expensive than solar and wind

:40:21. > :40:24.generation when it becomes operational. By 2030, smart

:40:25. > :40:28.management of electricity supply and demand will enable a far higher

:40:29. > :40:31.contribution of intermittent renewables to be relied upon than at

:40:32. > :40:37.present. The power plant will be out of date before it is ever turned on.

:40:38. > :40:43.Another consideration is that of the safety of this plant, one of the

:40:44. > :40:47.last tsunamis to hit the UK was in Bridgwater bay, the very site of

:40:48. > :40:51.Hinckley. A daily newspaper reported only yesterday that another tsunami

:40:52. > :40:56.of this scale could hit in the next few years. I think it depends on

:40:57. > :41:01.part of one of the Canary Islands dropping off, but hey. When Somerset

:41:02. > :41:04.County Council was asked about their preparations for a tsunami, the

:41:05. > :41:07.council informed me there were a number of places where effective

:41:08. > :41:12.barriers have been constructed. One of the examples given to me was the

:41:13. > :41:17.nuclear power plant at Fukushima in Japan. Clearly, no local authority

:41:18. > :41:22.nor central government can know how big the next tsunami will be. My

:41:23. > :41:27.experience working in close quarters with the Tories is that they are

:41:28. > :41:30.completely unprepared for the impact of this project as always, they know

:41:31. > :41:35.the cost of everything and the value of nothing. Finally, we must

:41:36. > :41:39.question how many of the 25,000 jobs will be filled by the local

:41:40. > :41:43.workforce. Somerset does not have the people now and with our

:41:44. > :41:47.impending exit from the European Union, where will these skilled

:41:48. > :41:52.workers come from? Too many unanswered and unconsidered

:41:53. > :41:55.questions about this project, we cannot allow it to be the next white

:41:56. > :42:01.elephant in the UK. But let me make it clear - when we do retake control

:42:02. > :42:06.in Somerset in May '17, we will work with the decision taken by

:42:07. > :42:13.Government and in the best interests of the people for Somerset, because

:42:14. > :42:18.we have to. Thank you. APPLAUSE

:42:19. > :42:23.Thank you, Jayne. As corrected our Group Leader of Somerset County

:42:24. > :42:33.Council. Could I ask Becky Forest to please stand by. I call John

:42:34. > :42:39.Shoesmith from mid-Derbyshire. Good morning. I'd like to explain in the

:42:40. > :42:45.next three minutes why Hinckley Point is essential to your future

:42:46. > :42:47.and essential moreover to your children's future, more importantly

:42:48. > :42:54.I should say to your children's future. It is. I'd like to start off

:42:55. > :42:59.by looking at energy. Our current energy use is perhaps there. Over

:43:00. > :43:04.the next 30 years we face a desperate struggle to bring down

:43:05. > :43:08.that level of energy use by insulating all our buildings, by

:43:09. > :43:12.electrifying those things that are currently operated by fossil fuel.

:43:13. > :43:16.That is a huge task, not cheap. Over here I'd like it talk about energy

:43:17. > :43:19.supply. The current level of renewable energy supply is way below

:43:20. > :43:24.that. Over the next 30 years, we need to put in a desperate effort to

:43:25. > :43:28.bring up that level of renewable energy supply to try to match the

:43:29. > :43:33.level of demand. There have been lots of studies done of that over

:43:34. > :43:38.the past few years and mostly, they end up with a bit of a gap to fill

:43:39. > :43:43.and the crucial political issue for us to address is how that gap is

:43:44. > :43:48.filled. There are two ways to do it. The first, is to bring down the

:43:49. > :43:55.level of demand by asking people to make lifestyle changes, to cycle, to

:43:56. > :44:00.walk, to turn down their home heating, to eat less meat. Those are

:44:01. > :44:04.fine, a few people do them. I do them myself. But asking the whole

:44:05. > :44:10.country to do them is virtually impossible in a democracy. The other

:44:11. > :44:16.way to fill that gap is by the use of nuclear power. Even if we put

:44:17. > :44:21.renewables everywhere we sensibly can, there's still a gap for nuclear

:44:22. > :44:27.power to be filled and nuclear power is the only sensible way to do it.

:44:28. > :44:34.So when you look at Hinckley, consider this: If you kill that

:44:35. > :44:38.project, then your children have little option, have a very difficult

:44:39. > :44:46.task to do to bring our energy into balance and to reduce ourselves to a

:44:47. > :44:49.zero carbon state. If we fail to do that, by 2050, they'll know they've

:44:50. > :44:53.missed it and they will face runaway climate change. That is an awful

:44:54. > :45:00.prospect. I urge you, in considering how to vote on this, to reject it,

:45:01. > :45:05.because Hinckley Point, once it's gone, will be very difficult to

:45:06. > :45:10.bring back. We'll' face virtually certainly a no nuclear future and

:45:11. > :45:12.that is very, very difficult thing to live with. I urge you again,

:45:13. > :45:28.please reject this motion. Thanks. Thank you, John shoesmith from

:45:29. > :45:35.adoption. Could I ask David to stand by? I call Becky Forrest from

:45:36. > :45:40.Bolton. Good morning, conference and thank you for the opportunity to

:45:41. > :45:47.speak. I only joined the party on June 25 so this is my first time

:45:48. > :45:53.speaking at conference. . I speak to you today having expected to oppose

:45:54. > :45:58.this motion. I am in favour of an interim use of nuclear power until

:45:59. > :46:00.such time as we can develop affordable and economically viable

:46:01. > :46:08.renewable energy that everybody can access. Until Theresa May put it on

:46:09. > :46:12.hold, I had not paid much attention to Hinkley Point C so the first

:46:13. > :46:17.isolation of the new Prime Minister, read a couple of articles around it

:46:18. > :46:22.to -- the first decision. As I understood it, there would be no

:46:23. > :46:26.government or taxpayer subsidies, it was funded by foreign private

:46:27. > :46:31.investment and my first instinct was to wonder why she was jeopardising a

:46:32. > :46:34.project that provided vital infrastructure at potentially no

:46:35. > :46:39.public cost. Based on this, I was ready to oppose the motion. However,

:46:40. > :46:44.as a teacher and a science teacher, I like evidence and experts. So I

:46:45. > :46:49.looked into the matter further. I was astonished that in real terms in

:46:50. > :46:54.the contract, consumers and taxpayers would effectively end up

:46:55. > :46:58.funding this project. The fixed wholesale energy costs negotiated

:46:59. > :47:04.and guaranteed by the Tory government is much more than today's

:47:05. > :47:07.market price. This means that if Hinkley Point C does not get that

:47:08. > :47:13.price from its consumers, the tax payer will up the difference. Worse

:47:14. > :47:17.still, that price is fixed for 35 years of energy provision. In

:47:18. > :47:20.retrospect, I believe Theresa May was right to review Hinkley C but in

:47:21. > :47:24.failing to take a brave decision to now withdraw from that contract, she

:47:25. > :47:32.is once again playing an active part in a Tory government which is once

:47:33. > :47:35.again letting the public down. In my naivete, I believed Hinkley C was

:47:36. > :47:39.subsidy free in such a funding arrangement would allow us to

:47:40. > :47:43.benefit from the supply of electricity without the related

:47:44. > :47:46.expense of the infrastructure. However, this is clearly not true.

:47:47. > :47:50.We will gain the expense without any of the control and as such, I ask

:47:51. > :47:58.you to support this motion that Hinkley C be opposed in its current

:47:59. > :48:07.form. Thank you. APPLAUSE. Thank you, Becky. Could I ask Fiona

:48:08. > :48:10.Hall to stand by? The last three speakers have all been first-time

:48:11. > :48:16.speakers at conference. I can assure you the next not.

:48:17. > :48:21.So I call Ed Davey. I spent nearly three years of my life looking at

:48:22. > :48:25.this deal. But I promise you if you vote for this motion, and will not

:48:26. > :48:30.take it personally. I want to convince you to vote against this

:48:31. > :48:36.motion. The motion and many speakers and commentators said the price of

:48:37. > :48:40.Hinkley Point C is very expensive and will involve public subsidy.

:48:41. > :48:43.Having looked at many more models of future prices linked to this

:48:44. > :48:47.decision, more than I think the National Audit Office did, I am

:48:48. > :48:52.always astonished people can assert with such certainty that they know

:48:53. > :48:56.it is very expensive or good value for money. Why? Because to know

:48:57. > :49:05.that, you have to know the price of electricity between 2025 and 2060.

:49:06. > :49:08.If you know that, you really clever. Because guessing the price of

:49:09. > :49:16.electricity next year is a mock's game. You also have the Nobel Prize

:49:17. > :49:25.of carbon between 2025 and 2060. Carbon markets are not working very

:49:26. > :49:30.well unfortunately -- you have to know the price. This is the problem,

:49:31. > :49:35.uncertainty, we do not know the future prices, technology, but we

:49:36. > :49:40.have to make decisions about things that have to be tackled. Climate

:49:41. > :49:44.change. I am sure climate change is happening and we have to take

:49:45. > :49:46.measures to do that and Hinkley Point C does that.