19/09/2016 - Live Afternoon Session Liberal Democrats Conference

New technology baffles old chair. Good afternoon everybody. I'm your

chair this afternoon. Paul is my aide. In the hall is Jenny Lang to

help out the debate. We will try to get through this as quickly as we

can. There is a separate vote later on lines 16 and part 17, taking

those out and Steve Walter will tell you why in due course. Without more

ado, can I ask Lynn Fatherstone to move the motion and David Grace to

stand by. Thank you, James. Good afternoon,

conference. I would say close your eyes, but you might go to sleep. I

want you to imagine, as the ordinary citizen leaves his or her home in

the morning, the commute to work has changed radically. In large urban

centres, there are car pools of electric cars that anyone can rent

and rentals and clubs and shared ownership schemes have proliferated.

Occasionally, people still own cars, but they use them far less and all

cars are electric. The buses, the tubes, trains are no longer the

cattle trucks of yesteryear, as people share time slots in order to

share familial roles with many couples and non-couples sharing the

working day - I wish - and with the completion of HS2 and cross-rail,

the heavy loadings have all but disappeared. The third runway at

Heathrow never did get built. And a national obesity - anti-obesity

campaign got everyone to get off their bus stop early and walk. Cycle

lanes are part of every major route. Houses are carbon neutral. Gas fired

central heating and cooking now comes mostly from greening gas.

Renewable energy is the standard form of energy generation, solar,

wind, geothermal, tidal, hydrodominate the market. Prices

have plummeted over the last two decades. Hinckley Point sadly did

get built with vast public subsidy, thank you for this morning, by the

way and came in at six times the original price, but thankfully it

was to be the last of its kind, because before the construction was

completed nuclear had already been overtaken by massive changes in the

energy market. Urgent and huge uplift in the provision of

interconnectors took place in 2017/18. Fracking, guess what,

turned out to be a disastrous waste of time. The big companies abandoned

their efforts as the geology proved too complicated and too costly, not

to mention the years thankfully tied newspaper local objections. Local

people finally gained local control of the supply and delivery of their

own energy. Moreover, each household has its own battery storage and

charging facility. It's been years since any carbon escaped in the

atmosphere, as the technology of the 2020s saw capture and storage reach

maturity. And the growth in renewables created an economic boom

of such huge proportions and we lead the world in the supply of renewable

PV and off-shore wind and our expertise is sought worldwide, that

lass bit is true by the way. -- last bit is true by the way. We are going

to match our Paris agreement climate change agreement. It was ratified in

the Autumn of 2016 by the new May Government at their Conservative

Conference. Theresa I hope you're listening. And I am the Christmas

fairy. LAUGHTER

Back in the real world, sadly we do have a Tory Government who are so

committed to combatting climate change that they strap the

department of energy and climate change. And that is how Government

signal what their priorities are. And this Conservative Government

pulled the rug from growing green industries, it moved the goal posts

by suddenly and untimely withdrawal of support for many forms of

renewable energy. The planned privatisation of the Green

Investment Bank, they dropped their manifesto pledge to investors in the

car ban capture and storage programme by axing the 1 billion

proposed for R We can't get to zero carbon without capture and

storage. Add to that the huge uncertainty created by Brexit, then

this Government really needs to act fast and answer urgently many

questions to mitigate that uncertainty and to make it charrion

clear to the world that we are open for green business and completely

submitted to decarbonisation. Britain's future needs to be

entrepreneurial, internationally open, environmentally sustainable

and where the benefits this afternoon growth are shared fairly

across the country and with future generations. Our membership of the

EU guaranteed our commitments to climate change. It was a safeguard

against this Government, any Government, that appeared to be

undermining our ability to deliver on our legally binding targets.

Outside the EU, what is our guarantor? Let's show that we are

world leaders on action on climate change. We must improve the

efficiency of resource use and decarbonise our economy. That will

help create high skills, high value added industries able to compete in

global markets for low carbon and resource efficient products,

technologies, services and create jobs throughout the country. There

is a huge, huge opportunity out there and we need a new, green,

industrial strategy targeting technologies that underpin emerging

green industries. Let us establish a clear and consistent commitment to

policies that create long-term demand for low carbon transport and

energy efficiency and thus giving the investors the confidence they

need. The Government must strengthen support for green innovation and

encourage the creation of green financial products to bring consumer

capital into green industries. The green agenda is worth absolutely

trillions in the decades to come. George Osborne never believed in the

green economic miracle that is on offer. Let's just hope that Theresa

May has more sense. We need a new economic policy. If we are to be, we

Liberal Democrats, I should say, need a new economic policy, if we

are to be relevant as a force in politics. This is vital to the

Liberal Democrats story. This is vital to our narrative. The low

carbon economy needs to be right at the core of that policy. Conference,

support the motion. Thank you. APPLAUSE

Thank you for that vision of the future and all you do on our

behalves in the House of Lords. Can I ask Steve Bolter to stand by.

David Grace will move amendment one in your daily announcement sheet.

GAFCON frens, that is for the benefit of you who like me are

celebrating talk like a pirate day. -- good afternoon conference. I'm

going to talk like a European. During the campaigning for the

referendum and I did a lot of it. I felt the case for the environment,

we didn't hear enough of it, stronger in didn't use it. Tories

didn't use it. Some of us used it. But it just didn't get the airing it

needed, because really, European environmental policy and legislation

is the back bone of our environmental protection in Britain.

Not only is it the back bone, it has the strongest degree of public

support. Wherever polls were conducted asking people what

competence they thought Europe should have, the environment always

came very high up. Yet we didn't make enough of it. It covers nature.

And as we all know nature does not respect national boundaries. It

covers energy, waste, standards used in production. All of these things

we have to maintain. This amendment makes that point and says we should

do that. It is necessary because the Tories, if they can, will undermine

them. They're already doing so. This is mentioned in the motion at line

15. The amendment number one clarifies that a bit. They're

already attacking on renewables. We need to protect that. We've added a

bit about planning to give local authorities stronger powers to bring

in environmental standards in planning. So I'm asking you to

support this amendment to protect all these things, because if we

don't, the Tories will slowly, quietly, consistently undo this

legislation bit by bit. They will undermine all the progress that

we've made from the European Union. They'll undermine rot gross made

during the coalition Government. They will undercut other countries.

The temptation to reduce all these standards so that Britain becomes

the dirty man of Europe and that we produce things more cheaply but more

dirtily. That will be there. That temptation is already there for

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

and all the progress. What I say to you is support amendment number one.

It isn't the jolly Roger that we have to fear, it's the jolly Andrea

Leadsom and her crew who are trying to make us walk the plank.

APPLAUSE Thank you very much. Can I ask Jay

Dias from Twickenham and Richmond to stand by. I call Steve Bolter who

wishes you to remove the words in lines 16 and 17, "And the

abandonment of previous commitments to investors in carbon capture and

storage programme". Apologies from FCC, that isn't in your daily

announcements, I will reread those at the end of the debate. I

apologise too because I understood that my application for a separate

vote on those words had been rejected. So I was - so this is a

complete surprise to me as they weren't there. I have just spent the

last hour, which is why I arrive here red faced and breathless listen

to Ed Davey talking about carbon capture and storage. He's almost

convinced me about it, not quite. I realise it has a role to play. My

fear always is that carbon dioxide stored under the North Sea is

probably more of a danger than nuclear waste scores are if there's

an earth tremor. I fear that from carbon capture and storage. However,

there are a lot of arguments for it. There is a big argument against not

suddenly with drawing funding from a project that people have started

investing in. While I deplore the Osborne decision to withdraw the

funding at a stroke, I do, would like to say that I think it is quite

reasonable as it is industry, the fossil fuel industry and the heavy

energy users who will benefit most from carbon capture and storage, the

idea that the Government funding should gradually go away from carbon

capture is I think a reasonable one. On balance, I think, having listened

to Ed Davey for an hour, a lobbyist on this matter, I'm not quite sure -

I still think, I have some reservation about those words. I'm

not so unhappy as I was. The other things, cutting investment in

renewables is, and cutting investment in energy saving is much

more serious. I feel that adding that rather doubtful thing in there

just weakens the motion slightly. Overall I support the motion and I

ask you all to think about whether that should be included or not. I'm

not going to tell you to now. I'm less anti it before I learned. You

need to learn about things before you vote about things.

APPLAUSE The proof of debate and the power of

dialogue. Claire Thomas from Hull please to stand by. I now called Jay

Dias wishing to speak against the motion. I know, I thought I'd get

that reaction. Good afternoon, conference. I think I'm known as an

old newbie, I joined ten days prior to the referendum. It's an honour to

be up here today. I run a private equity fund in London. I came across

this motion and I thought it was interesting to have the opportunity.

I don't want you to get me wrong much the spirit of the motion has

clear merit. It really does, especially when talking about carbon

and managing it and moving forward. and managing it and moving forward.

However we're in a world of binary questions, Brexit, the US thinking

about their election, it's our time to grasp, shape and reframe those

policies not just to echo what the Tories and what Labour have done

previously and are currently doing. Firstly, we need to commitment to

overturning the privatisation of the Green Investment Bank, not simply

say we want a voice within it. The private sector, on a whole, use

thesels -- models to bolster their ethos and not broaden their

appetite. I urge you to build our internal human cam tall to see how

to manage these funds appropriately. This means taking equity in

companies, understanding their business model thoroughly and

assessing their performance, but not with the simple, one size fits all

score card. It's very difficult for you to have that level of

opportunity with that model. If we can build such a base, we will get

investor confidence in the businesses that we want to see.

We need to encourage the green innovation throughout the value

change, not just the businesses we love to hear and talk about but

thinking about it all the way through. When you look at the motion

and the papers supporting it, of the ten examples, there are only two

macro companies looking at the value chain and everything else talks

about the latest technology. There are fundamental good businesses that

can innovate and create this better environment. I want to make sure we

do not forget the lessons we can see from Port Talbot. During the 1970s

and 1980s, the skill industry would have declined while successive

Labour and Tory government closed down the mines. All they did in

response was put on a sticky plaster and they were not waterproof. It was

ridiculous. We need to find an appropriate strategy and industries

to put into the relevant communities around the UK. We can then be the

natural party to be brave and explore the unforeseen blisters out

there. We need to answer the question, how can we influence these

communities and future generations? Following the events this year, we

have a broader electorate. New -- we must see the world through their

eyes, we cannot continue with tired policies of the past, we are obliged

to do more with this. I believe we can be the party both locally and

nationally for all businesses, all individuals and most importantly all

unfortunately, I do not think this motion does that. Thank you very

much. APPLAUSE. Can I ask Elizabeth Wilson from East Lothian to stand by

and I called Claire Thomas? Claire is our prospective candidate for

Hull. Good afternoon, conference. We

recognise the need for a good, strong local economy for our

communities. Not just for the sake of it but to create jobs, to give

young people if you chat and to build strong local communities. It

seems to me the Conservative attitude to green economic policies

show they think green policies in some way weaken our economies. But

that is just not true. So I am from Hull and some people talk Hull down.

But I really believe in the people of Hull. I believe in our young

people who are currently learning new skills to get jobs in the new

industries coming to our city. And in Hull, that new industry is

manufacturing wind turbines blades. And that has been embraced by

everyone, the whole community has come behind that project and it is

really fantastic to see. Together, we are building a green economy.

Green jobs for the people of Hull who desperately need them.

Regenerating our local economy and building hope for the future. For

me, one of the good things about building green jobs is they are

across the country, so creating jobs in the North as well as the South.

Green port Hull is creating a base for green energy from the place that

used to be a base for exporting coal. What better sign can there be

of the positive impact of green industries for the future, creating

jobs for young people and green energy for the future of our planet?

It is essential that we look to the future. What good is it if we create

a stronger economy now that builds up problems for the future? A policy

that does not secure long-term investment for green energy is not

one doing the best for future generations. But the good news is

that investing in green energy is good for the economy, both now and

for the future. The Siemens investment in Hull has been huge.

Investing in offshore wind and manufacturing wind turbines. It is

changing the city and the region, it is creating more jobs, it is

creating more businesses that supply the industry. It is creating more

confidence in Hull, which is really good to see. And by the way, we City

of Culture in 2017 so I hope you will come and visit! What we have

learnt in the process of getting that investment from Siemens in the

Hull is that investment is about a long-term planning and the companies

that will invest in these sorts of industries, they need that policy

framework for the long-term in order for us to attract that sort of

investment. They need commitment from government that they can rely

on, they can invest in and they can plan for. The Siemens investment in

the wind turbine manufacturer in Hull is transforming our city's

economy but I doubt they would invest so easily now. The damage of

Brexit and uncertainty about government policy is making it more

difficult, so I am proud to be a Lib Dem in a party looking positively to

the future in this area, thank you. APPLAUSE.

Thank you very much. Can Doctor Susan from Stratford-upon-Avon

stand-by, I call now Elizabeth Wilson from East Lothian.

Fellow Liberals, I am standing here to support the motion and I will

talk about the preamble. I'm going to talk about referees, rubbish,

waist. We have all learned to recycle but the default position is

to throw it away. But there is no way. Whether it is a landfill on our

doorstep or an incinerator in the next county, or in my case just over

the hill, or exporting to low income countries where there is unsafe

dismantling, away is our planet. We are currently using 1.5 of the

resources the planet can regenerate. Throwing it away, I would contend,

is an example of linear thinking. We need to change the circular

thinking. We need to embrace the circular economy. There is a very

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

implicit in the motion but I want to make it more explicit. Waste must be

seen as a resource, as part of decarbonising the economy. An

example I will give is one I am involved with locally in zero waste

Dunbar, a pilot project funded by the Scottish government and dare I

mention it to the European regional development fund, thank you! My

interest is that I am a trustee of the parent organisation which is a

charity sustaining Dunbar, the clue is in the name. Zero Watse Dunbar

aims to reduce, reuse and recycle and initial activity in the first

couple of years is to increase recycling both in local businesses

for instance on the High Street, and also with local schools, actually

improving recycling and embedding ideas about reuse within the

curriculum. Both locally and is part of a national task force. There has

been the diversion of food to a local food project and clothes swaps

and props for a local opera production. In the last year of

funding, we have got to move forward and make sure this is viable. So we

are going to go into a sophisticated social enterprise to divert from

landfill. A range of partners had been identified and we have lots of

ideas, pop-up shots and other things. There will be links to

repair workshops. Don't think this is going to be some glorified scrap

yard. Just think of the well-known Scandinavian furniture store we have

already referred to, that is the kind of facility we want to offer

local people. So to summarise, we need some low-tech community-based,

small-scale initiatives, as well as high-tech solutions that require

substantial investment. We need collaboration, we need innovation

and we need creativity. We need to change our thinking the circular

thinking. We need her open our hearts and have an emotional

commitment to change, and we need to answer the call to action.

APPLAUSE. Thank you very much. I now call

Susan, speaking for the motion. I am speaking for the motion and I

want to address lines nine, 20-22 and 42-44. I want to address the

need for an industrial strategy that encourages innovation, promotes low

carbon and the technology, research and services of the future. The UK

is in dire need of a resource strategy. A forward-looking,

strategic framework for resource management. Fully integrated into an

industrial strategy that looks at waste, energy, skills, water and the

circular economy. We need a symbiotic relationship where the

by-products of one process become the raw materials of another. To the

benefit of everybody and the UK economy. However, we need attention

paid to material quality, skills development and the facilitation and

partnerships needed to ensure that the best practices already used by

some of our world leading practitioners in this country spread

to everybody. We need a much more collaborative approach across supply

chains. And improve the design. And we need the research as well to make

it all happen, to benefit the UK economy. Centres of excellence can

generate the innovation required and nurture best practice and research.

This should be the time, and it is the government Department for

business, energy and industrial strategy, they should be seizing the

opportunity to developments of a vision for the future within a green

industrial strategy. But if they do not, then we should and hold them to

account. Such a strategy needs to also look at market costs. The

drivers and the benefits to fully drive a circular economy. Above all,

there has to be both commitment and certainty, and consistency. We have

lacked a lot of that in recent years. So please support this

motion. And thank you for your vision. I already have the electric

charge, they already have the PB, we already have the electric cars, now

let's move something far greater, thank you!

APPLAUSE. Thank you, Susan, and Jo Kenrick

stand-by? Jane Nel is all prospective candidate for Bath.

APPLAUSE. -- J. Hello, conference. Not only am I

going to be the next Liberal Democrat MP for Bath, yes, we are

going to win, for sure! But I am also a green entrepreneur. You can

tell because I am wearing a green suit! I have run a green business

for 27 years. And I have to say, the economic and market conditions for

the green economy, they are really no better today than they were when

I started out. We did some good work in coalition on creating a green

energy market. But now that has been picked by the Conservatives. We need

to get those sort of policies back into government again. The policies

in this motion will help me and many people like me to start creating the

green economy and they will support us as we go forward. So I urge you

all to vote for this motion. But this is only the start, we have to

go much, much further than this. There are substantial problems in

our economy that mean that those who create the damage to the environment

gets rewarded and those who do the right thing are penalised. How is it

right that people and companies that produce massive amounts of packaging

and waste dump that cost onto local authorities for them to pay for its

disposal or recycling? How is it right that food manufacturers can

put sugar and fats into their products and not pay a penny towards

the cost of dealing with the problems of obesity and heart

disease and diabetes? And how is it right that motor manufacturers can

produce vehicles that belch out particulates and they do not pay a

penny to the NHS to dealing with those problems? We need to create a

situation where those who do the right thing rewarded and we need to

stop, we absolutely need to stop people making fast personal profits

from creating vast public costs. Thank you very much for listening.

APPLAUSE. Thank you. Now Jo Kenrick from

Hammersmith and Fulham wishes to speak to lines 53 and 60.

Conference, during the coalition, Liberal Democrats enabled billions

of pounds of investment in the green infrastructure across the UK. The

Green Investment Bank, the biggest increase in renewable energy ever,

and ambitious climate change targets. As we have heard today,

unfortunately the Conservatives are now doing their best to destroy that

investor confidence. This motion would increase our commitment to the

low carbon transition and I fully agree with the magic and the

privatisation of the Green Investment Bank.

As the drafting amendment says, we must now ratify the Paris agreement

as a matter of urgency. This motion once again shows we're the only

party that recognises the transition to a green economy, not only crucial

for the planet, but for our future prosperity too. We all know about

the environmental impacts of climate change, soy want to focus on the

hard nosed financial impacts too. In 2008 the great recession was caused,

in part, by the subprime mortgage crisis. Regulators struggled as

banks went bankrupt and governments spent billions on bail out. The G20

leaders met for the first time seeking to address that crisis.

Today some economists and Central Bankers are seeking to prevent the

next major risk to the financial system, the subclimb crisis. Mark

Carney claimed climate change a material financial risk. He high

lited the risks to investors who own oil fields and coal plants as they

become stranded assets. It's not just a theoretical threat. In the US

the Dow coal index has fallen 97% over the last four years. In that

time, 50 US coal producers have filed for bankruptcy, including pea

body, once the world's largest private sector coal company valued

at $20 billion. Luckily regulators are realising we must act now to

prevent this crisis. The G20 in China this year made green finance a

priority. China itself has set out guidelines to restrict investment in

polluting sectors, there has been a taskforce set up on climate replated

climate disclosures. The taskforce is likely to recommend that

companies report on carbon emissions and whether their business plans are

compatible with a two degree world. I urge you to support lines 53 to 60

to give investors the tools they need to protect themselves against

the subclimb crisis. In coalition we fought the Tories tone sure large

companies disclosed their carbon emissions data, announced by Nick

Clegg in 2012. We must ensure that the UK remains a global leader by

making it mandatory for companies to disclose their business plans too.

Let no-one say that Liberal Democrats didn't see the subclimb

crisis coming. Thank you. Kara Genkinson, please

stand by. I call Seb Bench, wishing to speak for the motion.

Hello, conference. We've already heard a lot this week about the need

to make globalisation work for us, to work for everyone, the need to

have a real strategy. Here we have with green energy a perfect

opportunity to put that into action. We have the opportunity as a country

to become real world leader in this technology and to find an industrial

aspect of industry, we can really lead the world in and export to the

rest of the world. In fact, we had begun to do this before subsidies

were cut. But if we do want to really lead the world on this again

and make this a key part of our new economic strategy, we need bold

action from the UK Government. Unfortunately, the evidence so far

would suggest that won't be forth coming, which is where we come in.

We need bold action from the UK Government on major environmental

economic proinjects like the Swansea tidal lagoon. We need the UK

Government to be better in facilitating smaller SMEs in their

work on environment energy by revisiting their decisions to cut

subsidies, particularly since many of these proinjects as they become

more viable need far less support than they did before. So only a

small amount of subsidies will yield great benefits. Of course, in the

long-term, we need to look at providing the skills necessary to

promote green economy and green, small and medium enterprises by

ensuring that our sector is fully supported and we encourage

sufficient people to go down that path to ensure we have the skills

necessary to continue to lead on the green economy. Finally, I'd like to

include an example from Wales, where I used to work until May this year

for the Welsh Liberal Democrats. The Welsh Government pass aid bill

called the future generations act, which ensures every bit of

legislation must be checked to see how it affects the future

generations, which in terms of the environment, means in terms of how

any legislation affects the environment. We talk a lot about the

fact that climate change will impact most on future generations, so an

approach that really ensured every bit of legislation really did

consider the future impact on our environment would surely mean that a

green economy and environmental business initiatives were considered

far more, with far greater priority. Thank you, conference. I urge you to

support the motion. Thank you very much. Can Cathryn

Smart from Cambridge please stand by. I call Kara Genkinson from

Haringey. Good afternoon, conference. This is a good motion,

which acknowledges the importance of energy efficiency alongside the

perhaps more fashionable green technologies such as energy storage

or anything with the word "smart" in it.

LAUGHTER In 2012, nearly two million homes

were helped through Government support to become more energy

efficient. In 2015, it was just 350,000. That's a drop of 75%.

Levels of wall and loft insulation have plummeted with the loss of

thousands of jobs. This is terrible news for hitting our climate change

targets. It's even worse for the fuel poor. The cheapest way to cut

carbon is by reducing energy use. 70% of all gas usage is in our homes

and most of the homes that we'll be living in in 2050 have already been

built. So refurbishing these homes to make them energy efficient is an

absolute priority. As Lynn said, one of Theresa May's first acts, when

she became Prime Minister was to get rid of the pecky Department of

Energy and Climate Change. The new department, BEIS does not have the

words climate change in it, not too surprising from this Tory

Government. But it is also interest that energy was merged with business

and industrial strategy. Whilst there may be some logic there, in

terms of the groan economy, there is a real danger that energy is

associated only with big business. Nuclear, fracking and big

infrastructure projects. Much of energy efficiency is a lot less

glamorous. Working with small building firms to boost their skills

and encouraging everyone improving their home to think about energy

efficiency. One of the reasons that the Green Deal failed was that it

was shaped by big business, the British Gass of this world. Experts

warned we should listen to the small businesses, the builders who work

every day in homes. But those voices were ignored. I also think that

cladding your house with ten centimetres of solid wall insulation

at a cost of 15,000 is a hard sell. We need thinner insulation

technologies. This motion focuses on green innovation and how to exploit

green technologies to boost the economy. I absolutely support it.

But let's keep up the pressure on the less exciting stuff and

highlight the Tories' complete lack of strategy on home energy

efficiency. Lynn, I know I can count on you to do that. Thank you.

Thank you. Can Neil Stockily stand by. I call Cathryn Smart.

Thank you. As you'll have realised our amendment is in two parts. The

first is dealing with the planning system and rather well follows on

the previous speaker. It's basically wanting to alter the default busson.

At the moment, the Tories have moved the default button to usually

negative. If something comes up in the green economy in planning, then

the assumption is that it will be turned down unless there's very good

reasons for it not to be. What we want to do is turn the default

button the other way, so that it's going to be accepted unless there's

very good reasons for it not to be. Very straightforward. Very simple.

It makes an enormous amount of difference to what actually happens.

The other part of our motion is, again, very straightforward, very

simple, those who were in the RSPB lunch time meeting will have heard

it all before any way, so many of the directives that are in the EU

are absolutely essential for our health, for our well being, for our

environment, for our economy, for everything. But we know - do we

trust the Tory Government? Ha, ha, no. Let's have a big effort to

persuade them that what they need to do is to bring those directives into

EU law and then whatever the three Brexiteers or muskateers whatever

you like to call them start fiddling around, at least that's safe. It's

clear. At least business knows where they are. I think that is actually

something that's very important. I didn't hear anybody disagreeing, so

I'm assuming you're all going to vote for it. I hope so, any way.

Thank you. Thank you, I now call Neil Stockily

from Bromley borough to summiate on the debate. Thank you, James. Thanks

to everybody who's contributed to this debate. Thanks to those who put

in drafting amendments and for amendment one, which we accept. This

afternoon, WWE reaffirmed our commitment to building a green

economy. We understand how environmental goods and services can

kick the economy into life and keep it going. We understand what a green

economy means for our children, creating jobs, saving money,

preserving the planet. We understand the energy revolution that's going

on all over the world. Fossil fuels, especially coal, are on the way out.

Clean sources of energy are falling in price. We understand that the

investment needed for the green economy may be 100 billion by 2020

alone won't happen by magic. When we're in Government, we put in place

policies on energy, finance, transport to bring forward low

carbon investment and Joel reminded us about those. As Lynn said, as

soon as we'd left office, the Tories took a torch to our green growth

programme. We've seen the results - investor confidence has fallen

across the energy sector. Thousands of people on the sole -- in the

solar industry have lost their jobs. We need action to reassure

investmentors and re-- investors and restore confidence. First ratify the

Paris climate change agreement. To get that into international law and

re-establish confidence in the UK's ability to deal with tackling

climate change. Second, to make sure that Brexit, when we find out what

it means, doesn't place our low carbon future at risk. We support

David Grace's amendment to maintain existing environmental protections

from EU law. We need to think about the future too though, for instance,

we need to stay part of the European energy union, because if we go out

the clean energy sector will be placed at risk. Third, bidding a

green, industrial strategy to drive new investment, jobs and export

growth. The motion captures a lot of areas. In the debate we've heard

about areas where we need further work. Yes, Susan, thank you very

much for your contribution on the circular economy. Some very useful

suggestions there, very specific. Kara Genkinson spoke on home energy

efficiency, yes, it's common sense. The cheapest way to cut emissions is

not to use energy at all and the most cost effective solution. We

have to admit the Green Deal was a policy failure. That was largely

because of treasury. We will need a new solution and that is a tank for

us in coming years. Jay going further, making polluters pay.

Couldn't agree more. We need to come back with proposals on green

taxation. Thank you for that. The gentleman from Kingston wanted

innovation across the economy, yes, couldn't agree more. But the motion

in clause three already embraces that. I do agree with you however

about developing policies that will shape and influence low carbon in

developments in specific community. Thank you for your comments on the

skills base, Seb. Very useful. Steve has called for a separate vote on

carbon capture and storage. I listened carefully to what you said

and I can hear you're having an argument with yourself, fine. I say

we have to keep those words in. I hear what you say. But we have to

keep those words in, because carbon capture and storage is essential to

meet our 2050 commitments on emissions and they're essential for

doing it in a cost effective way. Lynn has been very vocal on what the

Government did pulling the rug out on investors and we should support

what she said and not compromise the position she's taken on carbon

capture and storage. I oppose that dleegs. One thing -- deheating. The

Tories are building bridges to the past. It's down to us, to be the

party of the new green economy, embracing the low carbon revolution,

thank you very much. APPLAUSE.

Thank you, we are now moving to a series of votes so get your voting

badges ready. The first vote I will take is the vote on the separate

votes, in lines 16 and 17, deleted words, and the abandonment of

previous investments of carbon capture and storage programme. That

is the first vote, all those in favour of deleting those lines,

those words? And those in favour of retaining those words? Those words

will clearly be retained. Now a vote on Amendment one. Those in favour of

amendment one? Thank you very much. And those against? A couple, but

that is clearly carried. Now on the motion as you have just amended it,

those in favour please. Thank you very much. And those against. Again,

I can see one but that is clearly carried, thank you for a very

enlightening debate. We had twice as many cards as it was possible to

call so I apologise to those who were not called. Thank you for my

helpers and I am pleased to ditch her -- to hand the chair over at

Lindsey Norton from the leader of our Scottish party.

Conference, we now move on to agenda item F 30. And I am absolutely

delighted to introduce Willie Rennie, MSP, leader of the Scottish

Liberal Democrats. His victory in the Scottish elections in May in

North East Fife was a wonderful beast for others -- boost for ours.

APPLAUSE. And he gives is inspirational leadership in

Scotland. Willie Rennie.

APPLAUSE. Thank you. I made a fifth this year, in Scotland, Liberal

Democrats started winning the game -- on May the 5th. APPLAUSE. Not

only did I win in North East Fife with a by-election standard 9.5%

swing. But the exceptional Alex Hamilton crushed the SNP in

Edinburgh, securing a 3,000 vote majority. APPLAUSE.

Look what happened in the Northern Isles. Cavendish Scotland Liam

McArthur, they confounded the critics and pundits to win their

seats with almost 70% of the vote. -- Tavish Scott. 70% of the vote

when everybody told us we would be wiped out. No one is supposed to

beat the SNP, but we did. North East Fife and Edinburgh West lost last

year and they gained this year. The first games in a decade. It was not

in the script, we tore up the script, Liberal Democrats back to

winning again. APPLAUSE. So how did we do it? No, it wasn't just a

couple of amorous pigs in the background of my daily TV election!

But like those, we won by casting aside any inhibitions! We were able

to shed any lingering coalition caution. We told people what we

stood for. Progressive, optimistic, outward looking. And we told people

with huge smiles on our faces. We said what we wanted. We wanted to

make Scotland the best in the world again. The best in the world. Isn't

that what Liberals should always aspire to?

APPLAUSE. Scottish education used to be one of the best in the world. But

with the SNP, it is now just average. College places have been

cut, nursery education flagging and schools have seen massive cuts to

their budgets. We said a transformational investment using a

progressive penny on income tax for education would project Scotland

right back up to the best game. Progressive, optimistic, outward

looking. Scotland's police were once the pride of the nation, helping to

train other forces across the world. But with the SNP, the new force is a

shadow of its former self. Our plans would bring back democracy into the

police and would put that pride back. We would guarantee our civil

liberties by rejecting the intrusive super ID baked -- database.

Industrial scale stop and search and armed police on routine duties.

Progressive, optimistic, outward looking. With renewable energy

resources in abundance in Scotland, we could make Scotland a world

leader on tackling climate change. The SNP have struggled to meet their

own targets, and what is their response? It is to add 60,000 tonnes

of CO2 into the atmosphere through tax cuts for the aviation industry

with their proposal to end at passenger duty. And the SNP is

keeping the door open for fracking. They should take a stand against the

new frontier of fossil fuels that fracking represents. We say no

fracking in Scotland! APPLAUSE. Progressive, optimistic,

outward looking. Now, hundreds of young people in Scotland have to

wait over a year to get the mental health treatment that they deserve.

A mother told me about her son. Regularly, he would lie curled up on

the floor, screaming. She had to the phone every day for weeks on end to

get the mental health support he needed. This is a disgrace and an

embarrassment to our country. APPLAUSE.

But he is not alone. The waiting list grows. People weight and age.

You won't believe this, the SNP committed just 22 words the mental

health in the long programme for government last week -- people

weight forever. Scotland used to have a world leading mental health

strategy. Now it doesn't even have one any more. And as a result, ?70

million available for mental health remains unspent because they do not

know what to do with it. I know what to do with it. Our plan to put

mental health professionals in the Accident and Emergency, in primary

care, alongside emergency workers and in the Child and adolescent

mental health services, we will give people the support that they need.

APPLAUSE. Progressive, optimistic, outward looking. After almost ten

years in government, the SNP talk a good game. But they are not

progressive. I want to make Scotland the best again so that everyone can

have the opportunity to succeed, no matter what their background. Where

people can live as they wish, as long as it does not cause harm to

others. And where we pass on the planet in a better state than we

found it, it is why we were clear on mental health, clear on that

transformational investment for education, clear on the future of

Scotland's together in the United Kingdom. We were progressive,

optimistic, and outward looking. That is why we won. It was a big,

bold, progressive programme of Liberal values and Liberal Democrat

action. No more timidity, no more coalition caution, proud of our

values, proud to be Liberal. APPLAUSE.

Now, just as I did in the Holyrood elections, I intend to use the next

five years to provide progressive, optimistic and outward looking

leadership. And it will be a voice for the United Kingdom and a voice

for Europe as well. In a no borders approach, we will oppose

independence and we will support stronger relationships with Europe.

APPLAUSE. Tim Farron is spot-on and Europe. He spoke for every bereft

Remain voter in the hours after the result. He was a tall statesman when

others never looked so small. In the direct interests of the country, and

of our democracy, he wants to give voters the democratic choice to

accept or reject the deal that the Tories finally agreed with the

European Union. He is right to demand that the British people

should have their say on the final deal in a referendum. Voting for

departure is not the same as voting for a destination. This is not an

attempt to rerun the first referendum, it is to enable the

public to vote on the final deal. Now, you will have seen our First

Minister over the Summer. When our leader Tim Farron was making the

case for cleaning up after the chaos of Brexit, our First Minister was on

a mission to make it a lot worse. Nicola Sturgeon's responds to

breaking up Europe is the break-up of Britain as well. After

withdrawing from Scotland's second economic -- biggest economic market,

the EU, she thinks it would be a good idea to compound that by

withdrawing from our biggest market, the UK. I had hoped before the

Summer that she meant what she said. About building a broad consensus on

seeking solutions on Brexit. I had hoped she would act in the interests

of the entire country and not just the interests of the SNP. But with

her actions, she has trashed that consensus. I want to be clear, there

is no place on the independence fence for this party. We won a

mandate in May to oppose independence and stand up for our

place in the United Kingdom and we will step to that men don't -- and

we will stick to that mandate like glue.

APPLAUSE. After everything that we have been through, I can tell you I

meant what I said. And that is know to independence.

APPLAUSE. In the face of a belligerent

destruction -- destructive campaign from the SNP, we will oppose

independence. Nicola Sturgeon has adopted a special code, a new

dictionary of National is. And I am going to help you translate it. --

nationalism. When they say all of us should keep an open mind, they mean

independence is back on the table. When they say everyone else,

everyone else should consider all the options, they mean that

independence is back on the table. When they say, good faith, that

means independence is back on the table. But every reasonable sounding

phrase is code for breaking up Britain. And I can tell Nicola

Sturgeon, we are not falling for it! I have already explained that if we

leave progressive politics to the SNP, then that will fail. If we

leave the campaign for Scotland's place in the United Kingdom to the

Conservatives, it will fail too. When Prime Minister David Cameron

had the chance to heal the nation, after the bruising Scottish

referendum campaign, he made a grubby appeal to English nationalism

instead. Exactly two years ago today, at one of the most

significant constitutional moments since the formation of the United

Kingdom, David Cameron put his party's interests before our

country's. The Tories compounded that misjudgment by seeking to scare

middle England with the prospect of the rise of the Scots. Their

election poster of a Scotsman pick pocketing an English taxpayer was a

reckless act, it was an inaccurate characterisation of Scots and was a

disgrace - how on earth does that help keep our country together?

APPLAUSE Conservatives were only interested

in election victory and never mind the damage done to the relationship

between Scotland and the rest of the UK. In the final arrogant

misjudgment, the Tories divided the country in an attempt to heal the

divisions of the Conservative Party. That dragged us out of Europe, which

has put further strains on the unity of the United Kingdom. No amount of

draping themselves in the Union flag and singing Rule Britannia will hide

their record of putting the future of the United Kingdom at risk. The

Tories are not unionists. They are divisionists.

APPLAUSE I have a warning to you here today

in Brighton, it is an alarm that should sound across the whole of

Britain and should worry all of us. With the blow of Brexit, and the

threat of another Scottish independence referendum, it remains

that divisive, constitutional politics remains at the centre of

our national debate. It is a dismal scene that has been visited upon us

by the Conservatives and the SNP, stalled investment, uncertain future

for EU citizens, divided families, split communities, economic

instability, tensions between the nations of the UK. This is the work

of the terrible twins of divisive politics.

APPLAUSE The Tories and the Nationalists have

so much in common. They have a shared interest. The Tories and the

Nationalists need to scare people in England with the Nationalists. The

Nationalists need to scare the Tories to scare voters in Scotland.

It's a campaign based on fear not hope. Our future will be a divided

one if we leave it to the Tories and the Nationalists. The terrible twins

of divisive politics. The threat to the UK by a politics dominated by

those two should be taken seriously by all liberal minded, progressive

people in Britain. This is why we need progressive, moderate,

optimistic, hopeful voices that advance a no borders approach. That

is why we need the Liberal Democrats. Progressive, optimistic,

outward looking, that progressive alternative to the terrible twins of

division is what our country needs and it is the progressive

alternative that we will provide. Liberal Democrats will provide that

clear voice, a clear voice to guarantee our civil liberties, for

our environment, for education, and for mental health, a clear voice for

Europe and a clear voice for the United Kingdom. Progressive,

optimistic, outward looking in Scotland and for the whole of the

United Kingdom. Thank you very much. APPLAUSE

Thank you very much indeed Willie. Can I now thank my aide Liz Lynn and

pass on to the next debate. The chair for the next debate is Justine

McGuinness. Thank you very much indeed.

Conference, could I ask you please to leave quietly so we can get

started on the next debate. My name's Mary Reid. We've done a swap.

We're now going to be looking at F 31, mending the safety nets, based

on the Social Security policy paper. You can find the motion on page 46

of the agenda. There are three amendments and one drafting

amendment. You can find the amendments on conference extra, page

17 to 18 or on today's conference daily, pages 9 to 10. There will be

an opportunity for interventions, those are short, one-minute

speeches, from the mic over there. You do need to put in an

intervention card and you have another ten minutes in which to do

that. If you haven't put a card in within ten minutes, you've got no

chance of being called for one of those. We do also have two requests

for reference back and we will hear from one of those later in the

debate. So, would Kirsten Johnson please stand by to move the First

Amendment. I call Kelly Marie Blundel to propose the motion.

I don't know about you, but I'm sick of Tories bashing the poor.

APPLAUSE The Liberal Democrats are the

forefathers of the Welfare State. Labour may have implemented it, but

it was Beverage who conceived of it. Unlike Labour who backed the

Conservative ?12 billion cuts, we believe in evidence-led policy and

that is what today's motion is all about. When Beverage wrote the

Welfare State it was the 1940s and life was very different. It was fine

if you could go into a job and work your way up through one company,

staying with them for life, but it's now a Welfare State that cannot flex

for a single mother with a disabled child. A Welfare State that cannot

flex for someone on a zero hours contract. In other words it's a

Twentieth Century square peg for a 21st century round hole. We believe,

as Liberal Democrats, that there is a line below which no-one should be

allowed to fall. And tackling poverty goes right to the heart of

this motion and this paper. Did you know that 103,000 children across

the UK are registered homeless. That's an entire constituency's

worth of children without a roof over their heads. Which is why our

motion calls to scrap the two-child limit on child benefit. It's why our

motion calls to scrap cuts to the family allowance element of

universal credit. It's why our motion introduced a second earner

allowance to bring families out of poverty. Children are not the only

victims of the Welfare State at the moment. The work capability

assessment is not fit for purpose. APPLAUSE

I don't know how many of you have been through one, but I have. Do you

think that Damian Green, Stephen crab or Iain Duncan Smith know if I

can do this it makes me fit to have a job. Which is why our motion

proposes the scrap the work capability assessment as it is and

decentralise it to local governments, where the people know

the people they're dealing with, the jobs that are available and not only

that, but it tackles the work capability assessment to make it fit

for purpose as a real world test. Looking at whether someone has a

fluctuating disability, whether it's a mental health condition, or

whether they're up to commuting. Not whether they can put their arm over

their head. This paper makes great strides into mental health,

improving and increasing access to work funding, so people with mental

health conditions get the support they need to get back into the

workforce. Demanding better occupational work provisions for

people with mental health problems and ensuring that the employers

provide the right services and address mental health going forward.

Did you know that 80% of people who claim jobseeker's allowance are

those who are unemployed for six months or less. It was this evidence

that led to the conception of an opt-out insurance policy that would

help the bulk of people who access jobseeker's allowance get back into

work as soon as possible. We took evidence from Scandinavian countries

and this policy Muslimics a lot of their -- mimics a lot of their

welfare services. It will put power and choice back into the hands of

the short-term unemployed, allowing us to focus our attentions on the

people who need longer term support. You'll hear a lot today about

citizens' income. Apparently someone doesn't like this motion. We

listened to a lot of evidence much we spoke to organisations around the

country. We spoke to other countries about a basic income and we made

sure that all of our decisions were evidence led. The simple truth is

that a basic income, a subsistence level for every person leaves the

most vulnerable in society in poverty. In other words, it creates

a poverty trap. For homeless people, for those with long-term conditions,

for single mothers, this policy leaves them with a minimum income

and no opportunity to escape. In other words, they're enslaved by

poverty. Our policy and our Working Group believed that we should help

everybody, not a blanket policy that harms the most vulnerable. Now

unlike the Conservatives and unlike Labour, our policy paper today is

born from evidence across the UK in consultation with people from other

countries. It's born from hours of deliberation, of ideas, of

statistics and of conversationses and investigation. -- conversations

and investigation. Let the Liberal Democrats lead the way on

evidence-led policy and police pass this paper today unamended.

APPLAUSE Thank you. That was Kelly Marie

Blundel. She's the vice chair of the Social Security Working Group. Could

Tony Harris please stand by. I call Dr Kirsten Johnson from Oxford east

to propose amendment one. Greetings conference. I stand to

move amendment one, which proposes to delete lines 20 to 23 and insert

instead a new clause five, which reads, "Sanction as plied to

benefits are fundamentally wrong and leave people destitute who are

already in poverty. The sanctions system should be scrapped and

replaced with an incentivised scheme." Sanctions were introduced

in coalition to punish people for not fulfilling tick box criteria.

Being late for or missing appointments is one of the most

common reasons for sanction. These include cases where the claimant had

not been informed about the appointment, of being sanctioned

whilst attending a hospital appointment, even if you had

informed Jobcentre Plus, in cases where dependents were unwell and

claimants couldn't keep their appointment. Not doing enough to

look for work and not taking part in an employment or training scheme or

are other main reasons for sanctions. Sanctions are purely

punitive. They do not support job seeking. We believe an intersent

viced system -- incentivised system would be a better system to not

drive them into poverty. A recent report revealed that the majority of

job seeker allowance interviewees found the emphasis on sanctions

unnecessary and counterproductive, since they were already keen to find

a job and were actively seeking work.

This report goes on to say that sanctions had a range of negative

effects, including financial poverty, financial hardship and

poverty, and debt, eviction threats and homelessness, food bank use,

mental and physical ill-health. The sanctions system, conference, it is

inhumane. APPLAUSE. Here is one woman's take

on being sanctioned. It puts you into a panic. You have got the

children, the husband, but you have got to think not just about

yourself, but how they are as well. Without food on the table, how are

they going to survive? And without clothes on the back, how they meant

to go to school? It all plays in head and it has caused me a few

problems with depression and anxiety and with my husband as well. It is

important to hear some of the stories behind statistics and to

give a human face to the numbers. David Clarkson was living on

benefits. He had worked for 29 years and he had lost his job when he

began to care for his elderly mother. He missed one meeting at a

Job Centre. His jobseeker's allowance of ?71 per week was

stopped. He was not able to put credit on his electricity card and

his fridge stopped working. David was a diabetic and he needed his

fridge to maintain his insulin effectively. So three weeks after

the cut, David died from diabetic acidosis caused by a severe lack of

insulin. The coroner found his stomach had no food in it. And next

to his body was a pile of CDs. In his flat's kitchen was ?3 64, six

tea bags, a can of soup and a tin of out of date sardines. We must, we

must, we must scrap benefit sanctions.

APPLAUSE. It is the moral and it is the decent

thing to do. Please vote for amendment one, thank you.

APPLAUSE. Thank you, Kerstin. And could Nick

Taylor please stand by? I now called Tony Harris from Newbury and West

Berks to move amendment two. Good afternoon, conference. I

recently heard somebody claimed that members of the policy working group

who prepared a 31, mending the safety net, didn't know anything

about the welfare system. They had no experience of it. We were

disconnected from it. Conference, I am glad to tell you that this claim

is not true. I have been a member of this working group for the last year

and I was brought up on welfare by a mother so mentally scarred by her

experiences as a Japanese prisoner of war that she was never able to

work. Until I was 18, my mother and I struggle to navigate a welfare

system that provided a safety net but was done on fair, unresponsive,

unemotional and unsympathetic. I continued to negotiate the same

system on my elderly mother's behalf which keeps me up to date and sadly

demonstrates not a lot of change. The working group also comprises

recent benefit claimants, politicians with welfare caseloads,

support agency representatives, retired lawyers, members of claim

and tribunal is and those with immediate experience of working tax

credits and disability benefits. You can be confident that a working

group could not have been more connected, more committed and more

coordinated in the way that the F31 motion was researched and prepared

and I commend it to you. Conference, the other day, I heard somebody

claimed that F31 was picked out of thin air and is not evidence-based.

I am also glad to be able to tell you that this is not true. The

working group has taken evidence from stakeholders such as Citizens

Advice bureau, shelter, Child Poverty Action Group, scope, Job

Centres and many others. I have personally interviewed the homeless,

the unemployed, the elderly, disabled and the agencies who

support them. We have taken evidence from 22 separate organisations and

examined nearly 1800 pages of written submissions. You can be

confident what you see before you is evidence based policy. And so it is

with this amendment to retain the benefits cap. Something the group

voted to retain, but was deleted by the federal policy committee, but

something that I believe conference should have the ability to vote on.

Conference, I have never personally heard a support agency asking for

the benefits cap to be removed. I have heard them ask for it not to be

reduced, to be made fairer, to take more account of the disabled and the

long-term sick, to be made more flexible, to be repaired, but not to

be removed. Conference, the idea behind the cap is nobody should be

able to receive more in benefits than they would receive in full-time

employment. Without a cap, we run the risk of trapping more claimants

in the system because there is no incentive to get out and because of

the corresponding drop of income if they do. Recent government and

support agency reports demonstrate more claimants have returned to work

since the cap was introduced and a 2015 report by Shelter indicated the

cap of 26,000 was manageable for a model family of four but nothing

less. This amendment seeks to keep the cap in place while removing the

most vulnerable from its effects and increases the cap in line with the

UK average household earnings and excludes benefits received by the

disabled. The long-term sick, expectant mothers and the

bereavement allowance given to people who lose husband, wife, civil

partner. And most importantly, it commits that the Liberal Democrats

will never cut the benefits cap. Like the policy paper, this

amendment is evidence-based, experience based, and I move you to

support amendment two and motion F31 as a whole, thank you.

APPLAUSE. Thank you, Tony. Could Johnny Oates

please stand by and I call Doctor Nick Taylor from Calderdale to

speak, to move amendment three. Conference, I believe that both the

working group FCC and others have in their mind, deflated Citizen's

Income, which is a commitment to a certain standard of income for

everybody, and negative income tax, which is a method of assessment and

allocation of both tax and benefits. This amendment is not about

Citizen's Income. Negative income tax was long the policy of the

Liberal Party. And that was in the days when all the calculations had

to be made on paper. And we believe it worked then and I believe it will

work now. Because we would be bringing together the tax and

benefit system into one. It would be carried out by unified her Majesty's

tax, customs and benefits. On the basis of that assessment, which is a

means test, everybody would do it, HM RBC would be able to carry out an

assessment of need and would be able to decide either whether people

changed, got taxed, or whether they received benefit. As now, of course,

circumstances and changes in circumstances would be notable --

notifiable to the new authority just as they now are to HMBRC. In the

paper, it has been argued this is too complicated. Nonsense. The

current HMRC makes regular assessments of the tax liability of

millions of people and that reflects people's income, their circumstances

and the different issues. So for example, I get a lower tax code than

a non-pensioner. Because I received my state pension free of tax. That

happens all the time. I see no difference in doing that for

benefits. Now, since the days when the Liberal Party wanted a negative

income tax, the advent of technology means it is a relatively simple

matter to assess tax liabilities and benefit entitlement. There is no

problem having different levels of housing benefit, as was mentioned in

the paper. And if a large number of people are able to do their tax

returns online, or that income assessments on mine, that will make

it so much simpler. -- online. This policy enables an annual assessment

of people's liabilities, it is fair to everyone, as well as

complementing, completing the separation of employment assistance

from benefits, as is desired in the resolution and which we support. So

what is not to like, ladies and gentlemen? A simple system, able to

deal with income tax and benefits, all at once. I beg to move the

amendment. APPLAUSE. Thank you, quit Evan

Harris please stand by? I'm now called Johnny Oates, a member of the

House of Lords, from Kingston Borough. Johnny is going to speak

against amendment one. Thank you, Mary, I am speaking

against amendment one and in favour of the motion as a whole. I had the

opportunity of serving on the working group which produced this

policy paper and I pay tribute to Jenny Willett, who was a fantastic

chair, and the work of its members, the party staff who put the policy

paper together. And very importantly, the many organisations

who took the time to give evidence to us. Conference, I understand the

motivation behind the amendment which as we have heard, it looks to

scrap sanctions completely from our welfare system. I understand it

because the current system is causing injustices so it needs to

change. But I don't support it. I don't support it because the policy

paper we are discussing does not propose that we keep the existing

system. It proposes radical changes which replace the current fixed

penalties regime, to allow greater flexibility and discretion. It would

restrict sanctions so a minimum claimant would continue to receive

housing benefit and Child tax credit, it would end the situation

where Job Centre Plus staff employee employment support and the sanctions

regime which has undermined trust between the claimants and advisers.

Instead, the decisions would be taken at a senior level in Job

Centre Plus and discussed with the claimants support workers. And we

would introduce an Independent appeals system, giving claimants the

right to appeal to Independent tribunal is. Finally, we would

introduce the positive incentives talked about in the amendment. All

these changes will ensure that we replace the existing and flexible

and unjust system with a system that is flexible, effective and fair.

Movers of the amendment clearly believe despite the safeguards,

sanctions remain inappropriate. I disagree with that view. Just as the

working party disagreed with it. We concluded sanctions safeguarded as

we proposed were important within the welfare system, we did not come

to that view arbitrarily but on the basis of evidence from a wide range

of organisations. We heard among others from Crisis and the Child

Poverty Action Group, both to the existing system to make sure it was

flexible. They wanted to reform and did not propose abolition. If we

reject sanctions entirely, the public will think we have gone mad,

claimants will think so as well, please reject the amendment and

support the amendment as a whole. Incentivise, I call Evan Harris now

who is going to speak against amendment two.

Thank you. Those of you who've seen me speak before know I normally

quick off with a quote from my policy guru Woody Allen or Roy

Jenkins. I will start with a quote from the Sun this time...

LAUGHTER Close. The war on scroungers will

not let up even if the Lords vote against the benefit cap tonight.

Iain Duncan Smith. So much more evidence based policy behind the

evidence base. If you gooing the the CAB, if you Google Child Poverty

Action Group or Shelter and put benefits cap, you will find their

position. Their position sets out how many vulnerable people have been

damaged by the arbitrary imposition of a maximum amount that people who

need welfare can get. There's a point of principle here which is

very important for Liberal Democrats. Welfare should be based

on need. It should not be based on an arbitrary limit no matter how

smug, no matter how tabloid, no matter how targeted it might be

claimed to be by the right-wing press against so-called benefit

scroungers. Not a shred of evidence that this is about benefit

scroungers whatsoever. And going with this policy just plays into

that narrative. We must resist it. Because the benefit cap says that no

family, in matter how vulnerable, no matter what their circumstances,

should receive what they actually need in food, clothing and shelter

if that is more than an arbitrary percentage, in this case 100%, of a

certain figure, in this case median income, chosen for political

reasons. It's just wrong. The idea that this is because no family on

benefits should be better off than the average hard-working family is

nonsense. Housing Benefit doesn't go to give people disposable income. It

goes to the landlord, often directly. The idea that people in

this sort of need are better off than people in work is absurd.

Principle two... APPLAUSE

Do not sacrifice essential Liberal Democrats principles because the

policy is popular. That way lies madness. If we just ditch key

policies because of opinion polls based on tabloid rabble rousing or

the way that the megaphone is held by our political opponents, we will

have no grounding. If you're worried about a poverty trap, deal with that

by tapering. You don't create a cliff by removing welfare benefits

on an arbitrary basis. Finally, did we get it? Did we get what people

said in 2015, our core voters turned against us because we seemed happy

to support Tory policies. This was never a Liberal Democrat policy. It

was something imposed on the coalition by the Conservatives.

APPLAUSE Were we listening? Have we listened?

We must reject the benefit cap. It saves very little money. It punishes

ethnic minorities, women and children. Please oppose amendment

two. Thank you, Evan. Could Celia Thomas

please stand by and go to the Speaker's table for access to the

back stage. I now call Lucy Nessinger who is going to speak

against amendment three. Good afternoon. For the past year, I

have been a member of the working party who developed the policy paper

before you. When I started as a member of that group I was very

supportive of the idea a citizens income or negative income tax. I

liked the concept of every member of society being entitled to a basic

income. I liked the apparent simplicity of the administration of

such an idea. However, over the course of the year, as we took

evidence, first from groups who had done significant work on the

concepts and then from other organisations working in the area of

poverty reduction, I realised that while the concept is attractive, at

first glance, the more you explore, the less it is delivered on what is

promised. Negative income tax cannot deliver on the twin promises of a

basic income and simplicity. As a result it fails utterly to provide

the safety net that is required of a welfare policy. After listening to

evidence from the Resolution Foundation, the citizens income

trust, and the Adam Smith Institute, as well as the High Commission in

Canada, it became clear that a citizens income could only be

universal if it was set at a level way below the actual cost of living.

There would need to be a vast range of additional means tested benefits,

for housing, family support, disability support and these would

operate on a similar basis to the current welfare system. In addition,

because the negative income tax gives income to a large group of

individuals, for example, stay at home mums, who receive no benefits

in the present system, because they are Notts in need, the overall pot

available for those in need is reduced. After taking evidence from

groups like the Joseph Rowntree Foundation, it was clear that those

who faced the most acute poverty in Britain in 2016 are families with

young children. Child poverty has serious detrimental impact on

educational attainment and as a result, an increase in child poverty

which we are facing, is not only bad in the short-term, but locks in

cycles of poverty and deprivation over generations. It is for these

reasons that the working party chose to focus on policies which would

increase the quality of the safety net for the most vulnerable. By

choosing the second earners allowance and the abolition of the

second child limit, increasing child support by ?5 a week we are

targeting resources at those most in need. It has been suggested that

this policy payer is not radical enough. I believe there is a real

need to highlight what is happening to families in poverty now. This

policy paper is radical in the support offered to the most

vulnerable, to young children, to careers and to the disabled. These

aare the people to whom a safety net matters the most. They need a policy

now which will allow us to champion their needs this year and not in 18

months. I urge you to support this motion unamended. Thank you.

Thank you, Lucy. Could Jenny Rig stand by. I call Celia Thomas, a

member of the House of Lords and from Stretton.

Good afternoon, conference. I hope I don't go over the edge. I think I'll

be all right. This is a thoroughly well thought out paper in my view

and I congratulate the Working Group on giving us such an innovative,

practical and humane road map for the sort of welfare system we want

in this country. There are big ideas and smaller proposals, including, of

course, one which in the end, didn't make the cut. I am persuaded by the

reasoning given as to why the citizens income proposal was not

endorsed, even though initially the Working Group was attracted to it.

But don't be fooled into thinking that this makes the paper just

tinkering at the edges. Of the current system. It is not just

tinkering. It is the most radical plan I've ever seen for welfare

reform, including universal credit and I say that from some experience,

as I am veteran of the last ten years worth of legislation in this

field. It is difficult to pick out the specific proposals in such a

short speaking time. But I will mention one or two. The first is

scrapping the hated work capability assessments which we've heard about,

particularly on disabled people and replacing it with a real-world test,

based on a pioneering system in the Netherlands. The test would be

administered locally to take employment conditions in the

locality into consideration. Obviously, there would have to be

national elgentleman built -- eligability cry teara, but it would

help ensure claimants are not put through impossible hoops to get

non-existent jobs. Second, there is the wholly radical idea of devolving

the design, targeting and delivery of employment support to local

authorities, while keeping benefits delivery with Jobcentre Plus.

Conference, let's start campaigning on this paper straight away. There's

a great deal in it and you need to read the whole paper. It is bold and

radical. We should not waste another minute. I urge you to support the

motion as a whole. Thank you, Celia. If Jenny could just hold for a

minute. I'd like to to be able to read out the list invited to give an

intervention. If they could make their way to the mic on that side of

the room in this order. I'm afraid we've had more cards than we can

take. Not everybody will be there. Lucy Tom, Tony Lloyd, Joanna brie

son, Brian stokes, Denis lore eo, Andrew sosen, Francis Hague, Joey

Dunlop, Nick bar low and Susan Fletcher. Thank you.

Could Matthew Clark stand by. I call Jenny Rigg from Calderdale, who is

going to speak against the motion as a whole.

Thank you. Conference, who here is familiar with the television sitcom

Red dwarf? Do you remember the episode quarantine? Rimer thinks

that the appropriate punishment for any minor infraction is two hours

WOO. For those of you who haven't watched that's "without oxygen".

That's what benefit sanctions are like. If someone turns up late to an

appointment or is ill or has a family member die, or is incapable

of filling in a form properly or looks at a Jobcentre advisor in a

funny way, we punish them by removing their access to the basic

things they need to survive, for up to three months. Now I don't know

about the rest of you, but as Kelly said in our opening speech, I signed

up to a party which promises to fight for a world in which no-one is

enslaved by poverty, ignorance or conformity. Clap clap --

APPLAUSE . When did it become acceptable to

members of this party to punish people for ignorance or

nonconformity by pushing them into the kind of poverty which means they

need to use food banks or starve to death? Johnny Oakes referred to the

safeguards that are in the paper. Those safeguards are restricted

sanctions where you get your Housing Benefit and child tax credit and ?5

a week. ?5 a week is not enough for anybody to live on.

APPLAUSE Frankly, I think benefit sanctions

as a whole are unjustifiable, inhumane and immoral. I want no part

of any motion which supports their use. This motion does exactly that.

Aha, I see you thinking, but we can fix that by voting for amendment

one. Well, partly. But since amendment one doesn't remove lines

47 to 49, we would still be saying we support the use of sanctions.

Amendment one also won't fix the motion's unjustified and

unjustifiable attack on the concept of negative income tax. Now perhaps

we could fix that by voting for amendment three. Well, yes. But that

won't fix the situation of disability assessments and if you

devolve those down to local councils, that's not going to make

them any better. Or any of the myriad problems with our benefits

system. Conference, this motion is fundamentally flawed. It fails to

offer a distinctive liberal vision. It is mired in coalition think. I'm

actually ashamed that the federal policy committee put it in front of

us in the form that it's in. CHEERING AND APPLAUSE

You can amend this motion, if you like, but I submit that if you do,

you will be merely applying the proverbial lipstick to the

proverbial pig. You can refer it back, if you like. But when a motion

is this bad, I would say that that's the coward's way out. Conference,

vote this motion down. Vote it down and send the message that Liberal

Democrats believe... Would you bring your comments to a close please. ...

Even benefit claimants Thank you, Jeniment --

Jenny. I call Matthew Clark and following that we will have the

interventions. That's not a good start.

LAUGHTER Thank you, conference. As someone

who has benefitted from the conference access fund to be here

today, I'm very proud to be able to make my first speech on...

APPLAUSE Thank you. On how owl party's

supported principles can be applied to serve the entire country. Social

Security should not merely be a safety net to catch people, it

should be a trampoline that helps them jump up high and achieve

greater. Too often however, the Tory ideology is in fact creating a

sticky web, trapping and entrenching vulnerable people who can be and

deserve better. As a beneficiary of Social Security, I have been

invested in so that my disability does not distract, does not distract

from developing my potential so that I have a bright future and can

therefore help the country towards the same. But in being rigid,

centralised and impersonal, I have wasted valuable time not developing

myself, but learning how to jump through the Hoops of the system,

whether being punished for being positive about myself in my first

work capability assessment and needing family to support me through

a year-long battle to regain the benefit. Then against that outcome

of a tribunal which it went to two years later, I was later forced to

reapply again and go through the entire process due to having the

Social Security taken away as a result of taking a ten week paid

internship. My first paid work experience didn't leave me feeling

great and looking to the next step. It left me picking up the pieces.

The too many of my peers who live with sight loss or clients I helped

at Citizens Advice, this complex system is not one may fight, it is

one of the year. So many people were not asked the simplest questions for

fear of sanction. So they come to myself as a friend or Citizens

Advice, the cost to society of this ill and loss of potential,

unacceptable. I interned this Summer at the Royal National Institute of

Blind people and the employment advisers do great work to set bought

my peers into work but as an intern, a witness them wasting valuable time

completing the DWP processes, not living and working locally on the

ground, with customers, to make and create stronger outcomes and working

opportunities for them. Matthew, you have 30 seconds left.

If these people to reach their potential and our country its

potential, Social Security in this motion's light must reflect their

needs. Circumstances and reality. If we catch them when they fall and

help them jump up again. Support amendment to two, reject amendments

one and three, only in this way can we break the Tory web with a

credible policy that is palatable to all the voters which we need to

convince that we are the real opposition in time to come. Thank

you, conference, and thank you to everyone who supported the access

fund. APPLAUSE.

Thank you, Matthew. We are now going to move to the interventions. But

David stand-by to speak after the interventions? You have one minute

each and the microphone will catch you. Just to say that we ritually

chose these cards at random shuffling them. -- literally. The

first speaker is Lucy, from Bedford. I would like to speak in support of

the scrapping of work capability assessments and replacement with

something that takes more into consideration the fact that a one

size fits all assessment doesn't cover the range of disabilities and

illnesses people suffer from. I suffer from a chronic and mostly

invisible illness, narcolepsy, which can fluctuate from not just

day-to-day but from hour to hour. Having gone through an assessment

and disabled student allowance assessment, and being told that was

the best assessment to get, but even that, the fact... I am optimistic

and have got the University, I am told that will be used as something

to hold me back from being able to get as much support as I could

because I seem to be able, I am mobile and it doesn't take into

consideration a lot of symptoms people suffer from for various

illnesses which are not visible and you cannot assess them in two hours

telling you to write passages and put your hand above your head. That

is not enough to judge... APPLAUSE. Sorry, that is what

happens! Next is Tony Lloyd, from Lewisham.

The morality of sanctions is well rehearsed, I want to touch on the

practicalities. I am an accountant and we had a big, big problem with

many different petty -- floats getting out of control. The solution

was to chuck ?50 in tins and people took the money and paid it back when

they got it back on expenses. We did that because it was cheaper. Even if

the entire petty float was nicked once a month. It strikes me that the

sanctions regime is not only immoral, but it cannot be

cost-effective. We are talking about making it better, which means we

will be spending more money on sanctioning fewer people. I just

don't believe it is going to work. APPLAUSE.

Next, Joanna Bryson, from Bath. Conference, basic income should be a

flaw, not a ceiling. It shouldn't attract anyone. It proposes to move

the benefits of Artificial Intelligence to the rest of the

population. There is evidence that people, poor people when they get

money, they are in fact helped. However, if we go to some

libertarian fantasy of dismantling the safety net, the poor will be

heard. So while in the future we should aspire towards basic income,

we need a new income stream for it, possibly from the multi-income tech

companies, but that will take a much longer time than the immediate

requirements of bill. APPLAUSE. Thank you, and is now

Brian Stokes, from York. As someone who was once sanctioned

for attending Lib Dem conference, and very happy to see the desires

from people in the room for serious reform to scrap it altogether. But

my main point is it is good to see amendment three, but we do need a

serious debate on negative income tax on its own. And possibly to

develop a framework for it. We cannot allow ourselves, prevent

ourselves an opportunity to develop an innovative, exciting and

eye-catching idea and we need a debate on another day for this

purpose. APPLAUSE. Thank you, Dennis Loreto

from Bermondsey. Everyone here wants those who forced

to depend on benefit to be treated fairly and humanely, would that

enough tax monies be available to sweep away all restrictions and all

limits whatsoever. In the real world, it doesn't. I agree with most

of this resolution, and will vote for it, but I do have doubts. One is

the restoration of housing benefit at 18. Housing benefit has escalated

enormously recently and in this sad world, more young people are

choosing to leave the parental home. Of course there should be special

cases to be looked at and is dealt with. But to allow complete

restoration of housing benefit for those at 18, I think is a bridge too

far, and I think some issues should be looked at carefully. We cannot

simply afford to sweep all restrictions away.

Thank you. Andrew, from Chelmsford. The motion

has I think 13 proposals to spending. Two proposals to reduce

spending. Before I give it wholehearted support, and would like

to know how much they would cost. Best estimates. And other people can

work out what the tax increases they would apply, increases in capital

gains, corporation tax, etc. Thank you. APPLAUSE. Thank you.

Next, France, from Horsham and Crawley.

Thank you, conference. So much of this motion is filled with how we

would correct or tinker with Tory policy. Instead, we should be

stating loudly and clearly how we as Lib Dems would help our neighbours

and communities without micromanaging their lives and

adapting for the big economy. What we will do to help those who will be

in hardship or struggling with disabilities, in life, stuff

happens. We should be helping people. Where is the clear message

we can deliver on the store steps about what we are about as Lib Dems

so that we can win again? -- doorsteps. APPLAUSE. Thank you.

Joey Dunlop from Dulwich. I want to talk about something which

has not been mentioned. Helping people with sickness and disability

back into work. Something I care about from losing my own job 18

months ago through mental health. I really do believe in the value of

work for the individual to have something to do. I work for a

charity that helps people now with arthritis and muscular conditions

back into work. The government's Green paper on health in work, there

is aces suspicion Damian Green has been sweeping the childhood obesity

strategy on it and keep our focus on holding the government to account

and not take the easy option of saying nothing, and to stand for

this motion today. Thank you. APPLAUSE. Thank you. Nick

Barlow, from Colchester. Thank you, the problem with being last, at the

end of the queue for interventions is someone in front of you says what

you are going to say! And would like to associate myself with everything

Louise said. When Lloyd judge -- when Lloyd George and Beveridge came

up with the social security system, they did not take small steps, they

came out and made something radically different from what came

before and that is what we should be doing as a party, coming out with

something radical, distinctive and Liberal to empower individuals, not

just tweaking the system we have already got.

APPLAUSE. Thank you. Finally, Suzanne Fletcher, from Stockton.

Whatever ways we can mend the safety net, it is no good at all if letters

about benefit are not understood. I was a see a B worker over 40 years

and I have seen sanctions given, appeals not made, because of letters

and language I have sometimes not understood, never mind the claimant

-- Citizens Advice bureau. A testing panel made up of claimants could

meet and let professionals know what they think the proposed letters

mean. Not only would this help all claimants, it would empower and be

truly Liberal, thank you. APPLAUSE. Thank you. Could try Messer please

stand by? I called David Matthew meant, from Leighton and Chingford,

who is going to speak against amendment two.

Conference, I will hopefully keep this short as Evan Harris has said a

lot of what I was going to say, very well. The benefit caps calculated on

the basis benefits paid out should not exceed the level of national

income, that might seem fair at first sight. The two figures are not

equivalent, they do not do the same job, it is comparing apples not even

with ridges but an egg whisk! -- oranges. They are calculated

piecemeal based on the needs of the recipient, wages are calculated

based on the Labour market. It will be very unusual to base my salary

directly on my rent, number of children I have, adjustments and

need for disabilities. If I were in receipt of benefits, those are the

things that would feed directly into my payments. To put a cap on the

benefits, you are saying to a person, we have assessed you. And

calculated the level of benefits we think you need. But I am afraid we