20/09/2016 - Live Morning Session Liberal Democrats Conference

Good morning, Conference. Thank you very much for coming in for this

first session this morning. A great pressure to see you. I am your

chair. Thank you to my aids in advance, just in case I forget at

the end in all the excitement. Can I ask Susan Fletcher to stand by,

Susan from Stockton North, and I also call Chris White to move this

emergency motion. Good morning, Conference. In August

I went into the Jungle in Calais with other councillors from the

Local Government Association. It is hard, really, to describe it. It is

more a shanty town than a cab. It more a shanty town than a cab. It

has places to eat, it almost has shanty restaurant quarters although,

of course, the food is running out. Help is needed, they need cash. The

charities are extremely emphatic, sending carloads of stuff is not

helpful, cash is. People are free to come and go, but might get beaten or

harassed by the French see RS riot police. One teenager was left

permanently brain-damaged by a CRS rubber bullet. It comprises mainly

men and boys, although there are some women and girls, mainly from

Eritrea. The majority from Afghanistan, although there are some

Syrians and others, of course. It is located by the main road to the

Channel Tunnel, protected by fences paid for by you and me, as British

taxpayers. We arrived, a charity had managed to make arrangements for

four boys to enter the UK legally, to be settled with relatives. Just

four. But well over 800 children and young people remain. The camp has

been growing daily of late. It doesn't officially exist, of course,

and the mayor of Calais wants to demolish it. It was partially

demolished in March, at which point 127 children just disappeared. Why

are they there? Are they refugees or migrants? If it is the BBC, or the

tabloids, not much difference between them these days, it is

always migrants. Of course, there are both. People who have despaired

or whose parents have despaired about what is happening in their own

country. Stuff like war, forced recruitment by the Taliban, general

violence. They cross to Europe, perhaps from Iran and then through

country after country if they can. The Syrians are doing the same to

Lesbos and other places in Greece or Italy or elsewhere. You know, it is

a long way to come just to claim benefits. Which is why the word

migrants is a slower, both to the people in the Jungle and for those

arriving through the Syrian vulnerable persons relocation scheme

-- which is why the word migrants is a slur. They don't trust people. The

children are as likely to have nightmares about the CRS as about

the Taliban back at home. That is why they still try to climb on a

lorry, even when their application to enter the UK has been agreed.

They don't think it will really happen. Why do we in the UK question

the motives of people who travel so perilously? Why do we question the

economic motives of children? Why to be dared question the motives of

people fleeing the consequences of this country's paled foreign and

defence policy? -- why do we dare to question? Why do we extra -- accept

the existence of purely bureaucratic barriers to children rejoining

relatives seeking asylum in the UK? Why is funding so far so slow to

arrive from the UK Government? Why are some cancelled so slow to help

other councils? What is the matter with us in the UK that we regard

this as a threat or it rather than something straightforward to solve?

I spoke to one young boy. He was aged eight. He got here to the

Jungle from Afghanistan. He did not travel alone, his cousin was looking

after him. His cousin was aged nine. That is what we are dealing with

here. Think about the children, think about humanity, and support

this emergency motion. Thank you, Conference.

APPLAUSE Thank you very much, Chris.

Can I ask Spencer had art from Cambridge to stand by, now I call

Suzanne Fletcher from Stockton North and South to speak for lines one and

two and 23 and 26. Thank you, and good morning,

Brighton. We are all here today because we chose to be here. Most of

us live in the UK, not because we chose to be, but because it is where

we were born. And most of us have done nothing to deserve living here

in a country where, although we have its faults, we have a democracy,

freedom of religion, freedom of speech. And safety from bombing

terror. We have it because we happen to be born here. There are those who

do not have that freedom can do not have that security, do not have that

safety, because they happen to have been born somewhere else, none of it

is their fault. Surely it is only right, as this motion says, that we

welcome a fair share of the refugees, including unaccompanied

children? Not, as Theresa May says, close our borders and build walls,

spending as much as ?80 million in the process to do that?

We only talking about taking a fair share, not expecting those countries

that happen to be near the to take everybody -- happen to be near the

Mediterranean to take everybody. Of all asylum claims made in the EU in

2016 so far, only 3% have come to the UK. We can hardly say we are

being overwhelmed. That money is better spent supporting local

authorities in a way that they can properly plan and support those

people, and also that they have enough money to do that for

continued funding for vulnerable people, especially the children.

When they have arrived here they have a lot of extra needs, it is

only right that our councils make sure they have enough money,

especially in times of cuts to lots of services, to be able to do that.

The motion moves to talk about suitable housing available. Of

course it has to be suitable housing. Let's not forget that we

have lots of destitute asylum seekers here with no housing, no

money and they are not allowed to work. It talks about improved

provision for English-language teaching for those who needed. Of

course we need that, and we also needed for the refugees arriving

here, where there is no promised funding and they need not only

English language teaching that the introduction and continued support

for life in the UK, with different cultures, different ways of travel,

shopping and everything else. So I just ask that we keep up the

support, keep up the pressure, for the Government to give its fair

share. For councils to be able to take on the responsibility for

taking in the people, and we are only talking a fuel for each

council, if everybody does it, and for all communities to play a part

in making these refugees truly welcome. Thank you.

APPLAUSE Many thanks, Susan.

Can I ask Henry van from Bedford Borough to stand by. And I call

Spencer had art from Cambridge. Fellow Liberal Democrats, tiny

Lebanon has accepted up to 1 million people uprooted in the world's worst

ever displacement crisis. Dixie 5 million people are uprooted from

their homes, over 21 million of them are now refugees from civil strife,

war and natural disasters -- 65 million. Britain, under the

unlamented former Prime Minister David Cameron, miserably offered

refuge to 25,000 people over four years. It is our mission as Lib Dems

to rouse the conscience of the nation to get that number multiplied

Andrey multiplied, to ensure that means are provided for communities

up and down the country to do the right thing that so many wish to, to

offer resettlement, rehabilitation and hope. The astonishing thing to

many people, Conference, is that being true to core values in this

way pays remarkable political dividends. From our stance against

the aliens act of 1905 in the face of Tory vilification, to our

campaign that achieved in about-face in the Ted Heath Government smack

willingness to accept the Asians expelled from Uganda in 1972. The

latter was followed by a stream of Parliamentary by-election gains for

proceeding party, the Liberals. A string of games over the following

14 months in 1972/ three. But, for me, this is not merely an issue of

principle and profoundly political, but also deeply personal. I doubt

that my own grandparents, fleeing the pogrom is in western Ukraine in

1906, would have dared to come to Scotland, would have been able to

come to Scotland, if the newly elected Liberal Government hadn't

forced the 1905 alien act of the Tories. It did not, they came -- had

enforced. Likewise, if the Liberals and Jeremy Thorpe, having fought

Labour's immigration act in the 1960 's had simply let Heath get away

with his callous intentions in 1972, then the friends I made in Uganda

where I was working before, jeering and briefly after the expulsions

began, would have been scattered to the four wins, not a cherished part

of my family life for the past 45 years. And the beneficiaries of the

Liberal administration in Watford, by the way. Conference, I would like

to conclude by daring to suggest that a country as fractured as I was

seems to be today will help itself to heel by acts of generosity to

people whose plight is truly appalling.

APPLAUSE The city of Leicester found this out

when it went on to build one of Britain's most harmonious society is

once it had woken to the appalling folly of its advertisement to

Ugandan Asians in the Uganda Aga is that I read, that refugees would not

be welcome in Leicester in 1972. They change their mind and, my

goodness me, how glad they are they did. This catastrophic rises of

underage demands the very best of us. As people, the British are

better by far than our current Government pretends we are. We have

proved it before and we can do so again. Conference, please support

this motion. APPLAUSE

Thank you very much, can I ask David Priti from Mole Valley to stand by,

and I now call Henry Vann, who wishes to speak for the motion as a

whole. I urge you to support this motion.

There is good news that the Liberal Democrats run Bedford Council has

already taken refugee families. APPLAUSE And even more good news,

yesterday I heard that on this very day we are welcoming another family

from Syria. We have taken a family on each chartered flight we have

been offered and the council has used money at made available to put

in place a structure, working with partners to multiply that support

and I would like to praise the work of Bedford refugee and asylum seeker

support, they employ an Arabic speaking support worker who worked

with the Council on the vulnerable persons relocation scheme providing

support for families who have arrived. It is this sort of activity

recognised in this motion that demonstrates why local authorities

must be leading the integration of refugees in communities and must be

properly funded to do so. These refugee families have been made

homeless. We have heard horrific stories already from Chris. They

have been made homeless and vulnerable by devastating conflict

and are in desperate need of a safe and stable home. The message has

gone out from the Liberal Democrats and I hope it will go out again that

we will do our part to help these families start a new happy and

stable life. The role of local authorities is key. We are going to

continue to provide support to families but local schools have

welcomed children and the families are integrating well into

communities. This motion covers much of the good work going on by local

authorities at much that needs to change in how the government is

supporting refugees. We must take our fair share as a country. Every

single council must take its fair share. We must challenge the benefit

cap which is causing problems for local authorities trying to support

these families, and we must challenge the underfunding of local

government by central government. The families that arrive from Syria

generally have to or three children and when they arrive they are truly

dependent and need the support package from local authorities so I

urge you to support this motion. Many thanks.

I now call David Preedy. Good morning. While supporting all

aspects of the motion I want to talk about how refugees are treated when

they reach the UK and how we can improve their welcome and accelerate

their integration as productive members of society. At spring

conference I got a text from my wife, hello, David, you know we have

talked about hosting refugees? We now have a family staying with us. A

family whose only alternative accommodation that weekend would

have been at a police station in north London because they were

destitute. Since then we have shared their ups and downs, despair of a

letter from the Home Office describing their situation as,

evidence your account is not credible. Their confusion when asked

to provide evidence they have no source of funds. And the immense

relief when they were finally granted asylum. I have been

following how local councils have implemented the resettlement

programme in our own area and in Swansea where my daughter helps

refugees to integrate. In both areas, but not I am pleased to hear

in Bedford, the authorities seem to want to keep refugees separate from

those who have reached Britain under their own steam. It is

counter-productive. I call for local authorities to follow Bedford and

reach out more and collaborate with voluntary groups. My experience has

confirmed the limits of what volunteer hosts can achieve. Our

house in a small village might be fine for asylum seekers not yet

allowed to work with is a handicap when the guests are looking for

work. I know the family could benefit from access to scheme set up

by the council to help with housing, language training and help to work.

I know refugees in council schemes could benefit from what volunteers

can enable, such as mutual help, social integration. Our family's

some speaks pretty good English and accompanies other refugees to the

job centre to translate. It is helpful and rebuilds his self-esteem

because he is helping others, contributing back to an organisation

that his family have reached. Living with a family helps guests untangle

the mysteries of English life. Why are we always talking about the

weather? How come England played Pakistan in cricket on so many days

throughout the summer? And all refugees in our area were delighted

to join in celebrations as the son of one host family got their A-level

results. Little steps that make these people feel welcome and no

council run scheme can achieve this. I call on all local authorities to

adopt a collaborative approach to reduce the time refugees need

expensive support and I ask everyone to support the motion and think

about how you can help these people rebuild their lives.

APPLAUSE. Thank you very much. I now call Juliet from Islington party to

speak in favour of the motion. Juliet. Are you here? No. In that

case... Graham, having asked you to stand by, it is your moment. Would

you mind moving up the order? And I need the next person to stand by,

please. Can I ask Jackie Delta stand-by. Good morning, this is my

first time speaking at a conference. APPLAUSE. I work as children's

social worker and I have direct experience of working with

unaccompanied asylum seekers and families with no recourse to funds.

I welcome the call for a national coordination to share intelligence

in a foster care capacity. When I first started working in child

protection, I was bemused to discover that when we look at

accommodating a child, in an age of advanced information technology,

foster care placements are largely found by a social worker telephoning

people until they can find someone to care for the child. Good foster

carers are a scarce resource and any coordination of information about

capacity can only be a good thing. Can I suggest what we need is more

people to volunteer to become foster carers? Something we experience all

the time is a shortage of placements which does not just impact on asylum

seeking children but all children in the UK. Often when we decide to

accommodate children in local authority care the decision to

accommodate a chart particular home has less to do with the match with

the carer, and more to do with whatever is available at that time.

Often the placements available could be 40 miles away from the child's

home and what is already a stressful experience is made more traumatic

because you move the child from their home, friends, school and

everything they know. For asylum seeking children it is not uncommon

they are placed with families who cannot speak their language, let

alone understand their culture. I have a favour to ask. When you are

out campaigning and talking to local communities, somebody talks about

the refugee crisis, something they are particularly worried about, you

can encourage people to register their interest to become a foster

carer. They do not have to take in a scary foreign child! In order to

improve outcomes for all children in general. Conference, I urge you to

support this motion. APPLAUSE. I am sorry your speech had

less notice and others. I now call Jackie Bough. Conference, the image

of a small boy drowned on beach brought the reality of the refugee

crisis home to many. Liberal Democrats for seekers of Sanctuary

have campaigned since 2012 to improve conditions for those seeking

sanctuary in Britain. Our work has been increasing with the devastating

refugee crisis. Britain may be caught up in Brexit but hundreds are

still drowning in the Mediterranean and Syria is still burning. Many

individuals and local authorities offered help that the government

response has been slow. East Lothian Council pledge to take up to seven

families a year. The county has a history of help having accommodated

hundreds of Bosnians in the 90s. Local projects were already helping

with one family, a mother and daughter, making eight trips to the

Jungle. The first two families did not arrive in East Lothian until

February. Three came in May. Two more are due in the next weeks. The

council provides furnished accommodation and extra comforts

have come to East Lothian Welcome to refugees and teddies are provided

for the youngest children. Groups have delivered welcome cards

provided by the community and given general friendship and support. As

well as the council response locals offered to give accommodation but

the council prefers to use its own tenancies. Consequently the numbers

taken are smaller than the initial offers of places to stay by the

community. But the offers of hosting remain. There are local concerns

about unaccompanied children who are at risk in Europe and in the camps.

Most of the Syrian families are in Midlothian where I was the Scottish

election candidate. They thought their teenage son had died that he

is actually in Calais. The process of reunification is ponderous with

many tests to prove he is their son and meanwhile he is at risk. There

are lots of people and local authorities on the ground willing to

help. Sadly the government is not so keen. Theresa May wants refugees to

ask for asylum in the first safe country they reach, which puts

pressure on poorer countries like Greece and Italy. It is shameful

that government once to stall on taking its fair share to support

those caught up in this humanitarian crisis. Theresa May, in addressing

the UN, is out of step with the feeling of many British people. Not

all believe that hate of the Daily Mail and Express. A picture of

another traumatised boy in Aleppo has brought horrific scenes in Syria

back to many. Conference, let us stand up for refugees and others

seeking sanctuary. Please support this important motion today. Jackie,

thank you very much. Can I ask Michael from Leeds West to stand-by.

Conference, we face the biggest humanitarian crisis since the Second

World War with millions of refugees fleeing war and persecution and

death. In many ways it is getting worse. History will judge us for our

actions and how has our government responded. We are doing the bare

minimum, actively making the situation worse for many. Take

Calais, instead of sending a single penny of aid or offering safe and

legal routes, we have spent millions on fences, barbed wire, police and

attack dogs, making the crossing was lethal. It leaves people with no

other option than to waste away in conditions in the camp or risk their

lives on a perilous journey. This week saw the news of the youngest

refugee yet losing his life to come to the UK to be with his family. He

had a legal right to be here and his death was needless and a failure of

our government will stop there are hundreds like him in Calais who have

a right to be in the UK and the government must act on their

obligations to save them. But we turned our backs. The government is

not providing the determination or adequate support to local

authorities to enable them to help Syrian families and unaccompanied

children. We are not even beating our woeful target of 20,000

refugees. It is left to small groups like ours in Camden to find housing,

foster carers, pressure local authorities and do the government's

job for them. There is a vital need for a national coordination and

strategy for resettling refugees. The government ought to take the

lead and take steps to remove blockages between local and central

government and provide support to welcome refugees. We have capacity

and resources to save lives, there is no excuse. If we have millions to

build a wall in Calais then we have the resources to save refugees.

Conference, we must not let Brexit derail our determination and resolve

to offer hope for refugees. We cannot let that happen. We must pass

the motion and stand up for those who need it most and pressure

Theresa May and the government to welcome refugees and provide support

necessary to do so. Then when we say refugees are welcome, we mean it and

can make our words a reality. Can I ask the delegate from Bath and

North East Somerset to stand-by? I now call Michael Madigan forward.

-- Michael Meadowcroft. Good morning, Liberal Insomniacs! I

wonder what is happening to this country and its treatments of

refugees. This country took and literally hundreds of thousands of

Jewish refugees from the Russian Empire, and they are invaluable to

the cultural and financial life of my city, because we took them in.

Looking further onto a Kindertransport in Germany, just one

example, the Liberal MP, previously from Leeds West, Ted Harvey, he and

wife took in two Jewish boys into their own home in 1939.

We move onto the Ugandan Asians, we took 17,000 in. I doubt one of them

is not a millionaire today. And Richard Wainwright, MP for Colne

Valley and his wife, took Ugandan Asian family into their home.

We have thousands of Vietnamese boat people. Have they been a huge

problem in Britain? I have not noticed. But in the UK we

now have the Government which is very against all such suggestions

are people coming here. And in the evidence in the opinion polls, we

have a national view that we don't want refugees and asylum seekers.

But the curious fact is that I have never known a case in a locality

where a refugee or asylum seeker that has been threatened with

deportation had not been supported by the local community. Every case.

That is particularly true of the faith communities. In West Leeds,

for instance, the local church fought unsuccessfully for a man and

his son to stay here. They were taken to a detention centre near to

Heathrow. In that detention centre the man hanged himself in front of

his 13-year-old said because he said he wanted his son to be able to stay

in this country. That is the reality of what we are doing to people, and

it shames me what this country has done. The job of the liberal

politician is to enhance altruism and to diminish selfishness. It is

not enough just to pass a motion like this. It is a question of

liberal politicians, all of us in the Conference, to bang on the doors

of the local authority, to be making representations at surgeries of

councillors and members of Parliament, saying we want this

area, this council, this town to accept refugees, because they are

welcome here and they will enhance our community. Thank you very much.

APPLAUSE Thank you, Malcolm. I now call the

representative from Bath and North East Somerset.

Conference, I hadn't actually plan to speak today. This is my first

time of actually speaking to a conference.

APPLAUSE I hadn't planned because it seems

absolutely, you know, we are preaching, I would hope, to the

converted. But I wanted just to share a small

thing of something that I took part in a week ago. A week ago I joined

Bath Welcomes at the summit of all the Welcome Refugee groups across

the UK. The summit was well attended by at least 500 other people,

including a wide range of faith representatives, Council and

government offices, ordinary people and, most importantly, refugees from

across the globe, from the crises of today and the past.

We heard stories from refugees from Syria, Poland, Nepal, and from Jews.

As you can imagine, this was extremely moving and, at times,

deeply upsetting. Families are being torn apart. Some permanently. The

refugees themselves always had something positive to say.

Invariably about the support and help they had received. For me, the

most moving the stories told by some of the 23 that came to Bath and

Bristol, at those who support them here. These people have suffered

appallingly, and there are many more who continue to do so. They are not

media stunts, it is suffering by real people, babies, young people,

students, mothers. It is clear that, as a nation, we are not doing

enough. Over 300 children have an acknowledged right to come to the UK

but are trapped on their own in the camps of Calais. Reaching Government

figures and targets on those we help is not good enough. There are many,

many more that need help. We must do as much as we should, not as little

as we can. If Government won't all continues to drag its heels, local

councils must try to make a real difference for real people. I will

be using every opportunity to keep the momentum going and will be

bringing a motion to the council in Bath and North Somerset in the

summer, which I hope all councillors will support. I will ask all at this

Conference to do everything they can to bring these children into safety

in our country and support proposals to bring more refugee families here,

again with support. I hope all here will support this notion.

Thank you. APPLAUSE

I now call a summation on the motion as a whole.

Conference, let me start by saying how proud I am that this emergency

motion came top in the ballots. By some margin. It shows that we

Liberal Democrats are far from dead, we still have a beating heart. Let

me start by thanking Chris for bringing this motion to us. And for

moving it so ably and knowledgeably. It was in the 18th century that

Edmund Burke said, the only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is

that good men do nothing. And this evil that we see in Europe today,

the biggest forced movements of people since World War II is not one

that any decent person can ignore. And that has a point made

passionately by Bradley, who I know has been a tireless worker on behalf

of refugees. And Jackie referred to the lack of

leadership, and she is right. Because instead of leadership with

humanitarian vision, our leaders have given is paralysis and, worse,

xenophobia. Fenced border is going up between Schengen countries and a

dodgy deal with Turkey. Until conditions in the Middle East and

north in sub-Saharan Africa improve, and safe areas in the region are

established, we must use our responsibility and international

law. This is not just about staying on the right side of the law, this

is a moral imperative on all of us. Compassion for fellow human beings.

This is what defines us as a civilised society. Many speakers

spoke of the benefits to us that refugees bring, not just

economically but also socially, culturally and, dare I say it,

gastronomically. Michael Meadowcroft and is Fed spoke passionately on

that subject. As a regular visitor to the Jungle camp in Calais, I know

people are desperate to leave. Winter is coming and a rumour that

the camp will be demolished before Christmas is creating huge tensions.

In the aftermath of the last demolitions, about 150 children

disappeared. So there is a race against the clock to at least get

some children out of harms way. But there is not anywhere for the vast

majority of them to go. One women and children's Centre, believe it or

not, will not take unaccompanied children, only children with their

mothers. The containers are for adult men only, and when children

are allowed in they often end up sharing spaces with adults unknown

to them, and usually different adult men every night. This is not safe

practice. So in their desperation, they take risks and try nightly to

come to Britain on the back of lorries, sometimes with fatal

consequences, as Bradley referred to. So movingly.

Our government has failed in the very basic duty to uphold national

law and safeguard children using safe and legal means. Our Government

should hang its head in shame for its part in this human tragedy. And

it often deflects blame onto cash strapped local authorities. And the

impact on local authorities was a point made by several speakers. The

impact not just of offering child centre refugees, but ongoing

support, something referred to by many speakers. Suzanne spoke of it,

as did Spencer. Spencer, thank you so much for sharing your story with

us. So, cash-strapped local authorities.

But, you know, if the Government was to work with them to harness the

outpouring of the generosity of the British people who have offered

their home to a refugee, that would take some of the burden of local

authorities. Yes, of course we have do have stringent vetting

procedures, but let's get on and do it. Henry illustrated graphically

what can be done when there is a will, as in Bedfordshire. Family

reunification, that is a safe and legal route. The children in those

circumstances already have a home in the UK, and a support network. So

the local authority would have reduced burden on its resources. But

the Government is inexcusably dragging its feet. When you talked

about the importance of social work with children and some of the

challenges their, you remind me of an organisation called Social Worker

first, operating now on the grounds in Calais. It is made up of

professional social workers, all registered in the UK. They do a

fantastic job because they do assessments of the Child in the UK

and they come to the UK and do an assessment of the receiving family.

Those two things together make a powerful case, and they need more

help. So let me just finish by saying that we have shown it is

possible to make this work without putting all the burden on local

authorities. Politics is the art of the possible, so let's get on with

it. I urge you to pass this motion with a resounding majority. Thank

you. APPLAUSE

Thank you. We will now be moving to a vote on

this emergency motion. Have you got your badges ready? Can I see those

in favour of this motion? Thank you very much. And those against? I see

no votes at all, so that is very clearly carried. Thank you very

much, Conference. APPLAUSE

And thank you to my aides, Joe and Mary. In a moment I will hand the

chair over. DDC DDC good morning, conference. We

are now moving to the constitutional amendment on committees which is set

out on pages 52 to 77. There are two amendments and they are detailed on

page four of conference daily. Can I ask Sarah Noble pleased to stand-by.

And I now call Baroness Brinton of Watford. She is president of the

party. And to move the motion. Good morning, conference and welcome to

the 600 line constitutional amendment session. Can I say,

because I cannot use the rostrum, I am juggling five bits of paper and

so if everything goes scattering, someone will have to come and help

me pick them up will stop I want to set the scene before we get into the

detail. It might be helpful if you have still got, nearby, the booklet

Towards a more effective party government. The third we have

published on the consultation process. I know that particularly

for new members who may not have seen it before, you need to

understand that the starting point, just over a year ago, of the review,

was a strong message from the party that nobody understood how the

federal committees worked, many of which were indivisible, the

subcommittees were invisible and unaccountable, also how it linked.

My first task was to get it into perhaps a more traditional

organogram rather than a spaghetti Junction. On page 16 you can see the

structure that is proposed. There are no new committees being created.

We are bringing committees out of the shadows and making them more

accountable to you. But it is much more than that. The rest of this

paper and if you have not read it, please look at it, is also about

ensuring we change the way we work. One of my constant criticisms of the

Conservatives is they think they can change the delivery of public

service your lead by rearranging the deck chairs. Moving to

grant-maintained schools as if the name of a school and structure alone

will change the way education should be improved. Quite a lot of the

document talks about how we will have to change the way we work and

there is a reason for that. When I became president, I think the

politest way of putting it is the committee structure was

dysfunctional. I am not just referring to federal committees.

When I became president, as promised, I went round most of the

federal and state committees and asked for their views and almost to

a committee they said, we are perfect, but they are not. And what

was worse, it was all their fault because they didn't listen. There

was a lot of talking and not a lot of listening going on. In a classic

situation, federal committees would blame the English party and the

English party would blame the federal party and the regions. The

regions would blame the English party and the local party would

blame everybody. We today are responsible for looking at the

federal structure but if we are changing at a federal level we need

to change things throughout the party. It is not the role of the

federal party to dictate the state party, regions and local parties how

they do it. We would love you to use the same principles, which Dawn

Barnes outlined when we discussed it on Saturday, that that is down to

you. When I said we were bringing committees out of the shadows, there

are three I want to highlight. If we go to the back page chart, we have

in addition to the continuing role of the federal policy committee and

federal conference committee, we have a Federal communications and

elections committee which was formally and is currently the Sea

CC, a subcommittee of FC that does not report to you as conference and

does not report publicly and yet it is responsible for all major

election campaigns. At the moment that committee has absolutely no

ability to have any oversight over candidates. In the Welsh and

Scottish parties they have a candidates and campaigns committee

but the English party only has a candidate 's committee. One problem

we faced in the past is that at a federal level, campaigns has gone

like that and candidates in England has gone like that, because there

has not been this talking together we ought to be having. I am

delighted to be able to tell you that last night we had the second

joint meeting of the campaigns and communications committee and the

joint State candidates committee. Even before you have a vote today,

that meeting said whatever happens, they want to continue meeting

because, guess what, we have discovered working together and

talking to each other helps. The consequence of your saying to the

federal party and in this case the English party, guys, we don't know

what you're doing and we are unhappy, we are already changing our

ways and thanks to the committees for taking that to heart. We have

also brought up to a federal level the international relations

committee and taken three different committees to bring them into one

new federal committee, which is the federal equal development committee.

We have had, but it has never met, a joint states members committee. Did

you know that? One or two geeks will know. Thanks, Nigel. It hasn't met

for a very long time. We have a training task force. It is important

with member development. We also have the diversity engagement group.

At the moment, they all sit in splendid isolation, not meeting.

There should be member oversight at a federal level and that is what

bringing this committee together will do. The work goes on but it

goes on behind your eyes. The other thing we have brought forward is the

federal audit and scrutiny committee, which for those in the

know, sometimes referred to as the trustees, or Lib Dems Ltd. It has

audit responsibility but it was too arm's length because in

organisations the audit and scrutiny committee will report back to the

members and so they will report to the federal board and the federal

board will report back to you on their work. I want to move briefly

to give you federal executives' view on a member one and two. The

principle behind Amendment one is clear and thanks to Sarah noble

forgetting it right. The proposal in the 600 line constitutional

amendment is we move at a federal level from a two-year term of office

to three years. Sarah says we should have to years and she will argue why

in it. The federal executive opposes this because part of the new ways of

working is the federal board will a strategy and deliver that strategy

over three years. If somebody does not want to stay on the committee

for three years as at the moment they don't for two, it is fine,

because the next person on the list will be elected in their place. All

right, Colin is saying no. There will be someone else to come through

will stop them and two, the joint state candidates subcommittee, Steve

says that the powers that are proposed for the federal committee

to actually take over the work of the state candidates committee that

is failing, the English party is saying it should only happen if they

are failing in their constitutional duty. There is a safeguard in the

proposals in front of you to say there must have been consultation

with that state party at federal level and with the joint state

candidates committee. The problem with the English party proposal is

you can fail, did not fail constitutionally, and that is the

problem. Please reject both amendments, please help us move to a

more effective way of working and please pass a massive 600 line

constitutional amendment, which is the fruit of your work over the past

two years. Thank you.

APPLAUSE. Can Steve Jarvis stand-by. I now

call Sarah Noble to move a member one. Good morning, conference. This

would not be a proper debate if it did not have someone from Calderdale

causing us a lot of trouble. It is interesting to read why the FE

thinks we should have three-year terms. I agreed the committees

appear like groups that are a never ending, where people serve for long

periods of time. Which is why it is strange we are proposing we have

members serve a long time without standing for re-election. I believe

committees have to be selective especially if party strategy has to

change. Moving to three-year terms does the opposite. The federal

policy committee, which will write the 2025 election manifesto, will be

elected under the new timetable in October 20 22. That is half a

Parliamentary term and a lot can change in that time. We went from

Charlie, to Ming Campbell to Nick in that time. In 12 months our

membership has doubled. Another point that is raised is that

administering party democracy would be more expensive. I think this was

a point raised in opposition in the first place. I do not think we

should abridge democracy just because it is too expensive. The

cycle goes federal, state, regional. The way this appears to me, the

Yorkshire Humber region would be pressed by financial concerns more

than anything to reduce elections from annually to try annually. So

much for reducing these cliques. What if the English party was

abolished? Which half of us probably want. What happens to the schedule

then? I believe accountability is best served when democracy is best

served. If I were elected to a committee, I would not feel

comfortable with only being accountable once every three years.

Party members deserve better and I urge you to support the amendment

because democracy in -- is precious. Thank you. Can Alan fox stand-by. I

call Steve Jarvis from North Hertfordshire and Stevenage to move

a member two. Good morning. I feel I should

apologise for spending your time on an amendment to a constitutional

amendment on what looks on the face of it to be a pretty minor change.

But in my view what we are talking about in this area, and I agree with

almost everything else Sal had to say. We are talking about protecting

the way the party chooses Parliamentary candidates in a

democratic and accountable way. For years we had a process designed to

ensure we have people with the skills and knowledge to do the job,

commitment to our cause, selected via a democratic process. Like any

process it does not always work perfectly. We have members who when

they are told they don't have the skills or knowledge do not react

favourably to that. We have occasions when candidates who don't

get selected allege it is because the process is wrong or did not

work. Although occasionally things don't work, we have had a system

that has been tested in this party's processes and on at least one

occasion in the High Court. Over the past 15 years I calculate it has

successfully selected candidates for more than 2500 seats and

constituencies. It has delivered a Liberal Democrat candidate we could

be proud of in every seat in every Parliamentary election the century.

I agree the organisation that does that should talk more with the

campaign 's organisation, but it seems rather strange that the only

place where the constitutional review proposes taking powers to

centralise a process is one operated for that time with that degree of

success. I am prepared to accept we have to have a backstop. If the

English or Welsh or Scottish candidates selection functions do

not do their job, we can't have a position where there are seats that

are not fought. We need a backstop will stop even though it is a

position that has never yet happened. What concerns me about the

backstop proposed is it fails to place limits on when that can be

used. Sal said there would be consultation. We have all been

consulted and all recognise the consultation means that someone asks

your view. It does not necessarily mean someone takes any notice.

My concerns about this are increased by the events that took place this

summer. Because having decided that there should be preparations for a

snap general election, there was then a proposal from the campaigns

and communications committee to just a of candidates to all the most

winnable seats. No chance for any other candidate to apply, no say for

any local parties involved. Under the present arrangements, it was

possible to avoid doing that, and it might be in future. But the

unamended proposals would make that much more difficult. The amendment

makes it clear that we have an organisation set up to manage the

selection of our parliamentary candidates, which we should use if

it works. I don't think we should be abandoning openness and democracy in

order to achieve expediency. And I hope, if you agree with me, that you

will support amendment two. APPLAUSE

Thank you very much. Could prove braid stand-by, I now

call Alan Fox from Leicester City, who wishes to speak against

amendment two. Conference, in opposing amendment

two I should make it clear that I am not doing it because I have

criticisms of the English candidates committee. In fact, it is the only

part of the English party that I have respect for. But the amendment

is badly worded. It means that it is only if the English or Welsh or

Scottish Candidates Committee are not carrying out their

constitutional, and I would underline the word constitutional,

responsibilities, that JC RC can move. There are plenty of other

responsibilities that it may or may not be carrying out. It may be doing

more than its constitutional responsibilities. Would any part of

our party carry out more than its constitutional responsibilities? I

was handed this as I came into the hall the other day, from the English

party who are proposing this amendment. It explains the work of

the English party. The only mention of the English Candidates' Committee

is to say that it is chair is Richard Brett. Two committees that

it says two important work have no basis in the constitution, in the

federal constitution or in the Constitution of the Liberal

Democrats in England. Therefore, I think it is important that we should

not allow organisations, no matter how good their work is at the

moment, to be able to act with impunity if they carry out more than

their responsibilities or if they carry out other responsibilities

badly, bringing the party into disrepute.

Thank you, Conference. Thank you very much, could Peter Dunphy please

stand by, and I now call Pru Bray from Wokingham, who wishes to speak

against some of the lines. It is a muted opposition, I am

speaking as chair of the Parliamentary candidates

Association. The lines that affect candidates are the ones I am

interested in. I am generally in favour of the provisions of the

committee structure, I think it is a step in the right direction. The

bits to do with candidates, not so much. The first thing has remained

the same and I think should have been made different, that is the

composition of the Joint States Candidates' Committee. Under the

Constitution, the membership is as outlined in the motion starting with

the line 147. But custom and practice has been that somebody from

the PCA sits on the Joint States Candidates' Committee, and I have

had that role in the last few years. I would like to think that I have

made a contribution and I am very sad to see that the composition of

that committee is the same as before, and there is no explicit

role for candidates or representatives of candidates must

committee. I hope that will be noted by those responsible for setting it

up on the overarching committee, the Campaigns And Elections Committee,

which would be the parent of that committee. I hope it will use power

over its subcommittees to take a different form and include a

candidate's representative. The other side is to do with

amendment two and lines 437 to 440, where the English party's amendment

should be supported, it is a step in should be supported, it is a step in

the right direction. What I am concerned, to be slightly nerdy,

paragraph 1188, match currently exists and is not propose to be

changed, currently gives the party the ability to vary selection

procedures if we are faced with emergency situations like a snap

general election, which we have just prepared for. That is the paragraph

that use. And it worked, as has outlined. My concern about inventing

a backstop which says that the federal party can do it if the state

parties are not doing it is that once you have introduced something

like that there will be a temptation to use it. States parties have the

devolved responsibility for candidate selection, and I do

believe that we should take a step towards the federal party doing it

if the state parties are doing it now. We are not a party that

believes in centralisation of power. So it is not enough to stop you

voting for the motion as a whole, although I would prefer it if it had

amendment two in it, but afterwards we need to sit down as a party and

write some protocols for the circumstances in which that would be

acceptable to be invoked, and what we would do. The last thing we want

is to be in an emergency situation and be arguing about territory.

Please support amendment two, support the motion as a whole, then

let's work out some of the practical details of how it would operate

without removing some of the better democratic elements in the party.

Thank you. Can Colin Rosenstiel please stand

by, and I now call Peter Dunphy from Westminster, who wishes to speak

against amendment one. Thank you very much. Amendment one

is basically seeking to change this three-year cycle to a two year cycle

for the election of committees. There are three basic reasons why I

want you to reject this and to go on and support the motion as a whole.

Firstly, there is an issue of continuity on committees. On all of

those committees, the policy committee, what will be the federal

board, the finance and resources committee, I think it is important

that members of those committees are able to really get to know how the

committee works, what its functions are, what is going on, what the

current issues. It takes a year, at least, to find out what the current

federal finance and administration committee is responsible for and

what it does, to get into the detail of how the party puts together its

budgets, how the structuring of finance, how all of these things

operate take a while. Having a two year cycle is simply not fit for

purpose. We would not do that for members of Parliament, we would not

do that for a local authority, we would not even do that for a parish

council, for obvious reasons. Those of you who are elected councillors,

how would you feel about having to go back and get re-elected every two

years? It simply does not make sense. The second reason is that one

votes, membership as a whole, they are being presented with large slate

of candidates in a series of elections every year. There is a

rather elegant way of putting together these elections so that

members are not faced with two sets of elections in the same year. If

you switch back to two years, that goes away, and in the same way as

fighting a whole series of different types of elections on the same day,

we will be forced to send two whole sets of ballot papers for numerous

types of committee at different levels of the party, may be regional

and federal in the same day. It does not make sense.

The third point, Sarah mentions that we should not stop doing something

because it is too expensive. People would be very familiar, if they know

me at all, that I am the man in the party that tries to stop things from

being too expensive. There is a good reason to not do things which are

too expensive, that is because we have limited resources, and I would

rather see that money spent on fighting hard a parliamentary

by-election, or extra money is it we can fight more target seats -- or

extra money being spent so can we fight more target seats, rather than

to administer internal party elections. Reject amendment one and

support the main motion. Thank you very much. Can Sheila

Thompson please stand by, I now call Colin Rosenstiel from Cambridge.

Thank you, your ladyship. I have been a member of this party for over

50 years this year. And I have also been a supporter of electoral reform

throughout that time. And I had to remind members who forget that we do

our elections in this party by the single transferable vote, and one of

the things that insurers is we don't get a complete turnover of committee

that an election. -- one of the things that insurers. So I want you

to reject the idea that you need to have less frequent elections to get

continuity on committees, because that is never what this party has

done, even when we had elections every year.

The other very important thing to bear in mind in this debate, and I

can say this because I have never been a member of a federal committee

of this party ad never even stood for election for federal committee,

but I have counted the votes for all the people. I think this party owes

an enormous debt is just -- gratitude to the volunteers who give

up their time to keep this party going by being on federal

committees. But I also want the new people who come into this party,

including an enormous number at present, to have a chance to join in

and give their best from that. I think having elections every three

years, that is over half a Parliament apart, is too infrequent

to refresh the blood that helps to keep this party going, and that is

why I support this amendment and as you to carry it overwhelmingly.

Thank you very much. Can Brian Nowell please stand by, I now call

Sheila Thompson, the convener of the Scottish Liberal Democrats.

Conference, can I first speak against amendment number one,

extending the term to three years won't mean less democracy, and it

won't mean that people will stay on committees for too long. For some

people it will mean they stay on for slightly less. Some of them think

they have just got into two years, in a working group of Scottish

federal level, they are coming towards a second year and they are

pushed to doing another two years, four years, which sometimes they

don't want to do. Three years can allow them to get through a piece of

work and come to an end, so it becomes operational, a good length

of time to be on a committee, Bernard, do something and see the

fruition of your work. -- be on a committee, learn it, do

something and see the fruition of your work.

There are different ways of looking at it. Three years can allow people

to be on committees less and open up new opportunities for more people.

Think about it, think about how long you would want to be committed to

it. Do you want to have to restart and in the middle of a piece of

work? What does that do to the work we are giving in the committees? How

do we finish it if halfway through a working group the person is no

longer on the committee? It is really from an operational point of

view in allowing that to happen, but I support the motion for the three

years. At present in Scotland we are two years. We are about to start our

governance review, we have waited for this one to go through, to

hopefully loan and maybe speed processor little bit. -- to

hopefully loan. We might be putting that to the next Conference in

spring. We can learn from each other and move forward by doing that.

Because we cant the votes by SJV it does not mean that people have

longer terms of office or move on to committees, it is only for the rest

of that term, if someone steps in, which gives them even less time to

learn it in a two year period. In three years, if somebody has had to

step down for personal reasons, change in employment or whatever,

somebody coming in behind them might have slightly longer to do it. If

they have only done it for a short period they will know the value of

standing for another three years and be able to put their case forward.

So I would really press you to vote against amendment one. As for

amendment two, when we first read it and I spoke with the leader of the

Scottish party, and what does that do to us and how does that affect

us, and we said, let it go. Let it go through. Why? Because we would

doubt well know in Scotland that a Scottish executive of our campaigns

and candidates committee were not doing their job. We would be sorting

it out long before the federal party knew about it. Trust me, if the

federal party picked up on something first and came and spoke to us, we

would want to work with them. We would want to work with them so they

didn't have to takeover, but can support us, and make sure it

happens. We want a successful committee in

Scotland as I am sure you do in the English regions. The backstop, if we

go for the amendment, could end up in a talking shop, which means

neither the federal committee nor the state or regional committee

actually get on with the work. It could end up nobody is doing it and

where is that going to get as in the run-up to the election? This is a

backstop, not about not trusting the committees and the regions and

state, it is a backstop. I took the point made about maybe have written

rules that can go around it, which is fine, but it is a backstop. Let's

trust the committees and have it purely as that, let's move this

motion. It is the best way forward, the governance review has listened

to the members and the work has gone forward. Please vote for the motion

as a whole. Thank you. Can James stand-by and I called Brian from

Kensington and Chelsea. Who does not appear to be in the

hall. I am sorry, James. I call James Girling. And could face

Ponsonby stand-by. There is a certain justice in I had that

experience when chairing the previous session. I am here to talk

about Article 12 and why I support the recommendations and the

amendments we suggest. This relates to the federal campaigns and

elections committee. You have to be thankful if you are an admirer of

the character Father Jack we did not make it the federal elections and

campaign committee the other way round. Small numbers will understand

that joke. This does not stem simply from the constitutional review, it

comes from the findings we had at the general election review in which

thousands of you responded in which I and the campaigns and

communications committee I chair went through. One thing, admittedly

not all of you alighted on this, was structure of command coming through

in the way we run campaigns. Back in the mists of time, the committee was

designed to ensure coordinating function happened between the person

that leader appointed as responsible for a general election campaign and

the campaigns delivered. Over time, back committee, part of the

Constitution of the federal executive, although not part of the

formal constitution, became superseded by direct appointments,

so that we have an appointed person running local campaigns, an

appointed person the general election, another appointed person

running European campaign. It did not help staff being able to

dedicate resources or be clear where our accountability is. This

amendment makes it clear in this federal campaigns and elections

committee where the responsibility lies madness the first benefit. The

other is in the responses made to Sal's review, two thirds said

candidate should come into this committee which is one of the major

achievements of this amendment. In terms of amendment one to this

amendment, there is an issue residing on whether or not the

backstop powers relate to operational necessity and a time of

the election run-up, or a discussion about the constitutional

requirements of the two parties. I am being brave because I will

disagree with Richard and Steve and that is dangerous to do sometimes,

because they are persuasive speakers. Do not be persuaded by

their arguments. Allow the backstop powers to be there and ensure they

will only be used in consultation with the state parties as the

amendment clearly sets out. This is setting out a possibility for

operational decisions if everything is going wrong, what you want is a

decision and not a discussion about constitutional requirements. Do vote

for this motion. Thanks. Can show Otten stand-by and I call Faith

Ponsonby. Good morning, conference. I am not a constitutional bird and I

am amazed there are so many in the hall today. -- nerd. I have to admit

a lot of the reviews have passed me by. A sickly I am a local

councillor, very busy, currently mayor of the borough and thanks to

the Conservatives. The only Lib Dem on the council. I have been involved

in nine regional level, not this year obviously, in the candidates

committee. I was vice-chair. One thing I had to do in 2015 in

January, when we had a number of local parties that did not have a

candidate, was to ring around the candidates in Hampshire and try to

twist their arms to stand for a seat. It was an experience, talking

to people, because we were at the end of the coalition and a number

had strong feelings about that. It was quite difficult, we only just

managed to get a candidate in every Parliamentary constituency in the

south, and that is I think appalling. I also volunteer and I

would urge anybody to do this, as one of the assessors nationally for

Parliamentary candidates. It is a rewarding job. I may have

interviewed some of you. I love it every time, I learn from them. We

had some excellent candidates, but we need to maintain standards and it

is important, because you never know when you select a Parliamentary

candidate if some huge issue is going to crop up in your

constituency, like Hinckley, and you might suddenly be on national

television and we have to ensure the candidates are able to do this. Then

we come to this motion. I think my concern is about all the

ramifications it introduces. I welcome a prohibition in line 11 of

being elected to many committees. You cannot be elected to more than

one, which I think is excellent because it will spread the

membership of committees really well. We already have a number of

people who come up year on year and I admire them for doing it. I could

not get up to London for meetings weekly or even monthly. I support

this motion will stop with hindsight, I support the section on

the candidates' part, which has been controversial, because I think we

have to have a backstop, in case there is a sudden election,

something happening. We have to have a co-ordinated campaign, coordinated

selection, but working with the regions on this. Thank you,

conference. APPLAUSE. Can Duncan STV stand-by.

Good morning, conference. I am speaking in favour of amendment one

to retain the two-year cycle of federal committee selections.

Although it is an amend into the motion, the motion has changed in

the current cycle and the amendment restores the two-year cycle. I was

not elected to the federal committee, I was a runner-up, and

gained a place when Sandra resigned in the summer. It has been a

revelation, a fascinating time serving for this one conference. It

gives me a better understanding of why the motions and amendments I had

written in the past has been rejected. LAUGHTER.

If you want to know what I know, I will be in the back of the hall and

can share wisdom after. It has given me understanding why so many

Speaker's cards have been rejected. I had not appreciated the value of

putting it in early. Before the chairs plan the debate. Put it in

early and you are more likely to get called. This is not a digression,

the serious point is that it is better to have some turnover, some

new blood. Really speakers have mentioned this. One said we will get

more new blood by having longer terms. I do not think that is right.

A shorter term, you get better turnover. There are very capable

people. I am not trying to disparage anyone on committee. Some people

stick around for years and years and sometimes a little bit of change,

new ideas, and more opportunity for more members to get involved and

understand how things work, and more members therefore to become more

effective, better volunteers, better politicians, to spread the skill

spread, understanding, spread the knowledge and insight into party

strategy. Policy, whatever it is. Please support amendment one.

Turnover, it is about striking a balance and I think we strike the

balance already on not quite enough turnover. Re-elect people who have

done one term, all one conference! Let's not shift the balance in the

wrong direction. Let's have some continuity, some new blood. Support

amendment one. Thanks. Can George Potter stand-by and I called Duncan

Brack. My main reason to be called is not to miss the chance to speak

on the 600 line cost tuition amendment, which does not happen

enough! I find myself in the odd position of agreeing with Joe, even

though I have been around years and years, one of the people he wants to

get rid of. I ask you to support amendment one. We had good input

into the governance review and our committee did not discuss this

issue. I want to apologise to Sal and to Chris because I have not

raised it with them. It had not occurred to me until I saw the

amendment this week and I have reflected on it. I think there is a

problem with three-year terms. I have been in office and we have a

problem with exhaustion. People are elected on a burst of enthusiasm and

it tails off, circumstances change. We have a punishing schedule,

particularly when we are producing manifestos. The committee has two

meetings of the last two weeks and we did not have more than half the

membership at each. There is a good argument for accountability and

regular chances for the electorate to have a say. You need a regular

injection of enthusiasm, even if it is people standing again. When they

stand they have to think about what they have to do, they get fired up

and you get the chance to have new people. Peter makes a fair point

about continuity. Until 12 or 13 years ago we used to have annual

elections to the committees. I was chair of the FCC when the amendment

was put to change that to two years. And they got the words biennial and

biannual mixed up and we had elections every six months! But we

fix that. You need a balance between continuity and injecting more

energy. One year is too short as three years too long. Two years is

about right and that is why I will support amendment one. Can Richard

Brett stand-by. I call George Porter for the summary of amendment one.

Who does not appear to be in the hall. Can Chris White stand-by and I

call Richard Brett to summate on amendment two.

Conference, I stand before you as a first-time Speaker and I promise it

will be the last time speaking at conference.

APPLAUSE. Do not applaud, it eats into by time! I am here not

defending the empire called the English candidates committee because

in three months, I will be standing down. I would like you to step act

and look at the words again in the lines that we are looking at. JC SCE

may instruct a state candidates committee to take appropriate action

or may take over its actions if the federal board so decides. The

amendment does not change that, but think where that would strike you as

appropriate. Is it more likely you would find those words in Jeremy

Corbyn's Labour Party or a police state? I recall when I was made a

member of the West Yorkshire Police authority talking to the Chief

Constable who I asked, how do you work with your command team? He said

with a slight smile on his face, if I ask them to jump, their only

response is to ask me how high. We are not in that sort of

organisation. It is sad that we are having this discussion in these

terms because I think what has happened this summer has improved

hugely the links between CCC and EEC. I was invited to the executive

18 months into my term as chair and I wish we had better links earlier.

I suspect what has happened this summer may hugely improve the links

that we have. I would very much like that the English candidates

committee when we review rules has a permanent representative from CCC

coming to our meetings. I want to stress that a lot of what

candidates do depends on volunteers. They do not take well to being

instructed from outside. That, I'm afraid, is a fact of life. Everyone

has their own little area, it is sad that candidates can sometimes be

insular. What happened this summer is instructive. Lots of people have

congratulated me, that is quite rare. Candidates do not get

congratulations and praise. Ten times more often we get people

saying, this is wrong, and we get modems, so it is very unusual for me

at the moment to have lots of people saying, thank you very much for what

you have done this summer. What has happened this summer is that the

federal executive use their powers, quite rightly, in my view, to say

that we must prepare for a general election. We have done that. We have

candidates in place in nearly all the seats in England. We have more

candidates coming forward. It is looking healthy. But it is not

without some damage. Having intervention from outside has a

cost. A number of candidates are very bruised. Officers have resigned

over the process in some local areas. Many could not take place in

the rapid selections this summer because of the rules that we had to

use, not having postal boats and it being a holiday period. Alan, I

really don't understand how you are saying we might do more than our

constitutional duty. It will not happen. We struggled to do

everything that we are asked to do. James, I hope I have not

disappointed you. I think some people might vote on this on whether

they believe you that it is not a land grab or that it is, but I

welcome your praise and saying I was an excellent speaker, I hope you

still think this is the case. I ask you all to do two things today.

Could you please thank one of the thousand people involved in the

rapid selections this summer, whether a member of the ECC, whether

a returning officer, and assessor or somebody involved simply in the

short listing committees. Could you draw your remarks to a close? Please

support amendment two. Conference, my apologies, it is not

Chris White, it is Neil Fawcett who will some eight on the motion as a

whole. I now call Neil Fawcett. I have been called a lot of things

in my time! LAUGHTER

Right, this is my one appearance in the Conference hall during this

Conference, because I am very help -- busy helping to prepare for a

particular political event taking place on October the 20th in a

beautiful part of West Oxfordshire, I hope to see you there.

More of you there than here, hopefully. This is the ultimate in

splitting hairs, isn't it? I speak on behalf of the federal executive,

of which I am a new member. It is the third time I have been on a

federal committee in my 20 80th' activity in the party. Each time I

have stood for 12-macro year slot. I am currently thinking about

whether to stand again for another two years, I would rather have stood

for 13-year term. In the two and have had we have had a general

election, its aftermath, a campaign review, the aftermath of the local

elections, a European referendum, preparation for a snap general

election. That does not leave a lot of time for the primary job of the

federal executive, agreeing a longer term strategy for the party. I

believe the federal committees need a little bit longer in each term.

There is still an allowance, as people have said, for turnover,

because people sometimes drop out and replaced because of the system

we use. But it is an important job and not want which I think you can

come to knew, learn the ropes and make a full contribution innate two

year term. I serve on two cancels, each a four year term, I would

challenge anyone who had spoken against a three-year term to start

campaigning that they should be re-elected every two years. Please

reject amendment one. Amendment two, some very serious points have been

made. If this was a proposal for the federal committees to walk in and

take over the candidate function I would strongly oppose. But there is

a key difference between the state candidates committee is just a cheap

and take over the candidate function I would strongly oppose. But there

is a key difference between the state candidates committee is just

achieving their constitutional requirement, and actually doing the

job the party needs them to do. They have achieved, as Steve jobs said,

having a candidate in every seat in every election. -- as Steve Jarvis

said. I personally thank every volunteer involved in that process,

and the hard-pressed staff. But that is the minimum. As a political party

we need candidates in place early, we need them on the ground building

seats up. That is more than the pure constitutional requirements. If you

can imagine a situation where significant numbers of local parties

are waiting around because the party has not been able to help them

select candidates, in my view you should support the motion as it

stands and reject the amendment. If we get to that point, if the federal

board in the future has made it clear that we need to be selecting

candidates for a general election, and for whatever genuine reasons

that is not happening, I believe federal boards should have the right

to step in, have discussions with the state candidate committee

responsible and sort the situation out. If you can see that

circumstance happening, please vote against amendment two and supported

the original motion. Please supported as a whole, support the

government review, it will make the party better, more fit for purpose

and more able to stage the fight back, which this country desperately

needs. Conference, we moved to the votes.

There will be three. We will vote on amendment one, then amendment two,

then the motion as amended or not amended. We need a simple majority

on both of the amendments, but the motion as a whole, because it is

constitutional, would require a two thirds majority. Can you show me

your badges, please, with the word voting facing me, can I see those in

favour of amendment one? Thank you. Those against amendment one?

I'd like to take that again, please, if I may?

May I see those in favour of amendment one?

Thank you. And those against? I think we are going to have to cans

that. We needed some excitement this morning, didn't we?

Please may I see those in favour of amendment one, can you keep your

hands up until the stewards have counted you, please?

Thank you. Put your hands down. And those against amendment one?

Thank you very much. Those are being counted, I would like to take the

votes on amendment two, please. Please don't have a counter vote on

amendment two. May I see, please, those in favour

of amendment two? Thank you very much. And those

against? That is very clearly lost. Thank you.

LAUGHTER It's why I've got a bird's eye view

appear, and you haven't. We now just had to wait for the

results of amendment one before we can votes on main motion, so just a

little patience, please. OK, the result is for the amendment

66, and against the amendment 90 seven. So that amendment is also

lost. We will now move to vote on the

motion as a whole, as did buy the two amendments. May I see those in

favour of the motion as a whole? Sorry, I beg your pardon. Unamended.

It is all this counting, it is really upsetting me. I have never

had a counter before. May I see those in favour of the motion,

unamended? Thank you. And those against? Oh,

that is very, very clearly carried. Thank you very much, Conference. Can

I thank my aides, Jeremy Hargreaves and Lindy Northover. And I now hand

over the chair to Liz. Good morning, let's move straight to

the standing order amendments, which can be found on page 77 of the

conference agenda. And the existing text is there. Standing orders

require a two thirds majority for the final vote and I call Chris

White from St Albans, member of the federal executive to propose the

motion. Thank you, conference, it really is me this time and thank you

for the ringing endorsement from Niall a few moments ago. I was

reflecting on this half an hour ago and thought I would text my wife to

say what I had been up to a conference and told her I was about

to make a barnstorming speech about amendments to standing orders. It

was only when I had sent it to her that I realised my iPhone had

betrayed me and turned it into a bar storming speech. It is a tidy up

exercise, clearly having changed the names of some of our bodies and

created new bodies we have to ensure the standing orders match. It is a

simple proposal to do it and I will ask you please to support it and

then because I have so much time also ask you to go to Whitney. Thank

you. Thank you. As we have no cards in for questions, as it is such a

simple motion, I ask the summary. We have had a very interesting

debate. LAUGHTER. Right. Chris completely through me.

Yes, please do go to Witney. I want to thank everyone involved over the

past four days in the decisions we have made about the governance of

the party in which this final but little important strand will

complete the first stage. For those of you unhappy about losing

amendment not just in this, the previous debate and earlier in the

week, we will be watching, as you will, to see whether it works and we

will come back to you if it doesn't. If there are problems and structural

changes elsewhere in the party, we will have to have constitutional

changes because everything is interlocking. I want to thank the

thousands who responded. It is really into you did so and you

really did change what came in that consultation through to what we saw

today. I want to thank every formal party body that debated and

responded from their own perspective. Duncan mentioned that.

The FPC had done its job and looks at the bits that affected them

rather than taking a few wider. I also want to thank a large number of

staff who you have not heard from, not seen, who have worked tirelessly

to make all the different bits of this fit, because this structure

also affects the way the party itself operates. Every single

department, James was talking about the work of the campaigns

department, who have been involved to ensure this is fit for purpose.

We have had Laura Davies as the director of people development

talking and looking through all proposals about how the staff can

ensure the new people development committee at federal level will be

able to operate effectively. I want to offer our staff, federal staff,

state staff who have contributed to this, and I particularly want to

thank Tim Gordon as chief executive, and Rachel Clarke and Chris Adams,

particularly Chris, who has been an absolutely wonderful governance

Officer, keeping all of this at his fingertips. Please join me in

applause for vat. -- for factor. --. That. Please pass the amendment by a

two thirds majority. And we move straight to the vote. If you can

have your cards ready. All in favour please show. All of those against.

That is carried with I think one against. Yes, thank you. I will hand

over to Mary the Parliamentary party reports. There will be a short break

when the chairs and tables come out but he will be as quick as he can,

thank you. Good morning, conference. And

welcome to the report from our Parliamentary parties. I have three

people with me on the sofa. Who you all know and love. They will each in

turn present their reports to you and then answer a few questions.

First, Tom Brake. Tom has been the MP for Carshalton and Waddington

since that famous day in May 1997, when a whole swathe of south-west

London suburbs turned Lib Dem gold. And in the coalition he became

deputy Leader of the House of Commons and like most of his

colleagues, he now finds himself with more than one job. Including

acting as our spokesperson for foreign affairs. He is here today in

his role as Lib Dem Chief Whip in the House of Commons. Tom, please

present your report and tell us what you have been up to. Do you want to

do it from the Lex turn -- lectern. Good morning, it is nice to see

people have woken up after what might have been a hard night last

night to hear the reports. It is safe to say the last couple of

months in politics has been rather difficult. Whilst we have seen some

very positive results around the country in the local elections and

we are starting to see a revival I think both from the south-west right

through up to Scotland, where we got good results in the constituency

elections in Scotland, we have the disappointment of the EU referendum.

And the impact of that in Westminster has been palpable. We

now have as a result of that a new Prime Minister, a restructured

Whitehall and a new look cabinet. You will recall in her first speech,

our Prime Minister Theresa May set out she was going to be a

compassionate, one nation Conservative, dedicated to social

justice. With my seven colleagues, we will hold her to account on that

and ensure that what she says was not simply a speech and that it is

followed up by real action. Although I think what she has tried to do is

cultivate the perception she is a safe pair of hands, one has to

question whether her appointment of Boris Johnson as Foreign Secretary

confirms that is what she is. What we are seeing in terms of bills

within the House of Commons is and what we are facing when we return

after the conference recess is a government focused on preserving

party unity. The bills coming forward in October are of an

extremely minor nature and that is because I think the government are

working hard to keep themselves together at a time when I think

Brexit, far from stopping the Tories talking about Europe, is in fact

amplifying the volume of what's they are saying in relation to Europe. We

have got some concerns, there is one will, the Investigatory Powers Bill,

also known as the snoopers' Charter, which we fought hard to block in

coalition, which has made a return. You will recall that in coalition we

received a lot of flak for the position we adopted in relation to

those sorts of issues from Shami Chakrabarti, the head of Liberty.

She has now of course become a Labour peer and it will be

interesting to see if she is as aggressive towards Labour whose

stance on these issues is often much closer to the Conservatives that it

is to us and that is an area that I know Alistair Carmichael will want

to work on with great energy to ensure the concerns we have about

that Bill will hopefully be addressed. The Labour Party, there

is not much to say about them, other than we know that on the 23rd of

September it is highly likely Jeremy Corbyn will be re-elected. That will

lead to further confusion, division and I think national derision, about

what they are doing and going as a party. For the country as a whole,

this means the major opposition party will not have much time to

focus on what their real role as an opposition is, major opposition

party, official opposition, which is to focus on what the government are

doing, as opposed to focusing internally on their own party

dilemmas. We as a party, with my seven colleagues in the House of

Commons, and even more so with the much larger, hundred plus peers, the

Liberal Democrats have in the House of Lords, we will focus on doing

everything we can to make sure we provide the opposition to the

government. Who will particularly be doing that

in relation to Brexit and the European Union, where we will track

both what Boris Johnson, David Davies and Liam Fox have said in the

past, but also, more importantly, what they are actually delivering in

Government. I think we already taking bets on how long it will be

before Liam Fox is forced to resign, giving the number of gaffes that he

has already managed to make. You will have heard his remarks about

lazy and fat British businesses, you might not have heard his

recommendation of British businesses should invest abroad at a time when

everyone feels that the economy is at risk of taking a nosedive, and

therefore what we want UK businesses to do is invest in the UK to create

jobs here. We have the real risk of a huge economic challenge to the

country. And an area that we have focused on very heavily is the role

that EU citizens play in boosting our economy and trying to protect

than and ensure that they have the rights, or retain the rights, that

they have got in the United Kingdom. That is why we have put forward a

ten minute rule Bill called the EU citizens' right to stay Bill, which

received nearly all-party support, and we will continue to maintain

that pressure. That is clearly a benefit to the 3 million EU citizens

in the UK. It is also a benefit to, for instance, the users of my local

hospital, that patients who go there, because my most recent

recruitment drive that it was nurses from Spain, Italy and Portugal that

they were hiring to stay in that hospital. By putting pressure on the

Government to secure the rights of EU citizens we are also helping UK

citizens in the UK countries. Because just as UK citizens here are

worried about the impact on them of Brexit, UK citizens in other EU

countries are equally concerned about what it means for their

futures in whichever UK... EU country they are currently resident

in. There is no doubt that with eight MPs it is very difficult to

make our voices heard, but I would like to take this opportunity to

thank our colleagues are the fantastic work they do. We are

trying to cover as many bases as we can and we know we can always count

on the back-up of House of Lords colleagues, who are certainly

pulling their weight. If in the comments we have an opportunity to,

for instance, make a couple of interventions during the second

reading debate about a particular bill, we know that in the Lords they

have an opportunity to do much more in terms of other stages of the bill

and make sure that the Liberal Democrats position on things is

articulated in much, much greater detail. I would like to take this

opportunity to pay particular tribute to Jim Wallace for his

excellent leadership of the Lords group, I am absolutely certain he

will play a formidable role as a member of the team in the Lords on

the backbenches. And I welcome, also, many of you will be here

today, the very large number of new members who have joined the party

since the general election. We have seen a boost of 120% in party

membership since the general election in 2015. As someone who has

been active in the party for 30 years, and I think there are

probably colleagues here who have been active for as long as I have,

it is nice to see some younger people, some people who are fresh

and enthusiastic. Not that we are not enthusiastic, but I think we

might find it hard to argue that we are fresh after 30 years of

political activity, to see some young blood coming in, campaigning

on the values that we hold dear. So I therefore hope that you throw

yourself into the battle we have ahead of us, particularly in

relation to Brexit, where we need to make sure, ideally, that the UK has

second thoughts about the votes taken on the 23rd of June, but if

that is not the case, that we secure as much as possible for the UK,

whether UK citizens, it EU citizens, UK businesses, in whatever our

future relationship with the EU will be. I would like to finish with a

couple of words about the Parliamentary office of the Liberal

Democrats. Since my last report we have been very fortunate in having

first of all the advisory unit and the parliamentary support team is

making a huge contribution to the way that we can operate as members

of Parliament. Given the different breeds that we are all carrying, so

I am both foreign affairs, International development, defence,

Shadow Leader of the House, Shadow Cabinet office minister and Chief

Whip. As you can see, it is important that we have people

working behind us. So the important role that the Parliamentary advisers

make in making sure Lib Dems get out into the media, so the things that

we campaign upon are amplified through the media, they are doing a

fantastic job. A very small number both in the Parliamentary advisory

unit and the Parliamentary support teams are making sure we punch way

above our weight, I know that is true in the portfolio that I speak

on on foreign affairs where, I am very pleased to say, in conversation

with some journalists they are much, much way inclined to come to us than

to the Labour Party because, at the moment, if they go to the Labour

Party, no one is able to give them what the official Labour Party

position is on foreign affairs, because they are too divided to have

one. So it is thanks to the Parliamentary advisers at the

parliamentary support teams that we can position ourselves in that way.

I would like to conclude by thanking Jack Fletcher and Joe Edwards for

their fantastic work with the whips office and providing support to

members of Parliament, and occasionally providing us with some

very interesting gossip about things happening in parliament, which I

will keep to myself. And also to thank the Parliamentary advisory

unit, Giles Darrington, venous Ali, Claire Mathis, Rosie, Fiona Todd and

Rosie Cobb, the newest addition, who continue to offer us fantastic

advice and creativity in all of their portfolios. Last but not

least, the Parliamentary support team made up of Rosie Gray, Euan

Stone and Jenny Steiner 's. They have developed excellently and after

further expert advice. Hopefully that gives you a feel. We have not

been lazy and fats during the last 12 months, you will be pleased to

hear, I look forward to answering difficult questions shortly in the

Q Thank you. APPLAUSE