Tag: 2011

Below is the text of the speech made by the Deputy Prime Minister, Nick Clegg, on Freedom, Accountability and Plurality of the Media, held at the Institute for Government in London on Thursday 14th July 2011.

This has been one of those weeks in which it really feels like something big has changed. Pillars of the British establishment have been put under the spotlight – the media, politicians, the police – with public confidence in each crumbling before us.

As the Prime Minister explained yesterday, the Government has set up an Inquiry into these events. A two-stage, judge-led Inquiry looking, without delay, at the culture, ethics and practices of the British press as well as the role of the police and politicians. Reporting, we hope, in a year, and also looking at the specific allegations as soon as criminal investigations are complete.

Yesterday, News Corps’ bid to takeover BSkyB was dramatically withdrawn and, for the first time in days, it feels like this morning we have a chance to catch our breath, and ask: what next? What are we going to do about everything we have seen and heard over recent days? What are we going to build from the rubble of the last week? Is it enough to just clean up the current mess? Or, are we going to go further? Tackling the institutional failings that have allowed these gross intrusions to occur in the first place so that they can never happen again.

I want to set out today the principles that I believe must now guide future reform.

First, that the freedom of the press is vital. Liberty and democracy are founded on freedom of expression.

Second, that our media must be held to account ensuring it acts within the bounds of the law and decent behaviour, with politicians and police equally accountable for their role.

Third, that our free, accountable press must be plural, guaranteeing healthy competition and diverse debate.

Freedom, accountability, plurality. That is how we preserve the best qualities of investigative journalism, but mitigate the worst excesses of an unfettered press too.

Before I talk about those principles, we first need to be clear about the problem.

The charge sheet is, by now, familiar. Newspapers hacking into the phones of missing children, of the grieving parents of fallen soldiers, of the victims of terrorist attacks. We’ve also heard allegations of journalists bribing police officers. And, while we await the outcome of the criminal proceedings, the Government has been assured by the Independent Police Complaints Commission that it has the resources and powers necessary to properly deal with these allegations. No matter how senior or powerful the people in question.

These scandals are a disgrace and misconduct and lawbreaking must now be punished. But they are also symptomatic of problems that go much deeper.

They flow from a fundamentally corrupted relationship between politics, the media, and the police. All these groups are supposed to serve the people. But too often they have been serving only themselves or each other. A light has been shone on the murky underworld of British public life. A world in which confidential information is for sale; in which journalists cross the line from public interest into vulgar voyeurism; and politicians, petrified of the power of the media, fail in their duty to ensure a free, accountable, plural press.

So it’s time for fundamental reform. Liberalism, as a political creed, is deeply sceptical about untrammelled media power. In a liberal, open and democratic society, we are constantly alert to the dangers of power that is concentrated and unaccountable in government, politics, the economy and the media. That’s why plurality and diversity, along with accountability and transparency, are so vital. And liberals also believe it’s necessary to maintain a clear distinction between different domains of power. Because, when financial, political, law enforcement, and media power spill over into each other, the fabric of liberty is threatened.

So the problems we face can’t be put down to the behaviour of a few individuals. This isn’t just about Rebekah Brooks or the Murdochs or what happens with BSkyB. This is about a systemic failure. A failure, above all, to keep power in check.

We now have an opportunity to fix those failings. I know that there is real fear, among reformers, that this opportunity will pass us by. That there will be plenty of heat, but no light. That, now that the BSkyB bid has been withdrawn, now that one tabloid has been sacrificed, soon we will be back to business as usual.

The pessimists have a point. In recent decades the political class has consistently failed to stand up to the media. Seeking to curry favour with powerful media barons or prevent their own personal lives from being splashed across the front pages.

It’s not a new problem. It was the Conservative Prime Minister Stanley Baldwin who warned in 1931 that the media was exercising: “power without responsibility”. But the same challenge plagues us today.

In 1981 the then Conservative government waved through Murdoch’s takeover of the Times newspapers and then excluded that same proprietor from rules preventing simultaneous ownership of newspapers and television stations.

When the rules were being redrawn on media ownership in the mid-1990s and John Major attempted, to his credit, to retain rules that that prevented major newspaper proprietors from controlling British television stations, Labour opposed. Tony Blair travelled to the other side of the world to speak at a conference in Murdoch’s defence. Literally flying to his rescue.

In 2006, when the Information Commissioner provided incontrovertible evidence of the unlawful trade in confidential information, proving that private medical records, tax records, financial records, phone records – even records only accessible through the police database, were being bought and sold on an industrial scale – nothing really changed. Labour refused to take on Murdoch. And, as Peter Mandelson admitted this week, the reason was simple: fear.

So the political establishment has hardly covered itself in glory. But, whatever this politician did, or that party did, we now have a rare opportunity to work together in the national interest. If we’ve learnt anything over the last few years it is that change in Britain’s institutions is best secured at moments of public outcry. That’s what brought about the clean up of MPs’ expenses, it’s what turned attention onto our big banks. Now, it’s the media’s turn.

So what are the three principles that should drive future reform?

The first is press freedom. It would be wholly wrong to respond to the present crisis with any action that inhibits a free and vigorous press. That is the lifeblood of liberal democracy. It is absolutely central to an open society in which information is dispersed, corruption is exposed, and the powerful are kept honest. And let’s not forget – while we are currently witnessing the humbling of certain types of journalism – the last week has also been a triumph for proper, investigative reporting.

So politicians must resist any temptation to impose knee-jerk, short-sighted restrictions on the media. This is an area where it would be easy to legislate in haste and repent at our leisure. The Coalition will not succumb to that temptation and if you needed proof of our commitment to press freedom – commitment that predates this crisis – let me remind you that we are already taking far-reaching action to reform England’s libel laws. So that public-spirited journalists can publish free from the threat of litigation by big businesses and wealthy individuals.

But, if we support press freedom, as we do, we have to be realistic about what that means. A raucous, probing press, able to hold politicians and public figures to account, comes at a price. Journalists will always operate at the boundaries of what is and isn’t acceptable in order to unearth the truth for the sake of the public interest. And we need to now have a proper debate about where that line lies.

Newsrooms will never be a place for shrinking violets. The daily cut-and-thrust of Fleet Street will always attract individuals hungry for a story – tenacious, irreverent, often idealistic and cynical in equal measure. And papers will never be owned by angels. Like any other business, they will compete ferociously with each other for their core product: information.

Yes, the press is a national institution, and a public good. But it is commercial too, serving private interests. At its best, the competitive instinct of journalists and proprietors to get the story first helps ensure other institutions are held to account. But, at its worst, the unscrupulous and illegal pursuit of a headline to drive sales has led to the revelations of the last week. That is the reality we face.

Like all liberals, I don’t want to live in a society where journalism is enfeebled and hemmed-in. So our challenge is getting the balance right, ensuring our media is as free as possible, but without sacrificing ethical standards or seeing itself as above the law.

Which brings me to accountability. Over the last few years, there has been greater awareness of the impact of certain institutions on the public good, including professions such as the law, and institutions like the banks. And there have been huge improvements in the way professional and public bodies are now held to account through professional codes of conduct and independent scrutineers. The medical profession, the legal profession, financial services, the police, although they have some way to go, as recent events have shown. And all are now far more accountable for their behaviour.

The media, however, has not kept up. Together, the political class, parts of the police, and the press have granted our media an institutionalised immunity from the basic standards that govern the rest of society.

Clearly, part of the problem has been a monumental failure of corporate governance. As a group of investors said of News Corps earlier this week. And all media organisations, the senior staff and board at News International included, should now be looking very hard at the composition of their boards and their systems of corporate governance.

But we also need to ask more widely whether corporate law in the UK does enough to push managers and directors into being more active. Something must be wrong when misconduct and lawbreaking can become endemic within an organisation. While the senior staff do nothing. So we need to look at whether or not there is a failure of enforcement of the existing corporate governance rules. Or if the problems lie within the rules themselves.

We also need to address the lack of clarity over who or what constitutes a fit and proper owner of a media corporation. It is not clear whether or not institutions can be deemed unfit and improper. Or if the issue is strictly one of personal liability. And even legal experts well-versed in these issues do not agree. That then creates potential for organisations to evade responsibility by blaming a handful of individuals, when clearly the problem is ingrained across the culture of an institution.

Beyond that, there is now an inescapable need for an overhaul of the regulatory system too. The PCC has failed as an effective watchdog.

It is a complaints body at best, and a limited one at that, able only to respond to complaints made by the individuals directly affected by the reports in question. So, for example, anyone who was shocked in 2007 by the sight of Kate Middleton being hounded by photographers and film crews couldn’t complain. In that situation, until she herself complains, the PCC won’t investigate. That is absolutely ludicrous – as if the public have no say whatsoever over the conduct of journalists.

Nor is the PCC independent. It is run by the newspapers, for the newspapers, who act as their own judge and jury. No wonder it has no teeth – that’s exactly how the industry wants it. It doesn’t provide real redress. A person can have their public reputation left in tatters after ruinous accusations splashed across a front page and all the PCC gets them is a short apology hidden somewhere at the back of the paper. And the PCC doesn’t even cover the whole industry.

Major news outlets can opt out. And that is precisely what has happened with the Daily Express, the Sunday Express and the Daily Star.

No one now believes that the status quo can continue. Much of the debate has been about whether or not we should replace it with a reformed system of self-regulation or else a new system of statutory regulation. But, in my view, that misses the key point: what we need is independent regulation, insulated from vested interests within the media, and free from Government interference too.

There are a number of very sensible proposals out there already, not least the need for the regulator to have proper sanctions at their disposal, including financial penalties, against editors, journalists and proprietors who breach the Code of Conduct.

Greater accountability and scrutiny must also extend to dealings between the press, politicians and the police. That’s why the Government will amend the Ministerial Code so that Ministers, Permanent Secretaries and Special Advisers have to record all meetings with newspaper proprietors, editors and chief executives, regardless of the nature of the meeting with the information published quarterly.

On the police, we’ve heard some extraordinary things from the Met this week. Not least that a high-ranking officer felt it acceptable to be wined and dined by senior newspaper executives under investigation. The Met now has a big job on its hands winning back the public confidence that has been lost and the Independent Police Complaints Commission is now looking into allegations over criminality and misconduct.

On the issue of selling confidential information to journalists specifically, a whole range of professions have been implicated. Not just the police, but also private investigators, medical professionals and phone companies. Under the current law, for fraud and phone hacking you can go to prison. Whereas, under Section 55 of the Data Protection Act, unlawful use of personal data can get you a fine. The Information Commissioner recommended in 2006 that that offence should also attract a custodial sentence. It wasn’t taken up then, and this Government has said it will keep it under review. I think that now – where it cannot be proved that information was obtained in the public interest – there is a case for looking at this issue again.

That leaves the third principle: plurality.

It is not the place of politicians – not least liberal politicians – to dictate who should own which newspapers. But diversity of ownership is an indelible liberal principle because a corporate media monopoly threatens a free press almost as much as a state monopoly does. For liberals, a cacophony of dissenting and conflicting voices is a prerequisite for healthy competition and vibrant debate. Some say that the rise in social media and internet news means we should worry less about plurality.

It is true that the media landscape is changing, but it simply is not the case that traditional media no longer matters. It is still responsible for the majority of original journalism and so it is as important as ever to ensure it is not concentrated in a small number of hands. That said, the increasing diversification of media sources does raise new issues over cross-media ownership, which is something the Inquiry will now look at.

We also need to address the way in which the rules on plurality are applied.

At the moment we have a plurality test which can be used to prevent media mergers when they are deemed to undermine the public interest. However, it only made it onto the statute book in the first place as a concession from the previous government. When they were passing legislation that otherwise relaxed the rules on ownership, so it was never developed as a comprehensive safeguard. We now need to go back to first principles to make sure we get the framework right for the future.

Crucially, the plurality test can only be applied at the point of mergers or acquisitions, but why doesn’t it cover companies which expand their market share gradually, over time, by natural growth? And can we be sure plurality will be defined sufficiently broadly? In the case of the BSkyB bid it only covered news and current affairs, but would a broader understanding be better? These are all questions we must now ask.

We should also look at the way competition law operates and one idea we are investigating is to give the competition authority the power to report on public interest issues, which could include media plurality, in the same way as it can now for mergers.

So, to sum up, three principles: freedom, accountability, plurality.

That is how we create a press that is bold, dissenting, and fearless but bound by fair rules and decent standards. That is the best of all worlds, and it is the balance we seek.

The hacking scandals will no doubt continue to lurch from one headline to the next, but we must stay focused on the endgame. If we get this right, if we get the ball rolling while the demand for change is still strong, we can rebuild the confidence in our major institutions that, this week, has been so badly knocked. And we can make sure this never, ever happens again.

Thank you.

Below is the text of the speech made by Nick Clegg, the Deputy Prime Minister, at Southfields School in Wandsworth, London on 5th September 2011.

Today is the first Monday back for teachers and pupils up and down the country. A day always marked by renewed optimism. Pupils plan to work harder. Teachers come back refreshed. And all parents – I know this myself – have the best intentions for the months ahead: Whether that means making sure you’re there for sports day and the class play. Or finding that bit of time at the end of the day to help with homework. Just doing whatever you can to give your children some extra support.

This year, there’s a feeling of optimism in Government too. The Coalition has made some big changes to our education system. To improve the quality, choice and opportunities available to families. And we’re looking forward to seeing those take root.

The problem with new-term-enthusiasm, however, is: it doesn’t always last. It isn’t shared by everyone. And, as a society, we tend to let it fade too quickly.

Replacing our high hopes with an equally familiar fatalism. We allow ourselves to believe some basic assumptions as if they are facts of life. There are good schools, and there are bad schools. Some children are bound to do well – the brightest, the wealthiest. The troublemakers, the children from the tougher neighbourhoods, will inevitably lag behind. Most parents will at least try to take an active interest. But the daily grind will often get in the way. And a difficult, uninterested minority will never be brought on board. That’s the way things are. The way they’ve always been. And, notwithstanding some improvements here and there. The way they always will be.

I don’t accept that. There is some truth to these assumptions – because they  are based on consistent patterns. But they aren’t inevitable.  And we do the next generation a disservice by cursing them with our low expectations.

Sometimes you hear commentators slamming school standards as if teachers are lazy and feckless just because some schools are failing. Condemning children and young people in the country just because some of them have gone off the rails.  Yes, our country has problems but they will not be solved by denigrating our teachers and our schools. We won’t get more young people to take responsibility for themselves, or find work, if all we do is perpetuate the myth that no-one under the age of 25 can be trusted. There were young people on the streets rioting last month. They should face the full force of the law. But there were young people on the streets cleaning up the next day, too. And we cannot let our anxieties about some parts of our society undermine the hopes and dreams of a generation.

Today I want to talk about the Coalition Government’s twin ambitions for our education system: A decent start for every child and a good local school for every family.  That may sound basic, but it’s absolutely fundamental to  creating a fair, liberal and socially mobile society. Helping individuals fulfil their potential. Helping make Britain a place where anyone who works hard can get ahead.

To get there, Government needs to be innovative. Schools need to step up to the challenge. And, crucially, parents need to do their bit, supporting teachers, too.

Before I come to that, let’s pause on the problems.  Labour spent vast sums on schools. And, to be fair to them, some things did get better. Education is clearly an area where money makes a difference.

My party has always understood that. It was the Liberal Democrats who  advocated a penny on income tax for education in 1997, and again in 2001.

And now, despite unprecedented pressure on the public purse, the Coalition is protecting the current schools budget, in real terms.

But, what Labour’s record also shows is that big budgets, directed from Whitehall, aren’t enough. And if your aim is simply to get a bit better, that isn’t enough either. We live in a globalised age; if we are to thrive in the economy of the future, we need our children to excel. And we cannot afford to leave some behind.

Ours is now one of the most unequal school systems in the world. In the UK your background has more of an impact on how well you do at school than in nearly any other developed country. Despite the number of pupils achieving five good GCSEs having hit record highs. The gap between poorer and wealthier children getting these grades has stayed the same.  Teenagers from disadvantaged homes are still only half as likely to do as well. And there are schools where not a single pupil on Free School Meals is even entered for the most academic subjects. Or sits the exams where they can achieve the top grades.

Bluntly, the best schools are still in the nicest areas, populated by the children whose parents are better off. Poorer children tend to go to worse schools. And wherever they go, they usually get lower grades. That is the stark reality we face.

For liberals, education is meant to free individuals from the circumstances of their birth. But in our society school doesn’t always provide that kind of opportunity to fulfil your potential. Too often our education system ties children to their beginnings; it denies their parents choice; and it deepens social  divides.

That’s a problem for everyone.

It costs our economy. According to one estimate, if we could get all under-achieving pupils up to the national average. By 2050 we could add 4% to our GDP.

It holds back the whole class. When a handful of students switch off, they play up, monopolising their teachers’ attentions and everyone suffers.

And, when the best schools are concentrated in some communities but not others, poorer families get the raw deal. And all parents are faced with the well-known stresses and strains of trying to get into the right catchment area.

So we need fundamental reform to break the traditional patterns of winners and losers in our schools.

First, that means a decent start for every child. Closing the gap between disadvantaged children and their better off classmates.

Given how early that gap appears, you cannot wait to intervene. That’s why, for example, the Government has extended the free nursery care three and four year olds currently receive from 12.5 hours to 15. And is going even further, making this vital early education available free to every disadvantaged two year old as well.

Once these children reach school they’ll benefit from our £2.5bn Pupil Premium. Additional money that follows them throughout their primary and secondary education.

The Coalition isn’t going to prescribe to schools how they spend the money…

But today I do want to urge them to look carefully at the research that already exists: We know that there are a host of tried-and-tested methods for raising attainment. Investing in teachers’ training and professional development.

Smaller class sizes. More pastoral support, outside the classroom. Or more intensive, individual tuition.

The Sutton Trust recently looked into this. And found that, especially for younger children who need to catch up. An extra half an hour of more intensive time with the teacher. Three times a week, for up to twelve weeks.

Can do as much good as five months in the classroom.

The same report found that when children are older, they benefit from sitting down with teachers to plan and monitor their own progress. They do better if they are given specific, personalised feedback.

Not just on how well they did at a task, but also how they approached it. And the report concludes that behaviour improves when older pupils have clubs to go to after school.

All that takes time. It needs staff. It costs money. But it works. And it is precisely the kind of help the Pupil Premium is for.

And though schools will be free to spend the money as they think best – Experimenting with new ways to support those who need help. Schools will have to publish information about what the pupil premium money was spent on. And they will have to publish information to show if it’s making a difference and helping these children achieve more. That transparency is vital for  parents – and communities – to be able to hold schools to account.  And for all of us to learn about what really works in breaking the link between background and life chances.

Discipline matters, too. Everyone knows you can’t teach in a disrupted classroom. And teachers need the authority to be able to deal with bad behaviour. Which is why this government is strengthening their hand, and being stricter about school rules and teachers’ power to enforce them.

We need order in the classroom. But can’t simply write off children who do wrong. Children who are violent, who struggle to keep calm and control their behaviour – so often because of chaotic lives at home – do need to be taken out of the classroom. But they mustn’t be thrown on the scrap heap. It doesn’t do them, or society any good.

That’s why we’re piloting a dramatic change in the way we deal with pupils who are excluded from mainstream education. Strengthening the power of schools to remove disruptive pupils. But ensuring they cannot then forget them. Or leave someone else to pick up the pieces. Over time, schools themselves will become responsible for the budgets for excluded pupils. They will be expected to commission the alternative education they receive. And their exam results and later progress will be included in the original school’s data. There will be no washing your hands of a pupil once you have asked them to leave the room. And it will be in your interests to see those pupils brought back on track.

Those are measures aimed at closing the gaps between pupils. How do we close the gaps between schools?

We currently have one of the most segregated school systems in the world. With a huge gulf between the best and worst. And the latter concentrated disproportionately in the poorest places.

The only way to bridge that divide is to learn from the evidence. From the experiences of other countries. Understanding what drives school improvement, and where we have been going wrong.

And the evidence is overwhelming: good schools need high-quality teaching; sufficient freedom; diversity and choice. So we are taking action on each.

On teaching standards, we need to continually raise the quality of new entrants to the profession. That’s why, for example, from next year, funding for PGCE training will only be available to graduates with at least a 2:2 degree, or equivalent. We’re reforming teacher training so that trainees spend more time in the classroom.  And we’ve increased the grant for Teach First.

Which has proved hugely successful in getting some of our most talented graduates into our most challenging schools. We’re also making it easier for people who already have a career to make the step into teaching.

On greater autonomy we have reduced the reams of bureaucracy that eat up endless work hours and stifle innovation. And we’re offering all schools the chance to take on Academy status, either individually or as part of a chain. Where they have full control over their curriculums, staffing and budgets.

Of course, that freedom must be matched with accountability. So, for example, from now on all schools will need to publish ‘destination data’. Showing in black and white what pupils go on to do once they leave. We’re overhauling OFSTED’s framework to focus more squarely on school’s core responsibilities: learning, leadership, attainment and behaviour. And we want inspectors to engage more directly with teachers, students and parents. Rather than simply relying on data and spreadsheets. And, where schools persistently struggle, and cannot show signs of improvement. They will have their management replaced by schools with a proven track record.

Clearly, as the number of Academies expands, we will need to make sure that we get the right balance between school freedom and local accountability.

I think some confusion has been allowed to grow around our long term vision for schools:  There’s an increasing belief that we are trying to sideline local authorities altogether because Academies so far have only had a direct relationship with the Secretary of State and the department in Whitehall.

So let me straighten this out once and for all. This government wants all schools, over time, to have the opportunity to be autonomous with Academy freedoms. Both Liberal Democrats and Conservatives promised that in our manifestos. But we do not want that to lead to mass centralisation of the schools system.

Far from it: as Academies become more commonplace, and eventually the norm, we will make sure people do not lose their voice over what local schools provide. So we will need to develop a new role and relationship between schools, central and local government.

Councils have an essential job. We will ensure they have a stronger role in making sure there are school places in the area for every child, not just those who know how to play the system.

We have strengthened their role in admissions. They will oversee our new, fairer, admissions code. A code which makes it easier for the poorest to get the best places and easier for any citizen to complain if the rules are broken.

We will strengthen their role supporting children with special needs. Sarah Teather is bringing forward a radical set of reforms which will ensure local councils can help knock heads together to get a better deal for disabled and disadvantaged children.

And we will give them a critical role ensuring there is fairer funding Local authorities will help ensure the schools forums which currently divide up the cake locally are more transparent and they will help guarantee that academies, and other schools, are funded on exactly the same basis.

But we can – and we will – go further. Where there are no schools the local authority “owns” any more – there should be no barrier to the local authority working in a new relationship with academies, in partnership with central government.

The local authority could have a key role in deciding who new providers are and holding existing providers more sharply to account.

Local authorities, closer by their very nature to their community than the Secretary of State, could be more determined than distant Whitehall to drive up attainment in their own patch – for example by setting higher standards for all schools in their area.

That is why I am inviting those local authorities which wish to move to the new phase to grasp this opportunity and be involved in piloting this new role, starting from next year.

Working with the Department for Education we will use this pilot to develop a model which allows local communities to show they can develop new partnerships – built on greater freedom for professionals – but buttressed by real local accountability.

Finally, we’re introducing more choice into the system – encouraging under-performing schools to raise their game. We know diversity pushes up standards. I’ve seen it myself: Years ago I travelled around Europe comparing school systems for a pamphlet on educational performance across the EU.

What I learned then planted the seed for the idea of the pupil premium. But it also convinced me that diversity of schools is also important. It’s something Liberals championed more than 100 years ago when we challenged the Conservatives’ plans to outlaw non-conformist schools.

Parents, children and communities benefit from innovation, diversity, and choice. One size fits no-one.

And it’s part of the rationale behind free schools.

The first wave of free schools will open this week. The idea is that parent groups, charities and other organisations can open schools where they are not happy with the existing choice. It is controversial with many, and there are risks – but I am confident we have mitigated those risks to make sure this is now a policy which will promote higher standards, better integration, and fairer chances especially for children from the most deprived backgrounds.

Let me be clear what I want to see from free schools. I want them to be available to the whole community – open to all children and not just the privileged few. I want them to be part of a school system that releases opportunity, rather than entrenching it. They must not be the preserve of the privileged few – creaming off the best pupils while leaving the rest to fend for themselves. Causing problems for and draining resources from other nearby schools. So let me give you my assurance: I would never tolerate that.

The Coalition has made it clear that our overriding social policy objective is improving social mobility. Reducing social segregation; making sure what counts in our society are ability and drive, not privilege and good connections.

Free Schools will only be acceptable so long as they promote those goals.

That’s why I am pleased that half of the first wave will be in deprived areas. And the vast majority in areas where they desperately need school places.

Michael Gove will be making decisions on the second wave over the coming weeks. I want to see all of them in poorer neighbourhoods. Or in areas crying out for more school places.

We are also taking unprecedented steps to make sure disadvantaged pupils actually get into these schools. Along with academies, free schools will, for the first time, be able to give them special priority in their admissions.

How can we be confident they will? Because, crudely, these pupils receive the pupil premium. The more of them the school takes, the more money it gets.

That’s a simple, but crucial, financial incentive. No one has reformed the admissions code like this for years. In future, free schools must use this power to do all they can to make sure that they have the same proportion of Free School Meals pupils as the local average – at least.

Schools prepared to open up their facilities to the whole community will also be further up the queue for government funds. These steps, taken together, should alleviate people’s concerns. Free schools, yes, but only if they are fair schools too.

And, to anyone who is worried that, by expanding the mix of providers in our education system. We are inching towards inserting the profit motive into our school system. Again, let me reassure you: yes to greater diversity; yes to more choice for parents; But no to running schools for profit, not in our state-funded education sector.

So, opportunities for every child, in every neighbourhood – an ambitious agenda.

But, for this to work, parents need to do their bit too. The fact is: if you don’t take an interest in your child’s education, teachers cannot make up the shortfall. We currently have the most talented generation of teachers this country has ever seen. But they cannot do everything.

We already expect our teachers to be social workers; child psychologists; nutritionists; child protection officers. We expect them to police the classroom, take care of our children’s health; counsel our sons and daughters. Guide them, worry about them. And, on top of that, educate them too. When you consider that list, it is phenomenal that so many rise to the challenge. But it is too much to ask. Teachers are not surrogate mothers and fathers; they cannot do it all.

And, when you talk to teachers, it’s clear they are desperate for parents’ help.

They know, like we all know, the importance of parental involvement in a child’s development. In his review of life chances, Frank Field found it to be the single most important factor in a child’s progress. Just last week we heard from Demos that children are much less likely to binge drink and get into trouble during adolescence. If they experience warmth in the home when they are young, and clear discipline as they grow up.

The fact is: parents hold their children’s fortunes in their hands. I know it’s not always easy. But, when you speak to teachers, they’re not making unrealistic requests. They aren’t demanding parents break the bank on private tutors, or top of the range computers. They aren’t insisting parents cut down on their working hours to spend more time at home. They just want mothers and fathers to get into simple, commonsense, inexpensive routines. Small changes that make the world of difference to their classrooms.

Because a teacher can’t make sure that children take time at home to get a proper breakfast that sees them through until lunch. They can listen to a child read at school – but they can’t do an extra fifteen minutes at home in the evening. A teacher can’t turn the TV off when it’s time for homework. Or make sure children get to bed on time so they don’t come to school tired. Teachers tell me what a huge difference these little things can make. They also know that they can’t do them. But they know that parents can.

I know that it is not easy. Do I get it right every day? No I don’t. But do I, like so many parents, want to do more? Yes I do. And I know parents up and down the country feel the same. Now is the time to do it. We expect teachers to do so much. And they invariably do. But we all have a part to play in transforming the nation’s schools.

So, to sum up. On a day where everyone is determined to make the best of the new school year. Let’s set our sights even higher. Lets work together: government, schools and families to deliver the best for our children. No more shrugging our shoulders. No more accepting the status quo. A society where we celebrate the work our teachers do for our children. But where we all play our part in teaching them, too. With the right opportunities, every child can do well. With better teachers and more freedom, every school can do better.

Through choice and diversity – spread fairly – every community can have access to the schools they need.

Thank you.

Below is the text of the speech made by the Deputy Prime Minister, Nick Clegg, to party members on the 2011 riots.

This has been a traumatic week.

Traumatic for the nation; for police forces around the country; and above all for the innocent victims who have lost their homes, their livelihoods and even, in the most tragic cases, their lives.

The images of burning buses, looted shops and wrecked homes will not fade quickly. But our country must not – and will not – be defined by the actions of lawless rioters, opportunistic thieves and the members of violent gangs.

So now the work of rebuilding begins. Of the homes, shops and streets that have been damaged. In many places the work has been started by communities that have voluntarily and spontaneously come together to reclaim and clean up their neighbourhoods.

The best of Britain clearing up after the worst.

But there is also the slower, more painstaking, less visible rebuilding – the rebuilding of the affected communities themselves, and of people’s lives. This is the work of years, not days.

Some long-standing social problems have been thrown into sharper relief: gang culture; failing families; a welfare system that traps too many in dependency.

The Government is already moving on all these fronts. Tougher action on knife crime; a radical welfare reform agenda; national citizens service; more investment in parenting; support for councils who want sanctions against those who wreck property. The last week gives these efforts even greater urgency.

So we will step up our efforts to deal with some of the long term problems at source. We will intervene more to deal with the hard core of the most problematic families, and we will, for the first time, provide early years education specifically targeted at two year-olds from the most disadvantaged families.

Intervening early saves a lot of heartache, crime and cost years down the line.

But right now the immediate need is to get to the bottom of what happened on our streets in the last week.

Nobody can credibly claim to know for sure, at this early stage, the precise reasons for the various acts of disorder, to have perfectly discerned the motives of the criminals on our streets.

We need to know who did what, and why they did it. We need to understand. I don’t mean ‘understand’ in the sense of being understanding, or offering even the hint of an excuse. I mean understand what happened, to get as much evidence as we can. Then we can respond, ruthlessly but thoughtfully.

That is why we are commissioning independent research into the riots. Of course we don’t need research to tell us that much of this was pure criminality, but the more we can learn the better.

Why did some areas and people explode and others not? What can we learn from those neighbourhoods and young people who remained peaceful? After all, it is worth remembering that the rioters were the exception, not the rule.

We need to know what kind of people the rioters were, and why they did it. That is also why we are looking into gang culture, so that we can combat it more effectively. In policy-making as in war, it is important to know your enemy.

Our policy response will be guided by our values of freedom, fairness and responsibility. It will also be based soundly on evidence, not anecdote or prejudice. Kneejerk reactions are not always wrong – but they usually are.

Overnight courts and instant justice are an essential part of the response. But while of course we have had to act swiftly and decisively, we have resisted the temptation to engage in overnight policy or instant announcements.

For me, what was most striking about the disorder was that so many of those involved clearly felt like they had nothing to lose.

Nothing to lose from destroying property and stealing goods, from getting a criminal record, from deeply damaging their future prospects for a job or education.

For many of the rioters, it was as if their own future had little value. It was about what they could get, here and now, and hang the consequences – above all the consequences for their victims, but even for themselves.

Clearly the people on the streets this week have felt little stake in society, and no responsibility towards their own communities.

Let me be clear. There is no excuse for this behaviour. None. As a liberal, I see violence and disorder of this kind as an attack on liberty, on the freedom for individuals to live and trade in peace in their own communities.

I think the best defence against this kind of nihilistic behaviour is to ensure that everyone has a stake in society, and everyone feels a sense of responsibility towards their own community. That, in turn, means giving people the opportunities to get ahead so they feel they have a stake in their own future.

That is why this Government has decided to focus our social policies on social mobility, because having opportunity – real opportunity – gives people the drive, discipline and responsibility to do the right thing.

Putting more money into schools with disadvantaged youngsters, expanding apprenticeships, increasing the provision of early years education. None of these will be quick fixes. There are no quick fixes. But these are the kind of investments that we need to make now, to spread opportunity in the future.

And I want to be clear about one important point. While I passionately believe that it is the responsibility of government and broader society to ensure that every individual has real opportunities, I am equally clear that it is the responsibility of the individual themselves to take those opportunities up, and to play by the rules.

What guides us should be the following conviction: people who play by the rules should be the ones who thrive. Those who think they can break the rules and reap rewards need to know that their time is up. This applies, above all, to those who broke not only the laws of the land, but also the rules of common decency, with their behaviour this week.

But there’s a broader challenge here too. Too often, it looks as if people who break the rules can prosper. Tax evaders and benefit cheats; bankers who break the bank but feather their own nests; MPs who rob from the public purse.

At all times and in all parts of a society, we have to guard against the danger of a ‘smash and grab’ culture. A smash and grab culture in which, as the Chief Rabbi Jonathan Sacks put it yesterday, the only commandment is ‘thou shalt not be found out’’.

There is a danger that the only thing that stops people obeying rules is the fear that they might get caught.

In crime research there is a well-known theory dubbed the ‘broken windows’ effect, where one broken window leads to more and more crime.

I think there is a similar danger of a ‘broken rule’ effect, with people who see rules being broken in one walk of life then being more likely to break them in another. Rule-breaking spreads through society like a virus.

There was a lot of copycat rioting this week, as people acted out in one city what they saw happening in another. But there is a deeper copycat effect at work here too: people copying what they see as a ‘take what you can, when you can’ attitude to life, to society and to each other.

So while we can and will ensure that justice is done this month, and that the rioters and looters are properly punished, we must make sure it is done every month, everywhere.

The ‘broken rule’ effect means that we have to take a zero tolerance approach to all rule-breaking, all of the time. Rules are for all of us.

Politicians usually say at times like these, ‘let’s learn the lessons’. But they rarely do. This time it can be different. The burning shame we feel at the disorder on our streets has to be combined with a thoughtful determination to understand it, and an unbending commitment to stop it from ever happening again.

Below is the text of a speech made by the Leader of the Liberal Democrats and Deputy Prime Minister, Nick Clegg, at the Liberal Democrat Spring Conference, held on 13th March 2011.

This weekend is just the second time we’ve been together as a party again since those momentous events last May.

I’ve really enjoyed fielding questions, queries – yes, some criticisms too – from many of you over the last couple of days.

But it was a passing remark from one delegate that took me most by surprise.

‘It’s so nice to see you back’ she said. ‘I thought we’d lost you when you walked through that door of Number 10’.

Let me reassure you.

David Cameron hasn’t kidnapped me. Although I gather some people were planning to this weekend.

My life may have changed a fair bit since the last election. But I haven’t changed one bit.

We all know that we did not take the easy path last May. But we did take the right path.

Yes, being in Government with the problems we inherited is hard.

Explaining why we’re having to make cuts is hard.

And being in Coalition with another party isn’t always easy either.

Making compromises, settling differences, and going out to explain decisions which aren’t exactly the ones we’d make on our own.

But every single day I work flat out to make sure that what we’re doing is true to our values.

Because that’s what I owe to the country. To the millions of people we represent.

And I owe it to you.

I never forget that it is because of you, your tireless work, that Liberal Democrats are now in Government. I never forget that we are a party of fairness, freedom, progress and reform.

We cherished those values in opposition. Now we’re living by them in Government.

So yes, we’ve had to toughen up. But we will never lose our soul.

The slogan at this conference says: In government, on your side.

Some people have asked me: whose side, exactly?

My answer is simple.

We’re on the side of the people I call Alarm Clock Britain. On the side of everyone who wants to get up and get on.

People who, unlike the wealthy, have no choice but to work hard to make ends meet.

People who are proud to support themselves but are only ever one pay cheque from their overdraft.

People who believe in self-reliance but who don’t want to live in a dog-eat-dog world.

Who want everyone who can to work hard but they want children, the elderly and the vulnerable to be looked after too.

People who believe it is as wrong to opt out of tax as it is to opt out of work.

People who want the best for their children and need good local schools.

Who rely on our NHS.

Who want great public services but can’t stand seeing government waste.

People who don’t want politicians lecturing them on how to live.

And who are fed up with politicians taking their votes for granted.

These are the people liberals have always fought for.

Fought to get them votes, wages, jobs and welfare.

Lloyd George’s People’s Budget to make the wealthy pay their fair share and give a pension to all those who’d worked hard.

Keynes’ plans to make our economy work for everyone and provide jobs for all.

Beveridge’s radical blueprint for a welfare state to give security and dignity to every citizen

They may not have called it Alarm Clock Britain but they had the same people in mind.

The people liberals have always fought for. And we always will.

Those of you who were at the rally on Friday will remember that Ros Scott passed on to our new President, Tim Farron a copy of a book:

On Liberty by John Stuart Mill.

A reminder that we are the inheritors of a century and a half of radical liberal tradition.

We’re not the heirs to Thatcher.

We’re not the heirs to Blair.

We are the heirs to Mill, Lloyd George, Keynes, Beveridge, Grimond.

We are the true radicals of British politics.

That was true a hundred and fifty years ago and it is still true today.

In government, especially in difficult times, it is more important than ever to know whose side you are on.

When money is tight you have to make choices. And the only way to get them right is to know who you are making those choices for.

We are on the side of Alarm Clock Britain.

They have been failed for generations.

Failed by the tired tribalism of left and right.

Failed because both of those political traditions forget about people and place their faith in institutions.

For the left, an obsession with the state.

For the right, a worship of the market.

But as liberals, we place our faith in people.

People with power and opportunity in their hands.

Our opponents try to divide us with their outdated labels of left and right.

But we are not on the left and we are not on the right.

We have our own label: Liberal.

We are liberals and we own the freehold to the centre ground of British politics.

Our politics is the politics of the radical centre.

We are governing from the middle, for the middle.

In government. On your side.

The first order of business for this Government has of course been to tackle the budget deficit Labour left behind.

There is no hiding place.

There can be no ducking out.

But let’s be honest, this is not what we’re in politics for.

I didn’t get into politics to balance the books.

It is what we have to do – so we can do what we want to do.

When we came into office, we were borrowing an extra £400m every single day.

£400m we were asking our children to pay back.

Everything I want for Britain –

Great schools.

World class hospitals.

A balanced economy.

Can only be built on strong foundations, and on sound public finances.

Now, some people say to me: I understand we have to stop spending so much.

I understand we have to sort out the deficit. But aren’t we doing it too quickly?

In other words, why now?

Here’s why:

By cutting the deficit decisively we have restored confidence in Britain.

Essential – because without confidence there can be no growth.

We have helped keep interest rates lower for longer, helping families, helping businesses.

It has meant making difficult choices.

But at least they have been our choices…

Not forced on us by the bond markets as they have been in Greece and Ireland.

And the risks of delay far outweigh the risks of swift action.

Labour’s delay would certainly be costly and could be deadly.

And do you know what really annoys me about them?

They refuse to set out how they would make their own cuts.

Ed Miliband even boasted that their plans are: and I quote

“A blank sheet of paper.”

They call for us to produce a Plan B.

But they haven’t even got a Plan A.

Labour won’t take responsibility.

They say they would cut but they won’t tell us where.

They say their plan would be easier but they don’t admit their plan would mean three extra years of cuts.

They want to be saying to the people in 2015: ‘more cuts are needed’.

We want to say: we’ve done what needed to be done.

This is a question of fairness.

Above all, fairness to our children.

Racking up £400m of debt in their name every day is not right:

Our generation has a responsibility to the next.

When it comes to the deficit, the real question is not when, or if.

The real question is how.

We have protected spending on schools, on science and on health.

Found extra money for the pupil premium and apprenticeships

Given councils more financial freedom than they’ve ever had before

And we are increasing the amount we spend on overseas aid.

We won’t turn away from the task of fixing the deficit.

But nor will we ever turn our backs on the world’s poorest people.

We are not just fixing the deficit

We are laying the foundations of a stronger Britain and a fairer world.

In local government, I know the cuts are difficult.

But our councillors are showing what imagination, compassion and a bit of liberalism can do.

I cannot tell you how proud I am that not a single Liberal Democrat-led council is closing a single Sure Start children’s centre.

Sheffield has had a budget cut of more than 8%

Every lost job is a loss we all feel keenly:

But the Liberal Democrat council here has kept compulsory redundancies down to 270.

And they have kept open every children’s centre, library and swimming pool.

But cross the Pennines into Manchester, a council having to make almost identical savings.

You’ll find a Labour council letting nearly 2,000 people go.

So don’t let Labour take the moral high ground:

In councils up and down the country they’re the ones making the decisions to cut services that could be protected.

Some people say Labour are making cuts for political reasons…

So they’ve got something to blame the coalition for in their local election campaigns.

Let me say this:

Anyone who sacks a member of staff or shuts down a public service for political purposes is a disgrace to politics and a disgrace to Britain.

So yes, we have to tackle the deficit. But we are not a cuts government.

If we get to 2015 and all we’ve done is pay off Labour’s deficit, we will have failed.

Deficit reduction is just a fraction of the work we are undertaking.

Bit by bit, step by step

We are putting in place the cornerstones of a fairer, more liberal Britain…

The four cornerstones we put on the front of our manifesto:

a fair politics a fair, sound economy fair taxes and fair chances for all our children

Maybe those changes don’t make the news every night like the cuts do.

But they will be the liberal legacy of this Government.

The legacy each and every one of us will be proud to share.

Part of that legacy is proving that a new politics is not just possible –

It’s better.

The old political establishment, on the left and on the right, hate what’s happening to our politics.

The old left screaming betrayal every time politicians work across party lines or make a compromise.

The old right simply horrified to see Liberal Democrats in government at all.

We are showing that new politics, plural politics, coalition politics, can work for this country.

And it terrifies them.

There are enemies of reason across the political spectrum.

But there are friends of progress too – and the future of politics belongs to them.

It belongs to us.

People used to say coalition governments weren’t British.

I am sure our coalition partners will forgive me for reminding them of their attempts, in the last days of the election campaign, to portray the horror show of a hung parliament.

Remember what they said? A hung parliament and coalition government would mean.

“Indecision”

“Weak government.”

“A paralysed economy”

Well, it hasn’t turned out like that, has it?

The Coalition Government is strong and it is radical.

The main criticism now made of the government is that we are doing too much.

That we are too ambitious.

Perhaps the new complaint about coalition governments is that coalitions are too strong.

But two parties sharing power in Westminster is just the start.

We need to share power with the people.

Let me quote you some words that inspired me many years ago:

‘The old politics is dying.

The battle to decide what the new politics will be like is just beginning.

It is possible, just possible, that it will be a politics for people.”

Shirley Williams wrote that three decades ago, as she and others set out to change the shape of British politics.

Shirley was an inspiration then, and is an inspiration today.

Shirley, perhaps it has taken longer than you thought, but here we are.

A new politics is beginning at last.

We must make it what you dreamt of: a politics for people.

The Coalition Government is shifting power from state to people:

Restoring civil liberties

Protecting personal freedom and privacy

Crushing the ID database

We’re ending the house arrest of Labour’s Control Orders

Guaranteeing freedom of the press

Undertaking the biggest devolution of financial power to Scotland since the formation of the United Kingdom

Tearing up the Whitehall rules that dictate to Town Halls how to spend local people’s money

Running a successful referendum to give more power to Wales

Putting public health in the hands of local authorities.

Reforming party funding

Giving voters the right to sack corrupt MPs

Creating an elected House of Lords, finishing the job this party started a century ago

We passed the policies, conference after conference…

Now, finally, we’re passing the laws.

And, of course, a referendum to change our voting system…

For the first time ever, the people of Britain choosing how to choose their MPs.

You can tell the ‘No’ campaign are desperate.

Making up ludicrous stories

Basically making it up as they go along.

What are they so scared of?

AV is a small change that makes a big difference.

It keeps what people like about the current system, like constituency MPs.

It simply puts people, rather than politicians, in charge.

Makes MPs work harder for your vote.

And helps end the scandal of safe seats for life.

On the Yes campaign we have the Liberal Democrats, Labour party supporters, the Green Party, UKIP, Plaid Cymru, the SNP, Friends of the Earth, Colin Firth, Eddie Izzard and Helena Bonham Carter.

On the No side of the argument are the BNP, the Communists, the Conservative Party.

John Prescott, Norman Tebbit and David Owen.

Tricky one.

It’s simple.

If you want more duck houses: vote no.

If you want more democracy: vote yes.

In seven weeks, the British people can sound the last post for first past the post.

So we have seven weeks to get our message across:

If you want MPs to work harder for your vote, vote yes.

If you want politicians to listen to whole country, not just swing voters in marginal seats: vote yes.

If you want an end to jobs for life in safe seats, vote yes.

If you want a new politics, vote yes.

But it’s not just a new politics we need.

We need a new economy.

The deficit is the most obvious symptom of an unbalanced, unsound, unfair economy.

An economy based on speculation and debt, rather than growth and investment.

We need an economy that works for Alarm Clock Britain, not just for the financial elite

We need an economy that works for us all.

Dealing with the deficit is just the first step to making that possible.

We have to get growth going again.

A new kind of growth.

The budget ten days from now will be a budget for growth:

For green growth.

For balanced growth.

Building the homes our children will need.

Getting young people into work.

Investing in the low carbon economy of the future.

No more dependency on the City of London and its coffers:

A flourishing future for the great cities of the North and the Midlands…

Cities which will be the engines of growth in our economy.

As they were in the past and as they will be again.

As for the banks, I agree with Mervyn King.

The Governor of the Bank of England says that it simply isn’t sensible or right to have banks which are so big that if they fail we have to bail them out.

It’s not good for the economy.

It’s not good for taxpayers.

And it’s not good for Britain.

Under the old model, a handful of financial institutions were able effectively to hold the country to ransom.

And who paid the biggest price for Labour’s failure to regulate the banks properly?

Ordinary, hard-working taxpayers, that’s who.

We will not let that happen again.

So we are fixing the banks.

We are going to take £10 billion more than Labour planned in taxes off them this parliament.

We’re making sure they lend £10 billion to ordinary businesses this year alone.

Making them come clean about how much they pay their top people with the toughest disclosure regime in the world.

And – most importantly of all – we set up an independent Banking Commission to advise us on a sustainable future for the whole banking industry.

And we will act on what it recommends.

The banks must go back to being the servants of the economy, not the masters.

And people are fed up with a system where those on ordinary incomes have to pay taxes they can’t afford.

While people at the top accumulate vast wealth no questions asked.

Forget the tired arguments of the left and right focusing solely on top-rate tax.

We need proper tax reform. Liberal tax reform.

My philosophy on tax is simple:

Less tax on aspiration, enterprise and hard work.

More tax on pollution and unearned wealth.

These are the principles which are already shaping government tax policy and will continue to do so in the years to come.

From next month, 900,000 people will stop paying income tax altogether.

Every basic rate taxpayer will pay £200 less a year in tax.

We will take real steps every year, including in the Budget in ten days time, towards our goal that nobody earning less than £10,000 pays any income tax at all.

From the front of our manifesto to the pay-packets of 23 million people.

Do you know who did that?

You did that – everyone of you in this hall.

You did it.

You designed the policy.

You voted for it at a conference like this one.

You campaigned for it.

And now it’s happening.

So get out there and tell people about it.

On every doorstep and in every town.

An extra £200 in your pay packet starting next month.

By 2015, no tax on the first £10,000 you earn.

Labour think fairness means taking money off people and then making them fill out forms to get it back again.

We say no.

We say that you shouldn’t pay tax until you’ve got enough to get by.

Work has got to pay.

So we’re fixing welfare to make sure it always does – to break open the poverty trap Labour created.

As Beveridge himself said: “The State should not stifle incentive, opportunity or responsibility”

So our universal credit will send a simple, clear message:

Work pays.

Even an hour of work pays.

Do what you can, and we will help you.

There are of course some difficult welfare cuts coming.

We are building a system of welfare that is fair to recipients, and fair to the taxpayers.

A system Beveridge would be proud of.

And for pensioners, from next month our ‘triple guarantee’ will mean that everyone will be protected in retirement.

Never again the indignity of Labour’s 75p pension rise.

Under our plans, pensioners will get £15,000 more in state pension over their retirement than under Labour.

And who did that?

You did that.

So tell every pensioner in your community, on your street, about it.

About the difference you made.

And let me also be clear.

Responsibility goes all the way up the income scale.

So we’re going to make the top bankers come clean about their own pay and bonuses.

And we’re going to make sure they pay their taxes.

We will always be just as tough on tax evasion at the top as on benefit fraud at the bottom.

Because ordinary workers in alarm clock Britain don’t set up offshore trusts to avoid paying tax:

They pay their way – and that’s a standard everyone should live by.

They also deserve world-class public services,

That will mean change, some of which may feel uncomfortable.

But we have to open up our public services if we want them to improve.

I know that many of you have concerns about the Government’s plans for the health service.

What I need you to know is that all of us in Government are listening, and that we take those concerns seriously.

We have campaigned for years for an NHS that gives more power to professionals and to patients.

Do not believe for a moment Labour’s scare-mongering about privatising the NHS.

No government of which I am part will tamper with the essential contract at the heart of the NHS: to care collectively for each other as fellow citizens.

World-class health care for all.

Publicly funded. Free.

Centred on patients, not profit. So yes to health reforms.

But no – always no – to the privatisation of health.

We want a great NHS.

And we want great schools, too.

A fair start for every child.

Under Labour, the opportunity gap widened – even as billions of pounds were invested in our public services.

That’s their legacy of shame; the wasted money that could have made a difference.

We must do more, even though they left us with less.

Life chances should not be determined by background.

Prospects should never be narrowed by the postcode of the home you are born into.

Birth should never be destiny.

As liberals, we believe in an open society

Where the power to shape your own future is in your hands

Where all roads are open, to all of our children.

That is why Sarah Teather is providing free pre-school education to every two year-old from a poor backgrounds.

That is why we have introduced a pupil premium putting £2.5 billion extra into schools that take on the children most likely to fall behind.

That is why we are creating 350,000 new apprenticeships, helping people get a trade and get ahead.

And that is why we are opening up our universities to poorer students.

We are introducing a national scholarship scheme.

So that young people from any background can go to university.

It is no secret that we could not deliver our policy to abolish tuition fees.

And I know how deeply people regret that.

But though we have been divided, we can now unite, together, behind one clear mission:

To make university access fair, fair for all.

Right now, our best universities are almost monopolised by the better-off.

A pupil at a private school is fifty-five times more likely to get into Oxford or Cambridge than a pupil who qualifies for free school meals.

But what’s even more scandalous is that there are still some people in these institutions who shrug their shoulders and say:

That’s just the way things are.

They are wrong and they will have to change.

We are insisting that universities wanting to charge more for courses have to open their doors more, more than ever.

And let me be clear to the universities…

Open your doors or we will cut your fees back down to size.

No more blaming the system.

Fair access: fair access now. It isn’t just the universities.

Many of our liberal ambitions will be opposed by powerful interests.

But we are used to it.

We have faced them throughout our party’s history.

Let’s face them again.

The reform-blockers in the House of Lords, clinging to their unaccountable powers

The MPs in Westminster opposing voting reform that threatens their safe seats

The political party machines, afraid to wean themselves off big money

The unions standing in the way of reforms to give patients and parents more power

The financiers in the City of London, resisting fairer regulation and transparency

All looking out for themselves, protecting their turf, trying to close the doors against change.

Well, we’re not having it.

Who stands up for the interests of the people without a lobbying group?

I’ll tell you who does.

We do.

And we are not going to let them down.

I do not underestimate the scale of the tasks we face.

These are testing times for the country.

Testing times for the Government.

Testing times for us as a party.

Let’s be honest, after seven decades in opposition, 2010 was not the easiest time to return to Government.

But we have shown ourselves to be up to the task.

We will not shrink from our responsibilities as a party of government.

We will not flinch from taking the difficult decisions to put this country back on track.

We will not miss this opportunity to build a more liberal Britain.

I know that being in the Coalition Government means us having to take some difficult, even painful, decisions.

But clinging to the comfort blanket of opposition would not have made life more comfortable for our fellow citizens.

It would have been an abdication of responsibility.

Never, ever, doubt the value of being in Government.

Would a Government without Liberal Democrats have ended child detention?

Got an extra ten billion out of the banks?

Would it have held a referendum on the voting system?

Or put up capital gains tax?

Ordered an inquiry into torture?

Brought in a pupil premium?

Or replaced Control Orders?

Would a Government without Liberal Democrats have cut taxes for the poorest?

I don’t think so.

In just a few weeks time, we’ll be taking the liberal message to Scotland and Wales, and in council seats up and down the land.

When you go into this election campaign – and people are asking what difference we have made to government –

You go ahead and tell them.

Tell them that this government is getting our economy moving.

Tell them that this government is getting the banks lending.

Tell them that we are cutting income tax.

And raising the state pension.

Investing in our children.

Renewing our political system.

And restoring civil liberties.

Tell them how we are working to build a liberal Britain:

Tell them:

We are in government.

And we are on your side.

Below is the text of a speech made by the Deputy Prime Minister, Nick Clegg. The speech was made in Brazil on Tuesday 21st June 2011 and was on the subject of innovative business in the green economy.

“I have to confess: this is my first trip to Brazil. But I have wanted to come here for many years.

“Like all of your visitors, I’ve been struck by Brazil’s beauty, your hospitality. But, more than anything, by your sense of pride, of confidence. By the sense that right here, right now, so much is possible.

“It’s no real surprise, of course.

“In just a few decades Brazil has undergone a transformation that takes most countries centuries.

“Democracy, growth, economic development. Millions lifted out of poverty – 24 million in just eight years. A voice on the global stage that grows stronger by the day.

“In all of history has a country ever risen so dramatically, so peacefully, attracting such global goodwill?

“Brazil was once described as a country of the future; clearly now it’s the future that belongs to Brazil.

“And it’s our shared future I want to talk about today. A new partnership between Brazil and the UK. A partnership for prosperity, where we work together to generate wealth and opportunity for our people.

“Trading more, learning from each other as we reform our economies, but also standing shoulder to shoulder in the world to advance our common values: democracy, fairness, economic openness, multilateralism.

“Because, in the long-term, that’s how we create the peaceful and stable world in which we both can thrive.

“Before I talk about how we can work together more closely, let me set out why I believe we can.

“History shows that UK-Brazil relations matter.

“In the nineteenth century Britain supported and helped in Brazil’s war of liberation and negotiated Portuguese recognition of Brazilian independence.

“A hundred years later, as Europe was torn apart by unprecedented destruction, Brazilian soldiers fought with us, helping to defeat the forces of fascism. Making sacrifices for which we will always be grateful.

“Ours has long been a reciprocal friendship, a two-way friendship between nations that stand together when it counts.

“Our ties are not new, but they have been allowed to slacken.

“We don’t trade enough. We don’t share knowledge in the way we could. We don’t automatically think of each other as allies in the world.

“True, recent years have seen some improvement – in business and investment; in cooperation in defence, and on development policy.

“We worked together effectively on biodiversity at Nagoya, and on climate change at Cancun.

“I don’t want to downplay that progress. But we must be much more ambitious about what we can achieve together.

“There remains great potential for Brazil and the UK to do more.

“That’s why I’m here.

“As part of a new and lasting period of engagement between our great nations. Modern nations. Reforming nations. Nations that do not look at the world as it once was, but who see it for what it is today, what it will be tomorrow.

“And who understand that, on all of our big challenges – tackling global warming, setting the world on a path of sustainable growth, eliminating poverty and disease, fighting terrorism and organised crime – on all of them we are stronger together than we are apart.

“At the heart of this partnership are our values.

“The world is often carved up according to imaginary lines: North/South; East/West; Developed/Developing.

“But the real divide is about what you believe.

“There are closed societies: where power is abused, liberty curtailed, opportunity hoarded, and governments look inwards as the rest of the world is shut out.

“And there are open societies: internationalist in spirit, committed to fairness, freedom and democracy.

“Brazil and the UK stand on the same side of that divide.

“Of course, in any genuine, equal partnership there will be give and take. Moments when we don’t agree.

“We look, for example, for the same outcomes in the Arab world, yet we sometimes differ on the best way to achieve them. And, when we disagree, we should be upfront about it.

“However, I believe, ultimately, we can be confident about navigating those moments.

“Confident that, while we may differ on the means, we nearly always agree on the ends and, in our heads and in our hearts, we are usually coming from the same place.

“So how do we deepen our ties?

“The first part of the answer is trade.

“For the UK, this visit is, ultimately a trade mission. If that sounds hardheaded, that’s because it is.

“Trade means jobs. That’s what the people of the UK want.

“But never underestimate the cohesive power of trade.

“It brings people together, fostering new understandings. Not between governments, or diplomats, but people; businesses; their staff; and their communities too.

“Trade ensures nations have a stake in each other’s success. In working together peacefully, constructively, and towards the same goals.

“So I’m delighted to unveil new business contracts between UK and Brazilian companies worth £2.5bn to the UK economy – a significant boost.

“BT, BP, BG – British companies, doing more business in Brazil, bringing the benefits home.

“Contracts that boost the bright futures of some of our most iconic businesses, like Rolls Royce and JCB, both of which are expanding operations here in Brazil.

“Contracts that filter down the supply chain.

“For example, by underwriting a credit line for Brazilian steelmaker Gerdau, the UK government has secured £270 million worth of exports from the UK, with orders placed with dozens of companies around the country.

“And contracts that help the UK rebalance our economy away from our previous overreliance on a limited number of sectors, with deals in telecoms, manufacturing, pharmaceuticals – some of the key industries to the UK’s future success.

“I’m accompanied by a business delegation, representing energy, infrastructure, engineering, financial services, to name a few. Here to promote the UK as one of the easiest places on the planet to do business – that’s according to the World Bank – as well as a gateway to global markets.

“And we are deeply ambitious about what we want to achieve.

“Nothing short of a new era in expanded trade and booming business between our two nations.

“It is true that the UK was hit hard by the global financial crisis, and the UK Government is having to implement a decisive plan for fiscal consolidation, cutting spending and raising some taxes too.

“But, by doing so, we have retained the confidence of international markets and gained the backing of major international institutions, including the IMF, the EU, and OECD.

“We are also reforming our financial sector so that risk is better managed, and the wider economy is better insulated from shocks.

“So the UK should be an attractive destination for Brazilian investment. And we offer a different kind of deal.

“We know what the Brazilian economy already excels at.

“We know too how many international partnerships you have forged.

“But the great challenge for all advanced economies in the 21st century is to stay smart. To get ahead of the curve – in technology, in education, in energy efficiency, effective regulation and public services.

“That is where we can help. Ours is a dynamic, agile, and innovative economy.Where we value sustainability, where we recognise the need to confront structural barriers to growth.

“That’s why we’re focusing resources on schools and training. We’re reforming higher education to keep our universities world class, and we’re building on our world-class research base to get further ahead in the industries of the twenty first century: green technology, renewable energy, aerospace, and many more.

“It’s a long-term view. Looking beyond the next year, or the year after. Looking decades ahead.

“Because that is the key to growth that lasts.

“I know Brazil is also thinking not only of today. That you are lifting your sights to the horizon. And on that we can help each other too.

“We can learn from each other to diversify our economies, drawing on each others’ expertise.

“Your success in biofuels and renewable energy. Our experience in carbon trading and our new Green Investment bank – a world first.

“Your groundbreaking welfare programmes. Our insights in education.

“We can pass on lessons from our preparations for London 2012 to help deliver a successful Rio 2016.

“Perhaps, in return, you can tell us the secret of how to win five world cups.

“It’s a new way of working together – a step change in our relationship.

“This week we are agreeing UK/Brazilian cooperation that – in its scope and depth – has never been seen before.

“On crime, to tackle drugs here in Brazil and help get cocaine off the UK’s streets too.

“On international development, to combine our efforts and help some of the world’s poorest.

“On the upcoming Rio +20 conference – twenty years on from the 1992 Earth Summit – to set out a plan for sustainable global growth.Never have our nations agreed to work so closely, on so many issues…Coming together for our common good.
And as we move forward together, we must recognise that this partnership is not just about what we can do, directly, with each other, but also what we do, together, in the wider world.

“Because our fortunes do not exist in a vacuum. They depend on the health of the global economy within which we operate and, following the global financial crisis, that economy is still not in a good state.

“Different countries have weathered the storm differently. Brazil has dealt with it extremely well.

“You were the last into recession and the first out – and, again, there are lessons we want to learn.

“And the challenges nations face are also different.

“In the UK we are dealing with the consequences of years of excessive debt, private and public.

“In Brazil, you are thinking more about the dangers associated with rising inflation.

“In the UK we are having to rebalance our economy by moving away from private consumption and government expenditure, towards net exports and investment. That, along with fiscal consolidation, will help deliver sustainable growth.

“For so-called emerging nations, on the other hand, rebalancing means deepening domestic markets to increase consumption and spread the benefits of prosperity.

“But what is the same is that, for either of us to meet those challenges, we both need a global economic environment able to withstand shocks.

“Where we strive for steady and sustainable global growth based on stable finances, built on responsible financial markets and underpinned by political stability.

“That means effective international institutions. And it’s on that point that I would like to finish.

“In our interdependent economy, multilateralism is not a luxury, it’s a must.

“But our institutions must be more nimble. Better equipped to guard against risk, respond to crises, enforce rules and norms that advance our shared success.

“That will be impossible until those institutions are reformed to suit the modern world. Until they reflect today’s geography of power, with all of the major powers properly heard. Nations – like Brazil – who should be shaping the agenda, offering unique insights, being part of the big decisions, and then using your power to see those decisions through.

“Huge strides have been taken in establishing multilateral cooperation over the last sixty years, but the reality is, unless new actors are brought fully into the multilateral system, they will increasingly look for other ways to operate and our international institutions will become increasingly defunct.

“The UK doesn’t want to see that happen.

“That’s why we actively support a permanent seat for Brazil at the UN Security Council.

“We pushed for the recent changes to IMF voting weights, to more fairly distribute influence. Changes we’re ratifying through our Parliament, without delay.

“And we want the G20 to continue as an effective, inclusive forum where we address global economic challenges.

“So it’s time for old powers to make space.

“We want you with us, fully represented.

“But – of course – fully responsible too.

“Being a full member of the club is one thing, but it becomes meaningless unless we all make sure that club works.

“So our nations must be activists for the things we believe in.

“We see Brazil doing that more and more, whether by standing up for human rights or helping deliver peace and stability – not least through your leadership of the UN Stabilisation Mission in Haiti.

“That increased engagement bodes well for the future. Because the world needs an active Brazil, fighting for progress on a fair, global trade round.

“Using your experience and growing influence to help secure stability in the Middle East. Helping implement the climate change commitments agreed in Cancun. And building on them to deliver a successful Durban Summit at the end of the year.

“Promoting democracy because you know from your own experience that in underpins stability and success.

“It’s no coincidence, after all, that of the world’s top twenty economies only three are not fully democratic.

“On every big question facing the world today, there is no answer without Brazil. And the UK wants to stand alongside you to find the best solutions.

“So, to conclude – a new partnership for prosperity between Brazil and the UK.Built on trade, on sharing knowledge and expertise. Where we fight for our values – democracy, fairness, openness.

“Working alongside each other in international institutions fit for the 21st Century.

“It’s a different kind of relationship, with Britain and Brazil partners for prosperity and social progress, and partners in a fairer, more responsible global system.

“And we must now make a choice:

“We can drift along as before. Friendly, but not very close.

“Working together sporadically, but not building deep and lasting bonds.

“Or we can commit to a real, meaningful, strategic partnership, coming together as a new force.

“One that will be good for the people of the UK, good for the people of Brazil. And, I believe, good for the wider world.”