UKPOL.CO.UK

Tag: Charles Kennedy

  • Charles Kennedy – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills

    Charles Kennedy – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Charles Kennedy on 2014-06-27.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, if he will bring forward plans to enable the Green Investment Bank to purchase equity in existing offshore projects to enable similar investment in onshore wind turbine construction; and if he will make a statement.

    Michael Fallon

    The role of the Green Investment Bank (GIB) is to help finance green infrastructure projects. The terms of its state aid approval do not allow it to invest in specific supply chain companies or activities such as turbine manufacturing. GIB has already taken equity stakes in a number of operating offshore wind farms.

  • Charles Kennedy – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Scotland Office

    Charles Kennedy – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Scotland Office

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Charles Kennedy on 2014-04-29.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland, what recent assessment he has made of the economic potential of the Scottish Highlands and Islands; and if he will make a statement.

    Mr Alistair Carmichael

    The Scottish Highlands and Islands play an important role in the Scottish economy.

    The UK Government recognises this and has demonstrated strong support for rural areas through measures such the fuel duty rebate scheme, the abolition of the fuel duty escalator, and in the Budget 2014 supporting Scotch Whisky by freezing duty on spirits.

  • Charles Kennedy – 2002 Speech on the G8 Summit in Canada

    Charles Kennedy – 2002 Speech on the G8 Summit in Canada

    The speech made by Charles Kennedy, the then Leader of the Liberal Democrats, in the House of Commons on 1 July 2002.

    Although all sane and democratic-thinking people throughout the world will acknowledge the importance of the summit, not least as another essential reaffirmation of the fight against international terrorism, which poses the most fundamental threat to us all, I think that the Prime Minister will accept that despite the progress achieved, there were elements of serious disappointment about the summit.

    Will the right hon. Gentleman acknowledge, not least when we hear some of the more strident tones on this side of the Atlantic as well as on the other side, that an important lesson is that progress can be best effected through efficient international institutions in which countries play a constructive role and do not run with the tide of short-term populist opinion, which, when it comes to unilateralism, far less isolationism, history proves does not work and will not deliver? Does he agree that that is an important conclusion to emerge from the weekend and from the events that have followed on since the summit itself?

    Specifically, in welcoming the reaffirmation statement about the middle east process, will the right hon. Gentleman again take the opportunity to underscore the fact that it never looks good for international countries, democratically based, to be seen to be trying to dictate what other countries should be deciding, not least through a democratic process, however difficult the circumstances may be, where the leadership of those other countries and other states are concerned?

    Secondly, on the issue of weapons of mass destruction, and given the importance that the Prime Minister rightly attached to the developing role of Russia on many fronts over coming years, was there any discussion, or did he have the opportunity to raise, the role of Russia in giving financial and practical support to Iran to develop a nuclear reactor? As the right hon. Gentleman knows, there is considerable international anxiety as to the use to which such a facility, such a capacity, could be put. Russia will be a major and primary beneficiary of the extra funds that are being deployed, to which the United Kingdom will be contributing. Has leverage been exerted on the Russian authorities in that respect?

    Thirdly, there is the central issue of African relief. Obviously, there will be a great welcome for the progress that has been achieved. The Prime Minister quoted the World Bank, but will he acknowledge that the bank has said in the context of what was achieved—that is the progress that was made at the G8 summit—that many of the poorest and most heavily indebted countries will still have unsustainable levels of built-in debt for a long time to come? Therefore, as the right hon. Gentleman has acknowledged, this can be only the beginning of the process. It is by no means the termination of a process.

    Finally, I return to the important lesson of international co-operation. As the right hon. Gentleman well knows, as a party that has long since supported the International Criminal Court, will he confirm again that this country will continue its commitment in that direction, and point out to the American Administration the fundamental error of their ways in that respect?

    The Prime Minister

    Of course, we support the International Criminal Court. It is a commitment that we inherited from the previous Government. That is quite apart from our own position.

    As for the United States and the Palestinian Authority, it is important to be clear about what the United States is and is not saying. The United States is not saying that the Palestinians cannot choose who they want. They can choose who they want. The United States is merely saying that if the Palestinians choose someone who is not a serious partner for peace, that will make it far more difficult to conduct negotiations, and frankly I agree with that.

    As for the WMD, it is true that there are worries about Iran’s nuclear weapons programme. There are also worries about other countries’ nuclear weapons programmes. However, the WMD focuses specifically on the countries of the former Soviet Union. That is important because it is in those countries that there are large stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons. There is the nuclear programme, and so on. They need help to clean up the nuclear submarines, for example, and we should give them that assistance.

    In relation to the African situation and NEPAD, the truthful position is that, of course, there is a lot more that must be done. It is true that we will make a significant impact on the situation, but we will not manage to deal with it all. However, we have made huge progress on where we were a few years ago. The fact is that we have a plan in place that allows us to deal with all the issues in a comprehensive way, increase aid and assistance in return for good governance and deal with issues such as conflict resolution, which are dramatically important in respect of this issue. It is no use dealing simply with issues of debt and aid; we must deal with debt and aid, trade, conflict resolution and some of the specific health and education issues. The benefit of the plan is that it gives us an overall framework within which we can work, but the political will must continue for many years.

  • Charles Kennedy – 2000 Speech to Liberal Democrat Spring Conference

    Charles Kennedy – 2000 Speech to Liberal Democrat Spring Conference

    The speech made by Charles Kennedy on 19 March 2000.

    Just think.

    What have been the key issues in the last few days?

    Rover and GMs.

    What links them? Europe.

    The issue that the government consistently refuses to lead on. We all know that there must be European action on GMs. And if the government had acted to bring down the exchange rate, So that we could join the euro, Rover would not be in its current situation. No wonder that people say politicians are losing touch. No wonder that the people who vote are a dwindling band.

    We know the reasons. People tell us. Daily. They say to us. You’re all the same. You don’t tell the truth. You break your promises. There’s no point to politics. It doesn’t change anything. We can’t trust any of you. Well we have to change all that. Reconnect. Or politics will have no future. And we start by restoring a sense of idealism to politics. Saying why we, Liberal Democrats, are different. Explaining that our principles are different. And that those principles matter. At the heart of our philosophy is liberty. A wholehearted commitment to freedom. These are my values. Your values too. Liberty, freedom of the individual. The rights of the private citizen Before, above and beyond the self-interests of the state. Community rather than class-based, self-centred values.

    The other parties don’t really believe in that. Liberty is the word that’s missing from New Labour’s ‘Third Way’. Labour sees diversity and individuality as troublesome. Their instinct is to control. They tried it in Wales. Thanks to us, they failed. They got their priorities all wrong. Their Objective One wasn’t about matched funding. You know all about that here. Objective One for Labour, save Alun Michael. Objective Two, stop Rhodri Morgan. Objective Three, make the Assembly work for New Labour, not for Wales.

    And William Hague’s Conservative Party? They talk about freedom a lot. But it’s a false freedom. Opting out of society. Opting out of social responsibility. Opting out of Europe. The Tory freedom led to Clause 28. Mind you, they are good street theatre. Did you see them on the back of that truck? I wonder if they’ll flog the lorry when they’ve finished with it? Would you buy a used lorry from either of them? William Hague and Michael Portillo. The Rodney and Del-Boy of the Privy Council.

    What a contrast we are. We want genuine freedom. Not the Tory false freedom. Freedom of the individual is about equal rights for all. That means basic civil rights. It means more decentralisation. Regionally across England. And where better to start than right here – in the South West? Freedom means stopping government telling you how to live your life. But it also means social justice.

    Nearly a hundred years ago, Hobhouse said ‘the struggle for liberty … is the struggle for equality’. He was right. He was right. If you live in a high rise flat, bringing up a child on your own, or struggling on a pension, freedom isn’t about government making you buy healthcare or education. If you live in those conditions, freedom is about social justice. Employment. Decent public services. Decent welfare support when times are hard. A first class education system. Whatever your income, whatever your background. And, whatever your income, whatever your background.

    The one issue which should concern us all is the environment. That’s what I want to talk to you about today. Go back to that high rise flat, in a polluted city, Freedom is also about a decent environment. The greatest freedom we can hand on to future generations, is a planet with a future. The environment is not something that you inherit from your parents. It is something that you preserve for your children. John Stuart Mill talked about the “tyranny of the majority”. Today we should recognise that pollution is the most pernicious tyranny of all. And it affects the poor the most. Yet all too often, politicians shy away from that. Even we, Liberal Democrats, too many of us, certainly myself included, have ducked some tough questions. We haven’t talked about the environment nearly enough in the past few years. We’ve been criticised for that by people like Friends of the Earth. It’s a fair point. I accept it. Too often, environmental concerns have been seen as constraints. Stopping people doing things. But they are actually the reverse. The reverse.

    Protecting the environment is the most fundamental liberation politics. Broadening choice at ALL levels of society. Creating jobs. Building a better, more sustainable, more cohesive society. The essence of Liberal Democracy. So it’s vital that we start persuading the British people. Persuading them that the environment is one of the biggest issues in politics. And that it has a massive impact on quality of life. Let’s look at the facts. The facts. Climate change. The major problem. Latest figures show that global warming is happening fast. Much faster than we have ever imagined. And if action isn’t taken to cut greenhouse gasses, temperatures will rise even more dramatically. Faster rises than at any time since the end of the last ice age. Britain will face particular problems It’s not just Plymouth that has palm trees. My own constituency does too. Yet, in fact it’s on a similar latitude to Moscow. But if the Gulf Stream changes, as it could, we will be in real trouble.

    Yet the public policy response? What was once a Labour manifesto pledge is now only a goal. A vague aspiration. A familiar story, isn’t it? We’ve seen the evidence of global warming in Mozambique. You know, I couldn’t actually believe it. The politicians were talking about helicopters. How many. And when they should have been sent. How much more powerful it would be, if they spent as much time stopping it becoming an everyday event. That means each individual making changes to their lives. To make a difference to the environment. But it also means changes for government. It’s time now for the British government to make a real difference. To commit to getting 20% of our energy from renewables by 2010. It’s a real issue for all of us. Consider this. Nearly 10% of our best agricultural land is less than 5 metres above sea level. Around 40% of our manufacturing is on or near the coast. 26 million people in this country living near the coastline. As sea levels rise, so our economic fabric will sink.

    So what does the government do? Number ten is pathetic. Absolutely pathetic. There is no joined-up thinking on the environment. We’ve seen that on GM foods. Ask the others what they think GM is. Labour will say “grant-maintained”. Tories will say “General Motors”. Liberal Democrats have constantly urged caution. We see science as a servant, never a master. But it took sustained public pressure to make the PM recognise that. The government must now go the whole hog. Back our policy of a five-year moratorium on commercial GM crops.. A fundamental part of the green cause in the future, will be pushing the case internationally. Taking the lead.

    I am a pro-European. That’s partly because I know that Europe can help the environment. Many environmental problems can only be tackled at an international level. Events in Seattle told us that. So the environment should be part of a genuinely ethical foreign policy. And only by playing a constructive role in Europe can that happen. For the good of the environment, there’s one issue the government must take seriously. Transport. This is John Prescott’s job. Good old John. He tries hard. After the last election he said, “I will have failed if in five years time there are not far fewer journeys by car.” That’s coming back to haunt him. Soon, he’ll wish he hadn’t said it.

    So for those people without two Jags, we must tackle failing public transport. An integrated transport system. Fuel rebates for community transport. Bus lanes. And we all know that Susan Kramer has the best tube policy for London. No surprise there that Frank Dobson’s going well and truly down the tube. And let me set you a challenge for the next election. I want our party to turn the phrase “on your bike” into a compliment, not an insult. And what about walking? John Prescott doesn’t really understand walking. Or talking for that matter. And as for walking and talking. The mind boggles. But we can manage it. We’re rather good at it – walking. ‘Safe Routes’ to schools. Home zones. Look at the school bus experience in the United States. Children need more freedom from parents. And parents need more freedom from fear.

    Environmental politics adds up to more family-friendly politics. Getting that message across will change attitudes. That, ultimately, is the challenge. Without a ‘green culture’, government will legislate in vain. Nobody should think that changing a culture is impossible. Cast your minds back ten years ago. It was unconventional to recycle anything. But it’s now common practice throughout Britain. As a party, we can claim some credit. Our councils in particular. And the pressure groups. Even the government loves it. It recycles everything. Its policies. Our policies. But most of all, they love recycling their funding commitments. So I want us to lead a cultural change. People say that they want a better environment. We need to help people understand that our policies will give them that. Take one issue that links health, the environment, social policy.

    Fuel poverty. Why is it that so many of the poorest people, often the oldest, can’t afford to heat their homes. It’s so costly because homes are not properly insulated. They pump heat into the skies, and their homes remain cold. Because they remain cold, they get ill. And even, sometimes, they die. Over 40,000 died last winter alone. An absolute scandal. So come on colleagues. Let’s think imaginatively. Why can’t GPs issue prescriptions for home insulation? It will promote better health. Save heating costs. And lead to a better environment. A green policy to end fuel poverty in 15 years.

    But the environment is also good for the economy. Green growth, in other words. Jobs – insulating homes. Jobs – in conservation schemes. Jobs – investing in public transport. We’ve got to get that message across. We have to make that case. It’s a different agenda, a distinctive identity. More choice, not less. Positive gain, not pain. Modern, efficient and progressive. An agenda for a forward-looking party. And that’s the kind of party I want to lead. That’s why today I’m launching our Green Budget. The government has its very own Brown Budget. We’ve proposed a green programme to end fuel poverty in 15 years. Taxes on dumping waste, to fund more recycling. Changes in VAT to stop urban sprawl. 20% of British energy from renewable sources by 2010. Scrapping road tax for the most fuel efficient cars. There’s much more. And we will go on producing more and better green policy.

    But Labour won’t do that in next week’s Brown Budget. I’ll tell you what else won’t be tackled properly in the Budget. Health and education. You know, the PM says that Nye Bevan was one of his heroes. Can you imagine Nye arguing for tax cuts when the NHS is crying out? Crying out for more doctors, more nurses, more beds? I can’t see it at all. So I challenge the Chancellor today. Gordon, listen to what people are saying. Gordon, unlock your war-chest. Right now, people don’t want a tax-cut. Right now they want the money put into schools, hospitals and pensions. Go on Gordon. Do it, just do it.

    That’s what we’ll be putting to the people of Romsey. Sandra Gidley is an excellent PPC. Sandra, we’re all right behind you. At that election, and the next general election, our country will have some clear choices. The clearest choice will be over which party will promote freedom for all. Which party will fund schools and hospitals?

  • Charles Kennedy – 2000 Speech on Fuel Prices

    Charles Kennedy – 2000 Speech on Fuel Prices

    The speech made by Charles Kennedy on 18 September 2000.

    Sometimes – just sometimes there are defining moments for a country and its character.

    Perhaps – just perhaps Britain came across one of those moments last week.

    A sense of perspective is called for in all of this.

    Ours is a stable country. Ours is a sensible country. And ours is a fundamentally decent country.

    Stability – sense – decency.

    These are not assets lightly to be squandered.

    A society which is liberal democratic has to operate – it cannot function otherwise on a sense of mutual consent.

    Last week mutual consent showed signs of breaking down.

    If it had it would have broken all of us. It almost did. But it didn’t.

    Sense – sanity – decency prevailed.

    Put to one side the issue at stake. Put to the forefront the principle involved.

    A society which is liberal democratic cannot have public policy determined upon the basis of who has got the loudest voice – or who can brings things to a halt.

    However just. However well behaved. However well meaning.

    The petrol protesters – to their credit – knew that. They conducted themselves accordingly.

    The issue now is that the government must conduct itself accordingly. Democracy demands trust. It demands that sense of mutual understanding. And – it’s a two way street. You’ve got to give – as much as you take.

    The government is taking a lot. It’s not giving nearly as much. No wonder public confidence collapses.

    We say two things. First – fuel tax policy has to be fair. If it’s not it won’t work. Second – let’s be up front about the environmental agenda. And let’s be clear about what we would do.

    We want a fair deal on fuel. We call on the government:

    1. To place a cap on fuel taxes (in real terms) for five years so that the government does not profit from future increases in fuel prices.

    2. To use the VAT windfall that it has received from the higher than expected fuel prices to ease the burden on the travelling public.

    3. To ensure that oil companies recognise their social responsibilities, both in respect of pricing and security of supply.
    If they fail to do so, we will take measures to tax their excess profits.

    4. To support people in rural communities who rely on fuel through, for example, rate relief on rural fuel stations and increased investment in community public transport.

    Those are the principles that we want the government to accept. That is a fair deal on fuel. The events of the past week have also highlighted a more profound consideration.

    It’s time to pause and reflect.

    Why do citizens think that they’re more likely – more able – to influence the course of public policy by direct action, rather than by conventional party politics? Why do less and less people bother to vote? Why do so few folk even bother to join political parties? You’ve got to ask questions before you answer them.

    I’ve been asking these questions for quite some time now.

    This party – and this party conference has got to start providing answers.

    And it is – and it will.

    People won’t be spoken to as they’ve been spoken to in the past.

  • Charles Kennedy – 2000 Speech to Liberal Democrat Conference

    Charles Kennedy – 2000 Speech to Liberal Democrat Conference

    The speech made by Charles Kennedy in Bournemouth on 21 September 2000.

    Potentially, politics is at a crossroads.
    We saw that last week.
    The opinion polls have recorded that this week.
    That’s been the backdrop for this,
    I think, one of our most successful conferences ever.

    Politics is about leading.
    You might expect me to say that.
    But politics is also about listening.
    The events of the past ten days,
    have demonstrated,
    graphically,
    that the current government,
    neither leads nor listens enough.

    So it’s not just that people are estranged from politics.
    It’s that politicians are estranged from people.
    I know that.
    You know that.
    The country knows that.

    We’re different.
    That’s what our conference this week has been all about.

    Next time we meet like this,
    in twelve months,
    politics may have changed even more out of all recognition.
    We have to be part of that process of change,
    central to it.
    Before, during and after the coming general election.

    That’s why,
    in our pre-election manifesto,
    “Freedom in a Liberal Society”,
    we’ve been exploring themes,
    reiterating values and principles,
    setting out policy directions.
    All of which will take us a long way forward.

    Now today,
    I don’t just want to talk to Liberal Democrats.
    Pleasant though that may be.
    I want to talk to potential Liberal Democrat voters.
    I want to talk to the country.
    And I want to be explicit about why Britain – needs the Liberal Democrats.

    I’ve done a huge amount of travelling across the country this year.
    You know my principal impression?

    Put quite simply it’s this.
    There are too many,
    far, far too many anxious people out there,
    anxious – for themselves and their families,
    too anxious ever to have time to feel ambitious about our country.
    Well we are ambitious.
    Very ambitious for our country.
    That’s why Britain – needs the Liberal Democrats.

    People want a better level of political dialogue.
    And they deserve it.
    They’re not getting it.
    Just look at the crime debate.
    Ann Widdecombe and Jack Straw.
    You know the only difference between the two?
    Ann got done for speeding.
    Jack’s got a driver to speed for him,
    They’re competing in a dismal Dutch auction.
    Going for lowest common denominator politics.
    Over-claim.
    Over-blame.
    Over-reach.
    Undermine the entire point of the political process along the way.
    —-
    You can’t change human nature.
    But poverty.
    Unemployment.
    Drugs.
    These are major causes of crime too.
    Someone needs to be saying that.
    That’s why Britain – needs the Liberal Democrats.

    Let me be quite clear.
    I’m not one of those who believe that all Britain’s problems
    began on the first of May 1997.

    But Labour’s poverty of ambition is quite remarkable.
    With a parliamentary majority – of one hundred and seventy nine,
    they behave like John Major did – with a majority of three.

    It’s all about what will play well in the opinion polls.
    Britain was promised an ethical foreign policy.
    Britain demands legislation on the arms trade.
    But instead we get arms sales to Indonesia.

    And all too often, they seem scared of their own shadows.
    Remember that leaked Prime Ministerial memo?
    What was it he said?
    “a sense that the government … are somehow out of touch with gut British instincts”.

    So I ask you,
    Labour voter last time,
    maybe for the first time was it?
    Did you believe,
    that things could only get better?
    And have they?
    For you?
    Your family?
    Your community?
    Your local school?
    Your local hospital?
    Your sense of job security?
    Your sense of reassurance that your elderly parents would be looked after?
    Your belief that your students,
    wouldn’t be up to their ears in debt.
    Millions of people believed it.
    Millions of people are disappointed.

    The Conservatives won’t improve these things for you.
    But the Liberal Democrats can.
    We can improve a lot on Labour.

    They are continually terrified to be called the party of boom and bust.
    That old Labour habit of splashing out in their first years in power,
    and then having to cut back at the end.

    Gordon Brown certainly hasn’t done that.
    He’s cut back and now he’s splashing out.
    Bust followed by pre-election boom.

    We said that wasn’t good enough.

    I’d like to think he saw the light.
    But the truth is, he felt the heat.

    Now what of the Conservative Party?

    Today, I want to address the millions of previous Conservative voters,
    who feel that William Hague’s Party offers them – nothing.
    I share many of the values, the beliefs, the concerns,
    of the people who used to be called One Nation Conservatives.
    Tolerance, decency, fair-play.

    If you believe in those things,
    and you look at your party.
    And it’s not got room any more,
    at the top table,
    for the likes of Ken Clarke, Michael Heseltine, Chris Patten.
    Then your party’s got no room for you.

    To you,
    I say this.
    You have friends in the Liberal Democrats.
    You have a home.
    Come and talk to us.
    You will be very, very welcome.

    What’s gone wrong with the Conservative Party
    – oh, so wrong –
    is not even so much the individuals
    – it’s the issues and the instincts
    which today guide William Hague’s Conservative Party.

    William jumps in with both feet,
    in the wrong place,
    at the wrong time,
    and for the wrong reasons.
    Desperate for a headline, desperate for a quote.
    Desperate to get attention.
    He’s the world’s first unpopular populist.

    So how come the Tories have come up in the polls?

    I know the answer.
    It’s not William’s popularity.
    It’s the people round about him that the country’s warming to.
    It must be John Redwood, Michael Portillo and Ann Widdecombe the country loves.

    Just look at what William’s been up to this year.
    January -Patient’s Guarantee.
    Ditched.
    February – tax guarantee.
    Ditched.
    March – the moral case for low taxation.
    Ditched with the tax guarantee.
    April – bogus asylum seekers.
    May – Romsey.
    June.
    He was quiet in June.
    Perhaps he had a 14-pint hangover.
    Or perhaps it was that Romsey hangover.

    I ask you.
    Is that opposition?
    Is that a positive view of Britain.
    Is that anything,
    of any use,
    to anybody?
    Why does Britain need the Liberal Democrats?
    That’s why Britain needs the Liberal Democrats.

    And remember their record?
    Recessions.
    Crime doubled.
    Larger class sizes.
    Fewer nurses.
    Pensions slashed.
    Interest rates – through the roof.
    Arms to Iraq.
    BSE.
    Cash for questions.
    Sleaze.
    It must never,
    ever,
    be allowed to happen again.
    That’s why Britain needs the Liberal Democrats.

    William Hague is not the serious leader of a serious political party.
    That’s the serious point.

    We are serious.
    Our purpose is here in this document.
    It’s the F word.
    Freedom.
    That’s why we’re in politics.

    We want politicians to promote freedom for all.
    So people can make the most of their lives.
    That means excellent local hospitals and schools.
    Fair and decent pensions.
    Safer streets.
    A clean environment.
    Civil liberties.
    Stopping government interfering in people’s private lives.
    That’s why Britain needs the Liberal Democrats.

    I am determined we will get our message across.
    But as part of that,
    it is vital,
    absolutely vital,
    that we persuade people,
    that for every area where government can do more,
    there’s an area where government should be doing less,
    or doing different.

    That’s why I want to make an early announcement today,
    about the contents of our manifesto for the next election.
    In our pre-manifesto, we have policies for green action in every chapter.
    The manifesto will do that too.
    But it will also show,
    in every chapter,
    where government must do less,
    to give people more freedom.
    We would scrap a range of regulations,
    that burden small businesses.
    We will cut bureaucracy in schools.
    And we will let people,
    not politicians,
    decide how some of their tax revenues are spent.

    Tax and spend?
    Every party taxes and spends.
    But our priorities,
    are the people’s priorities.

    That’s what freedom means.

    It’s not left of Labour.
    It’s not right of Labour.
    It’s ahead of Labour.

    It’s also honest.
    Where there is a cost,
    we say how we will pay for it.
    Saying that if necessary,
    we will pay for better schools,
    by asking everybody to pay just one pence more on the basic rate of income tax.
    And to fund decent pensions,
    we will ask those fortunate enough to earn over one hundred thousand pounds per year,
    to pay a little more.
    That’s the way to be honest with people.
    And remember,
    when you’re talking to people,
    remind them,
    that’s still less than the self same people were paying
    under Margaret Thatcher.

    That makes us clear on what we will then do.

    On health:
    Nurses and doctors – more of them.
    Prescription charges – abolish them.
    Eye and dental check-ups – free once again.
    That’s why patients need the Liberal Democrats.

    Schools and colleges,
    cut class sizes for all 5 to 11 year olds.
    Abolish tuition fees for higher education.
    Jim Wallace and our colleagues have done it in Scotland.
    Let’s do it for the rest of Britain as well.

    The mountains of bureaucracy that burden teachers.
    Flatten them.
    So that teachers can actually teach more,
    and stop being bureaucrats.
    That’s why parents and children need the Liberal Democrats.

    And what about the pensioners?
    Forgotten and insulted by Gordon Brown.
    Pensions were introduced by a Liberal government.
    By a man called Lloyd George.
    And today, we retain that commitment to a decent pension for all.
    So we will give pensioners more, above inflation.
    £5 extra every week for every pensioner,
    If you’re over 75, it’s going to be £10 extra.
    If you’re over 80, it’s going to be £15 extra.
    Now that will make a real difference.
    That’s why pensioners need the Liberal Democrats.

    The environment.
    The great challenge facing our generation.

    We say that a clean environment relates to health.
    To poverty.
    To transport.
    To education.
    To civil liberties.

    We understand that,
    instinctively so.

    And again, we’re honest.
    We’re clear,
    fuel taxes should be used,
    to improve the environment.

    In the months and years to come,
    we have got to get that message across.
    To show that good environmental policies,
    are about more choice, not less.
    Positive gain, not pain.
    And that we can all make a difference.
    That’s why the environment needs the Liberal Democrats.

    And let me say something about the single currency.
    If there is an election next year,
    then a referendum on the Euro can’t be long delayed.
    Labour will no longer have anywhere to hide.

    It shouldn’t be a party political issue.
    But let me make our position crystal clear.
    As pro-Europeans we are not in favour,
    of rushing into the euro head first.
    We don’t believe Europe is perfect.
    And we will work to see that reform takes place.

    But we do believe that Britain can and must lead in Europe.
    Lead reform in Europe.
    Lead on the euro’s benefits for Britain.

    That’s why, earlier this year,
    I asked a panel of experts,
    to report on what the government should be doing.
    They’ve done so.
    And if the government chooses to ignore the experts,
    British businesses will lose,
    British workers will lose,
    British consumers will lose.
    Britain will lose.

    So those of us in favour of the euro,
    must go out there and argue the case.
    We have a duty to do so.
    We cannot sit on our hands.
    That’s why Britain needs the Liberal Democrats.

    This has been an outstanding year for the Liberal Democrats.
    The local elections – our biggest ever share of the national vote.
    Sandra’s triumph in Romsey.
    Real votes, cast in real elections.

    And we are making a difference,
    On real issues throughout the country.
    I can look round this hall,
    and see the faces of people,
    who are making a serious difference across Britain today.
    Mike German and his colleagues
    have made a significant impact on the Welsh Assembly.
    Our colleagues in the London Assembly.
    The singular contribution – of Susan Kramer.

    And the enormous contribution,
    that the Alliance Party of Northern Ireland.
    has made to the peace process.
    We wish it and them well.

    And I am particularly proud of our record in Scotland,
    where Jim Wallace has been running the government.
    Liberal Democrats have helped deliver.

    In Scotland,
    we are delivering,
    better hospitals.
    More money for education.
    More police officers.
    Freedom of Information.
    A new approach to farming and rural affairs.
    And, the abolition of tuition fees.

    In Scotland we’ve shown that the SNP are an irrelevance.
    In Wales we’ve shown that Plaid Cymru are an irrelevance.
    And both will be an even greater irrelevance at the next Westminster election.
    They really are the wasted vote in British politics.

    The Liberal Democrats are the party for the whole of Britain.
    And that’s why the whole of Britain needs the Liberal Democrats.

    We’ve shown,
    that the others are now the old parties of the 20th century.
    We are the party of the 21st.
    Our policies,
    our principles,
    our practical approach,
    our philosophy of freedom,
    can lead us to even greater triumphs.

    Let us connect with the people
    – and the people will connect with us.
    At the next election, I believe we will win more votes, and more seats.
    1997 was a staging post.
    It wasn’t a high-water mark.

    In the months and years to come,
    our message of freedom,
    is one that we have to get across to the British people.

    For me, and for my family,
    that’s a very personal message.

    For my grandfather,
    freedom meant putting on a uniform,
    and going to fight in the Dardanelles in the 1st World War.

    For my mother and father,
    freedom has meant the chance to give their children
    – youngest son included –
    better life opportunities than they could ever have aspired to for themselves.

    For me,
    freedom is about being grateful for the opportunities I’ve had,
    and my friends at school had,
    – and doing something for our country to help make that freedom commonplace.

    I have great pride in our party,
    in what we stand for.
    Pride in our principles.
    And I have a pride in Britain.
    In what it can be.

    So we must go into the next election,
    and tell people about our message of freedom.
    The difference between the Liberal Democrats
    and the disaster of William Hague’s Party.
    The difference between the Liberal Democrats
    and the disappointment that Labour has become.

    Go out there and tell it to people as it is.
    What you see is what you get.
    This is what we will deliver.

    A truly modern,
    truly free,
    21st century Britain.
    A Liberal Democrat Britain.

  • Charles Kennedy – 2002 Speech to Liberal Democrat Conference

    Charles Kennedy – 2002 Speech to Liberal Democrat Conference

    The speech made by Charles Kennedy, the then Leader of the Liberal Democrats, to the party’s conference in Brighton on 23 September 2002.

    One year ago we gathered as a party conference against the backdrop of September 11th. The images of that terrible day will remain with all of us for evermore.

    One year later and the world is still a precarious place.

    Parliament will meet tomorrow. Despite the recall coinciding with this Conference, I make no complaint. I was after all the first party leader to call for Parliament to be reconvened. It should have happened before now – but it is essential and welcome that it is at last taking place.

    We shall be contributing constructively and responsibly to those parliamentary exchanges. It is the very fact that free and open discussion and debate can take place in a parliamentary democracy which is a fundamental distinction between a democratic society and a totalitarian regime.

    On Wednesday we will have a debate on Iraq situation. I want the British public to hear and reflect upon what the Liberal Democrats have been saying on this matter. So I also want to hear from you. We need to know and understand each other just as much.

    And there’s another strand of opinion which we need to take into account in reaching our conclusions – the sensitivities of the Muslim community at home- and the views of the Arab world abroad .

    Now with events developing day by day – and with so much at stake – it is vitally important that what we say is clear, coherent and rooted in first principles.

    From the outset of our conference I want to enunciate those first principles. For us. Hence this statement.

    One year ago I said to you that our country was correct to stand shoulder to shoulder with the United States. That we were well placed to be a candid friend. And that a feature of such friendship was closeness and the ability to offer the occasional cautionary tap on the shoulder.

    Twelve months later and I see no reason to revise that assessment, whether we are confronting international terrorism or weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.

    But we should not lose sight of the fact that there is still no definitive evidence linking the Iraqi regime with Al Q’aida and the atrocities of September 11th.

    We have spoken on behalf of this party with principle, common-sense and consistency. And in so doing I believe that we have spoken for a huge body of concerned and informed public opinion across our country. Opinion that straddles the conventional divisions of purely party politics.

    We have continually emphasized, we will do so again in parliament tomorrow and thereafter, our legitimate concerns.

    Terrorism is a most fundamental assault on individual human rights. And we are a party of the individual and of human rights.

    We are also, instinctively so, a party of internationalism. To cope with, to combat, the sheer, sustained evil of international terrorism, we must work with others.

    You have not heard – and you will not hear – from me criticism of this or any other British Prime Minister whose efforts are directed to that end. For us, that would be to deny a central element of our point and purpose.

    But we will not suspend our critical faculties either. That would be to abandon the necessary and obligatory role which is effective parliamentary opposition.

    Am I alone in feeling increasingly concerned about this concept called “regime change?” I think not. Who decides the legitimacy of such change? On what basis in international law? And with what ultimate objective in mind? I have yet to hear a satisfactory answer to these questions. There is more than a hint of imperialism here.

    Am I alone in worrying about the undermining of the moral, legal and practical authority of the United Nations? Again, I think not. The first priority of the British Government must be the return of the UN weapons inspectors . Anything less than unfettered access anywhere in Iraq is unacceptable.

    The unconditional return of the inspectors requires a clear timetable. And no ruling out of an ultimate resort to military action as a last resort if that necessary compliance is denied or thwarted. But we are not there yet.

    The United Nations, despite all its imperfections, and under the proven leadership of Secretary General Kofi Annan, has to remain central in these affairs.

    We need evidence to help us reach the right decision. We are promised more evidence tomorrow and I welcome that fact. But the UN inspectorate must be allowed its opportunity to establish evidence as well.

    It also requires respect for the operational judgement of Hans Blix, head of the inspection team, as to whether his inspectors have been systematically obstructed by the Government of Iraq.

    And in all of this we have to maintain pressure for re-starting the Middle East peace process. The scenes of the past days and months make that more urgent than ever before. There must be a just settlement, giving Israel security and the Palestinians a state of their own.

    Tomorrow there will be no specific proposal before Parliament to commit British troops to military action. If or when there is, we shall insist on the right of the British House of Commons not only to be consulted, not only to be kept informed, but also to be able to vote on any proposal which might involve our military personnel in action.

    But we Liberal Democrats will do everything we possibly can to ensure that the route of unconditional inspection within the UN structure is followed rather than the extreme uncertainties and dangers of the use of military force.

    That was the specific substance of the last question I put to the Prime Minister, on the floor of the House of Commons, just before the summer recess. And again, that remains our unaltered position.

    What has been said in the name of this party in the past few weeks constitutes a sane and measured approach. I commend it to this conference and to our party as a whole.

    And I believe equally that it commends itself to our country as well.

  • Charles Kennedy – 2003 Speech to Liberal Democrat Spring Conference

    Charles Kennedy – 2003 Speech to Liberal Democrat Spring Conference

    The speech made by Charles Kennedy, the then Leader of the Liberal Democrats, on 16 March 2003.

    This won’t be a normal spring conference speech. We’re not this weekend living in normal political times. There is a real possibility that our armed forces may be at war within the next seven days.

    In those circumstances, I feel it’s appropriate for me to focus this speech entirely on the Iraq crisis.

    It’s the right thing to do because of the seriousness of the situation. But it’s also right because of the central role which our party has played, is playing and will continue to play in the national debate on the issue.

    This is a worrying and difficult time for our country. The summit today in the Azores holds out little hope of peace. It has all the makings of a final council of war between the so-called coalition of the willing.

    I see it as a council of despair. I believe that it’s too early to give up the hope of a peaceful outcome. But the signs are that President Bush and Tony Blair have decided to abandon that hope.

    They say that they’re going the extra mile for peace. I don’t see how. This meeting looks highly unlikely to go a single extra inch for peace. If the President and the Prime Minister were serious about finding a peaceful solution, they’d be talking to Kofi Annan, not to each other. And they’d be heeding the warning which the Secretary-General has given against military action without a further explicit UN resolution.

    “The legitimacy and support for any such action”, he’s said, “will be seriously impaired. If the USA and others go outside the Council and take military action, it will not be in conformity with the Charter.”

    If this was a genuine effort to explore alternatives, there’d be other Heads of Government in the Azores today too – the President of France, the German Chancellor, the leaders of the other nations which currently have seats on the Security Council. Instead, this looks like one of those summits where the final communique is already written before a single word has been spoken.

    The British Government may have signed up in the ranks of the willing. But the British nation has not. This will not be a war which most in our country have sought or support.

    George Bush and Tony Blair say there is no other option – Saddam Hussein is dangerous – this is the only way to disarm him. I have questioned this approach all along – and I continue to question it now. But don’t be mistaken. This is not because I have the slightest sympathy for Saddam Hussein.

    Saddam is a brutal dictator. He has used chemical weapons on his own people. He has defied the Security Council. He needs to be disarmed. The question is how.

    There is one group of people who are uppermost in our minds at the moment – our British forces. Politicians can debate issues like Iraq in the safety of a party conference or the Palace of Westminster. Our armed forces are required to risk their lives. If the fighting begins, everyone in this hall would wish a speedy and successful conclusion to hostilities and the safe return of all members of our armed forces.

    They are risking their lives in our name. All through this crisis, I have paid tribute to their courage and skill. I do so again now. They are the bravest and the best. We are proud of them.

    Let no one be in any doubt. The Liberal Democrats are backing our armed forces in the Gulf wholeheartedly.

    Our critics may not acknowledge that. But the country understands our position very well. And the majority of our fellow citizens agree with us. There is no inconsistency between criticising the strategy of the Government and supporting the service people whose duty is to carry that strategy out.

    But we also have in mind another very important group of people – the innocent civilian population of Iraq. They have suffered terribly under Saddam Hussein’s dictatorship. There is no question about that. But war could so easily make their plight so much worse. There are no bombs sufficiently sophisticated, sufficiently smart, to avoid causing civilian casualties. And bombs aren’t the only danger they face.

    Any war will cause a refugee crisis of huge proportions – not to mention the dangers of famine and disease.

    There are concerns nearer home. There is a real danger that the war could alienate British Muslims. Many moderate Muslims already feel that they are victims of prejudice. Action against Saddam could fuel that prejudice and leave the law-abiding Muslim population of Britain feeling excluded and aggrieved.

    Those are factors which have to be weighed very carefully in the balance before any decision is taken to go to war. They’re factors which I fear haven’t been considered nearly hard enough.

    When I went on the march last month to Hyde Park, I was proud that our party played its role in the largest demonstration in British history.

    Our slogan was not peace at any price. It was give peace a chance. I feared then that the British and American governments were denying that chance. That is still my fear today.

    Our position is founded on principle. There are three fundamental beliefs which have always guided the Liberal Democrats – and the Liberal Party before us. First the principle of internationalism – of nations working together. Second, respect for universal human rights. And third the commitment only ever to use force as a last resort.

    Before the Second World War, the Liberal leader Archibald Sinclair was one of the first to support Winston Churchill against Chamberlain’s policy of appeasement. But then Jo Grimond was the first party leader to oppose Suez. And in more recent times our party backed action in the Gulf War, in Kosovo, in Bosnia and in Afghanistan.

    All along, our commitment has been to support action by the international community where that action will promote the causes of peace and security. And to oppose action which has the opposite effect.

    For months now, I have been putting a series of questions to Tony Blair on the floor of the House of Commons. They are questions which people want answered – questions which the official opposition has not been asking. Questions which have probed the Government’s commitment to the United Nations and its relationship with the United States. Questions about the circumstances in which British troops would be sent into battle. Straight questions to which I have had no straight answers.

    Throughout this crisis, we have insisted on a number of crucial tests. We have said that decisions must lie with the United Nations.

    Only the UN can command a legitimate political mandate based on an unquestioned moral authority. And that means that any military action has to be sanctioned by a second resolution of the Security Council of the UN. UN decisions in their turn, we say, should be based on adequate information. They have to be informed by the assessment of Hans Blix and the weapons inspectors – not by some arbitrary verdict of the Bush administration.

    Thirdly we say that the British House of Commons has to sanction any deployment of British troops by vote.

    And we also say that war should only be a last resort after all other diplomatic and political options have been exhausted.

    We have asked wider questions too. What benefits will military action bring? What legitimacy does it have? What will be the consequences for Iraq, the region and the wider world?

    We have always been the party of the United Nations. If George Bush and Tony Blair are about to act without the authority of the UN, they risk undermining our most important international institutions. They put in jeopardy almost sixty years of painstaking work to build an international order. They weaken not only the UN, but NATO and the European Union as well.

    Let me offer you a quote: “We must not allow ourselves to get into a position where we might be denounced in the Security Council. While force cannot be excluded, we must be sure that circumstances justify it and that it is, if used, consistent with our belief in and pledges to the Charter of the United Nations. And not in conflict with them.”

    The speaker, the Leader of the Labour Party – Hugh Gaitskell at the time of Suez. He understood the importance of the United Nations. He understood how damaging it is for Britain to be seen to be ignoring it.

    What a tragedy that his successor Tony Blair has betrayed his legacy. I’ve never questioned Tony Blair’s sincerity. But I do question his judgement.

    The United Nations is fundamental to our vision as Liberal Democrats. It’s not perfect. It needs reform. But its basic principles are sound. When it comes to issues of war and peace and security, there is everything to be said for pooling our national sovereignty with others to mutual advantage. The large and complex problems which face the world are smaller and more soluble when we face them together.

    Action without a UN mandate by the United States or the British Government will have severe consequences. I will undermine the authority of the United Nations not just with regard to this particular operation – serious though that in itself may be – but with regard to future operations for a very long time to come.

    The debates in both Houses of Parliament at the end of last month addressed many of the issues which we have been raising. Politicians from all political parties probed and questioned the build-up to war. There was great concern about the motive for an attack – concern which unhappily the Prime Minister has been unable to alleviate.

    MPs and peers alike were troubled about what is being planned in our name. Is the object regime change – a moral crusade to rid the world of a tyrant? If so, however desirable it might be to take action, there is no justification for such action under international law.

    Or is the issue some connection between Saddam and Al Qa’eda? Is this part of the war against terrorism? If so, we have not been shown the proof. Or is it a straightforward question of depriving Saddam of his weapons of mass destruction?

    If so, why does the American President keep insisting that he will attack Iraq whatever Hans Blix and the weapons inspectors might or might not determine.

    The worries I’ve expressed are shared extremely widely. Here are the words of Kenneth Clarke. “How many terrorists”, he asked in that Parliamentary debate, “will we recruit in the greater, long-standing battle against international terrorism? It will be far harder to win. What will we do to the stability of Saudi Arabia, Pakistan or Egypt?”

    He went on: “The next time a large bomb explodes in a western city, or an Arab or Muslim regime is toppled and is replaced by extremists, the Government must consider the extent to which the policy contributed to it.”

    Or take the powerful case made by Chris Smith from the other side of the House. He argued that there was no weakness involved in opposing an attack. “Strength”, he said, “does not lie simply in military might. Strength lies in having an unanswerable case. It lies in making the right moral choices. It lies in maintaining the pressure, and it lies in securing the furthest possible international agreement.”

    The doubts have come from senior politicians of all parties. And the Government doesn’t have the confidence of senior military men either. These are the words of Field Marshall Lord Bramall, a former Chief of the Defence Staff and architect of the victory in the Falklands War.

    “If anything goes wrong,” he said, “certainly in the short term but probably in the longer term, serious questions will undoubtedly be asked about why the Government went down that road in the first place.” And he pointed out that there was a better alternative: “continued containment of Iraq and concentrating on the more imminent threat posed by Al Qa’eda and other terrorist organisations.”

    This is a formidable array of wise and expert opinion. At the very least it should give the Government cause to stop and think.

    War is sometimes unavoidable. I do not believe that this war is unavoidable at this time.

    But if there is a war and if Saddam is defeated, the international community will still face huge problems.

    Iraq will prove enormously difficult to administer if and when any fighting is over. The Americans appear to favour a regime headed by one of their generals. This is a task which is clearly much better entrusted to the United Nations. There must be doubt about the scale on which other nations would fund and resource a programme run by the USA to deal with the aftermath of a war instigated by the USA.

    Post-war Iraq will pose not only security problems but a huge humanitarian challenge.

    Let me give you some idea of the scale.

    Nearly a million children under five in Iraq already suffer from chronic malnutrition.

    Iraq has the highest increase in infant mortality anywhere in the world.

    Almost three quarters of the country’s population depend on food aid.

    Many more face starvation because of successive years of drought.

    The water supply and sanitation system in Iraq have almost completely collapsed.

    Half a million tons of raw sewage go into the Tigris every day and half of the country’s sewage treatment plants don’t work.

    War will certainly make all these problems far worse.

    In addition, another two million people could be displaced from their homes within the country.

    Others will flee, many of them across areas which are heavily mined. Iran alone expects almost a million refugees from Iraq.

    So the international community has an enormous task on its hands.

    The precedents are not encouraging. Before the attack on Afghanistan, President Bush said: “To the Afghan people we make this commitment. We will not walk away, as the outside world has done so many times before.”

    But look what has happened. The United States has not been prepared to leave enough troops behind to help rebuild a nation shattered by war. The transitional government has been unable to exert its authority over most of the country.

    The problems facing a post-war Iraq would be just as daunting.

    The prospects for security look bleak. The prospects for the democracy which the Americans say they want look bleaker still.

    The country could easily become less rather than more stable, given all the tensions which exist between Sunnis, Shias and Kurds. And instability could easily spread throughout the whole region.

    Regime change is a thoroughly flawed doctrine. There is nothing in international law to justify it. Yet it is increasingly clear that this has been the objective of the Bush Administration all along.

    The more the United States pursues this doctrine, the more chance there is that it will increase rather than diminish the threat of international terrorism. It is easy to see terrorists exploiting the post-war situation. They could recruit more easily and operate more freely if governments are destabilised and resentment is swelling against the west.

    So what’s the alternative? Well, it’s to give Hans Blix and the weapons inspectors time to do their job thoroughly – to make inspections, conduct interviews and scrutinise documents. If the inspectors say that they are being refused co-operation, then the time might have come for force to be used. But not until then. The most effective way to rid Saddam of weapons of mass destruction must be to ensure that there’s an inspector there to watch the weapons being destroyed. That’s far more precise than any bombing campaign.

    And what of the continuing issue in the Middle East, the question of Israel and the Palestinians? This should be the first priority for the international community. It has been ignored to a worrying extent. President Bush has at last put it back on the agenda. But months have already been wasted.

    It is vital that the peace process is resumed with all possible urgency. We need to see action, not just words. We must not lose sight of the goal: the state of Israel at peace within secure borders and an independent state for the Palestinians.

    It would be the height of cynicism if the Bush administration were to use a new-found concern for tackling the Palestinian question just to try and make its policy on Iraq more acceptable.

    As for our own Prime Minister, when a million people marched through the streets of London, it should have been a wake-up call. He should have listened. But he didn’t.

    This war should not begin before all peaceful means are exhausted.

    It should not begin at the cost of the great international institutions which have guaranteed world security since the end of the second world war. It has put at risk NATO and the UN and split the family of European nations.

    And Britain should not go to war without the formal approval of the House of Commons. Nearly, fifty years ago, Jo Grimond complained that the House was not consulted before the action over Suez. Half a century onwards we still have no legislation which compels a Government to go to Parliament before it goes to war. In this respect, the British Prime Minister is less accountable even than the President of the United States. That’s a scandal.

    This war is a very high price to pay to disarm a country which is weaker now than it was in 1991, when a huge coalition under a UN mandate drove Saddam Hussein from Kuwait. I can only hope that if we are now embarked on the final stages of this crisis that the end will come quickly and with the minimum of bloodshed and that our armed forces will come safely home.

    We can be proud of the stance which our party has taken – and proud of the fact that it is a united stance. I’m proud of the way we’ve conducted ourselves this weekend – and proud of the quality of the debate which we had yesterday.

    I leave you with this. There has never been a time when the country has had more need of the Liberal Democrats.

  • Charles Kennedy – 2003 Comments on Blair and the Hutton Inquiry

    Charles Kennedy – 2003 Comments on Blair and the Hutton Inquiry

    The comments made by Charles Kennedy, the then Leader of the Liberal Democrats, on 30 July 2003.

    As usual the Prime Minister evaded answering many of the questions he was asked. But the central question on the Hutton inquiry was not posed. That is: If Lord Hutton concludes that his limited remit has prevented him from fully investigating the circumstances leading to Dr David Kelly’s death will the Prime Minister then agree to set up a more wide-ranging independent inquiry, headed by a judge, into the events which led us going to war? The British people deserve answers.

  • Charles Kennedy – 2003 Speech on the Spending Review

    Charles Kennedy – 2003 Speech on the Spending Review

    The speech made by Charles Kennedy, the then leader of the Liberal Democrats, at the Social Market Foundation on 15 July 2003.

    The central command and control approach has failed Britain. It has failed to promote efficiency and failed to foster fairness.

    It’s time for a fresh approach. It’s time that we re-structured Britain’s Government so that it is part of the solution to Britain’s problems, not part of the problem itself.

    We have two clear priorities. First to direct investment where it’s needed most. And second to set the people who run our public services free from the dead hand of central government.

    This is not about spending less. It’s about saving money where it’s doing little good and redirecting it to where it’s needed most.

    We need less spent on subsidies, less spent on central government, less spent on ministers’ pet projects and more on getting real value for our taxes. The money saved should not be handed back in tax cuts. It should be used to spend more on public services.

    This process will mean hard choices. It will mean scaling back some Government Departments and their spending programmes in order to free up the money that’s desperately needed for doctors, teachers and police, for better schools, better hospitals, better transport and better protection from crime.

    This approach will be at the heart of our plans as we prepare for the next General Election. And it will be this philosophy which distinguishes us most clearly from other parties.

    We want to see the most fundamental restructuring of government that there’s been since the Second World War. If we’re going to make a real difference in our hospitals and schools and police stations, we need radically to reshape and slim down central government. The plans that we’re developing would lead to the abolition of at least eight Government departments, with a net reduction in the number of Ministries from nineteen to fourteen and in the number of ministers from over ninety to around sixty.

    Let me give you an idea of some of the changes which we’re considering.

    First, with the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly, it’s obvious that the Scotland and Wales Offices have outlived their useful lives. They should be abolished along with the Northern Ireland Office once devolution is complete.

    Next there’s the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister – set up mainly to keep John Prescott out of trouble. That should be abolished too.

    The remaining functions of all four departments should be subsumed into a Department of the Nations and Regions.

    It’s time too to sound the death knell for the old departments set up to defend the interests of producers – departments which have only succeeded in presiding over the decline of the industries which they have tried to serve.

    Why not instead have a Department of Consumer Protection and Enterprise?

    That would mean axing that corporatist relic, the Department of Trade and Industry. Many of the industrial subsidies which it oversees could be cut. Many more of its functions could be decentralised.

    We don’t need a Department for Culture, Media and Sport either. Much of what it does should be decentralised too, with its industry functions going to the Department of Consumer Protection.

    Defra could go the same way – with a new department of environment and transport taking responsibility for rural issues.

    How much money would this free up?

    Altogether, we believe that by both restructuring and slimming down central Government and by cutting back on less productive spending programmes, we can secure significant savings. This will involve some hard choices. We don’t believe that significant amounts of money can be found for education and health simply by cutting out waste and fraud.

    I have decided to set a target of finding savings of at least one per cent of total annual government spending to re-allocate to priority areas like education, health and tackling poverty.

    One per cent of total government spending is realistic and achievable.

    One per cent may sound modest, but it is one per cent, of course, of a very large figure.

    By the time of the next Election, one per cent will be equivalent to savings of around five billion pounds a year – enough , for instance to fund over 150,000 extra nurses, teachers and police every year.

    Bitter experience has proved that grand schemes to save billions by cutting down the number of paper clips never get anywhere. We are talking about deep and fundamental change. It is a change which goes to the heart of our philosophy as Liberal Democrats – a philosophy which rejects the nanny state in favour of an enabling state – a state which allows individuals to make the most of their lives and their talents.