Myth-busting bust

UKIP published a series of EU “myth busters” which either don’t add up, or don’t bust the “myth” they refer to. It’s worth noting the hyperlinks which are suspiciously missing from the UKIP “myth busting”.

Here we go through step by step to show, with facts, why UKIP is wrong.

MYTH 1. Britain would lose out on millions of jobs if we left the EU.

UKIP FACT: This is a common deceit. In fact, the EU would lose 4 millions jobs if it ceased trading with the UK, it’s biggest customer. The EU sells more to us than we sell to it. In 2009 there was a trade deficit of £34.9bn; in 2011, that deficit was nearly £50bn.

THE TRUTH: We have a trade deficit in goods with the EU. When services are included we have a trade surplus, so we wouldn’t be in the best negotiating position.

A November 2013 poll of businesses by Business for Britain found that 5% of small businesses, 8% of medium-sized and 9% of large firms think they would close if Britain left the EU. That amounts to 53,000 businesses employing 1.5million people. Here is the polling data (pdf). Here is The Times covering the story.

MYTH 2. Tariff barriers will exclude us from trade with the EU.

UKIP FACT: The EU has free trade agreements with 53 countries to overcome such tariffs, and is negotiating a further 74.

THE TRUTH: We would, of course, still be able to trade with the EU, but there would be some tariff barriers. The Economist said that under WTO rules:

“British dairy exports would incur an import tax of 55% to reach the EU market, with tariffs on some items of more than 200%. Cheddar cheese would face a tariff of €167 per 100kg; the mark-up on Stilton would be €141. Average tariffs on clothing would push up their price in European markets by 12%. Parts of Britain’s car industry would move out. British-based producers would face a 4% tariff on car-equipment sales to the EU.”

Britain would also eventually face non-tariff barriers. EU exports account for 14% of our GDP but we wouldn’t have a single vote over the rules for those exports. Therefore, the rules would start to be unfavourable to British exports.

MYTH 3. Britain cannot survive economically outside the EU in a world of trading blocs.

UKIP FACT: Major economies such as Japan (the world’s third largest) are not in a trading bloc. Our best trading relationships are not within the EU, but outside, with countries like the USA and Switzerland.

THE TRUTH: Our biggest trading partner is the rest of the EU. Japan is actually in talks to join a large trade bloc (the Asia-Pacific free-trade bloc) having spent the last two decades in economic crisis. It is also negotiating a free trade agreement with the EU.

Switzerland is not one of our best trading relationships. In terms of the quantity of British exports in 2011 it was our 12th largest trading partner.

MYTH 4. The EU is moving towards the UK’s position on cutting regulation and bureaucracy.

UKIP FACT: Once in place, EU directives are highly unlikely to be reformed or repealed. Less than 15% of Britain’s GDP represents trade with the EU yet Brussels regulations afflict 100% of our economy. In 2010, Open Europe estimated EU regulation had cost Britain £124 billion since 1998.

THE TRUTH: This is just assertion. The EU’s REFIT programme which is ongoing has resulted in the Commission screening all EU legislation to simplify it and to reduce the burden. As a result regulations have been scrapped. Britain has been a key supporter for this programme.

Recently, the EU exempted small businesses from accounting requirements. A welcome step to reduce bureaucracy.

EU Commission guidelines stipulate that it will not introduce legislation where the economic burden outweighs the benefits after a public consultation and rigorous impact assessment.

MYTH 5. If we leave, we’ll have to pay the EU billions and implement all its regulations without a say.

UKIP FACT: We have little say within the EU, and would have more leverage as an independent sovereign nation. Now, we have only 8.4% of voting power ‘say’ in the EU. Our 73 MEPs are a minority within the 766 in the European Parliament.

THE TRUTH: UKIP haven’t busted the myth at all. Norway has implemented ¾ of EU laws, without a say in the content of a single one of them. Its citizens also pay 79% of what British citizens pay for membership.

MYTH 6. The EU has brought peace to the European continent.

UKIP FACT: It is NATO, founded in 1949 and dominated by the USA, and not the EU, that has actually kept the peace in Europe, together with parliamentary democracy. Both of which are being undermined by the EU.

THE TRUTH: NATO was set up to stop the Soviet Union invading Western Europe. The EU was set up to stop France and Germany going to war again. The EU has also been the biggest advocate and force for parliamentary democracies in Europe and has enabled many former dictatorships (such as Greece, Spain and Portugal) to become democracies.

MYTH 7. The EU has a positive impact on the British economy.

UKIP FACT: Industries like fishing, farming, postal services and manufacturing have been devastated by our membership of the EU which costs billions of pounds and large numbers of lost jobs thanks to red tape, substantial membership and aid contributions and other costs.

THE TRUTH: The National Farmers Union has been supportive of a number of EU measures, including the recently signed free trade deal with Canada which will create a huge export market for British farmers. A deal the size of which we simply wouldn’t have got on our own.

Britain’s manufacturing industry is also supportive of our EU membership. The trade body, the EEF that just over 85% of manufacturers believe it is in the interests of their business that the UK remains part of the EU.

MYTH 8. We’ll lose foreign investment if we leave the EU.

UKIP FACT: In a 2010 survey on UK’s attractiveness to foreign investors, Ernst and Young found Britain remained the top Foreign Direct Investment destination in Europe thanks to the City of London and the UK’s relationship with the US.

THE TRUTH: Many investors into the UK including Nissan and Ford motor companies have said they would reconsider investment if the UK left the EU.

A UK Government analysis has said: “EU membership has contributed to FDI growth in the UK by reducing access costs to a larger market, enabling greater economies of scale and returns on investment, increasing competition and facilitating agglomeration.”

Recently, the Japanese Embassy to the UK said:

“More than 1,300 Japanese companies have invested in the UK, as part of the single market of the EU, and have created 130,000 jobs, more than anywhere else in Europe. This fact demonstrates that the advantage of the UK as a gateway to the European market has attracted Japanese investment.”

MYTH 9. We will lose influence in the world by being outside the EU

UKIP FACT: Britain has a substantial ‘portfolio of power’: membership of the G20 and G8 Nations, a permanent seat on the UN Security Council and seats on the International Monetary Fund Board of Governors and World Trade Organisation. We are at the heart of the 54-nation Commonwealth.

THE TRUTH: Whether it’s negotiating a nuclear deal with Iran or leading the world to an agreement on climate change, the EU provides Britain with a louder voice and more influence in the world.

MYTH 10. Legally, we can’t leave the EU.

UKIP FACT: Britain could leave the EU in a single day by repealing the European Communities Act 1972 and its attendant Amendment Acts through a single clause Bill passing through Westminster. A replacement UK/EU Free Trade Agreement would not need time-consuming negotiation on tariff reductions if it merely replicated existing EU trade arrangements.

THE TRUTH: This isn’t a myth we’ve heard before. Maybe they ran out at 9?

Thanks to Catherine Bearder MEP and to British Influence for the rebuttals above. As to Myth 10, it is possible after the Lisbon Treaty for nations to withdraw from the European Union.

Leaving the EU poses “very significant risks” to UK’s future

Two new reports commissioned by independent financial services membership body, TheCityUK show that leaving the European Union poses significant risks to Britain's future. This latest research suggests that exiting the EU would undermine Britain's economic well-being and the ability of business to grow and compete in world markets.

The reports also found that the EU has a positive impact on driving UK trade, high productivity and growth.

Read more here.

EU provides international trade muscle

Over 60% of UK exports are covered by EU trade agreements. This will rise to 85% when all deals are completed.

Liberal Democrat leader launches European Parliament elections campaign

Liberal Democrat Leader and Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg has today launched the Liberal Democrats’ 2014 European election campaign. The Liberal Democrats are now the only party truly campaigning to keep Britain IN Europe. Back our campaign here. 

The truth about Ukip's immigration billboards

Yesterday Ukip published billboards designed to scare people about the impact that being in Europe has on immigration.

The Liberal Democrats believe that it is right to tackle concerns about immigration, but spreading fear and bogus claims is not the answer.

Instead, we are working to deliver better immigration checks and more job opportunities. That’s why we have created 1.6 million apprenticeships, helping young people in Britain find work.

We believe it's time to tell the truth about immigration.

Victory for LibDems as European Parliament approves life-saving changes to lorry design

http://www.libdems.org.uk/victory_for_lib_dems_as_meps_approve_life_saving_changes_to_lorry_designs

Joan Davies

There is an obituary for Joan Davies by her son in today’s Guardian: http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/apr/15/joan-davies-obituary.

 Joan stood as a Liberal in South Wales for the European Parliament in the 1980s.

Is your job dependent on the European Union?

Use the EU jobs calculator: http://britishinfluence.org/jobs/

Green voting records in the European Parliament

Climate Action Network Europe rates MEPs on their 2009-2014 voting records
on climate and energy policies:

Very Good

100%  Brian SIMPSON (LP)
100%  Caroline LUCAS* (GP)
100%  David MARTIN (LP)
100%  Derek VAUGHAN (LP)
100%  Martina ANDERSON* (SF)
100%  Peter SKINNER (LP)
90%  Andrew DUFF (LDP)
90%  Catherine STIHLER (LP)
90%  Jill EVANS (PC-PoW)
90%  Linda McAVAN (LP)
90%  Mary HONEYBALL (LP)
90%  Richard HOWITT (LP)
89%  Keith TAYLOR* (GP)
80%  Arlene McCARTHY (LP)
80%  Baroness Sarah LUDFORD (LDP)
80%  Catherine BEARDER (LDP)
80%  Claude MORAES (LP)
80%  Edward McMILLAN-SCOTT (LDP)
80%  Fiona HALL (LDP)
80%  Glenis WILLMOTT (LP)
80%  Jean LAMBERT (GP)
80%  Sharon BOWLES (LDP)
80%  Sir Graham WATSON (LDP)
75%  Rebecca TAYLOR* (LDP)

Good

70%  Stephen HUGHES (LP)
60%  Alyn SMITH (SNP)
60%  Bill NEWTON DUNN (LDP)
60%  Chris DAVIES (LDP)
60%  George LYON (LDP)
60%  Ian HUDGHTON (SNP)
50%  Diana WALLIS* (LDP)
50%  Elizabeth LYNNE* (LDP)
50%  Michael CASHMAN (LP)

BAD

33%  Bairbre de BRÚN* (SF)
30%  Ashley FOX (CP)
30%  Charles TANNOCK (CP)
30%  Emma McCLARKIN (CP)
30%  Geoffrey VAN ORDEN (CP)
30%  James ELLES (CP)
30%  Julie GIRLING (CP)
30%  Kay SWINBURNE (CP)
30%  Malcolm HARBOUR (CP)
30%  Marina YANNAKOUDAKIS (CP)
30%  Martin CALLANAN (CP)
30%  Philip BRADBOURN (CP)
30%  Robert STURDY (CP)
30%  Struan STEVENSON (CP)
30%  Timothy KIRKHOPE (CP)
30%  Vicky FORD (CP)
25%  Anthea McINTYRE* (CP)
25%  Phil BENNION* (LDP)
VERY BAD
20%  Daniel HANNAN (CP)
20%  Giles CHICHESTER (CP)
20%  Jacqueline FOSTER (CP)
20%  James NICHOLSON (UCU)
20%  Nirj DEVA (CP)
20%  Richard ASHWORTH (CP)
20%  Sajjad KARIM (CP)
20%  Sir Robert ATKINS (CP)
20%  Syed KAMALL (CP)
10%  Marta ANDREASEN (CP)
10%  Nick GRIFFIN (BNP)
0%  Andrew Henry William BRONS (BDP)
0%  David CAMPBELL BANNERMAN (CP)
0%  Derek Roland CLARK (UKIP)
0%  Diane DODDS (DUP NI)
0%  Gerard BATTEN (UKIP)
0%  Godfrey BLOOM (UKIP)
0%  John BUFTON (UKIP)
0%  John Stuart AGNEW (UKIP)
0%  Mike NATTRASS (UKIP)
0%  Nicole SINCLAIRE (WDR)
0%  Nigel FARAGE (UKIP)
0%  Paul NUTTALL (UKIP)
0%  Roger HELMER (UKIP)
0%  Trevor COLMAN (UKIP)
0%  William (The Earl of) DARTMOUTH (UKIP)

Frank Little writes:
Hats off to Jill Evans (Plaid) and Derek Vaughan (Labour), but of the UK mainstream, the Liberal Democrat party is the most consistent in supporting green measures. The "very bad" group is dominated by UKIP and the Conservatives.

Fraudster who fled Britain has been returned and put behind bars

Thanks to the European Arrest Warrant, a member of a Nottingham-based crime gang who fled the UK to avoid prison has been returned to Britain to start a five-year jail sentence.

Magdalena Ferkova was part of a crime group that stole large amounts of public money. She had flown vulnerable foreign nationals to the UK to act as ‘benefit tourists’, illegally claiming over a million pounds in tax credits and Child Benefit. After luring the individuals to the UK and forcing them to make applications, Ferkova sent the claimants home.

Four other members of the gang were sentenced in November, however, Ferkova fled Britain during her trial. A European Arrest Warrant was issued the following month and she was finally captured in the Czech Republic and returned to Britain.

If it weren’t for Britain being IN Europe, the European Arrest Warrant would not exist here and Magdalena Ferkova would still be on the run, possibly committing more crimes.

UKIP MEPs vote against tackling tax evasion

Interesting vote in the European Parliament on Tuesday about tackling tax fraud, tax evasion and tax havens. The European Parliament voted overwhelmingly in favour (582-35), with all the Lib Dem MEPs in the 582. And in amongst the 35? All the UKIP MEPs.

European Parliament votes to cap credit card fees

MEPs yesterday voted for an EU cap on card payment fees, which are estimated to cost retailers in the EU over £8 billion each year.

The European Parliament negotiating position, in line with the proposal from the European Commission, favours a cap of 0.3% of the transaction on credit card purchases. But Parliament goes even further than the Commission proposal on debit card fees with a cap of either 7cents (6p) or 0.2% of the transaction value on debit card purchases, whichever is lower. These caps would also be applied to both cross-border and domestic payments.

Research by the EU has shown that a cap in fees could provide retailers with nearly £5 billion in savings and lead to lower consumer prices. However, Parliament is now waiting for the Member States to finalise their negotiating position before such caps can become law.

Liberal Democrat MEP and Chair of the European Parliament's Economic and Monetary Affairs Committee, Sharon Bowles, commented: "Each year businesses suffer from unregulated and unjustifiably high fees when a customer chooses to pay by card.

"Capping these transaction fees will mean businesses can and should be able to pass on savings to consumers, which will directly benefit households up and down the country and contribute to economic growth and consumer confidence.

"As the Party of In, Liberal Democrats want to strengthen and protect our vital trade links with the rest of the EU. By cutting unnecessary costs for businesses the UK can increase its competitiveness within the Single Market."

LibDems most effective of the UK parties in European Parliament

http://www.libdemvoice.org/official-lib-dems-are-most-successful-and-influential-in-europe-38993.html

All this without a Welsh LibDem in Brussels.

Which is worse: phytophthora or Neath Port Talbot's contractors?

Frank Little writes:
What should have been a controlled response to a possible attack by the larch fungus seems to have turned into wholesale clearance in Craig Gwladus. There is a report by Cadoxton photographer Mike Davies on the Neath Guardian website.

We should be interested to learn what action councillors Annette Wingrave (Cadoxton) and Doreen Jones (Aberdulais) are taking.

The party president writes

Here is part of Tim Farron MP's commentary on the LBC debate:

Nigel Farage made that awful statement that the EU ‘has blood on its hands’ in the Ukraine. He seemed to be reading the Kremlin’s ‘talking points’. I personally could not believe that his hatred of the EU is so deep and so myopic that he was prepared to side with Vladimir Putin against the people of Ukraine.

I cannot understand that mind-set. I cannot understand how you can side with Putin because you hate the EU so much. It wasn’t just a crass throw away remark, it was offensive to the thousands of protesters (as well as the families of the 100 murdered protesters) who stood up for values that we should share and support.

Paddy said Mr Farage had shown “inexperience” in world affairs and he’s right. But isn’t that deeply concerning for a party leader and MEP of 15 years standing? I compare him to our MEPs – Catherine Bearder, Edward Macmillan-Scott, Sharon Bowles. There is no comparison. They are people of substance. Nigel Farage is not.

I know that in the next debate Nick will win again. Not just because the arguments are on our side, but because when the public hear our arguments, put forward by a brave politician making the case that so many others are too timid to make, they will be won over.

Britain is better in, than out. Britain is stronger in the world within the EU. That’s why I agree with Nick.

Phone a Liberal friend in Europe

The Cooperative movement and liberalism

Thanks to Liberal Democrat Voice for the following:

• Arthur Seldon on Liberal, Labour and Co-operative from 1949
  From “Liberal Magazine” Nov 1949

  “A Liberal looks at the Co-operative Movement, declares
  Alliance with Labour is dangerous”

  The co-operative movement is a liberal institution. It was born in a liberal economy. It grew in an era of political and economic liberalism. It will survive and prosper only in a liberal State.

  Its alliance with the Labour Party is a profound and tragic blunder. Its principles, its purpose and prospects as a trading organisation, and its political policies make its most natural and congenial political home the Liberal Party.

  First, its principles are liberal. The co-operative movement is a voluntary association of individuals who join and leave at will. It is based on the voluntary principle, without which is loses its soul. It lives by serving the consumer in a free economy independent of the State. It could not breathe in a regime of compulsion, direction and State control.

  Secondly, its business structure and development makes its Labour alliance incongruous, out-moded, and dangerous. Changing distribution of income and social groupings are leading it to expand and extend its services and activities. The bulk of its members are drawn from skilled workers whose incomes and requirements are approaching those of the old middle classes. The new members of recent years have come mainly from the middle classes, and the expansion has been mainly in the South. It is a far cry from the groceries, the coal, and other staple commodities of the Northern working classes to the fashion goods, the television and the department stores of the 1950′s.

  The co-operative veteran must rub his eyes when he reads the current advertising campaign of the C.W.S with its “co-op. customers” – the dentist, the teacher, the colonel and other middle class figures. How is the movement to continue to expand along these lines – the only lines along which it can expand – if it is tied to a political party which potential members, for reasons good or bad, fear or distrust?

  Thirdly, a free consumers’ co-operative movement has no business to be allied to a party largely financed by a producer interest, the trade unions, and inspired by Socialist ideology based on belief in the efficacy of State control. The National Council of Labour is not a triumvirate of like-minded equals; it is an unconvincing facade for irreconcilable opposites.

  The co-operative movement’s differences with the trade union element in the Labour movement are typified by its attitude to the licensing of shops. Can any co-oiperative official or member endorse U.S.D.A.W.’s demand for this reactionary and illiberal device for the control of retail outlets?

  And the inevitable conflict with the philosophy and practice of Socialist planning has been laid bare in the compromises and the concessions which preceded the final draft of “Labour Believes in Britain”. No doubt face saving formulae will be found by the Labour Party negotiators in the effort to keep the goodwill of the movement at least until the coming general election is over. But is the movement faithfully served by buying a few more years of immunity? The clash must come sooner or later.

  The co-operative official or member who convinces himself that the nationalisation of wholesaling and other co-operative activities can be put in cold storage for ever, or who gives credence to seductive talk of the movement being “allowed” to run a part of a Socialist economy, is indulging in wishful thinking that does no credit to his judgment and no service to the movement.

  He has forgotten that there is a co-operative movement in Russia that is “allowed” to run a sector of the economy – now expanding, now contracting at the will of a commissar. But is this poor thing, this convenient instrument of a total State, unfree, dependent, a mockery and a travesty of the hopes of the Rochdale Pioneers, held up as a desirable fate for the British co-operative movement?

  But if the Co-operative-Labour alliance is a mistake, on what does it rest? There is the sentiment of he working-class origin of both organisations, a sentiment which neglects the long distance both have travelled since their early days. Then there is that universal Aunt Sally, “the capitalist system”, which means all things to all men, a convenient thought-stifler when awkward questions arise. And a few words about “production without profit”, or about that wildly impossible “Socialist and Co-operative Commonwealth” could always be relied on to raise a cheer or quell the doubts of those who think for themselves.

  What are the facts of history? From the very first the alliance with Labour was never an easy one. Only ten years after it was born, doubts and fears were expressed by co-operative spokesmen about Labour policies, such as Dr. Addison’s producer-controlled agricultural marketing boards.

  More than once in the 1930′s Lord Rusholme (then Mr R. A. Palmer) and others spoke out against the monopoly legislation of the Labour Government of 1929-31, later adopted and enlarged by the “National” Governments of Macdonald, Baldwin, and Chamberlain, and supported in principle by Labour in Opposition. These co-operative spokesmen were supported not by the Labour Part, which was too concerned with trade union interests, but by the handful of Liberals who understood the economic and political dangers of monopoly in all its forms.

  It has taken four years of Labour in power to make the dangers too plain to be ignored. It is not merely a question of the nationalisation of a few co-operative activities in wholesaling and insurance. These are only the first steps. The ugly truth is that, however “liberal” some of its paper intentions, Labour’s philosophy is the antithesis of that on which the co-operative movement and other Liberal institutions rest. For underlying it is the impudent assumption that no voluntary association of free individuals can be superior to the State.

  The co-operative movement wants the freedom to develop in those fields in which, by trial and error and in rivalry with other forms of distribution, it proves itself in the interests of the community. It seeks no artificial respiration, but it rejects doctrinaire exclusion. This is precisely what a Liberal economy implies, and what the Liberal Party stands for.

  In a Liberal economy there is room for all forms of enterprise – companies and one man businesses working for “profit”, profit-sharing enterprises of all kind, and “mutual aid” organisations such as the co-operative movement. The only activity for which there is no room is monopoly.

  The Liberal Party does not stand for one kind of economic organisation against the others. It stands for the progressive elements in all forms of economic life against the backward-looking elements. It calls for room for all forms of activity provided hey benefit the community. And in its policies of freedom for enterprise and the prevention or destruction of monopoly, it truly serves the consumer. Here surely is the voice of sanity. It is the voice of the progressive in all forms of human activity, co-operative and all other; it is the voice of the Liberal.

  The hour is not too late for co-operators to see the truth and to warn their colleagues and their fellows. Many have paid uneasy lip-service to Socialist ideals in which they had no faith. Many have quelled doubts by representing themselves as “liberal-minded Socialists”. Misplaced loyalty to the established political strategy is treachery to the principles of the co-operative movement. To speak out now may be to incur the displeasure of the articulate minority who have vested interests in the Socialist alliance. But to remain silent is to earn the reproach of the multitude whose hopes will be crushed by the prostitution of the movement in a Socialist State.
• 
  

Social housing continues to rise in England under the coalition

http://www.libdemvoice.org/stephen-williams-writes-social-housing-stock-rises-back-above-4-million-38530.html

What is happening in Wales?

Digital Bill of Rights

Tim Berners-Lee has called for a digital bill of rights.

Last Sunday, the Liberal Democrats passed the following motion (amendment indicated by change of typeface) at their spring conference in York, in  spite of some resistance by Martin Horwood over the lines relating to the collection of bulk data. (Martin Horwood is the MP for Cheltenham and therefore for GCHQ, and both his parents worked for the security services.) :

F19 A Digital Bill of Rights
Mover: Tim Farron MP
Summation: Dr Julian Huppert MP (Co-Chair, Parliamentary Party Committee on
Home Affairs, Justice and Equalities)

Conference believes:

i) Monitoring or surveilling people without suspicion is alien to our
traditional British values.

ii) That systematic surveillance of people's communications and online
activities undermines a number of fundamental human rights, including
the right to respect of private life and correspondence, freedom of
expression, of association, of conscience and of religion; that these
rights are essential in safeguarding the democratic principles of our
society; and that any interference with these rights must be necessary
and proportionate.

iii) That our online communication and behaviour should be treated with
the same respect and legal due process that we expect for our offline
communication and behaviour.

iv) That the internet has the power to liberate, to educate, to bring people
closer together, and to boost our economy; and that such potential will be
undermined by government control, surveillance and censorship.

v) That the indiscriminate harvesting and storage of the communications
and metadata of people without suspicion is incompatible with our
liberal and democratic principles, and has the potential to cast a chilling
effect on free speech and free association.

vi) Whilst there are legitimate concerns surrounding national security, such
concerns must not be invoked simply as a pretext to undertake blanket
surveillance, stifle investigative journalism, or discourage public debate.

vii) That the work of the intelligence and security services is essential to the
underpinning of a free, fair and open society, and that clear public
agreement as to their remit and the extent of their powers would be to
their benefit as well the country more broadly.

Conference endorses:

A. The International Principles on the Application of Human Rights to
Communications Surveillance, which emphasise that any surveillance of
citizens by the state must be necessary and proportionate.
B. The United Nations General Assembly resolution on the Right to Privacy
in the Digital Age (A/C.3/68/L.45), emphasising that the same rights that
citizens have offline must also be protected online.
C. The Reform Government Surveillance Principles signed by Apple,
Google, Microsoft, Facebook, Yahoo, LinkedIn, Twitter and AOL, which
call for overhaul of the oversight, accountability and laws governing
government surveillance programmes in order to restore the balance
between security and liberty and to restore public trust in the internet.
D. Existing Liberal Democrat policy that data belongs by default to the
individual to whom it refers; this ownership of data means that the
individual citizen has a right to access all their own data and, where
reasonable, can decide who else has access.
E. The Deputy Prime Minister's decision to veto the unworkable and
disproportionate Communications Data Bill.

Conference therefore calls for:

1. The annual release of Government Transparency Reports which publish,
as a minimum, the annual number of user data requests made by law
enforcement, the intelligence agencies, and other authorities, broken
down by requesting authority, success rates, types of data requested
and category of crime or event being investigated.

2. The establishment of a commission of experts to review state
surveillance and all recent allegations from the Edward Snowden leaks,
with specific scope to:
a) Scrutinise relevant legislation including the Regulation of
Investigatory Powers Act 2000, the Intelligence Services Act 1994
and section 94 of the Telecommunications Act 1984.
b) Assess the implications for privacy and internet freedoms of Project
Tempora and other programmes revealed by the Snowden leaks,
and consider alternatives to the bulk collection of data.
c) Review powers, scope, appointment and resources of oversight
committees, commissioners and tribunals.
d) Consider the use of judicial involvement and approval for
surveillance and for access to communications data and metadata
likely to reveal sensitive personal data.
e) Publish its findings and recommendations.

3. The Government to define and enshrine the digital rights of the citizen to
protect from overreach by the state, through:
a) Ensuring that powers of surveillance, accessing data, and
accessing new technologies are not extended without
Parliamentary approval.
b) Ensuring that government does not undertake the bulk collection of
data and only accesses the metadata or content of
communications of an individual if there is suspicion of involvement
in unlawful activity.
c) Ensuring that oversight of government surveillance is independent,
informed, transparent and adequate.
d) Supporting a prompt, lawful and transparent framework for data
requests across jurisdictions and between governments.

4. The Government to accelerate and expand the midata project, to grant
citizens access to all their data in an open digital format, regardless of
which business holds that data, by using powers under the Enterprise
and Regulatory Reform Act 2013.

Day Two report

The day was dominated by Europe, both in debate and in the Leader's Speech. In between, the party expressed its concerns about the authorities' surveillance of electronic communications.

The day opened with a discussion without a vote on the topical issue of Ukraine. The debate was opened by Robert Woodthorpe Brown, chair of the party's international relations committee, with a response by Martin Horwood on behalf of the parliamentary party and with a summation from Dr Julie Smith, vice-chair of the party's federal policy committee. In between there were passionate and informed contributions, some from members with first-hand or family connections with Ukraine or eastern Europe.

There followed F18, "In Europe, In Work", a motion highlighting key Liberal Democrat policies for the European election campaign, based on existing policy as set out in last year's policy paper, "Sustainable and Secure". (Text of resolution follows at end of posting.)

F19, a motion developing policy on legislation that would enshrine the digital rights of the citizen and make sure the intelligence and surveillance services are properly accountable to the people they serve. It builds on existing policy on privacy and surveillance set out in conference motion "Human Rights" of 2012. Apart from an expression of vested interest by Martin Horwood, MP for Cheltenham, the motion was enthusiastically received. At least one platform speaker regretted the opportunities passed over by the Westminster parliament to redress the balance in this area. (Full text of resolution is included here.)

The Leader's Speech is available at http://www.libdems.org.uk/watch_nick_clegg_s_speech_to_spring_conference_2014 (video and transcript).

Text of motion F18: In Europe, In Work

Federal Policy Committee
Mover: Martin Horwood MP (Chair, European Manifesto Working Group)
Summation: Baroness Ludford

Conference believes that:

I. Liberal Democrats want Britain to stay in the EU because we are
fighting for a stronger economy - millions of British jobs are linked to
our trade with the EU, and being in Europe gives us more strength
when negotiating trade deals with global players like the US, China,
India and Brazil.

II. Liberal Democrats are working to defend millions of British jobs, create
millions more and put thousands of pounds back in people's pockets
by making it easier for British companies to export and slashing red
tape for small businesses.

III. Liberal Democrats are fighting for safer communities by ensuring our
police forces have access to key EU crime-fighting tools.

IV. Liberal Democrats are fighting for a greener future by working with other
EU countries to combat climate change, create green jobs and reduce
pollution.

V. The Tories and UKIP are putting millions of British jobs and billions of
pounds of investment at risk by undermining our membership of the EU
while Labour can't be trusted with the economy at home or abroad -
their reckless spending and failure to regulate the banks crippled
Britain's economy while their MEPs support measures that would
impose huge burdens on British businesses.

VI. Liberal Democrats are the party of 'in' - In Europe, In Work.

Conference welcomes the record of Liberal Democrats in the European
Parliament and Westminster in delivering:

A. Jobs - for example through the conclusion of successful trade deals,
EU funding that has created over 200,000 new jobs, securing €60
billion EU funding for research and technology over the next 7 years,
and the creation of a single EU Patent system.

B. Safer Communities - for example through fighting off Tory and UKIP
attempts to withdraw the UK from the EU Arrest warrant, new EU laws
to help British victims of crime in other EU Countries, and stronger EU
co-operation to fight human trafficking.

C. A Greener Future - for example through an agreement for the EU low
carbon roadmap that paves the way towards a low carbon economy, a
radical overhaul of the Common Fisheries Policy to ban most discards
(throwing dead fish back into the sea), EU energy efficiency laws that
will unlock investment in energy saving technologies, and major reforms
to the Common Agricultural Policy that will help cut emissions and
protect our countryside.

Conference resolves that the Liberal Democrat Manifesto for the 2014
European Elections should set out a strong future policy agenda based on
these priorities and the policies adopted in policy paper 113, Prosperous,
Sustianable and Secure (September 2013), including:

1. Creating more jobs by further opening up the EU's internal market,
supporting new EU trade agreements with other trading countries,
cutting red tape and 'thinking small', by reducing unnecessary EU
regulatory costs which particularly hit smaller businesses, promoting
innovation in science and manufacturing and getting British ideas to
market faster, and supporting the European Investment Bank (EIB)
initiative to develop European project bonds in order to speed up vital
infrastructure development.

2. Fighting cross-border crime and defending rights by pressing for a
European Union missing child alert system to be implemented quickly,
setting up a European Union database of unidentified bodies help
families searching for missing loved ones, supporting the work of the
new European Cybercrime Centre (EC3), and working to secure speedy
implementation of the European Commission's new proposal on
fighting money laundering, pushing for a European Union-wide
proportionality test in the use of the European Arrest Warrant, and supporting
the full implementation of 'Eurobail' to allow British citizens to serve their
bail back in the UK.

3. Protecting the environment and creating green growth by committing to
reduce the EU's greenhouse gas emissions by at least 50% by 2030,
urgently strengthening the EU Emissions Trading System mechanism,
pushing for more international grid connections between European
countries to ensure we can meet our climate change goals faster and at
a lower cost, promoting better European energy labelling, and
encouraging sustainable consumption in European Union member
states, including by arguing for the European Union to support the
target of halting net deforestation worldwide by 2020.

4. Building a safer, stronger financial system by ensuring better quality of
regulation in order to protect the economy, businesses and jobs,
fighting for fairer rules that will clamp down on manipulation of energy
and financial markets as exposed by the LIBOR scandal and Brent Oil
fixing investigation, ensuring fairer mortgage repayments and fuel prices
for consumers, supporting alternatives to bank financing for small and
medium sized companies, and pressing for new rules that will force
large companies to disclose the countries where they pay their taxes,

5. Getting a better, fairer deal for consumers by campaigning to abolish
mobile phone roaming charges once and for all, supporting higher
standards of food inspections across the European Union with better
country of origin food labelling, supporting greater protection of
holidaymakers' rights to compensation if their holiday company goes
bust, and making it easier for consumers to gain adequate
compensation when people suffer losses due to malpractice, through
new rules that will make it easier for consumers to take cases together,
reduce the number of court cases and cut costs for the claimants.

6. Building a more sustainable future for rural communities and businesses
by supporting continued reform of the Common Agricultural Policy with
more devolution in agricultural policy, ensuring continued support for
rural communities, particularly upland and less favoured areas, and a
mid-term review in 2017, and promoting a more sustainable fishing
industry in the UK, with the expansion of European Marine Sites, a
100% ban on the discard of edible and other usable fish and want
tougher enforcement of European Union fishing rules by all member
states

7. Helping to build a safer and more democratic world through a more
effective European Union foreign policy, building more security and
democracy in the European neighbourhood, deeper defence co-
operation in Europe, with the European Defence Agency, in co-operation
with NATO, playing a central role in helping states to pool and share
military capabilities, and better co-ordination of development assistance
provided by European member states and by the European Union itself.

8. Promoting fairness and opportunity by encouraging government and
universities to fully publicise the opportunities available for young people
in the UK to take advantage of EU schemes for studying and working
abroad, and supporting fair rules to underpin free movement of workers,
such as the Coalition proposals to support an EU framework whereby
EU  migrants do not claim benefits before spending six months in the UK.

9. Reforming the European Union by campaigning to end the waste of
having two meeting places for the European Parliament, supporting an
audit of existing European Union agencies and institutions to find ways
to rationalise and find savings, and calling for a guarantee in the next
European Union treaty that both Euro area and non-Euro area member
states have a full voice in the regulation and application of the single
market.

Conference further resolves that Liberal Democrats are committed to giving
the British people their say in a full in/out referendum in the event of
proposals for any further significant transfer of powers from the UK to the
EU, and that Liberal Democrats will campaign for an 'in' vote because it is
overwhelmingly in Britain's national interest to stay in and pursue the
policies on jobs, crime and the environment outlined in this motion.

LibDem and UKIP MEP voting records compared

http://blogs.channel4.com/michael-crick-on-politics/eu-voting-records-ukip-lib-dems-compare/3867

Michael Crick concludes:

The former Ukip MEP Godfrey Bloom, who no longer gets the Ukip whip, has a very poor record, having voted in just 26.47 per cent of votes. If one included Bloom (and he is still a Ukip party member) the average Ukip figure would be dragged down to 62.2 per cent.

The Liberal Democrat voting record is very different.

Their 12 MEPs have voted in 87.95 per cent of votes – more than seven votes out of every eight. Even the Lib Dem MEPs’ worst voter, Edward McMillan-Scott, took part in 70.62 per cent of plenary votes.

It makes sense for even opponents of our membership of the European Union to make sure that they get some value for the money that is spent on MEPs' salaries and expenses, and to vote for candidates who will actually turn up to vote on matters they are concerned about.

Minimum Nurses Bill goes forward

Yesterday, the National Assembly voted to accept Kirsty Williams's Minimum Nursing Staff Levels Bill for further discussion.

Kirsty writes:

Over the next 18 months or so my idea will be turned into a concrete proposal, consulted on and scrutinised. It’s a long road from where we are today to the finishing line.

One thing is certain though. The more people who add their support at www.MoreNurses.org.uk, the stronger my case will be in the Assembly as my Bill gets debated over the coming months.

I was able to tell Assembly Members today about the thousands of people from across Wales who’d already added their support to the campaign, and I know it made a difference.

As my proposal goes forward to be scrutinised, it’s even more important to have as many people supporting it as possible.

If you haven’t added your support at www.MoreNurses.org.uk already, please do.

And if you have, please spread the word, so we can really build a campaign to improve our NHS here in Wales.

Efrog

We are sure that it's a sheer coincidence that Liberal Democrats are meeting for their spring conference in the old Viking city of York at the same time as Scandimania comes to London.

Business-like European Parliament

Frank Little writes:

There is a useful insight into the working of the EP by a young person on a work placement with Chris Davies MEP. You can read her account of one working week here on Liberal Democrat Voice.

Two items stood out for me:
 One of the highlights of my time in Parliament was the meeting that followed between Business Secretary Vince Cable and Liberal Democrat MEPs.  It really emphasised the importance of Britain’s membership of the European Union to our businesses.
and
Wednesday: Today members of ENVI met – well not all of them! Just a couple of rows in front of me was an empty seat assigned to ‘Paul Nuttall’, a UKIP MEP notorious for his absenteeism in the Parliament. That empty seat really struck me, as the other MEPs present dealt with current problems facing European citizens.

Liberal Democrat growth resumed

Mark Pack reveals the following figures from committee reports to the forthcoming Liberal Democrat spring conference:

• Overall Lib Dem party membership rose by 950 in the 2013 calendar year, ending the year on 43,451.
• The federal party budget was for a £2,000 surplus in 2013; it has come out at £480,000.
• 38% of Westminster Parliamentary candidates selected in strategic (i.e. target) seats, excluding held seats, are female, compared to 27% of approved candidates overall being female. (Plus the situation in held seats where MPs are retiring is rather promising.)

This gives the lie to Labour jibes that our membership is falling, and contrasts with the parlous financial state in which the Labour party finds itself.

Vince Cable writes to party members about higher education

Today, Nick Clegg has laid out our record on higher education.

It’s a record that demonstrates that we are committed to helping everyone to get on in life, whether that’s through university, apprenticeships, or work. And it’s a record that shows that the difficult decisions we made back in 2010 are having a positive effect on those students we most need to encourage into university.

I know that tuition fees have been hard to discuss on the doorstep. We have expressed regret that it was not possible to deliver in office a commitment made in opposition. But we have, in government, created a fairer system in which no one pays upfront fees, and payments operates like a form of graduate tax, payable in a progressive way linked to income. So let’s make clear what our record is:

This year, we have had the highest application rates to university ever and the highest number of applicants from disadvantaged backgrounds.

Over half a million students will be entitled to receive grants for living costs that they will never have to pay back.

Up to a quarter of the lowest paid graduates will end up paying back less than they would have under the previous system.

Nearly 200,000 students studying their first degree part time won’t have any up-front fees to pay, as they did under Labour.

Most importantly, today our most disadvantaged teenagers are 70% more likely to go to university than they were 10 years ago.

This doesn’t wipe the slate clean. But voters need to know the facts. Their children and grandchildren, no matter who they are, are more likely to attend university because of Liberal Democrats in government.

And the savings we have made have enabled us to protect adult education, and to plough more resources into apprenticeships for many of the 60% who do not go to universities.

That’s a record on higher education that I’m proud to share.

Yours,
Vince Cable
Secretary of State for Business, Innovation & Skills

Another UKIPper asleep on the job

FactCheckEU, which provides factual information about the European Union even if it occasionally hurts the case for membership, investigated the case of retiring UKIP MEP Trevor Coleman. He had stated that the European Parliament “has no power, it can't make or change legislation”. After refuting this assertion, FactCheckEU's report concludes:

According to Votewatch, Mr Colman has only taken part in half of all votes during his five years in office (ranked 751st out of 766) and has admitted that one of the reasons he attends the sessions in Strasbourg and Brussels is to secure the allowances. He has only tabled two parliamentary questions and made 17 speeches in plenary since 2009. His limited involvement in the EP might explain why he knows so little about how legislation is made in the European Union. A well-deserved "Insane whopper"!

(There is a photo of UKIP MEPs earning their allowances on the Huffington Post.)

Uncertainty following Swiss immigration referendum

Last weekend, the Swiss voted in a referendum to impose strict migration levels. The campaign was rough. The Swiss government, a clear majority of the parliament and the business community campaigned against this initiative, given the negative impact it may have on the attractiveness of Switzerland as a business location. Only one major party, the nationalist Swiss People’s Party was officially in favour of the quotas. They exploited concerns among the people such as housing shortage, low-wage dumping or congestion of the infrastructure.

The initiative was approved by just 50.3% of the votes and was passed by a majority of cantons, though there was a clear gap between cities and the countryside. In metropolitan areas where a lot of immigrants live and work, the initiative was defeated. But in rural areas, there is a significantly smaller number of foreigners, the acceptance of the initiative was much higher. There was also a gap between the often more open minded French speaking part and the rest of Switzerland.

Those who voted 'yes' in the referendum may not have understood the potential consequences of voting as they did, as they aren't direct beneficiaries of free trade and free movement of people, but they may not like what happens next much.

First, there is legal uncertainty. Nobody knows how the relations with the European Union will evolve and when companies will be able to engage in long term business planning. Even if all persons without a Swiss passport who currently live and work in Switzerland are not directly affected until their visas expire, Switzerland will face problems attracting talent from all over Europe and the world. It is also not clear how Switzerland will be able to participate in the single market. The image of the country as an open community with a successful economy will suffer for a long time.

Second, the adoption of this initiative creates a new bureaucratic burden for companies: while the principle of free movement of people stipulates that everybody within the European Union is entitled to work in any EU country without discrimination (including Switzerland as a non-EU Member State), the referendum initiative demands a prioritization for domestic persons. These two principles cannot be combined and will lead to difficult negotiations with the EU without any prospect of solution. In the not so distant future Swiss companies will be obliged to prove that there is no Swiss employee with similar qualifications for the job before hiring a non-Swiss worker.

Third, the "Bilateral-one-package" negotiated between Switzerland and the EU (dating from 1999 and coming into force in 2002) is at stake. There are further negotiations over, among other things, energy, the financial market, agriculture, food and participation in EU programmes on research, education & culture. The EU has already suspended the negotiations of a framework agreement to resolve the “institutional questions” between Switzerland and the EU (implementation of EU legislation, interpretation, supervision, dispute settlement) and those of the electricity agreement.

What the Commission and the Council of Ministers do next will be keenly watched by UKIP and Eurosceptic Conservatives alike. The latter see the future of the UK as outside the European Union, but with bilateral agreements, like those of Norway and Switzerland, but with immigration controls such as those which Switzerland has just voted in favour of.

Acknowledgments:
Jonathan Fryer
Mark Valladeres

Royal College of Nursing backs law for minimum nursing

Welsh Liberal Democrat leader Kirsty Williams has called for minimum nursing staff levels to be enforced by law.

The Western Mail reports that "while Wales has 10.5 patients per nurse, Scotland has 8.8, England 8.5 and Northern Ireland 7.2. Wales’ proportion of nurses as a percentage of staff also trails behind, with 56% compared to England’s 59%, Scotland’s 60% and Northern Ireland’s 66%. The proposed legislation would require the government to set a minimum staffing level for nurses, similar to laws introduced in California and in two Australian states - which Ms Williams said had reduced mortality levels.

"The levels would be set by an independent body and would take into account the circumstances of each Health Board or hospital area. Ms Williams said: 'I believe we are capable of meeting the levels. We do have enough nurses in the workforce but many are leaving the [National Health] Service because of issues of pressure, professional challenge and cannot deliver the care they need to and patients require.'

"Peter Meredith-Smith, acting director of RCN Wales said: 'The Royal College of Nursing in Wales is delighted that Kirsty Williams’ proposal for legislation on minimum nurse staffing levels in Welsh hospitals has been selected for debate at the National Assembly for Wales. The RCN has long called for the Welsh Government to set mandatory nurse staffing levels in order to ensure that patients receive the highest possible standards of care in the Welsh Health Service.'”

Deputy Prime Minister Clegg declares war on drugs 'unwinnable'

UK Deputy Prime Minister, Nick Clegg, leader of the Liberal Democrats, has declared the war against drugs “unwinnable”, after talks with President Juan Manuel Santos in Colombia.

Mr Clegg has long argued that the UK’s existing approach to illicit drugs is not working. As part of a record breaking trade visit to Latin America, the Liberal Democrat leader said “If you are anti-drugs, you should be pro-reform”, adding that, despite attempts by his Conservative coalition partners to block further investigation into an improved policy, the UK’s liberals would publish a report on an alternative strategy this year. The review will be completed by Liberal Democrat Home Office Minister, Norman Baker MP.

The result of Nick Clegg’s visit reinforces many of the points raised during Liberal International’s 191st Executive Committee meeting in Antigua, Guatemala, the theme of which was ‘Fighting Organised Crime’ and featured the panel discussion - ‘New Initiatives in the War on Drugs’. The Deputy Prime Minister added that his party would use its time in government to halt the ”conspiracy of silence” surrounding failed drug policies.

The liberal leader is the most senior British government minister to visit Colombia since 1992 and his visit coincides with the Santos government’s lifting of visa restrictions, meaning citizens living in the Schengen area countries of the EU will be able to travel to Colombia without registering for a visa. In a further signal of strengthened business relations between the UK and Colombia, after five years of talks, a deal has been struck that will see the first direct flights between the UK and Colombia for a decade.

[Thanks to Liberal International for this]

Market abuse rules for EU finally agreed

Sharon Bowles, Liberal Democrat MEP for South East England and Chair of the European Parliament's Economic and Monetary Affairs Committee, reports agreement between the Council and the European Parliament on the EU's Market Abuse Directive. This legislation, which will impose criminal sanctions on insider dealing and market manipulation, was approved by an overwhelming majority of MEPs in Strasbourg today.

Ms Bowles has consistently called for the revision of market abuse legislation to have a wider scope, encompassing transparency, clarity and harmonisation in order to act as a strong deterrent.

She commented from Strasbourg: "The 2008 financial crisis, the rigging of LIBOR and EURIBOR, and recent insider trading scandals have proven the necessity for tighter rules on market abuse.

"Evidence and experience suggest that a culture change may not come directly from within the financial sector any time soon and we hope that this legislation proves to be a significant step in achieving such change.

"The new market abuse legislation agreed today means that Member States must now ensure that not only insider dealing - unlawful disclosure of inside information and market manipulation - but also recommending or inducing another person to engage in such an act, are punishable as criminal offences.

"Although much has been achieved today there is always room for improvement. Council should strive, in a future review of this legislation, to further strengthen the minimum standards for criminal sanctions; enable Member States to apply higher administrative fines; and make the full publication of these sanctions an obligation, areas Parliament was more than ready to address during these negotiations.

"Furthermore, this legislation should be adapted on an on-going basis to account for new trading behaviours and to broaden the concept of abuse to include gross asymmetry of knowledge."

LibDem leader keeps up attack on Labour's education record

Kirsty Williams used the recent depressing Estyn report to probe the First Minister in the week's first question time in the Assembly.

The Welsh Liberal Democrat leader that after four years of "disappointing Estyn reports" pupils in Wales had still not seen the improvements that Welsh ministers "continually promise but don't deliver".

She said ministers had argued that getting local education authorities to work together as regional consortia was key to driving up standards. "Yet, if you read the Estyn report today, they say that in more than half of local authorities that have been inspected that regional consortia are failing to deliver an improvement in standards."

Assembly must not be steamrollered into accepting council mergers

First Minister Carwyn Jones has called on his Labour Party to reach a conclusion on the Williams Commission proposals by the end of this March and has urged other parties to fall into line.

Liberal Democrat local government spokesman, South Wales West AM Peter Black indicated the party would be unwilling to support it without concessions to his party, particularly around the voting system. “For me the biggest surprise was...how very quickly the First Minister and other members of the Labour frontbench were moving to try and get a cross-party consensus on this,” he said. “What we have in front of us is, in my view, a Labour government Commission, a Labour government report and one which is owned exclusively by Labour Ministers.

“I think if he needs to talk to other parties there needs to be some concessions to our views as to how this should be taken forward. I very much regret the implication, I think, that this report needs to be accepted wholesale and has to be swallowed by us as it is written.”

Lobbying Bill improved by Liberal Democrat peers

Frank Little writes: The Lobbying Bill easily passed on its return to the House of Lords yesterday, bar one small amendment which was accepted by the narrowest possible margin. Changes to the Bill that were previously made after pressure by the Lords, Liberal Democrat peers being prominent, mean that there will be no serious effect on campaigning groups and charities before the next General Election. There will then be a review so that if there are problems they can be sorted out for the future. The major drawback of the Bill, that it does not expose more than a small segment of commercial lobbying activity, has not been touched, but at least charities and campaign groups can breathe more easily now.

Kirsty: Wales needs tax and borrowing powers now

Welsh Liberal Democrat leader Kirsty Williams has urged Secretary of State for Wales David Jones to bring forward a Bill in the Westminster parliament as soon as possible in order to give the people of Wales a chance to raise additional finance.

She told the Western Mail: “Liberal Democrats in Government worked tirelessly to ensure that the Silk Commission was established and that their key recommendations were to be implemented. That momentum must continue. 

“There is only a year and half until the end of the parliament; we need to make sure the Wales Bill becomes law before then. I believe the Bill must be brought forward in the current legislative programme, preferably before the next Queen’s Speech.

“Otherwise there is a concern that the Bill could be forgotten about. The Welsh Liberal Democrats have long argued that the Welsh Government should be given tax-varying and borrowing powers.

“Wales must have a proper functioning parliament with additional fiscal responsibilities to create a stronger economy and a fairer society.”

Welsh LibDems call for more nurses by law

Welsh Liberal Democrat leader Kirsty Williams has been successful in the National Assembly’s ballot to introduce backbench legislation. She will be calling on AMs to support her calls for a change in the law to require minimum staffing levels for nurses in Wales.

Kirsty said: "This change in the law could transform the quality of care provided in the Welsh NHS. It is staggering to see the vast difference in the ratio of nurses to patients in Wales when compared to the rest of the UK. Once again Welsh Labour's poverty of ambition has led to our NHS having to do more, but with less.”

Little Black Book

 

So David Cameron’s keeping a little black book of the things Lib Dems have stopped him doing in Government – things he wants to put in the next Tory manifesto.
A copy has been found, and it’s scary reading: http://www.libdemvoice.org/found-david-camerons-little-black-book-37474.html

Peter Black voted AM of the year

In the prestigious annual Welsh Political Awards hosted by ITV in Cardiff City Hall yesterday, South Wales West Assembly Member, Liberal Democrat Peter Black was announced as AM of the year. The judges highlighted his achievement in being the first backbencher to pilot an Act of the Assembly into law. Peter's Mobile Homes (Wales) Act  introduces a licensing requirement for site owners and a requirement for all site owners to pass a ‘fit and proper persons’ test through the licensing procedure.

Nelson Mandela

These are the words of Lindiwe Mazibuko, parliamentary leader of the Democratic Alliance, our sister party in South Africa, on the occasion of Nelson Mandela's 95th birthday. They have all the more resonance today:

As a younger man Nelson Mandela gave up his career in order to take up the fight against apartheid and racial injustice.

In so doing, he sacrificed his own freedom.

At the dawn of our young democracy, President Mandela became the custodian of our new constitution. He demonstrated the political will, courage and humanity which set the tone for reconciliation and forged a spirit of shared nationhood that is still with us today.

As South Africans, we are blessed to have him as the example of an elder whose life is an inspiration and a guide to us all.

Kirsty Williams welcomes coalition announcement

"More accountability and responsibility"

Walesonline reports: "The UK coalition leaders have today announced a series of new measures to enable the Welsh Government to invest in transport infrastructure, such as an upgrade of the M4, and the devolution of stamp duty. The announcement follows the news last night that the Celtic Manor, which hosted the Ryder Cup in 2010, will be the venue for a major Nato summit next year."

Kirsty Williams, leader of the Welsh Liberal Democrats, comments: “I am very pleased that we will be able to make advances on the Silk Commission’s recommendations. It is no secret that the opposition and delay to this announcement has come from the Conservative side of the coalition. It has been an uphill struggle to get them to agree to implement these key recommendations. Liberal Democrats have consistently supported greater financial powers for the National Assembly.

“It is a credit to my Liberal Democrat colleagues in government that this announcement has been made after over a decade of Labour inaction and months of Conservative inertia. While constitutionalists and academics will pour over the detail and debate today’s announcement, I want the people of Wales to understand how this will affect their lives.

“For the very first time, the amount of money a Welsh Government spends could be directly linked to success in promoting economic development. That should sharpen minds in Cardiff Bay and would also bring the same level of accountability to Wales that exists in almost all national parliaments.

“Stamp duty devolved to Wales could help lower the cost of buying a house and promote growth in the construction sector. The Confederation of British Industry and the business community believe that, if used effectively, devolving and reforming stamp duty could be a tool for growth and stimulating house building in Wales. This would create the much needed jobs we need in Wales to help our economic recovery. Wales’ devolution package is missing a critical element.

“Unlike most families and businesses, the Welsh government has the luxury of spending money handed out by others. Uniquely, Wales has no power to borrow or raise money. This lack of accountability for how money is raised breeds irresponsibility about how money is spent. Wales must have a proper functioning parliament with additional fiscal responsibilities to create a stronger economy and a fairer society.

“I know that the Liberal Democrat side of the coalition is working hard to ensure that we achieve this aim. At every stage we have been pressing, and we will continue to press, to bring more accountability and responsibility to the Welsh Government.  We want Wales to have further powers to drive forward Wales’ economic development, creating jobs and prosperity for our people.”

LIB DEM NOTES FROM BRUSSELS

Aung San Suu Kyi was presented with the Sakharov human rights prize in the European Parliament last week. She told MEPs that in 1988, when she founded the Movement for Democratic Reform in Burma, many of the democratic countries now represented in the European Union were still communist dictatorships.

It was a timely reminder that we too often take for granted the European Union's enormous achievement in promoting peace, democracy and the extension of human rights. UKIP people dismiss this and claim that the collapse of the 'iron curtain' was due to NATO. They ignore the values that inspire and underpin EU partnership, and the decision-making procedures that tie governments and politicians together. Lots of jaw-jaw, as Churchill might have said.

CHRIS DAVIES MEP

LibDems in Europe fighting waste

Earlier this year, Nick Clegg said that when we are having to tighten our belts at home it would be wrong for the EU to press ahead with big spending increases. He was right then and he is right now. This is why Liberal Democrats in Brussels backed moves to cut the EU budget by 8bn Euros.

Despite this fact, this week our friends at the Daily Mail reported that Lib Dem MEPs voted for an increase in the EU budget. The truth is that not a single Liberal Democrat voted for more spending from Brussels.

Liberal Democrats are committed to building a more streamlined and efficient EU, by cutting back on administrative costs and wasteful spending. That is why we have fought for billions of euros of cuts including on staff salaries, MEP allowances and trips abroad.

[Hat-tip to Liberal Democrat Voice and George Lyon MEP]