For the first time, conference will be hosted by NewcastleGateshead. The Liberal Democrats have a proud history in the North-East. We control Northumberland County Council and Ian Swales MP, Sir Alan Beith MP and Fiona Hall MEP represent the Region in London and Brussels respectively.

Fiona said, “Conference is going to be a great boost for the area ahead of vital local elections in May. The region is gearing up to make it a fantastic weekend for everyone. I hope representatives also take the opportunity to visit some of the tourist sites throughout the North East. Wherever you go, the welcome is guaranteed to be warm, even if we can’t promise the same about the weather”.

Nick Clegg added, “The North-East has a well deserved reputation as a welcoming region, and I am looking forward to holding conference there”.

We are unique in having a truly democratic conference. We want to see motions on all topics from tax to the green agenda, civil liberties to crime, and from young people to the economy. This is our chance to influence government policy and our next manifesto; we should grasp it with both hands. Motions must be submitted by 13.00, 11 January 2012 to , or, if you want drafting advice, by 13.00, 3 January 2012. Standard motions forms are available to download here and for more information about submitting a motion, visit our Democracy in Action pages. The Federal Conference Committee use this guidance in selecting motions, so please read and use it!

We will be continuing the popular ministerial surgeries where members can raise issues directly with our ministers. There will also be the usual varied fringe and training sessions, exhibition and opportunities to meet other Liberal Democrats. This year all events, including training, official fringe and even Glee Club, will be taking place under one roof at The Sage Gateshead.

Online registration is now open at www.libdems.org.uk/conference. There are some major early bird discounts if you register before the end of the year, so move quickly! We have also changed the way joint registration works in 2012. Rather than pay the total rate upfront for both conferences, we are going to take the fees in two instalments. To register jointly, register for spring as normal (but before 31 December 2012) and pay the single registration fee of just £52. Anyone who then registers for autumn conference within the first three weeks of registration opening next April (reminders will be sent) will pay just £39, making the total amount payable for both conferences just £91 – the same savings you would have made under the old system, just in two installments.

We hope to see you in NewcastleGateshead.

Andrew Wiseman is Chair of the Liberal Democrats’ Federal Conference Committee.

For those of you who don’t know the organisation, it was founded by Roma Hooper to campaign against the use of short sentencing and for more effective community punishments. They have just produced a report Community or Custody which is a summary of the findings of a commission they established, chaired by the Telegraph’s Chief Political Commentator, Peter Oborne.

To quote Peter, when it comes to reporting on this issue:

…the debate is framed in favour of those who urge long prison sentences. There are few more damning epithets in the political lexicon than the words ‘soft’ and ‘weak’ and this accounts for a typical Westminster paradox: you have to be a very brave politician indeed to take a liberal view on crime and punishment.

- and I would add, a very brave journalist too!

The roundtable was to launch the report of the commission, which had visited projects and facilitated hearings across the country. I attend the hearing in Leicester where we heard of the work of the Criminal Justice Drugs Team which has adopted an “end-to-end” treatment model, working with offenders from their first contact with the police through to the end of their sentence.

Impressively offenders engaging in this project recorded a drop in their offending of 44% and a fall in the costs of their offending by 48%. Their peer mentoring scheme has been particularly effective, and hearing from two of the mentors, Kieran and Leroy, was not only moving, but demonstrated just how much this was a key factor in keeping them out of trouble. To quote Kieran “They did nothing with you in the prison. I came out with the same problem which was driving my offending, which was being on heroin”. We also heard from Prison Governor Peter Wright, who reminded us that while other organisations working with offenders have targets to reduce reoffending, the prisons don’t. How ridiculous is that?!

I commend the report to you; this is an issue we as Liberal Democrats can and should be united in campaigning for. I leave you with another spot-on comment from Peter Oborne:

Nobody is arguing that criminals should not go to prison, or that some of the worst offenders should not be locked up for many years. But consulting opinion pollsters is surely one of the worst imaginable methods of devising a criminal justice policy.

The proposals could all but dismantle the civil legal aid scheme. Over half a million people may no longer to be able access free legal help to resolve their problems – these problems rarely end up in court, but are resolved early on through legal advice delivered mostly by specialist caseworkers at Citizens Advice Bureaux and Law Centres, or by solicitors in high street firms. The Ministry’s own Impact Assessments highlight that failure to resolve these problems could result in more homelessness, crime, reduced social cohesion, adverse impacts on children, debt and reduced economic efficiency.

At the Sheffield spring conference, a motion was overwhelmingly passed calling on the MoJ to reject these “significant reductions in access to justice,” look again at the impact and examine alternative ways to save money in the justice system.

The Justice Select Committee chaired by Alan Beith has since produced a report criticising the proposals and advocating an alternative approach.  Several of our MPs, most notably Tom Brake, Julian Huppert and Stephen Lloyd have raised strong concerns in several Parliamentary debates; it’s easy to see why MPs might be concerned – loss of casework services in local Citizens Advice Bureaux and could mean more casework for MP.

Our party always advocated strongly for equal access to justice, and local legal advice services such as Citizens Advice Bureaux are the type of community based, voluntary sector provision we have traditionally championed. Commitment to human and civil rights, and citizens capacity to access these rights is in the Party’s DNA. But quite apart from arguments of principle, there are evidence based arguments that the proposed savings will cost the state and society far more – a false economy as peoples’ unresolved legal problems accrue big costs to public bodies, and to the wider economy.

A lesson from the last political year is that we do ourselves no favours with the public by meekly supporting every ‘salami slice’ policy proposed by Tory Minsters, or measures which sit uncomfortably with our principles and pledges to protect the poor and vulnerable, without even having an argument. If, as I expect, next week’s proposals have not changed significantly from what was originally proposed, this is surely an issue over which our MPs, Peers, Councillors and activists should flex their collective political muscles.

James Sandbach works as a Policy Officer for Citizens Advice and co-ordinated the Justice4All campaign. He is also a Liberal Democrat activist and stood as Parliamentary candidate in Putney last year.

A key part of this is the role of the Lib Dem parliamentary committees, one of which I co-chair.

These committees are not simply talking shops. They perform two important functions: making our influence felt within government and preparing the ground for party policy in the future.

Increasingly, the fruits of these committees are being seen.

The Coalition Agreement is the contract that underwrites this government. It sets out the policy agenda agreed between ourselves and our Coalition partners.

However, the exact shape of the legislation and how it is introduced is, rightly, subject to scrutiny and improvement, and that is one of the roles our committees take on.

Take elected police commissioners for example. The Government is committed to introducing them, but it is right that we discuss and raise concerns about their remit and the manner in which they are introduced.

The Lib Dem home affairs committee has been doing just that and is applying pressure to make sure they are subject to robust checks and balances.

Take the issue of the state pension age for women. Jenny Willott, as co-chair of our work and pensions committee, is pressing for changes to ensure the increase in the state pension age does not unfairly disadvantage thousands of women who will not have been given adequate time to prepare for their retirement.

But we don’t just scrutinise and influence existing government policy, we bring forward new ideas.

Earlier this year, as a result of the work of the Treasury/BIS committee that I co-chair and the think tank CentreForum, I published proposals to distribute shares in the bailed-out banks to the British public.

Momentum is already building behind this idea. Another think tank, the Centre for Policy Studies has since come out in support of the proposals. Actually, what they did was make strikingly similar proposals that they published in their own name, but a good idea is a good idea and I’m glad more people are getting behind it.

At Prime Minister’s Questions this week, following a question by my colleague Alan Beith, David Cameron said he was open to the idea.

Radical thinking does not become government policy overnight, but I am hoping to meet with the Prime Minister in the near future to see how we can take the proposals forward.

The advantage we have being in Government is that we can make our ideas a reality. Not every one, but then we didn’t win the election. Nonetheless, this is an opportunity to influence the direction of our country that liberals haven’t had for decades.

Through our parliamentary committees, Liberal Democrats are influencing and improving Coalition policy, pushing innovative ideas and laying the groundwork for party policy as we prepare for the next General Election in 2015.

I want to see better protection for pedestrians, cyclists and other vulnerable road users, along with better support for HGV drivers who face being involved in fatal accidents because of blind spots on their vehicles. A family in my constituency approached me for help after the death of their much loved daughter and sister, Eilidh Cairns, who was killed when a lorry collided with her as she cycled to work in London.

This Bill proposes powers for the secretary of state to bring in measures to require blindspot eliminating equipment as standard on new HGVs and to encourage retrofitting on HGVs already operating on the our roads. This can include vehicle reversing camera/monitor systems, reversing alarms, movement sensors, ultrasonic proximity sensors, thermal imaging cameras and digital recorders – all of which can help to reduce the risk of collision.

I am hopeful that this proposal will be brought in across Europe, following the support of Written Declaration 81 by over 400 MEPs and the efforts of my colleague Fiona Hall MEP. But I want the government to send out a clear message that safety on our roads is a top priority, not an optional extra.

Read the full piece at ePolitix.

For the first time ever, Select Committees Chairs are being elected by a secret ballot of all MPs, after each Chairship was allocated to a political party in proportion to the number of MPs for each party. The committees allocated to each party were agreed by the House shortly before the Whitsun recess.

On moving the new arrangements, Leader of the House, Sir George Young said:

This is something of a landmark moment for Parliament. It is a clear break from the past. Gone are the days when the Government had the upper hand in appointing who scrutinised the Government. Now we are passing that power to the House. This was what was overwhelmingly endorsed in the previous Parliament, in accordance with the recommendations of the Wright report. We supported that from the Opposition Benches, and I am pleased to bring it before the House now from the Government Benches.

A further Select Committee will be established to scrutinise the role of Nick Clegg as Deputy Prime Minister and the proposal of the Wright Commission to establish a Back Bench business committee will also be brought forward. Regional Select Committees, opposed by the Liberal Democrats, will not be reintroduced.

The full list of nominations is now available online.  The ballot will take place tomorrow (Wednesday), between 10 am and 5 pm.

It all certainly makes a change from Brown and Cameron bellowing away at each other, as they were at the last PMQs on April 7th. It seems an eternity away.

In the event, the session was sombre, opening with a statement on tragic events in Cumbria, as well as the normal opening tributes to soldiers who have died in Afghanistan.

This was the least “ya-boo” PMQs I have ever witnessed. There was a remarkably low incidence of point scoring and bellowing. Amazing, really. Harriet Harman seemed to be going off on a special Harperson “pet causes” fishing expedition but in fact managed to very cleverly, deftly and humourously highlight a Grand Canyon within the coalition by bashing Cameron about the plans for a Married Couples tax allowance.

Here’s how the session unfolded:

Douglas Carswell (Con) started with a refreshing attack (coming from a Tory) on the House of Lords – “the biggest quango of the lot”. Hear! Hear!

Cameron: There will be a draft motion by December on a predominantly elected second chamber. Hurrah!

Harriet Harman started with a question about the blockade of Gaza. No Ya-boo there.

Cameron replied: We should do everything we can to make sure this doesn’t happen again. We should do everything we can through the UN to end the blockade. I count myself as a friend of Israel – it’s in their own interests to lift the blockade.

Harman then asked about prosecuting rape cases. She said that by making rape defendants anonymous it’ll be harder to convict, by reducing publicity which brings forward witnesses.

Cameron: I sat on the Select Committee which examined this. Came to the conclusion that between arrest and charge there is a case for anonymity – will bring forward proposals for debate in the House.

Harman pushes this one: By singling out rape in this way sends out a message that the alleged rape victim is not to be believed.

Cameron banged the dispatch box saying: We want to send more rapists to jail.

Harman said his response was disappointing. Then went on to the married tax allowance. How would this help the deficit?

Cameron: Unashamed supporter of the family. European countries recognize marriage in the tax system. Proposals will come forward. Christmas parties and parking bikes at work are recognized in the tax system – why not marriage? Eh?

Harman: How will this help the deficit control?

Cameron: One of the causes of spending is family breakdown. Will also recognize civil partnerships also.

Harman: £3 a week tax break will help keep families together he is saying. No wonder the Deputy Prime Minister is sitting quietly by his side. On this one I agree with Nick! (Nice one Hattie!)

Cameron then descended into a point scoring exercise which I didn’t follow.

A Liberal Democrat question! Sir Alan of the Beith. What means will be used to expand the private sector in places like the North East?

Cameron: No region should be singled out. Budget should bring forward ideas to fire up the private sector – e.g. N.I. not paid on first ten employees. The government is looking at ideas to help regions as we deal with the deficit.

A Labour member raised a very important point about school building in the wake of the free schools initiative. Cameron pointed out that the schools budget was protected in the recent cuts. He said: Our passion is to build schools for the future.

There was a good line from Cameron when he received rowdy disapproval for promising to come back with an answer. Then he said the good line: “Well it’s a funny thing, I’m going to give accurate answers rather than making them up on the spot”.

A line about “We’re all united in despising the Liberal Democrats” from a Labour MP received a big laugh but then the Speaker kiboshed the questioner for being off the given topic of Afghanistan. Oh, and Cameron was bated for wanting to scrap the Human Rights Act. Labour have obviously twigged that the name of the game is now to open up as many divisions in the coalition that they can.

In amongst all this there were some balls. Of the golf variety.

At least 35 Labour MPs and former Labour MPs have appealed against Sir Thomas’s findings, as well as 30 Conservatives, three Liberal Democrats and two independents. Among them are MPs who made some of the highest-profile claims exposed by the Telegraph investigation, including £1,645 for a duck house.

Sir Thomas’s 30-page report is thought to identify more than 300 MPs — nearly half of those in Parliament — whom he found to have made “improper” claims. The vast majority chose not to appeal against his decision.

The paper names the three Lib Dem MPs as Jeremy Browne – whose successful appeal to Sir Paul Kennedy the Voice reported here – and Sir Alan Beith and Lembit Opik.

Indeed, it looks like only the four knights of the realm from our original line-up will actually appear on the ballot papers today: Sir Alan Beith, Sir Alan Haslehurst, Sir George Young and Sir Patrick McCormack. Others who seem likely to stand are Margaret Beckett, John Bercow, Parmjit Danda, Sir Michael Lord, Richard Shepherd and Ann Widdecombe.

Of the so-called quality newspapers to declare their hand, The Guardian has plumped for Sir George Young, while The Times is supporting Ann Widdecombe. The Telegraph and Independent both decline to name a favourite.

So, over to you, LDV’s readers… Does the list of candidates inspire you? Whom would you choose if you were an MP with a vote? Would you line up solidly behind the solid, sole Lib Dem, Sir Alan Beith? Or would you cast partisanship to the winds and opt for one of the Labour or Tory candidates?

This time, though, matters are clearly different. The MySociety team has put together an excellent three-point manifesto, which Speaker candidates are being asked to back:

1. Voters have the right to know in detail about the money that is spent to support MPs and run Parliament, and in similar detail how the decisions to spend that money are settled upon.

2. Bills being considered must be published online in a much better way than they are now, as the Free Our Bills campaign has been suggesting for some time.

3. The Internet is not a threat to a renewal in our democracy, it is one of its best hopes. Parliament should appoint a senior officer with direct working experience of the power of the Internet who reports directly to the Speaker, and who will help Parliament adapt to a new era of transparency and effectiveness.

There’s certainly more to being a successful Speaker than those three points, but it’s hard to see how a Speaker who doesn’t push all three will end up being a success, particularly in the current political climate.

Several would-be Speakers have aleady committed in public to backing these pledges, though not all of them. (Good to see that, amongst others, both Alan Beith and Ming Campbell have backed them.) And that’s why I’ve written to my MP urging him only to support someone who has backed them. You can do so yourself too very easily by following the information and link on the MySociety page.

Ming Campbell:

What is needed is a Speaker who imposes their authority on the House of Commons, not their politics; a Speaker who will stand up for all MPs and when necessary stand up against the Government of the day; a Speaker who will not be intimidated.

The primary purpose of the House of Commons is to hold the Government to account. For too long the procedures of the House have been biased to ensure governments get their business through with minimal inconvenience. The new Speaker should make it clear that the existing rules will be interpreted to ensure scrutiny gets a much higher priority. If the present rules do not allow for that the Speaker should promote rules that do. The Today programme is no substitute for Parliament.

Alan Beith:

Prime Minister’s Questions is seen by many constituents as worse than a school playground. A new Speaker should get backbenchers and party leaders together to discuss how to make it work effectively and rationally. It has different functions, not all of which need to be dealt with through the same procedures: it enables MPs to raise issues affecting their constituents directly and publicly with the Prime Minister. It serves as a test of whether party leaders and the PM can carry the confidence of their own parties in the way they present their case. But as a mechanism for getting real answers to questions and challenging inadequate answers it is hopeless.

You can read their articles in full (together with John Bercow’s) HERE.

The Hansard Society will be holding a hustings meeting for potential candidates for the role of Speaker of the House of Commons. Potential candidates will have the opportunity to make a statement and answer questions both from MPs and those submitted by members of the public via the Hansard Society website.

We have invited potential candidates for the position of Speaker to participate. Since the position will still be fluid then, it is not our aim to be exclusive.  Confirmed participants in the Hansard Society Speaker Hustings thus far include:

• Alan Beith MP
• John Bercow MP
• Frank Field MP
• Sir Patrick Cormack MP

I like the touch about allowing questions from the public.

1.

LDV asked: Now that the Speaker of the House of Commons, Michael Martin, has resigned a handful of Liberal Democrat MPs have been suggested as the new Speaker. It has been argued the Lib Dems should steer clear of this non-party role – we have too few MPs to lose one of our most experienced parliamentarians. Others say the role of Speaker is vital to our democracy and that we should actively want a Lib Dem MP to take it on. What do you think?

Here’s what you told us:

>> 28% – It would be better for the party not to have a Lib Dem MP become the next Speaker.
>> 54% – It would be good thing if a Lib Dem MP were to become the next Speaker.
>> 18% – Don’t know / Other.

So, those Lib Dem MPs lined up to put their names forward have the approval of those party members who responded to our survey. Which brings us on to…

2.

And which of the following candidates who have been suggested as the next Speaker would you prefer to see elected to the role?

Here’s what you said (in descending order):

>> 31% – Sir Alan Beith
>> 16% – Don’t know / No opinion
>> 11% – Sir Menzies Campbell
>> 8% – Frank Field
>> 7% – Sir George Young
>> 6% – Norman Baker
>> 5% – Other
>> 4% – Tony Wright
>> 3% – Diane Abbott
>> 3% – Vince Cable
>> 2% – Richard Taylor
>> 2% – Sir Alan Haselhurst
>> 2% – Sir Patrick Cormack
>> 1% – Kate Hoey

Of those who mentioned ‘Other’, the following MPs’ names were mentioned: Lynne Featherstone, Austin Mitchell, Stephen Pound, Susan Kramer, Douglas Carswell, David Heath, John Bercow and Charles Kennedy.

Thanks to all of you who took part in the LDV MPs’ expenses survey: today’s was the final part. The comments submitted by those who completed the survey are in the process of being uploaded to LDV’s private members-only discussion forum.

Sir Alan Beith

The Telegraph’s story about Sir Alan relates to a rented flat in London he shares with his wife, former fellow Lib Dem MP (now a Lib Dem peer) Baroness (Diana) Maddock. You can read the story here. I assume the Telegraph is publishing now because Sir Alan is one of the early favourites to occupy the soon-to-be-vacant Speaker’s Chair.

The couple point out that they have tried to stick to the spirit and letter of the expenses rules by Sir Alan claiming only half the rent, and Baroness Maddock claiming only half her Lords allowance. She notes: “We have tried to claim half and half. I have always claimed half of what I could claim for and Alan only claims for half the rent. It isn’t an exact science. We tried to solve the rent issue by claiming for half in a system that isn’t perfect. We could have sat down and we could have worked out the half much more accurately perhaps, but we did our best. We have always been in favour of everything being out in the open.”

More to the point, at least as far as I’m concerned, this is a rented flat – so any improvements made will not benefit them financially, a stark contrast with some of the Telegraph’s genuinely serious allegations.

Jo Swinson

There seems (at least to my eyes) to be even less of a story here, as featured in the Express. Apparently some cosmetic items – for which Jo did not claim – appear on receipts alongside other items for which Jo has made expenses claims. This is all the excuse the Express needs to make the usual casually sexist swipes about Jo being “known at Westminster for the attention she pays to her appearance”. As Jo has long published her expenses in full on her website, I think we can safely file this story in the file marked ‘Desperate’.

The grand old man of Liberalism was given his due respect last month.

The phrase is generally applied to Gladstone but could almost be applied to Sir Alan Beith, the former deputy leader of the party, who was chosen to give the first annual Gladstone lecture.

Sir Alan, who is only 65, has just published his autobiography, marking 35 years as serving Liberal MP for Berwick. But if anyone expected an evening of reminiscence they were disappointed. Just like Gladstone – who retired from the premiership at the age of 84, Beith proved that a veteran politician can retain fire in his belly.

The aim of this new lecture series would seem to be to explore the historic relationship in this country between Christianity and Liberalism. It was organised by the Liberal Democrat Christian Forum and held in the National Liberal Club, ensuring that guests were steeped in images of the Grand Old Man (Gladstone) before taking their seats.

You can argue whether Gladstone shaped the Liberal Party – or the other way round – but Beith’s starting point was that, regardless, this was a politician of enormous stature, shaped by his faith. Too often Gladstone’s name has been hijacked as if he were a closet Tory, a prophet of the free market. In fact he was passionate about internationalism, about peace-making and about the rights of the oppressed. Ultimately he put his political career, and his party, on the line over the rights of the people of Ireland.

Beith’s premise, then, was that Liberalism and Christianity are not incompatible; he was he said “passionate” about his own beliefs and yet also passionate about the freedom and rights of others. Similarly, he argued, a liberal society should not be involved in suppressing expressions of faith or belief (such as Christmas).

This led to an interesting side-discussion on the role of the Church of England. Traditionally most Liberals have backed its disestablishment – and that included the non-conformists who backed Gladstone. Beith argued that the role of the church has changed within England since the 19th century – when it enjoyed enormous privileges – and that arguments for disestablishment now tend to be about purging Christianity and religion from playing any role within the State. For this reason, other Christian denominations and other religions now tended to favour the Anglican church retaining its leading role, he argued.

Sir Alan wants Christians and the churches to be involved in political life and sees cynicism as holding back many who could contribute. This is not about the churches arguing their corner or defending privileges but about offering a genuine challenge to ethics and morality within public life

Finally some discussion about the role of conscience in the life of an MP. Beith argued that conscience did not absolve an MP from supporting the hard decisions a party must take – but that there continue to be a range of issues where party whipping is inappropriate.

At a time when the membership of our party and the population of Britain is increasingly diverse, this was all a timely reminder of how politics must reconcile competing viewpoints. The history of the Liberal Democrats, along with the nature of liberalism, means the party could be taking the lead on such issues.

I’m looking forward to finding out who will deliver next year’s Gladstone lecture. It’s a chance to hear people who are often wrapped up in day-to-day politics taking time to be reflective – and a chance to consider the legacy of the Grand Old Man. There are some big outstanding questions to be addressed. For instance, although Liberalism and Christianity may not be incompatible, is there any natural attraction between the two creeds?

* Jon Hunt is a city councillor in Birmingham, where he speaks for the party on education, children’s services and public transport.

We’re promised that the book will include the Lib-Lab pact of the late 1970s, Paddy Ashdown’s years at the head of the party, and Sir Alan’s work overseeing the intelligence and security services over more than a decade.

It will also cover his experiences over 35 years as MP for England’s northernmost constituency, the philosophy of Liberalism and the need to make Parliament more effective.

RRP is £18.99 but you can pre-order from Amazon now for £12.53.

Senior Liberal Democrat MP Alan Beith has spoken of his delight at becoming a Knight.

The long-serving Berwick-upon-Tweed MP becomes Sir Alan in recognition of his services to Parliament.

A former deputy leader of the Lib Dems and its predecessor, the Liberal Party, Sir Alan, 65, was first elected to represent the Northumberland constituency in a by-election in 1973.