Make it Happen debate - Simon Hughes addresses Liberal Democrats' autumn conference

Speech by Simon Hughes on Mon 15th Sep 2008

Let me make clear at the outset that I am summing up not as Party President, not as a surrogate for the leader but as a member of the Federal Policy committee and on behalf of the Federal Policy Committee.

Let us first look at the motion - sorry to be boring, but this is very important. The motion makes clear we need real change.

Second the motion says that the core purpose of our party in government will be to create a fair society.

The motion then sets out four policy priorities but not in a priority order.

1. Standing up for British freedoms.

2. Fair elections in which every vote counts.

3. A non-nuclear future with clean energy and quality public transport.

4. And a change in the tax and spend priorities of Britain.

The motion welcomes the document as a statement of our vision and values and most importantly - look at line 22 - not as the final word but as the basis for developing both the next general election manifesto and campaign messages for the remainder of this parliament.

The amendment from my good friends and colleagues Paul Holmes and Evan Harris and others specifically deals with public expenditure, and investment, and charges and tax.

Let me immediately then turn to the part of 'Make It Happen' which deals with these issues.

It asks the question: "Why is it so hard to make ends meet these days?" And among our responses highlighted is "we'll cut taxes for ordinary families".

Answer: The government have spent more and more taxpayers money but still they fail the people who are most hard up.

Our response to that, I repeat, is to propose polices which deliver fairer outcomes, get that central government spending which is wasteful under control and give the economy a boost by cutting taxes at the bottom.

Friends, we, the public and the media must now be clear about what we have finally decided and what we are yet to decide.

Our party at our conference last year decided, in a revenue-neutral financial policy package, to support a 4p cut in the basic rate of income tax from twenty pence in the pound to sixteen pence in the pound for every basic rate tax payer. This has the result that the vast majority of people would pay a lower rate of income tax overall.

We also agreed eleven other specific tax changes to make for a fairer Britain.

But I do not believe that we have so far clearly got out the message that people and families on low and average incomes would be immediately and directly better off under our plans than under Labour or the Conservatives.

And we will end the loopholes exploited by the rich.

In a country where the bottom twenty percent of households pay a higher proportion of their income in taxes than the top twenty percent Labour and the Conservatives have completely failed to come forward with any comprehensive proposals to make the rich pay their fair share.

So before we make any further decisions we must be clear that we should be campaigning up and down the land for a fair Britain and a fair tax Britain - where the less well have their taxes cut, and the very well off pay more.

Colleagues, the Federal Policy Committee, the parliamentary party and the shadow cabinet are currently engaged in seeing where we can make savings. They are considering all arguments for further specific expenditure to reduce inequalities and promote social justice in Britain. I am sure they will include areas identified in the amendment. We can all think of others.

From my day to day work in Bermondsey in inner city London I know like Paul knows in Chesterfield and Evan in Oxford and Abingdon and all of you across the country, that the public need extra investment but many people are also desperate for help in making ends meet.

And I mean desperate. In debt up to the hilt.

We are right to propose our tax switches from the poor to rich and on pollution, but we are right to have in our minds that we would like to go further, and in my book we are right to see if we can go further to lift the burden from those at the bottom end of the income scale and be much tougher in ensuring that the super-rich start paying their dues in this country in which they've done so well.

We must go on planning and working and campaigning to narrow gap between the rich and poor.

The substantive difference between the amendment and the motion is that the movers of the amendment want us today to prioritise our public expenditure and tax commitments.

The Federal Policy Committee wants conference to keep the flexibility to make manifesto decisions at the latest stage before the next general election.

Nick believes we should do this. Vince advises we should do this.

We are right to propose our tax switches from ordinary people to the super-rich, and in my book, we are right to see if we can go further to lift the burden from the bottom up.

As Chris Huhne argued, this would not be the correct policy for earlier times. But, in 2008, people's lives and the political scene are fundamentally different from even 12 months ago.

Of course we must always keep to our principles and honour our pedigree as the social liberal successors of Lloyd George and Beveridge. That is where I come from and that is where the party comes from.

The letter circulated from Duncan, Richard, Evan and Paul asks if it is sensible to commit ourselves at this stage to even larger tax cuts. The answer is no.

They ask if we are 100% certain that we don't need those resources to fund other policies. The answer, honestly, at this stage is also no.

They ask whether we want to remove some of the most positive reasons for people to vote for us. The answer is of course no again. Lastly they ask whether we should leave ourselves room to discuss whether other needs should take priority over further tax cuts. The answer to this is an unqualified yes.

But to be relevant and to address the concerns of now we can and must be ready to adapt our priorities to meet changing needs and changing times.

It would be wrong to tie our hands on tax and spending at this stage when an election may yet be eighteen months away.

This conference must retain the right to make these decisions at a later date.

But Make It Happen says: If you are very rich you will pay more. If you are not rich you will pay less.

We must not change this message.

It is a progressive, liberal and distinctive message.

We must continue to take it to the British people more loudly and more clearly - and make it clear to them that we stand on their side.

Conference, please support the motion unamended.