Twelve conference representatives
Mover: Paul Burstow
Summation: Cllr Richard Kemp

Conference believes that the NHS is an integral part of a liberal society, reflecting the social solidarity of shared access to collective healthcare, and a shared responsibility to use resources effectively to deliver better health.

Conference welcomes our Coalition Government's commitment to the founding principles of the NHS: available to all, free at the point of use, and based on need, not the ability to pay.

Conference welcomes much of the vision for the NHS set out in the Government's White Paper, Equity and Excellence: Liberating the NHS which commits the Government to an NHS that:

i) Is genuinely centred on patients and carers.

ii) Achieves quality and outcomes that are among the best in the world.

iii) Refuses to tolerate unsafe and substandard care.

iv) Puts clinicians in the driving seat and sets hospitals and providers free to innovate, with stronger incentives to adopt best practice.

v) Is more transparent, with clearer accountabilities for quality and results.

vi) Is more efficient and dynamic, with a radically smaller national, regional and local bureaucracy.

vii) Gives citizens a greater say in how the NHS is run.

Conference particularly welcomes the proposals to introduce real democratic legitimacy and local accountability into the NHS for the first time in almost forty years by:

a) Extending the powers of local authorities to enable effective scrutiny of any provider of any taxpayer funded health services.

b) Giving local authorities the role of leading on improving the strategic coordination of commissioning across the NHS, social care, and related childrens' and public health services through councillor led Health and Wellbeing Boards.

c) Creating Health Watch to act as a local consumer champion for patients and to ensure that local patients are heard on a national level.

d) Returning public health duty to local government by ensuring that the majority of public health services will now be commissioned by Local Authorities from their ring-fenced public health budget.

Conference recognises however that all of the above policies and aspirations can be achieved without adopting the damaging and unjustified market-based approach that is proposed.

Conference regrets that some of the proposed reforms have never been Liberal Democrat policy, did not feature in our manifesto or in the agreed Coalition Programme, which instead called for an end to large-scale top-down reorganisations.

Conference therefore calls on Liberal Democrats in Parliament to amend the Health Bill to provide for:

I) More democratically accountable commissioning.

II) A much greater degree of co-terminously between local authorities and commissioning areas.

III) No decision about the spending of NHS funds to be made in private and without proper consultation, as can take place by the proposed GP consortia.

IV) The complete ruling out of any competition based on price to prevent loss-leading corporate providers under-cutting NHS tariffs, and to ensure that healthcare providers 'compete' on quality of care.

V) New private providers to be allowed only where there is no risk of 'cherry picking' which would destabilise or undermine the existing NHS service relied upon for emergencies and complex cases, and where the needs of equity, research and training are met.

VI) NHS commissioning being retained as a public function in full compliance with the Human Rights Act and Freedom of Information laws, using the skills and experience of existing NHS staff rather than the sub-contracting of commissioning to private companies.

VII) The continued separation of the commissioning and provision of services to prevent conflicts of interests.

VIII) An NHS, responsive to patients' needs, based on co-operation rather than competition, and which promotes quality and equity not the market.

Conferences calls:

1. On the Government to uphold the NHS Constitution and publish an audit of how well organisations are living by its letter and spirit.

2. On Liberal Democrats in local government to establish local Health and Wellbeing Boards and make progress developing the new collaborative ways of working necessary to provide joined up services that are personalised and local.

3. The government to seize fully the opportunity to reverse the scandalous lack of accountability of publicly-funded local health services which has grown up under decades of Conservative and Labour governments, by:

a) Ensuring full scrutiny, including the power to require attendance, by elected local authorities of all organisations in the local health economy funded by public money, including Foundation Trusts and any external support for commissioning consortia; ensuring that all such organisations are subject to Freedom of Information requirements.

b) Ensuring Health and Wellbeing Boards (HWBs) are a strong voice for accountable local people in setting the strategic direction for and co-ordinating provision of health and social care services locally by containing substantial representation from elected local councillors; and by requiring GP Commissioning Boards to construct their Annual Plans in conjunction with the HWBs; to monitor their implementation at meetings with the HWBs not less than once each quarter; and to review the implementation of the Annual Plan with the HWBs at the end of the year prior to the construction of the Annual Plan for the forthcoming year.

c) Ensuring commissioning of health services has some degree of accountability by requiring about half of the members of the board of commissioning consortia, alongside GPs, to be local councillors appointed as non-executive directors.

d) Offering additional freedoms only to Foundation Trusts that successfully engage substantial proportions of their local populations as active members.

Applicability: England.

Eleven conference representatives
Mover: Mike Ward
Summation: Cllr Stephen Cooksey

Conference regrets the recent decision to remove the mobility component of the new Personal Independence Payment (replacing Disability Living Allowance) from people in residential care and from children in residential schools with effect from October 2012.

Conference notes that:

a) The impact of this decision is that approximately 80,000 people are at risk of losing this support and that many of these people will be prevented from enjoying the freedom of movement that is taken for granted by people who are not disabled.

b) The impact of the withdrawal of this benefit will be particularly severe for adults who depend on the Personal Expenses Allowance of £22.30 per week because all their income is taken to pay for their care and that as the PEA has to cover all personal spending including clothes, toiletries and mobile phones, there is normally no spare money to pay for transport.

c) The outcome of the cut for adults is not in accord with the principle of fairness because it affects the poorest recipients and allows those people who pay for their own care to retain the Mobility Component.

d) Children in residential schools may be unable to engage with the wider community or experience the same opportunities to develop independence and life skills as their non-disabled peers and may be prevented from enjoying family visits.

e) These changes may amount to a breach of the UK's obligations under Human Rights Conventions.

Conference therefore:

1. Calls on the Coalition Government to reinstate the Mobility Component or otherwise fund the mobility needs of those who cannot afford to do so themselves.

2. Reminds the Coalition Government of its obligations under Human Rights Conventions namely Article 20 (Personal Mobility) of the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities and the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child Article 31.

3. Re-affirms the party's commitment to the principle of fairness in implementing all cuts.

4. Resolves to campaign for this restriction in Mobility Allowance to be reversed at the earliest possible opportunity.

Federal Conference Comittee has agreed to accept the following drafting changes into the text of the motion:

In line 1, delete: 'regrets the recent decision to remove', and insert: 'is very concerned by the
recent proposals to reduce'.

After line 3 insert:
Conference welcomes the Coalition Government's review of the previously announced intention to
remove the Mobility Component of DLA for people in residential care. Conference notes the work
being undertaken by the Department for Work and Pensions to determine the extent of any overlap
between DLA support and support via Local Authorities for those in residential care, and whether
this justifies reducing or removing the mobility component of this important allowance.

Amendment One
10 conference representatives
Mover: Lord German
Summation: Susan Gaszczak

Delete a) (lines 5-7) and insert:
a) The impact of completely removing or reducing the Mobility Component from people in
residential care would be that up to approximately 80,000 people would be at risk of losing
this support, and that many of these people could be prevented from enjoying the freedom of
movement that is taken for granted by people who are not disabled.
In b) (line 8), delete: 'will', and insert: 'would'.
Delete c) (lines 12-14), and insert:
c) Completely removing or reducing the Mobility Component of DLA for those in residential care
could significantly affect the poorest recipients.
In d) (line 15), delete: 'Children in residential schools may be', and insert: 'Reducing or removing
the DLA Mobility Component may mean that children in residential schools are'.
After d) (line 7), insert:
e) Any government proposal on the Mobility Component of DLA should accord with the principle
of fairness.
Delete 1 (lines 21-22), and insert:
1. Calls on the Coalition Government not to remove the Mobility Component completely and to
ensure sufficient funding for the mobility needs of those who cannot afford to fund their needs
themselves.
After 1 (line 22), insert:
2. Calls on the Coalition Government to ensure that any reductions to the Mobility Component
are based on clear evidence that the cost of that support is provided via other funding
means.
In 4 (line 27), delete: 'for this restriction in Mobility Allowance to be reversed at the earliest
opportunity', and insert: 'against a restriction to mobility support'.

Applicability: Federal.

Federal Policy Committee
Mover: James Lindsay
Summation: Baroness Barker (Chair of the Policy Working Group)

Conference believes that:

i) Community and voluntary organisations, by virtue of their independence, are a powerful means by which citizens can shape and change society. They unite people who are passionate about particular causes and in doing so they not only foster a sense of community and empower people to challenge the state and large corporations, but also counteract the disconnection and atomisation of today's society.

ii) A vibrant, independent community and voluntary sector, working alongside government and the private sector, enriches social, environmental and economic well-being. Government, national and local, must support the development and modernisation of voluntary organisations and social enterprises to inspire the next generation of active citizens.

Conference therefore endorses policy paper 98, Community Futures, and shares its vision of a future in which strong, independent voluntary and citizen-led community organisations, working in partnership with national and local government and the private sector, build safe, sustainable communities in which individuals and communities thrive. Conference in particular welcomes the proposals to:

1. Capitalise on the wealth of experience in the voluntary sector and build vibrant community organisations which engage the next generation through:

a) Supporting modernisation programmes designed to enable voluntary organisations to update their infrastructure, IT and business development skills and social networking skills.

b) Simplifying regulation for charities, for example by standardising information reporting requirements and making the Charity Commission the sole regulator for both incorporated and unincorporated charities.

2. Enhance the capacity of charities and social enterprises though:

a) Encouraging the Charity Commission to develop joint programmes with other infrastructure organisations to ensure that all charities have access to good practice.

b) Working with the Small Charities Coalition, the National Association for Voluntary and Community Action, and local authorities to improve support to local community organisations and volunteers in statutory organisations such as school governors.

c) Negotiating a UK-wide insurance package, available from major insurers, to provide comprehensive coverage for the vast majority of volunteering, local activity and celebrations.

3 Assist companies and voluntary organisations to design, set and maintain standards of good ethical, environmental and social practice through:

a) Supporting a pilot programme to modernise Corporate Social Responsibility by developing a network of Professional Services Working Groups across the country, so that voluntary organisations have access to services such as lawyers, accountants and architects.

b) Working with a range of organisations to develop a new Community Benefit Index in which companies are encouraged to maximise their 'community footprint'.

4 Support the role played by voluntary and community organisations in convincing policy makers and the public of the need to adopt sustainable policies and technologies through:

a) Encouraging local authorities to provide advice and resources to schools, residents and tenants associations and other community groups to enable them to take an active role in managing open spaces to make them as attractive as possible for people and wildlife.

b) Working with environmental NGOs to promote individual and community actions which take forward the green agenda in practical ways.

5 Help voluntary organisations to compete for public service contracts on equal terms with statutory and private sector providers through:

a) Reviewing the implementation of the European Commission Directive 2004/18/EC to ensure that small charities are not being unfairly excluded and that the rules are being implemented with the flexibility which member states are entitled to determine.

b) Encouraging the development of public sector contracts which require bidders to demonstrate how they will develop social capital.

c) Ensuring that public services are delivered without unjustified discrimination against service-users or employees, by amending equalities legislation to narrow the exemption granted to organisations with a religious ethos , and in the interim requiring public sector commissioners to include non-discrimination clauses in their contracts with providers.

6 Encourage a range of different forms of charitable giving, and make it easier for charities to raise and earn income, through:

a) Setting up a series of initiatives, in partnership with the private sector, to promote digital giving.

b) Modernising Gift Aid, by enabling online declarations and reclaims.

7 Promote social investment through:

a) Piloting programmes under which local authorities could act as guarantors for new local investment instruments, up to a specified limit.

b) Establishing, in partnership with private investors, a high risk investment fund to enable innovative projects with the potential to transform the voluntary and community sector to be supported through early stage research and development.

c) Reviewing the legislation which governs programme related investment so that foundations would be able to invest in social good rather than always investing for return.

d) Encouraging a much larger community banking and community development finance institution sector, funded - as it is in the USA - by the big banks in lieu of the loans which they find it difficult to make to small business and social enterprises themselves.

8. Encourage volunteering as a welcome addition to, rather than a substitute for, statutory service provision, and to increase active citizenship through:

a) Engaging young people in designing new systems to incentives volunteering.

b) Commissioning research into volunteering programmes to be run by small and medium enterprises.

c) Encouraging a major increase in voluntary activity through public services, so that service units like schools, surgeries or housing estates also become volunteering hubs and catalysts, capable of using the resources that their users represent to reach out and rebuild local neighbourhood life and mutual support.


Applicability: Federal, except 1 b) and 2 a) (lines 21-23 and 25-26) which are England and Wales, and 1 a), 2 b), 4 a), 5 b), 7 a), 7 b), 8 a), and 8 c) (lines 18-20, 27-29, 43-46, 54-55, 66-70, 79 and 82-85) which are England only.

Applicability of some points varies depending on the public service affected.

"The NHS is a national treasure. It's one of the few health services in the world where everyone is guaranteed free treatment whenever they need it. It's been well documented that the Commonwealth Fund recently rated healthcare in the UK as the most equitable of several OECD countries. It's why so many people are concerned that the health and social care bill will create a US-style health system, where a family can be forced to take out a loan against their house to pay for a bill of $180,000 after their nine-month-old son spent 18 days in hospital being treated for a brain aneurysm.

The NHS will always be there for everyone, free of charge. That will never change. Our goal is simple: to update the NHS to give every patient the best possible care by trusting family doctors to work with local people to decide, design and deliver the right health services to meet local need and deliver world-class healthcare."

Commenting on the announcement, Co-Chair of the Liberal Democrat Parliamentary Committee for Education, Young People and Families in the Commons, Dan Rogerson, said:

"Many parents with children who need a little extra help to flourish feel let down by the current system. A maze of assessments and a mountain of paper stand between them and getting their child the support parents feel they need.

"Thanks to Sarah Teather's hard work and the Department of Health's invaluable assistance and commitment to the reforms, this Green Paper takes forward the Liberal Democrat determination to put families at the centre of our approach to special educational needs through joining up services and having them work together to achieve the best outcomes.

"By identifying problems early and acting immediately the new approach will allow children to be independent and successful in their chosen futures."

Commenting further, Co-Chair of the Liberal Democrat Committee for Education, Young People and Families in the Lords, Baroness (Joan) Walmsley, said:

"The reforms proposed are not another top-down imposition of government on families who need support.

"Thanks to the thousands of submission from parents, teachers and young people who have been part of the system, these proposals are based on how people experience the system and on what they told the Government they needed to achieve their goals and ambitions. This will give parents much needed confidence in the system.

"The opportunity for the third sector to get involved will give further confidence in the independence of the assessment process."

Commenting on the publication of guidelines by the Office for Fair Access outlining what universities need to do to charge fees of more than £6,000, Advocate for Access to Education and Liberal Democrat Deputy Leader, Simon Hughes said:

"I am pleased that Martin Harris, the Director of Fair Access, has made clear today that he will ensure all English universities are accessible to the widest possible group of potential students.

"Under the guidance set by the Office for Fair Access, universities which currently perform less well in broadening participation will have to make the greatest effort to open their doors more widely.

"Martin Harris is also unequivocal that universities which do not do more on access will not be able to charge fees above £6,000. This sends a clear message to all universities that they now need to perform."

The cross-Government action plan on climate change sets out strict actions and deadlines for Whitehall to live up to its green ambitions, meet tough domestic carbon targets and encourage greater action internationally.

In his pamphlet "Getting your share of the banks" Stephen Williams argues that the mass distribution of stakes in the banks is the fairest way of giving taxpayers a share of the rewards while ensuring the Treasury returns its investment.

Commenting, Stephen Williams said: "There is danger that when the banks return to the private sector, it is business as usual. There is a general feeling in this country that we need to get something positive in return for the bailout.

"HM Treasury needs to recover the approximately £66 billion it spent bailing out the two banks. There is a general feeling in the country that we need to get something positive in return for the bail out.

"This pamphlet puts forward an idea for giving us all a stake in the banks, for HM Treasury to clear its debt and restore public confidence in the state owned financial institutions."

Check Against Delivery

Today I want to talk about the UK as an open, confident society. It is by being confident - confident in ourselves, in our communities, and in our values - that we can remain an open, liberal nation.

I am pleased to be delivering this speech in Luton. Luton has had to endure being associated in the national consciousness with some very grim imagery indeed. The ugly public posturing of Al Muhajiroun and the English Defence League. Memories of the train station where the 7/7 bombers boarded a train for London, before detonating horror in our capital.

But I hope today to draw attention to a different Luton; Luton as the home of some of the most vibrant campaigns against racism, extremism and Islamophobia.

In particular I would like to thank the members of the Luton Commission on Community Cohesion, which is a superb example of the way in which a community can work together. The town has remained true to its original vision of 'sticking together', working across age, religious and ethnic boundaries to promote a tolerant, strong, vibrant community. That is why I think Luton is the perfect place to set out my vision for an open, confident Britain.

It is quite clear that this vision faces serious challenges. Most obviously, the grave threat of home-grown terrorism. One of the most important tasks for the Coalition Government is to guard against this danger. But we also face the potential rise of racist groups like the BNP - not only on the streets but in our democratic system too. The Prime Minister has recently argued that we need to assert confidently our liberal values. I agree. Politicians have a huge responsibility to lead by example, and engage in the often difficult arguments around immigration, multiculturalism and liberty. That is why I think the PM was absolutely right to make his argument for 'muscular liberalism'.

I also think the Prime Minister was right to make a sharp distinction between religious belief and political ideology. Religious devotion is completely separate from violent extremism. The overwhelming majority of devout people of all faiths reject violence and terrorism. There is some evidence that those Muslims who do turn to violence have a shallower understanding of Islam than Muslims who may have radical views, but reject violence.

The enemies of liberty are those people who have closed their minds, closed off the possibility that there may be other valid ways to live, other than their own. They believe they have discovered the prescription for how to live - which everyone should follow. Closed minds can lead to closed communities, to extremism, and in some cases to violence.

There are nationalistic or racist extremists, like the members of the English Defence League, or the BNP. There are black extremists like the Nation of Islam. There are Muslim extremists like the members of Islam 4 UK. Very often these groups have a symbiotic relationship with each other, maintained by the media: extremist Muslim groups giving birth to extremist white hate groups, and vice versa.

My point is this. We need a perfect symmetry in our response to crime and violent extremism. Bigots are bigots, whatever the colour of their skin. Criminals are criminals, whatever their political beliefs. Terrorists are terrorists, whatever their religion.

This means that those of us who want to live in a liberal society must confront hateful views and practices regardless of who expresses them. The Government is committed to tackling hate crimes against any group - gay people, Jews, women, black people or Muslims.

Let me say something here about the specific issue of Islam and violent extremism. There is a corrosive tendency, not least in some parts of the media, to confuse the tenets of Islam with the actions of terrorists.

As my colleague in the Coalition Government, Sayeeda Warsi has argued: 'a worrying argument that forms the basis for justifying Islamophobia and anti-Muslim hatred is the idea that Islam is a particularly violent creed."

The core liberal values - freedom of speech and worship, democracy, the rule of law, and equal rights regardless of sex, race and sexuality - are as compatible with Islam as with any other religion.

It is better to be a citizen of present-day Turkey - a Muslim majority country - than in one of the Communist-era countries that crushed both these values and religious life in equal measure.

Of course, there are issues that many Muslims in this country feel strongly about: issues like Palestine, Iraq, Kashmir and Guantanamo Bay. I understand these concerns. And the Government takes them very seriously indeed.

But let us be absolutely clear. No matter what criticism anyone has of British foreign policy, the way to express that criticism is through the ballot box, by raising your concerns with your MP, and by taking a public stand - never, ever, by violence.

I would also like to pay tribute today to Shahbaz Bhatti, the Pakistani Minister for Minorities, who was murdered by violent extremists in Islamabad yesterday. Mr Bhatti was fearless in his pursuit of tolerance, and liberty, continuing to argue for freedom of religious expression even though he knew this would put his life in danger. A reminder, if one were needed, that liberty can extract a much higher price than most of us are likely to pay.

We need to deepen our understanding of the roots of violent extremism. It is a difficult task. In a moment I will address the interaction of individual, community and ideological influences. But I want to deal first with the specific question of economic insecurity.

As I have said, openness and confidence go hand in hand: remaining open to different cultures and attitudes is easier for people, communities and nations that are confident of their own position.

This means that fear and insecurity are among the most dangerous enemies of openness and liberalism.

There is also no question that insecurity - whether economic or social - creates more fertile ground for violent extremism. During these challenging economic times, we will have to work even harder to fight violent extremism in all its forms.

Recent research by the Searchlight Educational Trust on attitudes towards immigration and multiculturalism shows that there is a minority at both ends of the scale with either straightforwardly positive or negative views about immigration and multiculturalism.

But in the middle are groups who are either culturally fairly conservative or who are concerned mainly with the economic implications of immigration. This last group - labelled 'identity ambivalents' by Searchlight - is the most worrying in the current climate. Economic difficulty could tip some of them into the negative camp.

At this point, the question becomes one of economic judgement. I strongly believe that acting decisively on the deficit is the surest way to restore economic confidence, relieve people of the burden of debt and put the country back on track. Delay will carry more cost, and more risk, than decisive action. Prevarication on the deficit will worsen economic insecurity, not alleviate it.

But a turn to violent extremism cannot be explained simply in economic terms. There are much deeper and more complex forces at work. The scholar Louise Richardson describes the causes of terrorism as 'a lethal cocktail containing a disaffected individual, an enabling community and a legitimizing ideology'.

This is right. And it means that our response to violent extremism has to engage at all of these levels, too. So an open, confident society is made up of free, responsible individuals; strong, resilient communities; and a muscular, liberal ideology.

At all three levels - individual, community and society-wide - it is vital to pursue 'smart engagement'. This means calibrating Government action in the following ways:

- targeting resources in a way that clearly promotes liberal objectives
- maintaining a clear distinction between social policy and security policy
- distinguishing between violent and non-violent extremism
- supporting free speech, but taking the argument to the bigots; and
- implacably confronting violent extremism

Let me start with the rights and responsibilities of individuals. In an open, liberal society, individuals are free to live in the manner of their choosing, so long as they do not harm others.

And in today's world, individual identity is much more fluid. With advancements in communications technology, more freedom of movement and greater economic interdependence between nations, there is a much wider palette from which identities can be drawn. The increasing complexity of questions of identity makes it even more important to balance individual liberty and collective responsibility.

Freedom for individuals is one of the core values of the Coalition Government. That is why we have ended the injustice of 28-day detention without trial; why we have crushed the ID database; why we are ending the house arrest of Labour's Control Orders; why we are giving people not charged of crimes the right to get their DNA off police databases; and why we are curtailing arbitrary powers of police to 'stop and search'.

We are, in short, rebalancing the relationship between the state and the individual citizen. But we are clear that individuals need to take responsibility, too. Freedom not only comes hand in hand with responsibility, it requires it. As the liberal leader Jo Grimond said: 'Freedom entails the acceptance of responsibility. Responsibility is meaningless without freedom."

So while we will support the freedoms and human rights of individuals, we also insist that individuals meet their obligations towards wider society, and take their share of responsibility for the maintenance of liberal societies.

And while we have an unquenchable commitment to individual liberty, we have an equal commitment to safety and security - and I think the results of our recent counter-terrorism review struck the right balance.

Of course individuals do not live in a vacuum. We must always recognise that we are, in Bikhu Parekh's words, "a community of citizens and a community of communities".

The role of peers and communities in acting against or cultivating violence is clear. So we need an approach that empowers individuals - but builds communities too.

The former Foreign Secretary, David Miliband, said earlier this week that "we need to build the resilience of local communities to reject the politics of hatred." I agree with him.

That is why this government is working so hard to help build stronger communities. At times, national security considerations will still require national action. But unlike the previous Government, we do not believe that strong communities are built from Whitehall. That's why we have removed the ring fences around Local Authority budgets, allowing for local discretion; why we are introducing elected police commissioners so that policy can be locally accountable; why we are, through community budgets, giving power to localities to determine their own priorities; and why we are putting public health in the hands of local authorities. Strong communities are communities with more power over their own destiny.

But it is also crucially important to maintain a clear distinction between initiatives aimed at combating extremism and those focused on the broader task of community cohesion. The last Government's conflation of social policy and security policy was damaging. It resulted in Muslim communities feeling stigmatised, and money being wasted.

That is why the Government is currently reviewing the Prevent programme, to ensure that money to curb violent extremism is targeted in the right way, and on the right groups. By treating Muslim communities and organisations as homogenous lumps to be variously hectored, preached at, showered with praise and money, or ignored, the previous Government created negative perceptions among British Muslims and non-Muslims alike.

We should ensure that public funds do not support any organisations promoting violence. We must engage with religious organisations in a smart way focusing our attention on those that support our essential liberal values.

We will also challenge extremism across the board, ending the previous Government's exclusive and unhelpful focus on Islam. It does not matter if you are a far-right extremist, someone who perverts a religious faith, or someone who uses violence in support of other ideological ends - we will challenge you, take you on and defeat you.

The third battleground against violent extremism is at the level of ideas, values and ideology. The dangerous ideas that underpin violent extremism must never be allowed to go unchallenged.

That is why I thought the PM's argument in favour of 'muscular liberalism' was absolutely right. Liberalism is not a passive, inert approach to politics. It requires engagement, assertion. Muscular liberals flex their muscles in open argument. There is nothing relativist about liberalism.

If we are truly confident about the strength of our liberal values we should be confident about their ability to defeat the inferior arguments of our opponents.

Smart engagement means engaging in argument at public events, where appropriate and at the right level. Of course these are always difficult decisions to make. But to take one example, the Global Peace and Unity conference attracts around fifty thousand British Muslims each year and is an important opportunity to engage in argument - and so Andrew Stunell, the Government's Communities Minister did this year. Simon Hughes, the Liberal Democrat Deputy Leader, also spoke at the event.

Now there may well have been a small minority of organisations and individuals at that event with deeply unpalatable, illiberal views.

But you don't win a fight by leaving the ring. You get in and win. The overwhelming majority of the people attending this conference are active, engaged and law-abiding citizens. We don't win people to liberal ideals by giving ourselves a leave of absence from the argument.

Equally, smart engagement means being extremely careful about decisions to proscribe individual organisations. There are occasions when that is the right course of action. I have to say that, for me, agreeing to the proscription of the Pakistani Taliban was a straightforward decision.

But proscription must always be a last resort, never a knee-jerk reflex. That is why the Pakistani Taliban is the only organisation we have proscribed since entering Government. And that is why, consistent with our agenda for smart engagement and as part of the Government's review of Counter Terrorism powers, we decided against increasing the government's powers to proscribe.

Because of the requirement to engage in argument, liberal democracy means hard work. Open, liberal societies are not self-creating, or self-maintaining. Democracy, free speech and human rights have to be won - and tragically, often paid for in blood. We need only look to North Africa to see proof of that.

Once established, liberal societies still need to be renewed and re-established, generation after generation. It has been said that the price of liberty is eternal vigilance. But it is also eternal labour - working to maintain the culture and institutions of liberal democracy.

Liberal societies do not expect everyone to live in the same way, or believe in the same things; conformity can crush liberty. But in liberal societies, all of us must defend the freedoms of others, in exchange for freedom for ourselves. In an open society, values compete but do not conflict.

This is the background against which we have to consider the issues of multiculturalism. We have to be clear what we mean here. Where multiculturalism is held to mean more segregation, other communities leading parallel lives, it is clearly wrong. For me, multiculturalism has to seen as a process by which people respect and communicate with each other, rather than build walls between each other. Welcoming diversity but resisting division: that's the kind of multiculturalism of an open, confident society.

And the cultures in a multicultural society are not just ethnic or religious. Many of the cultural issues of the day cut right across these boundaries: gay rights; the role of women; identities across national borders; differing attitudes to marriage; the list goes on. Cultural disagreements are much more complex than much of the debate implies. If you will forgive the phrase, they are not quite so black and white.

So: smart engagement in defence of an open society. An unending determination to keep doing the hard work of maintaining our liberal society at home. Encouraging the birth and growth of liberal societies abroad. Smart engagement, appropriate and proportionate, to take on extremist ideas, alongside a ruthless determination to find and punish those who promote or take to violence.

Maintaining a liberal, open nation also demands a fierce allegiance to shared values. The values of liberal citizenship. The values of responsibility, tolerance and openness.

In the end, these values are the only weapons that can defeat the terrorists and hate-mongers, at home and abroad.

Violent extremists of all kinds are the enemies of open societies. We will wage an unceasing battle against them. And we will win.

Thank you.