Chris Huhne will say:

One abiding set of values that all Liberal Democrats share is a respect for our environment, natural systems and sustainability.

With this conference's backing, we will hold course to be the greenest government ever.

No more, no less.

But are we still on course?

Well, I can hardly pick up a Tory paper these days without a whinge about energy and climate change policies.

It's been nip and tuck between Vince and me in recent months to win an unpopularity poll - that's on Conservativehome among Tory activists.

So as we assert Lib Dem values within government, we must be doing something right - or is it Left?

Personally, I have no doubt that climate change is one of the greatest challenges we face.

But if you are facing a pay squeeze or even worse a lost job, if your pay packet no longer buys what you need, people understandably put other priorities higher up the scale.

As always during hard times, every other issue pales into insignificance besides the big issues of earning your living.

Keeping your job.

Making ends meet.

But cutting carbon is not a luxury to be ditched when the going gets tough.

It is essential to the survival of mankind as a species.

The science is ever more clear.

Cutting carbon is also a vital part of our recovery from the deepest recession since 1929.

Then we had David Lloyd George's Yellow Book: now we have Green Growth.

In the thirties, we did not create new jobs by bringing back the textiles, coal and iron jobs that were lost.

We created new jobs in new industries.

And the same is happening today.

Every month, more than 300,000 people leave the unemployment register to find new jobs.

Thousands of those jobs are now in the low carbon economy. It is our route to recovery. Green business is good business.

There are now a million jobs in low carbon goods and services in Britain, and they are growing rapidly.

New jobs in cars, where Nissan will produce the all-electric Leaf at Sunderland with a £5,000 premium for each car from our government.

New jobs in energy saving, where our Green Deal, launched next October, is set to create 250,000 jobs across the nation, up from 27,000 now.

With the Green Deal, we are stopping the scandal where we use more energy to heat our homes than in Sweden, despite their icy winters.

Saving money that can be spent at home on British jobs, not foreign gas.

And I am proud to announce that our party is putting our principles into practice.

Every single Liberal Democrat council has now signed up to pioneer the Green Deal.

New jobs too in renewable energy, where we are determined to be the fastest improving pupil in class - having started from being 25th out of the 27 EU member states.

Onshore wind farms that are now the cheapest form of renewable electricity.

Offshore wind farms that are setting the standard for the world.

New jobs in heating, where our Renewable Heat Incentive is a world-beating first.

Saving power by drawing heat from the air and the ground.

And from our woodland, where we use only a tenth of the sustainable timber we could produce.

New jobs in nuclear too, without a penny of public subsidy.

And providing that we stick to the strictest safety standards in the world, and learn the lessons of Fukushima.

And new jobs in coal and gas plants, as we provide them with a long-term future through capturing and storing their carbon.

All told, energy investment will be £200 billion in the next ten years, double the normal amount as we replace Britain's ageing power stations.

Our Electricity Market Reforms will mean three quarters of our electricity comes from low carbon sources by 2030.

Funded in part by the world's first Green Investment Bank.

When people ask where is the demand coming from to power the economic recovery, tell them its clean energy.

It's energy saving.

It's low carbon transport.

It's the new green industrial revolution.

Now, some people argue that we should not be pushing low carbon business, because no-one else is.

Nonsense.

Look at China, with six of the biggest renewable companies in the world.

Installing wind turbines across the South China Sea.

Building 28 nuclear power stations in the time it will take us to build one.

Building 10,000 miles of high speed rail in the time we will take to go from London to Birmingham.

Covering 40 per cent of the Chinese population with low carbon economy zones.

If that's doing nothing, then climate sceptics have a weird idea of zero.

The real risk is not doing too much.

It is doing too little.

And getting left behind.

Other people argue that we cannot afford to boost the low carbon economy.

It would be cheaper, they say, to rely only on oil and gas.

To say it is to laugh at it.

World gas - and hence electricity - prices have leapt by a third thanks to Libya and far eastern growth.

Global factors.

So we should surely try to limit our dependence on oil and gas, not increase it.

Particularly as our own North Sea resources are running down.

In the storm-tossed seas we have to sail, low carbon energy gives us security.

Assurance.

Safety.

British energy consumers will on average be better off in 2020 thanks to our low carbon policies. Yes, I said better off.

Getting off the oil and gas price hook and onto clean, green energy makes sense.

And with energy saving, we can offset the effects of higher prices and end up with lower bills.

In one generation, we will go from fossil fuel smokestack to low carbon cash back.

But there is hardship now, and we are determined to help.

Higher energy bills hurt.

None of us should have to save on warmth in a cold winter.

Some of the most vulnerable and elderly will shiver - and worse- if we do not help.

That is why this Government is boosting by two-thirds the discounts to help people in fuel poverty.

Why our Warm Homes Discount is a statutory scheme, not a grace and favour handout relying on energy companies' good will.

That is also why this Government will make those in fuel poverty a top priority for the Green Deal, helped by our ECO subsidy.

Improving people's homes cuts fuel poverty forever, while a discount only cuts fuel poverty for a year.

Year after year, fuel poverty rose under Labour.

Now we are helping the poor where Labour flannelled.

We are acting where Labour talked.

We are delivering where Labour failed.

But it is not just the fuel poor who need help.

Today I can announce a new package to help the hard-pressed consumer this winter and every winter.

We are determined to get tough with the big six energy companies to ensure that the consumer gets the best possible deal.

We want simpler tariffs.

Requiring energy companies to tell you whether you could buy more cheaply on another tariff.

And you can save real money.

Ofgem, the independent regulator, calculates that the average household could save £200 by switching to the lowest cost supplier - but fewer than one in seven households do so.

Britain privatised the energy companies, but most consumers never noticed.
Contrary to the Times' report, I neither said nor meant that this was laziness.
It is just that consumers still think that they face the same bill whoever they go to.

So I want to help households save money.

With simpler charging.

Clearer bills.

Quicker switching.

I also want more consumer-friendly firms - co-ops, partnerships, consumer charities - dedicated to doing the shopping around for consumers to make sure that you are always on the best deal, even if you do not have time to check yourself.

Ofgem should also have new powers to secure redress for consumers - money back for bad behaviour.

Ofgem is already stamping out bad doorstep practices that lead to energy mis-selling, with the guilty companies suffering swingeing fines.

And we will stop the energy companies from blocking action by Ofgem, which can delay matters by a year.

I remember when I was on the board of Which? the Consumers' Association that the best guarantee of a good deal is more competition for your pound.

We want to encourage new small companies to come into the market.

Cutting red tape so they can grow bigger.

Making it easier for them to buy and sell electricity in the wholesale market.

And with Ofgem, we are cracking down on any bad practice that could smack of being anti-competitive.

It's not fair that big energy companies can push their prices up for the vast majority of their consumers - who do not switch - while introducing cut-throat offers for new customers that stop small firms entering the market.

That looks to me like predatory pricing.

It must and will stop.

Labour and Ed Miliband had thirteen years to get this market right, and all they can do now is call for another inquiry by the Competition Commission.

Another delay of two years.

Another chance to sit on the fence.

How feeble!

We know what's wrong.

And with Ofgem, we are getting tough to put it right.

John Donne once said that no man is an island entire unto himself, and no government in this complex and interdependent world is entire unto itself.

National sovereignty's historic writ does not run over so many issues that matter to every family in this country.

National frontiers do not bar toxic waste, sulphur or carbon.

That is why we must always work with our partners in Europe - and more widely - to secure our objectives, nowhere more clearly than on environmental issues.

The European Union is also key to our prosperity.

The Eurozone takes nearly half our exports.

We export more to Ireland alone than to China, India and Brazil put together.

Being part of Europe is not a political choice. It is a geographical reality.

It always was. And until the tectonic plates break up, it always will be.

We will not, as Liberal Democrats in government, weaken the ties that deliver our national interest through Europe.

Let me make another point about our Coalition.

Whatever we think of the Conservative campaign in the alternative vote referendum, and I for one thought that the vilification of Nick was appalling, for Liberal Democrats compromise is not and cannot be a dirty word.

Finding common ground.

Uniting in joint purpose.

Partnership politics.

That is what we had to do - Conservatives and Liberal Democrats - to get this country out of the economic danger zone.

Many countries that have suffered from the debt crisis since then - Portugal, Spain, Italy - had smaller budget deficits than us.

Yet we can borrow money at lower rates than at any time in three hundred years.

This coalition government saved Britain's credit standing by compromise.

The danger if you don't compromise is now clear from America.

There the markets looked over the brink when the mad-cap Republican right in Congress would not compromise with the President.

Let that be a warning to the Conservative right here: we need no Tea Party Tendency in Britain.

If you fail to compromise, if you fail to seek the common ground that unites us, if you insist that only you have the answers, if you keep beating the anti-European drum, if you slaver over tax cuts for the rich, then you will put in peril the most crucial achievement of this Government.

You will wreck the nation's economy and common purpose.

We are all in this together and we can't get out of it alone.

Commenting, Liberal Democrat Care Services Minister, Paul Burstow, said:

"Too many past Governments have dealt with social care by simply kicking it into the long grass. I know the current care system needs to change. People tell me that it is unfair, confusing and unpopular, which is why we need to act and ensure the system is sustainable for the long term.

"Liberal Democrats in Government took the difficult, but necessary step to secure an extra £2billion a year for social care by the end of this parliament. This extra funding has created a bridge to a new reform system. But that bridge will only work properly if it connects to something at the end.

"That's why the White Paper that we are producing for the spring will seek to address many of the issues raised here today at conference, and will help provide a Liberal blueprint for the future of adult social care."

The other day, someone came up to me and said:

"Steve, you're an above-average pensions minister!"

In a world where praise can be a bit hard to come by, I took that as a compliment.

But he quickly said:

"No, I didn't mean that you're good at your job, I meant you've survived longer than most pension ministers!"

And when I inquired, I found out that I was, indeed, the 11th different pensions minister in the last 14 years.

So it is hardly suprising that pensions policy has been a bit piecemeal and messy over the years.

Every change with the best of intentions, but put it all together and the whole isn't as good as the sum of the parts.

Instead, we have a fiendishly complex system that no-one understands that doesn't deliver enough either for today's pensioners or tomorrow's.

But being appointed a new minister at the start of a new Government is a huge opportunity.

A chance to set out a long-term vision of where we want pensions to be, and to introduce measures in both state and private pensions that move in the same direction.

So let me tell you what we've achieved in the last 16 months.

Our first priority is today's pensioners.

For the last thirty years, the value of the basic state pension has fallen.

Since the link with earnings was broken at the start of the 1980s, the pension has fallen further and further behind the earnings that it is meant to replace.

We put a stop to that.

Labour only said they would restore the link by the end of the next Parliament.

But the Lib Dem manifesto said we would do it straight away, and I was delighted that this commitment was carried over into the Coalition Agreement.

Indeed, we have gone one step further.

We will increase the basic pension by the *higher* of the growth in earnings or consumer prices, so in times like this when wage growth is sluggish, we won't seek to take advantage of this through lower pension increases.

And to go further still, if both earnings and prices are growing slowly, we will increase the pension by at least 2.5% - our so-called 'Triple Lock' guarantee.

There will be no Gordon Brown 75p increases under this Government.

It is important that we communicate to people quite how dramatic the 'triple lock' promise is.

We reckon that this new policy, compared with the policy of the last 30 years, will have put an extra £45 billion into state pension spending by the middle of the next decade.

At a time of austerity, this is a huge financial commitment to pensioners of today and tomorrow and we should make sure everyone knows the crucial role our party played in securing this guarantee.

As well as boosting the value of the state pension, we've had to look at the age at which it is paid.

One in six of us alive today in this country will live to the age of 100, and one in three girls born today will reach that age. So we've had to tackle the difficult issue of state pension ages - something previous government's ducked.

The Government has already made it clear that the date when we reach 67 and 68 will have to be brought forward. But we also recognise that pension age changes need to be fair.

So although we stand by our plans to equalize men and women more quickly and to move to age 66 more quickly, I can assure you that we will do all that we can to ease that transition for the particular group of women most affected by the change.

And Labour left us some other ticking timebombs to diffuse.

Before the election they increased the Cold Weather Payment, payable to the poorest pensioners when it is freezing cold.

What Labour forgot to tell those pensioners was that this 'special offer' was a bit like a 'closing down sale' - available before the election but gone afterwards.

So when we looked at the books we discovered that the Labour spending plans - shockingly - slashed the Cold Weather Payment from £25 per week to just £8.50 per week.

We took the view that the money that is paid when it freezing cold to the most vulnerable pensioners and disabled people should be our priority.

So we reversed the cut, set the rate at £25 per week, and in the cold winter of 2010/11 made more than 17 million cold weather payments. That's £400 million spent making sure the most vulnerable were kept warm last winter.

Conference, do you really think that would have happened if we weren't in this government?

Real help to real people.

But as well as doing our best for today's pensioners, we also want a pensions system fit for today's workers - tomorrow's pensioners.

The foundation of income in retirement has to be the state pension.

But at the moment, we recognise that the state pension is not enough to live on.

If all you have is a basic state pension of just over £100 per week, the DWP will top you up through complicated means-testing to an income of around £135 per week.

Wouldn't it be better if people who had contributed through their lives, either through paid work or caring or in some other way, could be guaranteed a pension clear of the basic means-test, a foundation on which they can build ?

And that is what we want to deliver - something that has much in common with the long-cherished Liberal and Liberal Democrat goal of a Citizen's Pension - being delivered by Liberal Democrats in Government.

Earlier this year I published a Green Paper setting out options for reform of the state pension.

Overwhelmingly, the preferred option was the simple, single decent state pension - something Liberal Democrats have argued for over decades, now at the forefront of government thinking.

It wouldn't be a king's ransom.

But it would cover the basics.

It would treat men and women equally for the first time, and would value unpaid caring work just as much as a high-flying city job.

That would be a truly radical reform, and it is one that Liberal Democrats could be proud of.

Now so far I've mainly talked about the 'P' of DWP.

Which is perhaps not suprising given my day job as Minister of State for Pensions.

But I also involve myself in the decisions taken by the ministerial team across the whole of DWP - that's what you do when you're "the only Lib Dem in the village"!.

And there is work going on about which Liberal Democrats can feel proud.

The first is the introduction of the 'Universal Credit'.

For many years Liberal Democrats have talked about integrating the tax and benefits system.

But to be honest, integrating the benefits system with itself would be a start.

And that is what the Universal Credit does.

It brings together benefits such as Income Support, Child Tax Credits, Working Tax Credits, income-related Jobseekers Allowance and income-related Employment Support Allowance into a single benefit.

Designed to make sure that work pays.

Designed to respond to your changing circumstances month-by-month, not waiting for end year reconciliations or the tax credits people to write to you years after the event to tell you you have been overpaid.

Streamlining benefits and making part-time work viable will help many of the most vulnerable people in our society and the new system will take hundreds of thousands of people out of poverty.

At a time when public money was tight, the Government was right to invest in the Universal Credit, and Liberal Democrat backing for Iain Duncan Smith's plans was crucial in bringing this scheme to fruition.

The second innovation that we should welcome is the Work Programme.

For years we have had endless back to work programmes where people on benefits were sent on 'schemes' so that the provider could tick a box and get paid.

That is all going.

Instead, the welfare-to-work providers - a mix of private companies, charities and public bodies - will find that most of their payment depends on getting someone into a sustained job.

One-size-fits-all schemes are out.

Meeting the needs of the individual in front of you is in.

And the providers will have unprecedented freedom to tailor the help they give.

They won't need DWP approval.

If the person in front of you needs a fork lift truck qualification, you can help pay for it.

If they need help with basic numeracy, you can provide it.

Whatever will help the individual to move from long-term receipt of benefit to sustained work.

This will truly transform the lives of thousands who have been let down in the past by inflexible schemes designed in Whitehall.

Real help, for real people.

Much of what you hear about the DWP is about cuts - and much of it exaggerated.

If you listened to Labour you'd think that our policy programme was slaughter of the first born - and that was just in year one!

For example, take housing benefit.

Cash spending on housing benefit at the start of this Parliament was around £22bn.

And at the end of this Parliament it will be around £22bn.

Yes, reigning in the remorseless growth in spending at a time when the public finances are under pressure.

But still preserving a comprehensive system of support.

Likewise on disability benefits.

Disability Living Allowance cost £12.3bn in current prices at the start of this Parliament.

At the start of the next Parliament the new 'Personal Independence Payment' will cost exactly the same in real terms - £12.3 bn.

Yes, we have had to take tough choices about restraining the growth of benefit spending.

But always, seeking to do so fairly by protecting the most vulnerable.

I wouldn't put my name to anything else. And I know you wouldn't either.

Now, let me take you to next Summer - London, 2012.

Years of preparation.

And finally, the moment arrives and the starting gun is fired.

Yes, at long last, the first people will be automatically enrolled into workplace pensions.

Now I know that some people will have other things on their minds next summer, but for me the lasting legacy of 2012 and beyond will be literally millions of people getting pensions for the first time.

Between 2012 and 2016 we will automatically enrol over 10 million people into workplace pensions, many of whom are currently building up no pension beyond the state pension.

Their employers will put money in, they will put money in and the government will put money in.

This is a once-in-a-lifetime chance to help many women workers, many part-timers, many young people and many low-paid workers into pension saving.

They will still be free to opt out, but if they want more than the basic minimum in retirement and to benefit from a contribution from their employer, this will be their chance.

Real help for real people.

We also need to make sure that people are getting good value for money in their pensions, an industry which has not always given itself the best reputation.

So on a whole range of issues I am working with colleagues within DWP and across government to protect the individual consumer and make sure that they get the best possible value for money.

My in-tray currently includes:

- charges - making sure that as much as possible of the money you invest turns into a pension instead of being eaten up in charges;

- small pension pots - many people have lots of different pensions with lots of different employers or different pension companies; well, rather than people have lots of small 'stranded pots' that they can't do too much with, I want to help people put those pension pots together to give - to use a technical term - 'big fat pots'; we will be producing a document later in the year that will set out some of the options;

- good value when you draw your pension - many people build up a pot of money but don't get enough pension out of it; for all sorts of reasons they simply go to their own pension company for a pension, possibly missing out on a much bigger pension by shopping around; I am working with the Treasury and the insurance industry to see if we can do better than this;

and fourth, transfers - at the moment, growing numbers of workers who have company pension rights are getting letters offering them a deal to give up their generous pension rights in return for a much riskier sort of pension plus a cash incentive; Some would call it a "bung". Whilst firms have every right to talk to their workers and ex-workers about getting their pension rights in a different way, we need to make sure that people are making well-informed decisions and not losing out on valuable pension rights without realising it.

On all of these issues my agenda is about making sure that people get the best possible value for money out of their hard-earned pension savings - real help, for real people.

So conference, I urge you to hold your heads up high.

With a huge budget deficit to fill, it would have been easy to slash and burn the social security budget.

But that is not the agenda at the DWP. That is not our agenda.

Almost every part of the system is being reformed.

To make life easier for the individuals who have to interact with the system.

To provide real support for people who are looking for work.

And in my area of pensions, to give dignity and security not only to today's pensioners but to generations to come.

It is a privilege to be in government, but I never forget whose side I am on.

On your side, working to deliver an affordable social security system which supports those most in needed, gives a leg up into work for those who can work, and builds a solid foundation for a secure retirement.

It is a big and bold agenda, and one that Liberal Democrats can be proud of.

Thank you.

Commenting, Liberal Democrat MP for St Austell & Newquay, Stephen Gilbert, said:

"Millions of men up and down the country could be potential blood donors and many of them wish to help people in need by donating blood. They are prevented from doing so by the stigma that all men who have sex with men engage in disproportionally risky behaviour.

"Liberal Democrat Conference has today called for an end to stereotypes dominating decisions on who can donate and who can't. When it comes to donating blood, the safety of those receiving transfusions must always be paramount. Rather than issuing blanket bans, decisions should be based on an assessment of the risk which the behaviour of an individual poses regardless of whether they sleep with men or women.

"Given the importance of the safety of donated blood, Conference is also calling for more to be done to ensure the blood bank is safe through increased levels of screening."

Commenting, Chair of the Information Technology Policy Working Group and MP for Cambridge, Julian Huppert said:

"This policy has some really exciting proposals, such as those on R&D, net neutrality and digital inclusion. IT is so important to Britain already - and it has the potential to drive a new, greener and more sustainable economy.

"Tackling piracy is important, but it shouldn't be seen as an end in itself. It's more important to create conditions that reward innovation and talent, and ensure that creators get the benefits of their work.

"The Digital Economy Act fails to do that; worse, it sorely lacks a convincing evidence base and real democratic legitimacy. I am delighted that Conference has passed this motion calling for the damaging parts of the Act to be repealed, and suggesting new ways for the digital economy to grow."

Commenting, Co-Chair of the Liberal Democrat Parliamentary Party Committee on Home Affairs, Justice and Equalities, Tom Brake said:

"With more than a million female victims of domestic abuse last year in England and Wales, we need to do more to remove this blight from society. Too often, we fall short of what we could have done to prevent the abuse of women and girls and to help those who have suffered.

"The Government's strategic action plan, which included £28m of stable funding for a range of specialist services, and the decision to opt-in to the European Human Trafficking Directive are welcome steps in right direction.

"It is important that the Government does not rest here, but goes further to prevent abuse from taking place and to protect victims. Through better training of officials to identify vulnerable women, reviewing current criminal and judicial arrangements, specifically ending the criminalisation of child prostitutes, and a stronger international approach we can do much more to end this shameful and criminal."

"The horse is here to stay. The automobile is only a novelty, a fad."

Don't be alarmed. It's not a new Lib Dem policy. It's actually the advice given in 1903 to Henry Ford by the President of the Michigan Savings Bank.

That wildly wrong assertion is perhaps bettered only by William Preece, the Royal Mail's Chief Engineer, who in 1878 grandly stated: "The Americans need the telephone but we do not. We have plenty of messenger boys."

Clearly prediction is very difficult, especially about the future.

So where does that leave transport policy? Well there are perhaps some certainties that can guide us.

The first is that people want to travel, and as incomes rise, they want to travel further and more often.

The second is that good transport infrastructure is essential to a well-functioning economy.

The third - and before some wilder elements on the far right object, yes this is a certainty - climate change is upon us and there is a need to drastically cut carbon emissions, including from transport, which accounts for around a quarter of the UK's emissions.

So a sound transport policy might usefully be summed up in four words: "Creating growth, cutting carbon."

And that's exactly why those four words form the title of the government's local transport white paper which I launched earlier this year. And why those four words guide our transport policy generally.

And let me make this clear - it's not growth OR carbon reduction. We can have both.

That's why I have been keen to see major investment in rail - good for the economy and lower in emissions than car or plane. In fact, despite the very difficult economic position we inherited, the Department for Transport is today overseeing the biggest rail expansion programme since Victorian times.

Crossrail is going ahead in its entirety. So is the Thameslink project, or Thameslink 2000 as Labour called it until it became too embarrassing for them to do so.

We have committed to a major and ongoing programme of electrification, in the north-west, down to Oxford and Bristol, and to Cardiff. No longer will Wales be the only country in Europe bar Albania and Andorra to have no electrified railway. Indeed, we are also investigating the electrification of the Welsh valley lines.

Major station upgrades worth over two billion are proceeding, including of course Birmingham New Street. £370 million has been set aside for the Access for All programme, sweeping aside the obstacles that make life difficult for the disabled person or the mum with a pram.

We are proceeding with the acquisition of 2700 new carriages - real ones this time, not Labour's phantom carriages - to replace clapped-out rolling stock and ease overcrowding.

We are even finding funds for key local projects like the redoubling of the line between Swindon and Kemble, for which Martin Horwood still owes me a drink, and the installation of the Ordsall Chord linking Manchester's Victoria and Piccadilly stations, so slashing journey times between Liverpool and Leeds.

Of course all this investment costs money, so regrettably rail fares are still going up. That is not to say that bargains can't be had - they most certainly can. My ticket from London to Birmingham cost me just £10.80. But that cannot hide the fact that we are still seeing regulated fares rise by more than RPI.

It is clear from the McNulty report that there are huge efficiency gains to be wrung out of Network Rail. We are already acting to realise these, which will release billions of pounds. I want that money to be returned to the railway, in more investment and yes, returned to the passenger.

I want our railway to be available for all. Just as soon as the public finances allow, we must end the era of RPI plus.

In the meantime we must drive further improvements to the rail network. As Minister for rail performance, I know only too well that there are far too many occasions when trains are shunted off on a Sunday and replaced by buses. Network Rail needs to be far smarter when it comes to engineering works. We don't see anything like this level of disruption in other European countries.

We also need to tackle the serious problem of cable theft which is causing major disruption not just to the railways, but to the motorways, the coastguard service, the telecoms industry and much more besides. The cost to business is enormous.

So this week six government departments came together to tackle this. We have agreed a strong action plan to deal with this highly organised crime. Why should the travelling public have their journeys wrecked by these people? Make no mistake. We are determined to deal with this scourge. No option is off the table.

Of course there is one really major scheme I haven't yet mentioned - HS2. We in the Department for Transport are promoting a new domestic high speed rail line, north from London to Birmingham, then on to Leeds and Manchester, and I hope thereafter to Glasgow and Edinburgh.

You know, most of the good ideas in politics come from the Lib Dems, and the response from our opponents is always the same. First they ignore our ideas. Then they rubbish them. Then they adopt them and say they thought of them first. So it is with high speed rail.

Well I very clearly remember John Thurso strongly advocating high speed rail at our conference about 10 years ago when he was our party's transport spokesman, and it is good that all three parties have now bought into the vision. It is perhaps fitting that John's grandfather, Sir Archibald Sinclair, was the last Liberal to be a transport minister before me.

Let me be clear why we need HS2. There are three reasons, the most important of which in my view is the desperate need for more capacity north-south. You know, we now have more people travelling on the rail network than at any time since 1929, and on a network around half the size. Furthermore, rail has proved to be recession proof with numbers rising every year bar one over the last 20 years or so.

Even after the £8.8 billion upgrade to the west coast main line, some trains - local or freight - still cannot find a path. Nor can we sensibly upgrade that line further. It would cause massive disruption to services, cost a fortune, and affect far more people than HS2 will. So we need a new line, and it is then only a marginal extra cost to make it high speed rather than conventional speed.

The second reason is economic development. Evidence from other European countries is that high speed rail reaches the parts other transport modes can't. We need to ensure prosperity is shared round the country, not just concentrated in London and the south-east.

Thirdly, there will be carbon gains arising from modal shift from domestic air to rail.

I recognise, of course, that those who live close to the proposed line are somewhat less enthusiastic about the idea than the rest of us. I recognise there are understandable concerns at the London end in particular. But along the line and particularly through the Chilterns, I do believe that the Department for Transport has taken great steps to minimise both noise and visual intrusion. That of course has not stopped some of the alarmist horror stories in the press. But those of us with long enough memories recall similar stories when HS1 was planned to run through Kent. I suggest those worried about the impact of HS2 might take some reassurance from how HS1 has turned out.

So the Lib Dems are delivering on rail - big time.

But we're also delivering on light rail too. Since the election we have confirmed funding for extensions to the Manchester Metrolink to Ashton and to East Didsbury, and given the green light to scheme extensions in Nottingham and here in Birmingham. And earlier this year I announced funding for a tram-train trial between Sheffield and Rotherham which if successful, could open up exciting new possibilities for integration between the two modes right across the country.

Light rail presses many of the right buttons - it is popular with the public, clean and low in carbon. But in recent years scheme costs have often spiralled out of control.

I want light rail to grow. That's why I have commissioned work to examine how the capital costs of light rail could be both reduced and made more predictable. So I can announce that tomorrow I will be publishing a new report, entitled Green Light for Light Rail, which analyses exactly these issues, followed by a high level tram summit to take forward the report's recommendations. And I am initiating a consultation on the thorny issue of the interface between utilities and light rail. If we can crack that, we can make some real progress.

Of course, in our enthusiasm for rail, we need to remember that the majority of journeys in this country are made by car. And if we are going to meet our challenging carbon reduction targets, we need to decarbonise the car. So we have been supporting R&D on future vehicles. We have launched the Plug-In car grant to give up to £5000 off the purchase price of an electric, plug-in hybrid or hydrogen-fuelled car. And we are rolling out our electric charging points and working with the private sector to expand the network still further. 15% of drivers now live in an area with charging points.

I am confident that we are on track to cut carbon emissions from cars very substantially over the next 20 years, and with it our dependency on imported fossil fuel, as Chris Huhne's investment in renewables bears fruit.

But cars - clean or dirty - can still cause congestion, particularly in our urban areas. And nobody wants congestion in their town. But now here's a fact. Half of all car journeys are less than five miles in length, and nearly all car journeys to school are less than two miles. These journeys lend themselves to modal shift to cycling or walking.

So an integrated approach to local transport in our towns and cities can ease the congestion, cut the carbon and help business by making our urban areas more pleasant places to be. I was in Bavaria for my holidays last month and saw town after town where there was virtually no traffic in the historic core. Yet the pavements were bustling and the shops teeming.

Now we are pushing forward with such an integrated approach, through our new Local Sustainable Transport Fund which I was delighted to be able to launch. A fund worth £560 million. A big sum, but justified by a hard-nosed analysis. Because money spent on good local transport schemes really does create growth and cut carbon, and does so quickly.

The fund has been very well received by local government, with every eligible council in England applying, except for the Isles of Scilly. Already I have been able to hand out over £155m to the successful bidders in tranche one, with tranche two to follow next summer.

The successful schemes will boost cycling, encourage walking, support buses, help with the integration of different modes, and our roll-out of smart ticketing, and much more besides. Smart ticketing in particular is popular with the public and has the ability to increase markedly the use of public transport. So I have set a target of December 2014 by when I want to see the majority of transport journeys undertaken by smart ticketing technology. And we are on track.

Of course I recognise that the recent local government settlement has been challenging for councils. So we want to do our bit at the DfT to help. I have already referred to the Local Sustainable Transport Fund, but we are doing more.

I am looking at the way Bus Service Operators Grant is delivered to see if that can be improved. And I made available to local councils an extra £10 million to help kick-start community transport in their areas. On the roads, we are providing more cash to local councils for road maintenance over this four-year spending period than the last government did. And we are funding special research in this area to help identify best practice when it comes to road maintenance and will make our findings available to councils.

I also want to help councils by reducing unnecessary form-filling. You know, one of the first decisions I had to take was whether to approve a road works permit scheme for Northamptonshire. I was astonished. What has this to do with me, I asked my civil servants. If Northamptonshire wants a permit scheme, why can't they just get on with it?

I am now taking steps to take ministers out of such decisions.

But we need to go further. And we are doing. I can today announce that when the House returns next month, I will be laying before Parliament a new Traffic Signs policy document. This will cut pointless form-filling by streamlining Traffic Regulation Orders, cutting time and saving money.

The Traffic Signs review will also end the need for Whitehall approval for special authorisations for a whole range of signs, so councils will for example be able to erect No Entry Except Cyclists signs without having to ask Whitehall first.

I am also making it easier for councils who want to introduce 20mph schemes.

They will, for example, henceforth be able to use painted roundels on the road surface rather than lamppost after lamppost of repeater signs. And the decluttering agenda will also be helped in many ways, particularly by significant changes to the requirements for parking signage.

I would encourage councils to go further and take out redundant signs that are no longer needed. The one at Lewes cattle market which said: "Cattle and pigs turn left" has long gone, as I think has the one that said only: "Do not throw stones at this notice". But there are still lots of signs warning of cattle where cattle farming no longer occurs, and so-called temporary signs advising of events long past.

In recognition of the environmental advances being made, there will be new signs to promote safer cycling and help pedestrians, to discourage HGVs from using inappropriate routes, and to inform motorists of electric vehicle charging points. And in carefully selected locations, occasional signs will be permitted to alert motorists to alternative ways of getting from A to B, for example by giving the journey duration of the parallel rail service. This will help cut carbon and ease congestion on our roads.

Colleagues, cutting carbon, creating growth, reducing bureaucracy, localising decision-making. And implementing Lib Dem policy in spades. It's full steam ahead at the Department for Transport.

These are dangerous times for our economy.

There is much uncertainty.

But I am absolutely certain that, at such a moment, the country is stronger for having two parties in coalition working in the national interest.

When I joined up I had very mixed feelings about this coalition, like many of you.

I looked for good precedents.

I thought of Attlee and Bevin working with their Tory opponents - Churchill and Beaverbrook - setting aside their political differences in a common cause.

That coalition unleashed the great Liberal reformers; Beveridge and Keynes.

Now, you could say: that was war; that's different.

Yes, it is different.

But we now face a crisis that is the economic equivalent of war.

This is not a time for business as usual; or politics as usual.

The financial crisis is still with us.

It never went away.

And we can see that recovery has stalled in the US and the position in the Eurozone is dire.

But it is wishful thinking to imagine that we have a healthy economy being infected by a dangerous foreign virus.

Many of our problems are home-grown.

Gordon Brown regularly advised the rest of the world to follow his British model of growth.

But the model was flawed.

It led to the highest level of household debt in relation to income in the world.

It produced a dangerously inflated property bubble.

It encouraged a bloated, banking sector while manufacturing declined at an unprecedented rate.

Then, they socialised the costs of the crash though a massive budget deficit, the biggest of any major economy.

His disciple, Ed Balls, has - sort of - apologised but advocates policies that would repeat the disaster.

What this period of crisis should have taught us, above all, is humility.

And humility in politics means accepting that one party doesn't have all the answers; recognising that working in partnership is progress not treachery.

It has been hard.

It has required courage from our Party to withstand the tribalism which is British politics at its worst.

And it has not been possible for the Party to get its own way on everything.
I regret this year is that we did not secure tighter control on bank pay and bonuses.

A bad message was sent: that unrestrained greed is acceptable.

We now know where that leads.

But we have real achievements.

My team in the Business Department (and I want to acknowledge David Willetts and Ed Davey's role in particular) has not only made a major contribution to deficit reduction but is now helping recovery.

We have greatly expanded apprenticeships.

Giving respect and recognition to the 60% of young people who do not pursue academic study in universities.

We protected our science budget and we have launched a chain of Technology Innovation Centres promoting the technologies of the future.

We have established a Green Investment Bank to benefit major green projects.

Nick Clegg has driven our Regional Growth Fund, investing in businesses and jobs up and down the country not just the South East

We, and Ed in particular, have done what Conservative and Labour governments failed to do: legislate for a necessary reform of the Royal Mail with worker shares and provide a stable future for the Post Office Network.

And then - after a generation of manufacturing decline we have brought jobs back to Britain in steel at Redcar; in motor vehicle supply chains and electric vehicles; and in aerospace through Rolls Royce Airbus and Augusta Westland.

This morning Jaguar Land Rover has announced that they are to build a new engine plant in the West Midlands - that is a massive boost for British manufacturing, and the region.

That's what I mean by a business recovery, cars not casinos.

The work is just beginning.

To turn Britain round we need much more.

Three priorities: Stability, stimulus, solidarity.

Stability in the government's finances - the deficit problem - and in our banks.

Stimulus to support growth; sustainable growth based on business investment, exports, green technology and manufacturing.

Solidarity to give people a sense of a shared society, reducing our appalling inequalities of income and wealth, and creating a responsible capitalism.

STABILITY

As for stability, the last government promised an end to boom and bust but gave us both - and left us a dangerous, unsustainable budget deficit.

Cutting it is a thankless and unpopular task, but unavoidable if our country and party are to be taken seriously.

The Government's tough approach to deficit reduction is often attacked as ideological, as right wing.

Financial discipline is not ideological; it is a necessary precondition for effective government.

I see us following in the footsteps of Stafford Cripps and Roy Jenkins in Britain and, abroad, the Canadian Liberals, Scandinavian Social Democrats and Clinton Democrats in the USA.

They understood, unlike today's Labour Party - that the progressive agenda of centre left parties cannot be delivered by bankrupt Governments.

I think most of the British public do get it.

But there are politicians on both left and right who don't.

Some of them believe government is Father Christmas.
They draw up lists of tax cuts and giveaways and assume that Santa will pop down the chimney and leave presents under the tree.

This is childish fantasy.

Some believe that if taxes on the wealthy are cut, new revenue will miraculously appear.

I think their reasoning is this: all those British billionaires who demonstrate their patriotism by hiding from the taxman in Monaco or some Caribbean bolt hole will rush back to pay more tax but at a lower rate.

Pull the other one!

Financial stability doesn't just involve the Government budget.

Massive potential instability is caused by UK-based global banks whose combined assets are over 400% of GDP, by far the largest of any major country.

At present, banks are offered a one way bet.

If they gamble and win; they fill up the bonus pool.

But when they lose, the taxpayer pays.

The Independent Banking Commission provides a means to stop this dangerous nonsense.

The Commission's key findings - to separate retail and casino banking - must be put in place.

Legislation will start soon and be completed in this parliament.

If there were any doubts about the need for radical reform the UBS rogue trader has dispelled them.

We simply cannot have rogue institutions exposing taxpayers to the risk of exploding financial weapons of mass destruction.

The banks must also perform their basic economic function of channeling our savings into productive investment.

They are not doing so.

Productive British business and banking are currently at odds.

Banks operate like a man who either wears his trousers round his chest, stifling breathing, as now, or round his ankles, exposing his assets.

We want their trousers tied round their middle: steady lending growth; particularly to productive British business, especially small scale enterprise.

No more feast and famine in bank lending.

STIMULUS

The big economic policy question now is how to progress from financial stability to growth.

With business and consumer confidence so low, there is a special responsibility on government.

We are not bystanders.

My job is to support businesses, that means promoting British commerce in the big emerging markets that have been neglected in the past.

It means keeping Britain open to inward investors, trade and skilled workers.

It means cutting red tape which is suffocating growing companies which create jobs.

What I will not do though is provide cover for ideological descendents of those who sent children up chimneys.

Panic in financial markets won't be stopped by scrapping maternity rights.

But the immediate threat is lack of demand - with consumers, companies and governments cutting spending.

Keynes talked about a 'paradox of thrift'; everyone and every country being individually wise but collectively foolish - leading to a downward spiral.

A lot of responsibility rests on the Bank of England to relax monetary policy further linked to small business lending.
But Government can act:

• Use Chris Huhne's Green Deal to generate an estimated 100,000 jobs in energy conservation;

• Leverage in private investment through the Regional Growth Fund and the Green Investment Bank

• Adopt the Liberal Democrat policy to allow councils to auction land with planning permission using the proceeds for social housing;

• Step up investment in our clapped out infrastructure.

There are tens of billions of pounds of British savings in pension funds and insurance companies ready to invest in transport, energy.

Broadband and housing if regulators can ensure a reasonable, moderate return.

And as Danny announced yesterday the government is putting serious money behind local projects.

SOLIDARITY

Even with a stimulus to support recovery the next few years will be difficult.

Living standards are being squeezed by continued high imported inflation.

And the painful truth is that Britain is a poorer country as a result of the financial crash.

The public will only accept continuing austerity if it is seen to be fair.

Yet there is currently a great sense of grievance that workers and pensioners are paying the penalty for a crisis they did not create.

I want a real sense of solidarity.

That does not mean that we go round in blue boiler suits carrying little red books, though I suspect that some on the right believe that is my agenda.

It does mean a narrowing of inequalities.

We have, as a Party, made clear our priorities for continuing to lift low and average earners out of tax.

And the wealthy must pay their share.

What Liberal Democrats should focus on are the vast disparities in wealth - much of it in inflated property and land prices artificially generated by the boom of the last decade.

A few weeks ago a house changed hands for £140 million.

And one newspaper headline said, without irony, "Oligarchs priced out of central London.

Yet the owners of these mansions pay no more tax than many occupants of a family semi.

When some critics attack our Party policy of a tax on properties over
£2 million by saying it is an attack on ordinary middle class owners, you wonder what part of the solar system they live in.

Let me be clear, there is absolutely nothing wrong with generous rewards for those who build up successful businesses and create wealth and jobs.

People accept capitalism, but they want responsible capitalism.

As for irresponsible capitalism, some of you may have noticed that one of the big media companies has recently had a spot of bother.
(I think you know who I mean)

The Labour Party, the Conservatives and even the Scottish Nationalists spent years queuing up to pay them homage to them.

What makes me proud of our Party is that we never compromised ourselves in that company.

What I want to do is to strengthen the best of British business.

I have taken two initiatives in particular:

• I have asked Professor John Kay, together with Sir John Rose, formerly CEO of Rolls Royce - whose company embodies responsible capitalism in its commitment to long term investment in training and R&D - to look at how we get stock markets and institutional investors out of their short term, speculative mindset.

• I am separately consulting on how best to tackle the escalation of executive pay which, in many cases, has lost any connection with the value of shares, let alone average employee pay.

It is hard to explain why shareholders can vote to cut top pay but the managers can ignore the vote.

And surely pay should be transparent; not hidden from shareholders, and the public.

I want to call time on pay outs for failure.

CONCLUSION

Let me say in conclusion that when my staff saw my draft of this speech they said; we can see the grey skies where are the sunny uplands? I am sorry, I can only tell it as I see it.

People aren't thinking about 10 years ahead when they are worrying about how to survive the next 10 days to payday.

But I do sense a deeper truth: that the public is tired of being lied to by politicians; promised what cannot be delivered.

The truth is that there are difficult times ahead, that Britain's post war pattern of ever rising living standards has been broken by the financial collapse.

But we can turn the economy around.

In the Coalition Agreement we promised to put fairness at the heart of all we do as we rebuild our broken economy from the rubble.

Liberal Democrats know that you can't do one without the other.

Commenting, Chair of the Federal Policy Committee, Norman Lamb MP said:

"This is a key step in terms of future policy development for the Liberal Democrats.

"It is important to anticipate the likely challenges we will face as a country over the course of the next decade: improving public services, developing a green economy, supporting working families among many other issues.

"Thinking now about those challenges and developing policy to deal with them will ensure that the party is well placed to respond in the years to come.

"We want to be able to develop a distinctive, progressive and Liberal agenda for our manifesto in 2015. We will now get on with that work applying the values that guide our party."

Conference, governing in Coalition - with a party you have opposed all your political life - isn't easy.

So when you're taking difficult decisions, you need to have some guiding principles.

Sometimes, you need to be difficult - and block what you think isn't in the national interest.

You don't win everything, but you fight the hardest for what you fundamentally believe in.

A guiding principle is not complaining about being in power.

But seizing the opportunity.

The opportunity to secure, in government, Liberal ideals.

So I want to talk about three ideals we've all campaigned so hard on, over those long years of Opposition.

Stronger communities. Fairness for Families. Powerful consumers.

Three ideals we can now campaign for, on our record.

We are at our best, when we campaign on a record of achievement, for our communities, on our councils and now in Government.

So today I've got three new campaigns for you. On post offices. On better workplace rights for families. And on a new deal for consumers.

Being a junior minister can be the best or the worst job in the world.
Like most jobs, a good boss makes all the difference.

If you are unlucky you end up working for someone who can't delegate, who doesn't like you, and who wants all the glory.

And, in a coalition, you might end up with a boss whose ideas, frankly, you have spent a lifetime opposing.

So I am lucky. My boss is Vince Cable.

I've known Vince for 20 years. Our constituencies are next door. We've worked together on developing our economic policy. A policy that puts fairness at the heart of what we do.

Fairness means lifting millions of low paid people out of tax - so they keep what they earn.

Labour failed to do it in 13 years.

And does anyone think a Conservative Government would have done it?

But with Liberal Democrats at the centre, it has happened.

And, friends, we should be shouting this, from the roof tops. And frankly I don't think we are making anywhere near enough of it. .

So it's a huge privilege to work with Vince. He's been right on so many things.

Right about the crash.

Right about the banks.

And certainly right about Rupert Murdoch.

I wonder - is Rupert Murdoch listening to this?

After all, it's easier than hacking people's phones.

But he expects politicians to listen to him. Well, I'm proud our party didn't. And doesn't.

And won't.

Frankly, I don't really care if he's listening - but I hope you are.

For my message to you today, is that we need to understand how we campaign as a party of Government.

Because I believe it's a huge opportunity if we get it right.

Like many of you, I've knocked on a fair few doors this summer - not least because we had a by-election in my constituency last Thursday.

We had won Surbiton Hill ward off the Tories for the first time ever a year ago. And there was a Labour history in the ward, and Labour were really trying, for the first time for a decade. It was a tough defence.

But we ran on our record. We talked about our achievements. Local and national. It was a great campaign. We won. Well done, councillor John Ayles and the team!

Today I want to talk about three campaigns that show how Liberal Democrat Ministers are making life better for people.

So first off, the Post Office. We know, post offices are at the heart of stronger communities.

That's why, for years we have campaigned to save individual Post Offices. Sometimes we would win, but more often we would lose.

The reality was that New Labour did n't get it.
Post offices just weren't cool enough for Tony Blair and his Cool Britannia mates.

The fact that old people, poor people, real people depended on them didn't matter to the likes of Peter Mandelson.

That is why we had the obscene spectacle of a Labour government - a Labour Government - paying the owners of sub post offices to pack up and go home.

Labour closed even more post offices than Margaret Thatcher and John Major, put together.

Well, not any more.

The days of closure programmes of local post offices are over.

Now that doesn't mean I have a magic wand. But it does mean I have a responsibility. To come up with a plan. A plan that gives Post Offices a role that works.

Let me tell you about it.

I want the Post Office to become the "Front Office" for government. National and local.

It is beginning to happen.

Earlier this year Westminster Council awarded the Post Office a contract for 6 services, including council tax payments and parking permits. Westminster Councillors are a hard-headed bunch of people. They didn't do this for a cheap headline. They did it because the Post Office is great at what it does.

Westminster is not the only council working withthe Post Office. Sheffield Council have a pilot partnership with the Post Office.

And now, advised by Cllr Richard Kemp, I believe we should explore the links between councils and post offices even more.

Later this month I will be writing to 25 councils asking them to join in. If you are one of the people who I write to, say yes!

No guaranteed contracts here - Post Office will have to compete. But I'm telling every Post Office manager there's a business opportunity here they can seize.

And it isn't just councils and the government that see the Post Office as an attractive partner. Many banks - Barclays, Co-op and Lloyds for example - let their customers use the Post Office for banking.

And I'm delighted to tell you that, from this coming Friday, for the first time, Nat West customers will be able to do so as well.

In fact, just two banks are holding out - HSBC and Santander.

Frankly, I'm really disappointed.

So today, I hope you will join me in calling on them to think again.

And if they don't respond, maybe we need another campaign. To tell these banks they have a responsibility to their customers and local communities.

And if they still don't listen. Well, I hope you will think about switching your account to another bank.

Now to be successful the Post Office has to be modern and efficient. And that takes real investment. And that means help from Liberal Democrats in the Treasury.

Help and the Treasury? Not words that normally go together.

Well, that's why I want to thank Danny Alexander, the Liberal Democrat Chief Secretary to the Treasury, for his amazing work. Labour's debt meant cuts left, right and centre. Yet Danny still found more than £1bn to modernise the post office.

Because of the tough decisions our country needs, some question Danny's commitment to Liberal values.

I tell you this.

Danny Alexander is a LIBERAL DEMOCRAT to the core. And from the core.

He delivers on our promises and our values. Even in the toughest times.

As a result of this new investment, four thousand post offices will be transformed over the next few years.

With self-services machines, to cut queues, and new technology, to meet customer needs.

And our local post offices will be revolutionised too.

Today too many small sub-post offices are forced to have their own dedicated counter, and a specific member of staff, with all the costs that entails.

We want to free up such sub-post offices, to help them integrate the post office with their regular business. So they can share a counter and share staff.

This small change will make a huge difference. Cutting costs and queues - while increasing opening hours to match the store's.

We already have more than 100 pilots in operation.

And guess what?

It works.

Customers are delighted - more than 9 out of 10 say they like it. And sub-postmasters do too.

That's why other Post Offices are queuing up to join in.

Conference, we are on our way.

Viable post offices in the heart of our communities are here to stay.

But there's more. We need to make sure that Post Offices are never again ripped out of our communities.

That is why today I'm putting forward this proposal to make the Post Office into a mutual, a co-operative, instead of being a nationalised industry.

This is the best way - our way, the Liberal way.

Ensuring that sub-postmasters, employees and local communities work together making the Post Office everything we want and know it can be.

Conference, we have campaigned for years about Post Offices.

Let's shout about how we, in Government, aren't just saving them. But building a real future for our Post Offices, in every community.

Here's another idea we can be proud of. Another idea we can campaign on. Another idea that will win us elections.

Making work, work for families.

We inherited a system of MATernity and PATernity leave that was inflexible. It was bad for families and firms alike.

Now some people suggested to me that we should abolish maternity leave.

That isn't my policy. It isn't our party's policy. And because we are in government, it isn't government policy either.

But we do need reform. Reform that works for mums and dads - and the peoplethat employ them.

Our proposal is simple. It is radical. And it is right.

It's not the state who should decide who looks after a child. It's their parents. Couples should decide who gets the leave: the mother, the father, or both.

Of course there has to be an initial period of maternity leave. Women give birth, and men don't.

But mums and dads would be able to share the rest of the leave in a way that works for them. And we should be proud that it is the Deputy Prime Minister, Nick Clegg, who has led the way. Nick is championing our modern approach. For mums, for dads, for families across Britain.

Remember what it says on our membership cards? "No-one shall be enslaved by conformity". We are delivering an end to conformity in maternal and paternal leave.

Everyone to be able to make the choice that works best for them and their family. That's what being a Liberal Democrat is all about.

Along the way, we would also abolish the crazy rule that says that if a mother returns early to work part-time, agreed with her employer, the state says she must lose all her maternity rights. How crazy is that?

Well let me tell you Conference: this rule is out.

Some people have told me they are worried about the government's agenda on employment regulations. That it's not a Liberal Democrat agenda.

Well, as Minister responsible, I promise you that I am delivering on the principles we share.

Regulations that stop job creation betray people who want to work.

For too long, our employment tribunal system has been bad for employers and bad for employees - but very good for lawyers.

It needs a radical shift from confrontation to conciliation.

That is my driving passion.

But it's not the only one. I'm especially proud to have signed an order to end legalised age discrimination at work.

A law that allowed firms to force people to retire at 65 - even when they were good at their job, and did not want to go.

Well, that law has now gone.

From better rights for families to ending age discrimination.

The Liberal Democrats have shown that - in government - we can and we have helped people and businesses - and we should campaign on that success.

OKAY - here's my third campaign.

For years some of our big supermarkets have not played fair.

They have hit farmers and they have hurt customers.

They have hit farmers by agreeing one price, taking the goods, and then - at the end of the year - demanding some of the money back. It just isn't on.

They hurt consumers by demanding payments from suppliers just to put the product on the shelf.

This means small firms don't get a look-in.

It means we don't get the chance to buy the full range of products available..

That's bad for small firms, and it's bad for consumers.

And the Competition Commission itself has criticised the supermarkets for exactly this

Well, no more.

Our party stands against vested interests, ripping off customers and playing dirty.

It doesn't matter how big and powerful you are. We will stand firm.

That is why we are creating a permanent supermarket adjudicator. They will enforce a tough new code of practice and stamp out bad behaviour.

My colleague Andrew George, the Liberal Democrat MP for St. Ives, has worked tirelessly on this issue. I am hugely grateful to him - Andrew, this wouldn't have happened without you.

We should be telling people across the country how Liberal Democrats stood up for farmers, stood up for small businesses and stood up for consumers.

How we took on the powerful supermarkets and WON.

This matters and it's a vote winner.

Colleagues, it isn't easy being in Government. In hard economic times. In Coalition.

But we have an opportunity. And we have the ideals we've fought so long and hard for.

Powerful consumers - getting a better deal from big supermarkets.

Fairness for families - mums and dads choosing what's best for their families.

And stronger communities - with post offices at their heart.

Liberal Democrats - these were our campaigns in Opposition. They arour actions in Government.

"Thirty years ago David Steel told us to go back to our constituencies and prepare for Government. Well, we are there.

So I say this.

Go back to your constituencies.

And prepare. To campaign. On our record. In government.

We can do it. We must do it. And when we do it, we will win.

Thank you