"Conference maketh a ready man" (and a poorer one).

Given the prejudices of his era, Francis Bacon probably didn't mean women as well when he wrote that but I'm not aware that he had anything against young people, male or female. (Indeed his essay, "Of Youth and Age" finds good and bad in both.) Nevertheless that is the problem today. Young people, it seems, are less likely to confer. As Susan Gaszczak points out, 40% of Liberal Democrat conference representatives are 60+ and 70% 40+. Long gone are the days when, as in 1970, the Young Liberal Conference had more delegates than the party conference. I don't have figures for the Conservative and Labour conferences, but I suspect they are worse.

The causes are political and financial. Politics has always been a minority sport but today is of less interest to young people than in those halcyon days when I was young. Politicians either lack ideology or are scared to express it so that political debate has diminished to a bathetic "We can manage things better than them". The media avoids any clash of ideals that may by chance appear, preferring to harp on the personal and procedural trivia of who tweeted what and when, between sleeping with whom. Party managers strive to avoid conflict at conferences. Small wonder that neither politics nor political conferences attract the young.

If some ardent spirit overcomes the discouragement of modern political dialogue, he or she now faces the financial barrier. Attending a party conference is an expensive business involving conference fees, travel, accommodation and meals and not all drinks are to be had free at fringe events. I doubt that any local party considers paying expenses for its representatives, regarding the conference as a jolly, remote from the important daily business of winning council elections.

We can all improve the political dialogue and lift it above trivial personalia and technocratic policy wonkdom. The conference committee should turn its collective and extensive grey matter to the question of cost. Nor is it a problem only for the young. We don't want policy decided exclusively by the well-heeled.

Not despairing, not deluded but deliberate

As usual I have been to a different party conference from the one the media floated through or above. The Guardian led the pack who expected Liberal Democrats to be downhearted and when we weren't decided that instead we must be deluded. Setting aside the joy of meeting old friends, the curious pleasures of debating and voting, we had other reasons for not despairing. There is the Tim Farron joke that we could cope with being out of power for a generation as predicted by the governor of the Bank of England, because we are used to being out of power for three generations. There is the comfort of Harold Wilson's observation that "A week is a long time in politics" and there is the gut wisdom of Harry Truman's "If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen."

At the Guardian lunch, Paddy Ashdown chose a metaphor from military history. He recalled the Duke of Wellington saying to his troops when the French found their range, "Hard pounding gentlemen." Actually I don't think the Labour opposition has found our range yet, just scored a few lucky hits on our exposed left flank. I did ask Paddy, "Where's Blucher, where are the Prussians ?". He suggested that the voters would be the Prussians. I believe this can only come true if we establish clear gold water (not, please, aquamarine). As I repeatedly suggested at conference, the next election will turn upon how many voters have jobs. Myriad Liberal Democrat policies will weigh as nothing if unemployment is high. We need to propose a programme for jobs like Obama. We too may be blocked by conservatives but people will know what we stand for.

How many will be excluded from our conference ?

I asked Andrew Wiseman, Chair of the Liberal Democrat Conference Committee about exclusion of representatives from conference.He replied that "Conference Standing Orders allow us to exclude someone from conference. It is not something we would do lightly. As I have said given that the threshold of likely to cause a serious risk of harm to those attending conference or conference it is highly unlikely that any legitimate conference rep would be excluded."(My emphasis).

There are a number of problems with this reply. Firstly, Standing Orders do NOT empower anyone to exclude anyone. They only provide for an appeal from exclusion by the Chief Steward, a power which they do not confer on him. If he does exclude anyone, it can only be under Public Order legislation for behaviour during the conference, not because of some advance vetting procedure. Secondly, Andrew only says that it's highly unlikely that a "legitimate" rep would be excluded. Who decides who's legitimate ? Why should a legitimate rep be excluded at all ?

Zoe O'Connell asked Greater Manchester Police how many were excluded from last year's Labour Party Conference. Here's the answer: 11,988 people were vetted for the Labour Party Autumn Conference in 2010, 24 failed. (0.2%). Of course, the Labour Party wasn't even in power then, but we all know how much safer Jack Straw feels if anyone who shouts "rubbish" at him can be excluded using anti-terrorist legislation, don't we ?

I give the last word to the wonderful Dilly Keane and Fascinating Aida. I don't think the rozzers would let her in.

Police accreditation - the answers ?

Andrew Wiseman has been kind enough to send me answers to my long list of questions. There is one outstanding point. People keep claiming that conference standing orders provide a power to exclude people. I can find no such power. Paragraph 6.2 provides for an appeal if the Chief Steward excludes you but without giving him explicit power to do so or setting out grounds for such a decision. That just leaves Public Order legislation which I believe relates to the behaviour of people at conference, NOT to any pre-emptive ban. Here are the questions again with Andrew's answers in italics.


Police accreditation for Liberal Democrat Conferences

A. Questions re data protection
1. Why do the police require passport, driving licence or NI number ? What will they do with the information ? What are the checks they will carry out ? What sources of information will our identities be checked against ? Will these include CRB, County Court judgements, credit reference agencies, Sex Offenders List, anti-terrorist intelligence obtained through interception of signals or undercover officers or word of mouth from informers ? Has FCC asked these questions yet ?

The checks are carried out firstly to ensure the person registering are who they say they are ie someone is not registering under a false name. We have been advised that one way of them doing this is by checking passport or driving licence details. This is because of the checks that are carried out before either are issued. If no such details are available they look at other information to verify the persons identity. The next stage is to decide whether the person poses a significant risk to conference and those attending conference. This is a risk assessment looking at criminal records and other information..

The fact that someone has a criminal record is not a bar, similarly the fact they have been on a picket line, protest etc is not a problem. It comes back to that test of posing a significant risk to conference. By way of example this could be terrorism or one of the known individuals to the police who they believe are a serious threat to certain individuals within the party (a fixated person).

2. What arrangements, if any, has FCC made for people who have none of these items ? Will they be able to attend ?

This is something that we have been assured the police are use to dealing with. They can accept banks statements, registration on the electoral role etc. I attended one of the other parties conference last year with someone who didn’t have the usual information (they do not have a UK passport or driving licence) and they got accredited on site very quickly.

3. What arrangements has FCC made for people whose identities have changed in some way, e.g. transgender people ?

I am in discussions with DELGA, a number of transgender people and the police to work out a system that they are comfortable with. The police have dealt with similar cases with the other parties but we want to go for a slightly different approach that our reps will be more comfortable with.

4. If an elected representative is unable or refuses to provide this information, will they be able to attend ?

Given the wide range of data that is acceptable if they do not have a passport or driving licence which can be provided before conference or, if really necessary at conference there should be no reason for someone not being able to provide the information.

5. Why do the police need to retain the information after they have carried out their checks ? Did FCC consult anyone else in the party to see if they would object to such retention ? Did FCC consider making arrangements to allow members to provide the information on condition that it is not retained ? If such an arrangement happens now, what guarantees will there be that the information has been deleted ?

The police have confirmed that any member that wants their data deleted can have it deleted.

6. How many organisations will actually hold the data ? Just Manchester Police or West Midlands Police or the Home Office or ACPO ? What about the contractors who collect and pass the information to the police ?

The data is held by Greater Manchester Police. They run the accreditation of all the party conferences. The local force (in our case West Midlands) ‘contract’ with GMP to carry out the checks.

7. Section IV of the Data Protection Act has exemptions for various purposes including crime and tax. Has FCC enquired of the police whether they would wish to use the information provided by members, for any of these exempted purposes ?

We have asked .The conference accreditation system is a stand alone system that is not accessed for any other reason than the accreditation to attend party conference (any of the three main parties). Data can be deleted if requested after conference.


B. Questions re excluding representatives from conference

1. Did FCC or anyone negotiating on behalf of the party raise with the police or the Home Office the provisions of our constitution ?

We did raise this with the police (and Home Office). It is because of the unique position of our members and conference that many of the procedures have been put in place.


2. Has FCC established what information the police will give to the party to back up any recommendation to exclude someone from attending conference ? The police are unlikely to disclose information obtained through secret surveillance or intelligence sources. In that situation how will FCC “approach any such decision seriously” ?

There have been discussions over this. Where ever possible they will advise us, this is subject to data protection laws and security considerations. Often the information is in the public domain and can be pointed out to us. Other information may be disclosed subject to confidentiality. We have made it clear that we need to be satisfied. We have offered to take the advice of certain members of the party that have the highest level of security clearance and to whom the police could disclose some information to. Much depends on the nature of the reasons for the potential exclusion.

3. If a member learns that FCC has excluded him or her form attending conference (without of course any constitutional power to do such a thing), what reason will be given and what, if any, appeal process will be available ? How can a member appeal against an allegation if the police will not tell the party what it is ?

An appeal process has been set up. The first stage will be for the person to speak to a senior police officer That will enable any clarifications to be mad and will enable the police to reconsider their recommendation. If that is not successful it will come to myself and the Chief Exec. From there it will go to a full meeting of FCC.


4. Does FCC have a timetable for the accreditation process ? When will the police give their advice ? When will FCC consider it ? When would an excluded person have a chance to appeal ?

As soon as the person registers on the party website the police will start the accreditation process. Thye work through them one by one. As soon as there is a problem we will be advised. They will not save them up. We will deal with the issues as soon as they arise.

5. Has FCC or anyone negotiating on behalf of the party actually asked either the venue or the insurers whether they would refuse us if we did not accept any particular point of police advice or has this possibility been assumed ?

This has been discussed. Advice has also been taken from our insurance advisors. We are continuing the discussions to try and get us into the best position possible.

Will this do ?

Liberal Democrat HQ wants a new photo from me for conference. It must be colour, light background, neutral expression, head and shoulders etc. I'm thinking of sending this snap from the Guardian of me at Sheffield, not actually bombing anyone when they took it.

Police can veto who goes to Lib Dem Conference ?!!?

Today I received a message from Liberal Democrat HQ telling me that I must supply my passport (or other ID) details if I want to attend party conference. Guidelines on the website make it clear that the information will be passed to the police. They also make it clear that I may be refused "accreditation" presumably on police advice. There is nothing in our party constitution about accreditation. Local parties elect representatives and there is no power for the party nationally to choose which of these may attend. We must fight this illiberal procedure which is against what we stand for and our constitution.

Extracts from the website
"...all applicants will be required to complete a more comprehensive security pass application. These details will be passed onto the police to carry out their own accreditation procedures. Please note that Police Accreditation will be carried out by Greater Manchester Police on behalf of West Midlands Police.

In the unlikely event that your accreditation is unsuccessful, you will be issued a full refund of your registration fees. The Liberal Democrats will not accept liability for any additional costs incurred by the applicant."

"The submission of the application form does not confer any right upon the applicant to attend the conference and the Liberal Democrats reserve the right to refuse admission.
Your data will be stored in the Liberal Democrats secure conference registration system and will be made available for future conferences to speed up your registration process, in addition to keeping you updated on Party conferences. It may also be used for anonymous statistical analysis.
The information supplied by you will be provided to the relevant Constabulary for storage on a computer system in connection with the policing arrangements for the Party Conference. The information will be retained and/or passed to other police forces in the future to assist with the accreditation of subsequent political conferences only. Details of the data stored may be obtained in accordance with the provisions of the Data Protection Act.
The Liberal Democrats and police will comply with the provisions of the Data Protection Act 1998 at all times with regards to any of your data held.
"

Extracts from Liberal Democrat Federal Constitution

Article 6: The Federal Conference
6.1 The conference will consist of
(a) Representatives of Local Parties...
6.3 Representatives of Local Parties shall be elected by all members of the Local Party concerned...

Try, try, Trident again !

The Liberal Democrat Conference Committee has allowed very little time for emergency motions proposed by members. There are two slots, one of which they have given to a motion on floods in Pakistan which nobody will oppose and will not really require debate. Six perfectly good motions are left to compete for the remaining slot. The ballot between these motions is also so arranged to limit participation. Ballot forms will be handed out on Sunday morning to be returned by 1.00 pm on Sunday. Why such a short period when the chosen debate won't be until Wednesday morning ?

If you agree that now is the time to push on Trident, vote for this motion:

Emergency Motion No.6

Conference notes that:

In July the Chancellor announced that the Ministry of Defence will have to fund the £20-£30bn capital costs of a ‘like for like’ replacement for Trident. The Defence Secretary has warned that this means severe restrictions in the way Britain operates militarily, regiments could be axed or the Royal Air Force and Royal Navy amalgamated. The exclusion of Trident from the Strategic Defence and Security Review (SDSR) is now untenable. It should be included and receive the scrutiny which strategic, political and financial circumstances demand.

Conference calls on the Liberal Democrat ministers to:

Press for the extension of the SDSR to allow a full review of the alternatives to ‘like-for-like’ replacement of Trident;

Ensure the SDSR considers cost-saving options such as ending continuous at-sea patrols and extending the life of Vanguard submarines;

Ensure the SDSR makes explicit the opportunity cost of Trident replacement – in terms of cuts to troop numbers and equipment programmes.