Ed Miliband and Ed Balls’ pre- Budget press Conference

Next week’s Budget will take place against a backdrop of:

More people looking for work than at any time for seventeen years.

Twice as many young people out of work for more than six months compared to a year ago.

Growth having stalled for the past eighteen months.

And living standards facing an unprecedented squeeze.

Every month people are finding their wages struck but their costs rising.

In short, we have an economy not working for working people.

But there is no evidence that this Conservative led Government is equal to this challenge.

Because what are they arguing about?

Not about how to get growth moving.

Not about how to get more jobs into our economy.

But agonising about how and whether to cut the 50p tax rate for those earning over £150,000.

It just shows how out of touch they are.

What we need is a budget for jobs and living stands.

That means three things.

First, measures in the short them to get growth into our economy.

Second, a clear vision for how we reform our economy so that it working for working people.

Third, action to tackle the living standards crisis.

Growth and Jobs

First, the Budget should address the challenge of growth and jobs.

It should adopt a more balanced approached to deficit reduction.

The Government was warned not just by Labour but by economists up and down the country, about the risks cutting to far and too fast.

Those warnings have unfortunately roved to be correct.

In the United States, President Obama set out a more balanced approach to deficit reduction.

One that supported the recovery.

As a result the US economy is growing, and unemployment is falling consistently.

So the Budget is a chance for George Osborne to think again, and do the right thing.

Economy that works for working people

And second we need a Budget that puts in place the building blocks for the future of our economy.

This Government gives no sense of where they want the country to be in 5, 10 or 15 year time.

Vince Cable himself said, in his leaked letter to David Cameron and Nick Clegg, that the Conservative – led Government lacks” a compelling vision of where the country heading”.

It’s clear what that should be: more responsible capitalism, an economy that works for working people.

But you can see their failure on this across every area of Government policy.

A Budget for the long term future of our economy would:

Address the crisis of youth unemployment, which the Government has singularly failed to do.

Grasp the need for radical of our financial sector with a British investment Bank, with the Government refuses to back.

Understand the opportunity of the green economy – where the haphazard decision making has left business without the certainty it needs.

Put in place new rules on procurement to support business that provide apprenticeships.

And set out a shared active industrial policy across every area of government.

People deserve a long – term view of where our economy is going and how it can be made to work for working people.

Because of ideology and short- termism, this government cannot provide it.

A Labour Budget would do so.

Living standards

Third, the Budget should take action to ease the squeeze on middle and lower income families, particularity those with children.

This Government promised that we were’ all in it together’ but that promise has been betrayed.

All of the research shows that they are hitting families with children the hardest, with those on the middle and low income suffering the most.

Even before the Budget, their measures with hit a family with children by an average of £530 a year from this April because of the way they have chosen to cut the deficit.

You’d have thought in this context there would be no question of the priority being to cut taxes for the very richest.

But this Government has spent the last few weeks arguing over the political cover they need to cut the 50p rate.

As i said at the outset, how out of touch can a government be?

Indeed as Ed Balls will show, the Government actually been cutting taxes for those at the top, through changes to pension tax relief.

Ed has also called for a clamp down on stamp duty avoidance to reverse the iniquitous decision to take working tax credits away from up to 200, 00 working couples trying to do the right thing.

By adopting a fairer approach on pension’s tax relief, the Government could have further resources available to help millions of lower and middle income families

That is part of delivering fairness in tough times.

Because tough times expose your choices, your values, who said you’re on.

Ahead of this Budget, Labour is the only party saying:

Cutting the 50p tax rate for those over £150,000 is the wrong priority for Britain.

The priority must be to reverse the damaging cuts to tax credits.

The cuts that tell working people it’s not worth working.

That tell working women affordable childcare is out of reach.

And that tell working families you’re on your own.

We need a Budget with a clear vision of how our economy can work for working people.

And now Ed will say more about our priorities.

Ed Balls, Labour’s Shadow Chancellor, said:

As Ed has set out, there are two tests for next next’s Budget: on jobs and growth , to kick start our economy and put in place the long term- reforms we need; and on fairness , action so families on low and middle incomes do not bear the heaviest burden.

Jobs and growth

On jobs and growth, alongside the tough choices we have set out on tax, spending and pay and the long- term reforms Ed has highlighted, we have made the case for our five point plan:

Immediate are fair tax cuts for families and pensioners – with a temporary VAT cut the fairness and quickest option;

Genuinely bringing forward infrastructure investment;

A cut in VAT to 5% on home repairs, improvement and maintenance;

A one year national insurance holiday for small firms taking on extra workers – using the almost £1 billion left over in the government’s failed scheme only for new firms;

And 100, 00 jobs for young people and 25,000 affordable homes- funded by a £2 billion tax on bank bonuses.

We need this action now to get our economy growing, to create desperately needed jobs and so to get the deficit down.

As George Osborne is finding to his cost, slow growth and high unemployment means he is borrowing £158 billion more than he planned, his pledge to balance the books by 2015 is now in tatters.

But it’s not just a short term cost we will pay for this failure on jobs and growth.

Months and even years of slow growth and rising unemployment will cause long- term damage to our economy leaving a permanent dent in our nation’s prosperity as other countries race ahead of us.

Fairness

And on the second test, fairness and the squeezed middle, we set out last week the perverse and unfair changes the Government is making to tax credits and child benefit.

We have called for an urgent review of the child benefit changes- which we have shown would mean that a family on £43,000 where Mum or Dad stays at home to look after the kids , would lose all their child benefit; but where a two earner families which a combined income of £84,000 could keep all of theirs.

And on tax credits, we have proved that for many part time workers, once tax credits are removed, they will be better off quitting work and going on to benefits.

We would reverse that measure and we believe that the full cost can be met by closing the stamp duty loophole on properties over £1 million.

But there is more action the Chancellor can take in his Budget to ensure that those on low and middle incomes do not bear a disproportionate burden.

If the Chancellor is looking at mansion tax then, as i said last week, we will support him and i have offered to work with the Chancellor to get the details right.

But the priority for funds raised from a mansion tax must be to ease the squeeze on families on low and middle incomes, not to cut the top rate of tax for those earning over £150,000.

No particular tax rate should be permanently set in stone.

But it tells everything you need to know about David Cameron, George Osborne and Nick Clegg that their main discussions before the Budget seem to be not about how to stop this tax credits bombshell or come up with a plan for jobs and growth, but whether and how they can give a tax cut now to the richest one per cent of earners.

Pensions tax relief cut for highest earners

But we should not be surprised – because today, based on new research, we can reveal that the Chancellor has already given top rate taxpayers a £1.6 billion tax cut since he entered Downing Street.

When Labour introduced the 50p per cent relief on their contributions, we said those individuals which income more than £150,000 a year should only be able to claim 30 per cent relief, just like basic taxpayers.

This measure was due to raise £4 billion per year, and it was one of the decisions we took to ensure that those with the broadest shoulders played their part in reducing the deficit.

That change was reversed by George Osborne in his 2010 Budget.

The Chancellor announced that he would still be raising £4 billion from restricting pension relief –would so instead by reducing the cap on annual pension contributions from £255,000 to £50,000, and reducing the cap from £1.8 million to £1.5 million.

New research from the House of Commons Library, that we are publishing today, shoes the effect of this change.

Instead of the £ 4 billion is therefore coming from taxpayers with income below £150,000.

This effective tax cut of £1.6 billion for those earning over 150,000 is more than the £1.3 billion the new 50p top rate tax was estimated by the Treasury to raise in its first year.

It shows just how out of touch this Government is , that with all the pressures on lower and middle income families in our country , it is the very highest earners who have benefited most from their tax changes.

So we have a simple proposition today.

Based on the House of Commons research, and taking into account the changes to the pension cap that George Osborne has already introduced, a reduction in the rate at which top rate taxpayers can claim pension’s tax relief from 50 % to 26% would be sufficient to reverse this tax - cut for people earning more than £150,000 would allow the Government to reinstate the cuts to working and child tax credits that the Chancellor chose to make in his Autumn Statement when he announced his borrowing plan were £158bn off track.

Changes which meant that in the Autumn Statement the Government took four times more for families than from the banks.

Of course, this revenue could be use used in other ways- for example, to cut fuel duty; or to increase the personal allowance.

As we have said before, at a time when families are being squeezed hard and the economy stalled, an increase in the personal allowance is better than doing nothing.

But as the IFS said just a few days ago, this not the progressive measure Ministers claim it to be as” the highest average cash gain occurs in the second – richest tenth of the income distribution”.

Changes to the personal allowance will do nothing to help pensioners and other on low incomes don’t pay income tax.

They will do nothing to help the hundreds of thousands who are facing unemployment.

And they will not do nothing to help families working 16 hours per week on the minimum wage who face looking up to £73 per week in working tax credits.

So this is the Budget challenge:

Action to help people on middle and low incomes and stop tax credits bombshell of hundreds of thousand of working families.

And a real plan for jobs and growth, a long term- vision for our future economy that will help get the deficit down

That is what we need next week’s budget: not more tax rises on ordinary families m not more empty promises on Jobs not more of the same from George Osborne.

Ed Miliband Speech on Made in Britain

Can i say what a privilege it is to speak to the first EEF Annual Conference.

Too often, the story that is told of British manufacturing is of a sector in decline.

But if you look around the room, what strike me are the success stories we don’t talk about often enough.

Rolls Royce, the second – largest producer of civil aircraft engines in the world.

A thriving automotive industry, a success has been achieved against the odds.

Against the odds because while your international competitors have governments standing with them through active industrial policy, you too often have seen governments of both parties standing by.

Against the odds because while you seek to build yourselves up decade by decade, too often you are judged quarter by quarter.

Against the odds because while we rightly celebrate having a leading financial centre, our financial sector has too often let down our real economy.

And against the olds, because while other countries celebrate and exalt the success of their inventors, designers and makers, too often you have not been given the respect and status you deserve in our education system and wider culture.

Of course, in the short term the priority to help the economic growth.

That is why, for example, we have said that we would offer a tax cut to all small business taking on extra workers as part of our five point plan.

Our recovery has to be led by you in the private sector fuelled by investment and exports.

That means British companies competing and wining in tough global markets.

But the financial crisis must be a wake- up call to stir us to action in the long- term.

It has exposed deeper problems in our economy

In my view, a thriving and diverse manufacturing sector is central to the challenges revealed by that crisis.

That challenge of paying our way in the world.

Of creating good jobs at good wages.

And the challenge of building an economy on long – term productive wealth creation, not short term predatory speculation

In short, how we build a more responsible capitalism.

An economy which works for all the working people of Britain.

We can only do this if we change our attitude as a country, and that includes government.

Let me explain what i mean.

Governments of both parties have been right for decades to oppose protectionism – propping up lame ducks or putting up trade barriers.

Economic protectionism is what governments reach for when they don’t believe firms can compete.

And we will never return to those days.

But too often opposition to protectionism became an excuse for believing that the best way to help British business was to stand aside entirely.

Opposition to protectionism was right

But opposition to industrial activism was wrong.

From our government to our culture, we need pride and patriotism if our British firms are to succeed.

Patriotism is about and active government using all the means at its disposal to give competitive British firms ever chance to succeed.

Patriotism means recognizing they can and do compete with the best in the world.

 The patrionitic Policy, for example, means enabling a foreign- owned subsidiary to persuade its Japanese, Indian, US or German Boardroom to invest Britain.

We should not be embarrassed about the need for more patriotism in economy policy.

We care about supporting British firms because it is crucial to jobs and growth in this country.

Now let me explain what i think we need to do to meet the challenge of patriotic economy policy.

First, therefore, Governments need to understand its proper role in support British business

British manufacturing has had to develop without the long – term support that has been in place in other countries.

If want to understand that there is a difference between protectionism and patriotism we should compare what happened in the car industry in Britain in the 1970s with the recent recession.

In the seventies, we did prop up loss- making lame ducks

Thirty years later the government provided support, not prop up companies that were in uncompetitive, but the prevent the recession destroying fundamentally healthy British plants.

That was because government, unions and management worked together and Peter Mandelson recognised the need for a change in attitude

We see the response today; the new Nissan investment is a culmination of that approach.

The Business Department stopped being a sleepy backwater and became a great office of state.

What’s the lesson i draw for this?

To work, an active industrial strategy must have real vision, real drive across government.

And I don’t think the Government gets it.

From Sheffield Foregmasters, to Bombardier, to BAE Systems, I think they’ve let British Business down.

A proper industrial strategy cannot become a reality if other parts of government act as a roadblock to this approach.

In particular, in energy they have done huge damage.

Ripping up the feed – in tariff.

Undermining the investment prospects of the wind industry.

It’s been true in the defence industry too, where the Government has abandoned any commitment to an industrial policy.

So how should government show that it understands the need for an active industrial policy?

It means using all the tools at government’s disposal including the money we spend already.

The United States government spends fifteen times as much as we do as a proportion of national income on commissioning innovation and product development from high – growth, hi tech companies.

We should be using the power of procurement to support innovation and jobs here in Britain.

The new approach also understands the regulation can be a barrier to job creation.

But it also can help provide certainty to create new markets, such as the zero carbon homes or car emission standards.

And government needs to make tax decisions supporting investment, as we did on the R & D tax credit and the patent box.

Above all, it is about having a shard, long-term vision between public and private sectors, involving every department, not just BIS.

If Germany can have industrial policy certainty for decades, we should be able to have it for more than a four or five year electoral cycle.

Just the other day i heard from a manufacturer who pleaded with some policy consistency over decades.

“You know what’s going to happen in Germany “ he said.

Our manufacturers need to know what’s going to happen here too.

That means that across government, departments have to work together.

That’s why I’m proud to say that our Shadow Business Secretary Chuka Umunna is working in coordation with Ed balls at the Shadow Treasury, Jim Murphy our Shadow Defence Minister, Maria Eagle at Transport, and others.

But to provide the environment for business to succeed, we also need to recognise that it is not simply Government that has been to short- term in its approach.

The rules of the game, the nature of corporate governance, are at fault too.

We can’t encourage manufacturing investment for the long- term with rules which are geared to speculation for the short term.

Rolls Royce had to battle against institutional shareholders during the 1990s, so that its management could make the long term investments that have made it such a success today

Sir Terry Leach has said: many investors don’t want to get under the skin of the business  or our economy : lower levels of investment in the UK than our European competitors.

This has to change.

But these are complex issues.

Of course, takeover can often be a good thing- brining inward investment and helping to turn around a failing business.

And nobody can blame investors for wanting more information on the companies in which they invest.

It is because these issues are complex, the Labour Party is today establishing a review by the engineer Sir George Cox, former Director General of the institute of Directors and currently a director of the New York Stock Exchange.

He will chair a review of what is impeding long- term decision making in British corporate life.

It will be comprehensive, looking at all the major issues, going where the evidence takes it.

He will chair a review of what is impeding long term decision making in British Corporate life.

It will be comprehensive, looking at all the major issues, going where the evidence takes it.

I hope you will contribute to George’s review which will seek to build on John Kay’s work.

The third issue we must confront if we are to back British firms is the way our financial system works.

The other day in Scotland i talked to a wind turbine manufacturer who complained that he had employed 20 people in his firm it could have been 30 if only he got the loan he needed from a leading British bank.

If he had lived in Germany, the US or Singapore he would have been more likely to be able to get that loan.

You know that similar stories can be heard thousands of other businesses around the country.

The patriotic answer for the future is that we need banking systems that enable him and thousands like him to succeed.

So we need a much more diverse and completive banking system which is more rooted in our communities.

The largest four banks provide 85% of SME accounts in the UK, whereas in Germany only 14% of business loans come from the large commercial banks.

That why we are calling for the Government to bring forward a review of the competitiveness of our banking system.

It also means sharing the insight of countries like Germany and the United States that in response to the failure of the market, government has role to play too.

And why are looking at plan for a British Investment Bank.

This would see government stepping in with state – guaranteed finance channelled through banks and private investment firms when the market won’t provide.

The fourth and final area where we have not shown enough pride in supporting our businesses is in our culture and education system.

The latest example of that came only the other day. 

The Education Department announced it was downgrading the Engineering diploma in schools from one that was worth five GCSE to one.

A diploma supported and respected by employers.

What signal does that give to young people thinking what they might do in the world?

The people at the top do not regard this as a “ proper subject “ or as a “ proper qualification”.

The British engineering sector needs to recruit an extra 2.2 million engineers over the next 10 years.

How can we do that when we have this snobbery getting in the way?

I met with a small group of EEF members last week. They told me that they thought manufacturing has a real image problem with children and young people today.

But they said to me that if they can get access to young people and show them what an exciting career there is to be had in manufacturing, it’s an image problem they know they can redress.

I’ve heard too many manufacturers also say they want to get into schools to show children just how exciting a career in manufacturing and engineering can be, but sometimes they get a lukewarm or a cold reaction.

Schools should be letting industry in not shutting it out.

But we shouldn’t leave it just to industry alone to show just how great manufacturing can be.

Government should be playing is part too.

By looking at the way our curriculum works.

And by supporting employers trumpeting British business success.

Yesterday i was speaking to the CEO of Stoves.

He launched a fantastic new initiative, a Made in Britain Mark which has been signed up to by over 350 British manufactures.

This campaign has been running for almost a year and we’ve heard nothing from the government.

This not about a backward- looking’ Buy British’ campaign.

This is not about making consumers feel bad if they don’t buy products from British businesses.

It about something else.

The CEO of stoves said something which stuck with me.

There are three words we don’t hear enough or see enough.

Those words are “Made in British”.

We can’t recognise or celebrate our strength in manufacturing unless we know what is designed, invented and made here.

It is about building the brand of British manufacturing around the world, and supporting our exporters, particularly to new markets in the BRICs.

It is about inspiring our young people with that is possible through engineering innovation and excellence.

Let me conclude.

I make you this promise.

The next Labour Government will put British design, British invention, British manufacturing at the heart of our economic policy.

When i talk about how we need to encourage productive forms of business behaviour to help those, it is you who i am thing about.

We need to back those who invest, invent, sell, make – the producers of this country.

So patriotism is not about protectionism.

I have no interest in going back those days.

What i want to do, however, is to ensure the British Government supports British manufacturing.

We cannot have a government that stands aside.

We need to seize this moment:

We must rise to the challenge of the financial crisis and pay our way in the world.

And we must recognise our opportunity.

We still have: world- class universities, an adaptable workforce and a proud history of openness to foreign investment.

We need to take this opportunity.

I look forward to working with you to make this happen.

Harriet Harman Speech to Westminster Media forum

INTRODUCTION

Last week start with Sue Akers’ dramatic assertions at the Leveson inquiry. Next we had the resignation of James Murdoch as Chair as Chairman of News International. The week then concluded with the Prime Minister having to come clean about his relationship with former police horse.

The only normal thing about this story was that the horse died of natural causes – or so we’re led to believe.

Although they story about the horse was surreal, these are incredibly serious times for the relationship between the press, politics and the police and a very important time when it come to public policy in the broader area of communications.

COMMUNICATIONS GREEN PAPER

This conference was called to examine the Communication Green Paper – but as well know the government has delayed it a number of time.

And with all that’s been going on i can’t say i blame them

Normally, a Comms Green Paper would be of interest only to a small group of specialists.

At the time this Green paper was first mooted, the sense was that it would herald a niche bill aiming at aiding growth through infrastructure and technological changes.

But now it is clear the Comms Bill will need to be much more than that. it will deal with the outcome of Leveson – both on press standards and ownership – and it will need to reflect the findings of the Ofcom review.

The next common act will have huge significance; this is the moment at which media and communication policy move from a technical discussion among a small group of experts to centre stage of the national debate on politics, culture and the economy.

It was a marginal political issue – it is now central.

RAPID CHANGES IN TECHINOLOGY

Communication and media policy is going to affect everyone at a time when everything is charging:

-       Broadband is going roll out and used by all businesses and most homes

-       The way we watch TV is being transformed: Catch – up TV is now routine and within a few years the TV in most people’s homes will be connected to the internet. This brings obvious benefits but it will require us to tackle new problems like how we help parents protect children from adult material.

-       Technology has change how news is produced, gathered and transmitted- the news of the riots in my constituency this summer was gathered through people shooting video on their phones.

-       There’s a development of remotely produced national and indeed local news.

-       The ecology and economics of the media is also changing. Newspaper reading is collapsing with getting their new online; the number of TV channels has gone from five terrestrial one to over 300 satellite ones and soon there will be digital switchover.

Ten years ago, we couldn’t foresee Facebook, You Tube or Twitter. The 2003 Communication Act made no use of the world ‘internet. And changes lie ahead that, as yet , we have no idea about.

This is an enormous challenge to policy – makers. while technological change is rapid , democracy has take its time – to make proposals , to consult on them, to go through all the processes of legislation.

And because technology is fast changing and legislation is slow- moving, it is critical that the regulatory frame work is flexible. Policy makers aren’t clairvoyant – but we must do what we can do ensure regulatory frame work takes account not just of what we know, but also know unknowns and unknown unknowns.

JOBS AND GROWTH IN THE CREATIVE INDUSTIRIES

But what do know and what should remain the case is that the media and the creative industries are an important sector for jobs and growth in this country and the Green Paper and the Comms Bill need to support that.

I’m working closely with Ed Balls, Chuka Ummunna and Stephen Twigg to ensure that the creative industries are at the heart of our whole agenda for business and the economy for the future.

It is already clear that for this sector there needs to be a strategy to address access to finance, education and training which ensures young people have right skills to go into the creative sector, a regional strategy which ensures that growth in the creative industries is about confined to London and strong support for exports. And also copy right protection. We need a system of regulation which strikes the right balance between technology companies, content users and content owners.

We have heard today from the BPI and Google and i hear both sides of the argument. We need a system of regulation which supports innovation and new business models and also supports creators and respects enact it to help underpin new jobs and growth in our creative industries.

PREVENTING MEDIA MONOPOLY

So, while the media situation is fast- changing, that must not be an excuse not to take action. We’ve got an opportunity to take action to deal with difficult, historical problems which have been left unaddressed for too long.

Problems of too much newspaper power in the hands of one man and a lack of redress where journalistic professional standards are breached.

The accumulation of too much power led to a sense of invincibility and impunity. Murdoch owns to many newspapers and had it not been for the hacking scandal the Government would have waived through his bid for the whole of BSkyB. Both Ofcom and Leveson are looking at ownership. It is clear that there needs to be change.

Last week i was ask where whether i was shocked by Sue Akers’ revelations. And the said truth is, far from it, it just confirmed what i had always believed. 

PREVIOUS OBSTACLES TO CHANGE

People have also said,” but you were in government for 13 years- why didn’t you do something about it” You were too close where you?”

The answer to that lies in what happened before 1992. We put in our 1992 manifesto what we believed was necessary: that we should’ establish an urgent inquiry’ by the Mopolies and Mergers Commission into media ownership, and- if the press fail to deal with abuses of individuals’ privacy – to implement the statutory protections recommended by the Calcutt report.

Because we were committed to tackling media monopoly and introducing a robust press complaints system, the Murdoch press was determined to stop us getting into government and not a day went by without ever issues, his papers battering us.

So as we approached 1997, we – in Tory Blair words in his famous’ feral beasts’ speech- turned to ‘courting assuaging and persuading the media  ... after 18 years in Opposition and the, at times, ferocious hostility of part of the media , it was hard to see any alternative’.

 When we were in government, it was the case that many senior figures did become too close to News International and Murdoch.

It is worth noting that despite Murdoch’s objections, we supported the BBC and established Ofcom. But we didn’t prevent Murdoch’s growing monopoly and we didn’t deal with the failure of redress of those who have complaints against the press.

And so things went on until the Mily Dowler revelations shocked and disgusted the British people, leading to establishment of the Leveson Inquiry and creating an opportunity for long over due change. We must not squander that opportunity.

THE OPPORTUNITY FOR CHANGE

To address the problem of too great a concentration of ownership, there needs to be agreement on :

-       A trigger for intervention – action cannot be confined just to an event such as a takeover.

-       The maximum percentage of ownership permitted

-       Agree on a methodology for  how ownership is measured

-       Agree he mechanisms for enforcing – for example, divesting

-       And agree on a strong Ofcom, which must be powerful in practice as well as on paper.

The issue is not just ownership across newspaper, broadcasting and other media but also how we address monopolistic ownership with those sectors.

 THE IMPORTANCE OF THE LEVESON INQUIRY

The Leveson inquiry is of enormous importance. Lord Justice Leveson has presided over a fearless and forensic process, and an emotional one. It has been a decisive moment for free speech , with victims often heard from the first time- and even before they’ve finished hearing the evidence and started writing their report , the Leveson inquiry is emphatically demonstrating the need for change.

The challenge for Leveson – and for all of us – is that this should be change with commands as great a consensus as possible, which is positive and enduring.

No- one can fail to recognise the financial pressures pilling onto newspapers- financial pressures which have intensified competition between them and left some feeling that they are fighting for their lives- but that cannot be any justification for intrusion and illegality.

 Look like at what happened to Charlotte Church. Here was a child with a huge talent. But for the News of the World the most important thing was to sell stories. No information – not the most intimate, not the most private and not Charlotte Church and her mother. To the News of the World thy were not a child and her mother but nothing more than commodities to sell more paper. For the Dowlers to come to the Leveson inquiry and –in public – relive those grim days and weeks in the full glare of the press that had so abused them was hugely courageous.

PRINICIPLES FOR REFORM

There is much heat and justifiable emotion around the debate about the future of press standards, but there is an important need for the response from the politicians and the press measured.

This is not the time for either the press or politicians to settle old scores or exact revenge for the past. Both sides must leave their baggage behind.

In my role as Shadow Culture and Media Secretary I want to be clear that Labour’s starting point will be a commitment to defend the freedom of the press.

Because the press are now in the dock, when they make the case for freedom of the press, it looks like special pleading from a vested interest. But those of us who are politicians in a democracy should be the first to understand that politics cannot operate in a democracy without a free and fearless press. We don’t want a cowed press.
I also think that, with this, instead of doing things the usual way - where Government and opposition each come up with their own proposals – we need to do things differently.
I think newspaper editors should get together and came forward with their proposals and I challenge them to do that. It would be better for them to frame the solution rather than have one imposed on them. We have had extensive general discussions, it’s now time for the editors to propose a new system for press complaints and which is not just rhetoric.

A system that delivers on the principles the editors say they actually want.
• A system that is independent – independent of political interference but also independent of serving editors, who cannot be allowed to go on marking their own homework.
• A system that is citizen centric – seeking redress must be accessible and straightforward for all, and not available only to the rich.
• And a system that applies to all newspapers.
The proposal being worked up by Lord Hunt, chair of the Press Complaints Commission, does not, as we currently understand it, do that.
It leaves unchanged the basic problem with the current system: that rather than applying to all as a matter of course, it still requires newspapers to opt in. After all the evidence that has come before the Leveson inquiry, the status quo is not an option. We cannot go on with business as usual.
THE IMPORTANCE OF A FREE DEBATE – CONCLUSION
As I said at the beginning of my speech today, this is a critical time for communications and the media.
The future of our economy needs to harvest the potential of our world class creative industries.
The future of our democracy requires an open debate about press and media reform.

It cannot be a debate where the media dictate what we are allowed to discuss and propose about their future.
We owe it to the proud tradition of the British press; we owe it to those, like Charlotte Church and the Dowlers, who have been the victims of hacking and intrusion who have come forward to tell their stories; and we owe it to the British people, who have been disgusted by the excesses and corruption, to debate freely and reform judiciously.