Category: Speeches

Below is the text of the speech made by Harriet Harman, the Deputy Leader of the Labour Party, to the Oxford Media Convention on 25th January 2012.

I’m very pleased to be here today – meeting up with those of you I haven’t met before and with many of you who I have known for years – but in my new capacity as Shadow Culture Secretary.

At the age of 61 it’s exciting to be part of Ed Miliband’s new generation. Not so much the face book generation as the face lift generation.

We meet in historic times:

– Never before have the creative industries been so important to help take us through these difficult economic times

– And never before has the media been under such scrutiny because of the phone hacking scandal

And all of this against the backdrop of astonishing developments in technology.

One of the things that we are most proud of from our time in government is the support we gave to culture, the creative industries and sport.

From free entry to museums and galleries, to boosting the film industry with tax credits, to winning the Olympics.

Labour supported something that is hugely important to people’s lives, something we are good at in this country and something that has a massive importance in the future.

If our politics is to reflect the aspirations and concerns of young people, then culture, media and sport must be at its heart. In my constituency of Camberwell and Peckham – as everywhere else – it is impossible to overstate how central culture, media and sport is in the lives of young people. They are all consumers – and great many of them want their future to be working in your industries.

You, in the creative industries have punched above your weight economically and as well as being the centre of our cultural agenda you must be at the heart of our education, economic and business agenda.

That is why the DCMS must never be seen as the ministry of fun. It is fun – but it’s bread as well as roses. DCMS policy must not stand alone but must be completely integrated with Education, Business and the Treasury.

I am determined to do that and next month, I’ve brought together a summit with our shadow chancellor, Ed Balls, our Shadow Business Secretary, Chuka Umunna, and our Shadow Schools Secretary, Stephen Twigg.

We want to work with you to develop a comprehensive plan for jobs and growth in the creative industries – and knowing Ed Balls it’s bound to end up being a 5 point plan.

We will be looking at a number of areas that many of you have raised including:

– Access to finance – making the City realise that creative industries are a good investment

– Making sure that the next generation have the right education and skills – to foster the designers, the technicians, and the animator of the future

– Giving proper support for our exports – when the Prime Minister leads a high level business delegation overseas – I want to see the creative industries right in there

– Protection against copyright theft and getting the correct balance for intellectual property rights.

Britain creates some of the best and most sought after content in the world. We’re the world leader in exporting television formats, the second biggest exporter of music and our video games industry is one of the largest in Europe. These industries bring great pleasure to millions of people here in the UK but they are also an engine for jobs and growth across the economy. That’s what we were trying to support with our Digital Economy Act. It is vital that new business models are allowed to flourish as technology advances but we must also support the creators and owners of copyright to have a right for their work not to be stolen. The irony is that many of the kids who are downloading free music want to make a living out of creating too. We need to protect their right to a future in the industry. It’s tough for young people entering the industry today. The force of the internet ripping through age-old business models mean many industries are still searching for new ways to generate revenue.

That’s four points – the fifth one is still up for grabs.

What has been well reflected throughout today’s debates is that there are huge issues across the landscape – from newspapers to broadcasters. And we’ve heard today from BBC Chair – Chris Patten.

It’s impossible to describe – without sounding gushing – the centrality of the BBC in the life of this country. We think we bring up our own children – but Auntie is there alongside us as we do it. The BBC news is most trusted not just here – but around the world. The sheer scale of the BBC – the world’s biggest broadcasting organisation – means that it is able to be – and is – a massive centre of gravity for our creative industries. Under its wings, there flourish an eco-system of trainees and independent production companies. The BBC doesn’t belong to the Government of the day. And when we were in Government we were not always the best of friends. But the BBC doesn’t belong to the Government of the day, it belongs to the people which is why they trust it more than any Government and why my approach as shadow secretary of state is to be an ardent and outspoken supporter of the BBC.

Many who usually come to this conference aren’t here today because they’re in the High Court – at the Leveson Enquiry.

The phone hacking scandal went to the heart of the politics, police and the press and one thing is clear – things will have to change.

Though there was nothing new about public figures complaining about the press, what changed things and where public anger erupted was that it was not just celebrities – the rich and powerful who had been targeted – but ordinary people who had suffered terrible tragedy.

It was because of the revelations about what had been done to the Dowler family that Ed Miliband spoke out against News International and called for a judge-led inquiry. He was right to do that – it was brave – and it led to the Government setting up the Leveson Inquiry.

Leveson has been a painful process as everything has been played out in public. However it has been powerful and cathartic and it should leave no-one in any doubt that it cannot be business as usual.

There is much heat and justifiable emotion in the demand for change. But there is an important need too, for the response from politicians and the press to be balanced.

It is a paradox. The public worry that the relationship between the press and politicians has been far too close. The press worry that politicians will use this scandal to exact revenge on the press and settle old scores for the friction which is inevitable when the press hold government and politicians to account.

It’s fair to say that over 30 years in parliament, I’ve don’t ever remember being described as a “darling of the press”. Harriet Harperson – Hapless Hattie – “she who hates men” – and those are some of the nicer things that have been said.

So it might come as a surprise to some that I am standing up for press freedom.

But I have spent enough time in Opposition to dread the thought of the Government interfering in the press.

And I’ve spent enough time in government to recognise that government power is dangerous if not held to account by the press.

And, indeed, at the start of my professional life, I fought the cause of press freedom – at Liberty. And because of my work there holding the government to account – I was prosecuted for contempt by the then Attorney General who launched a prosecution against me in what became the landmark case of Home Office v Harman.

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 press.

In my new role as Shadow Culture Secretary, I want to be very clear Labour’s starting point will be a commitment to defend the freedom of the free press.

Because the press are now in the dock, it looks like special pleading from a vested interest when they make the case for press freedom.

So that’s why its all the more important that politicians must insist on the freedom of the press.

But the press must acknowledge the outrage that was felt by people all round the country. And editors must understand that the status quo is not an option. It will just not be good enough to let the dust settle and then go back to business as usual.

There now needs to be a thoughtful, clear-eyed sober debate that focuses on shaping the future for the British press

There appears to be an emerging consensus around some key principles. That a new system must be:

– Independent – independent of political interference but also independent of serving editors. There needs to be advice and expertise – we can’t have people marking their own homework.

– It must be citizen centric – it must be accessible and straightforward for people. Seeking redress should not work just for the rich and powerful.

– It must apply to all newspapers – there can be no opting out.

These are all clearly sensible principles but we need to see how they could be made to work. And the key question is who is in the best position to do that.

Instead of doing things the usual way – Government and Opposition each coming up with our own proposals and then Leveson coming forward with his – I propose something different.

I think it would help Leveson if newspaper editors got together and came forward with a solution and I challenge them to do that. We have had a good airing of concerns and scoping of the issues but it is time for editors to lay their cards on the table and come up with a solution that guarantee these principles. It cannot just be rhetoric. I would like to see them frame the solution rather than have one imposed upon them

And with regards to the Press Complaints Commission. I know there are attempts to revive it. But I feel strongly that we’ve gone beyond that and it is time for a fresh start.

On the question of media power and cross media ownership, it is important that we have plurality in our media because it allows for competition and prevents obstacles to new entrants in the market which is bad for the consumer.

This is what the plurality framework is for.

But, by the end of the fiasco around the Murdoch/BSkyB takeover bid, it was clear to everyone that change is needed:

– To make clear that the judgments are made independently and not politically

– To make sense of the application of the “fit and proper person” test

– To make sure that we look across the media – not just at the newspapers – or any one siloed sector in a converging world – in a vacuum

– To make sure that, even without an “event” such as a takeover bid, there is the power to stop a monopoly developing

In the end, our plurality laws were intended to ensure that no one person gained unwelcome control over our media and accumulated too much power in our public affairs. In July, Parliament, at the instigation of a small number of MPs, and backed by Ed Miliband and others returned to this original intent. We must now complete that work and Ofcom and the Culture, Media and Sport select committee will have an important role in leading the debate on this.

Finally, can I turn to the press and the police? The police are prohibited from taking money from the press for stories – and the press are not allowed to pay them. But clearly that has been happening and no doubt Leveson will bring forward proposals to address that. We have to be sure that the police investigate without fear or favour.

We, in Labour, embrace the cultural vitality of our media sector. The richness it provides our nation and the opportunities it offers our people. And its appeal to modernity.

A vibrant and flourishing creative and cultural life is a symbol a of modern, progressive society. From Harold Wilson’s “white hot heat of the technological revolution” to, dare I say it, Tony Blair’s “Cool Britannia”, we’ve striven to champion an advanced media sector.

It’s a real privilege to be holding the responsibility of this brief at such an important moment, and I look forward to working with you.

Below is the text of the speech made by Harriet Harman, the Deputy Leader of the Labour Party and the Shadow Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, on 6th March 2012.

INTRODUCTION

Last week started with Sue Akers’ dramatic assertions at the Leveson inquiry. Next we had the resignation of James Murdoch as Chairman of News International. The week then concluded with the Prime Minister having to come clean about his relationship with a 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 the 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 comes to public policy in the broader area of communications.

COMMUNICATIONS GREEN PAPER

This conference was called to examine the Communications Green Paper – but as we all know the government has delayed it a number of times.

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 Comms Act will have huge significance. This is the moment at which media and communications policy moves 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 TECHNOLOGY

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

– Broadband is being rolled 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 changed how news is produced, gathered and transmitted – the news of the riots in my constituency this summer was gathered through people shooting videos 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 readership is collapsing with getting their new online; the number of TV channels has gone from five terrestrial ones 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 Communications Act made no use of the word ‘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 to 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 framework is flexible. Policy makers aren’t clairvoyant – but we must do what we can to ensure our regulatory framework takes account not just of what we know, but also of known unknowns and unknown unknowns.

JOBS AND GROWTH IN THE CREATIVE INDUSTRIES

But what we 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 Umunna 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 the right skills to go into the creative sector, a regional strategy which ensures that growth in the creative industries is not confined to London and strong support for exports. And also copyright 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 copyright. The Digital Economy Act was passed with cross party support and we are urging the government to 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 malpractice and illegality which has been exposed by the Leveson inquiry was never just “one rogue reporter” or a few bent policemen. It is a symptom of an underlying structural problem.

The accumulation of too much power led to a sense of invincibility and impunity. Murdoch owns too 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 asked whether I was shocked by Sue Akers’ revelations. And the sad 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 weren’t 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 Monopolies and Mergers Commission into media ownership, and – if the press failed 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 on every issue, his papers battering us.

So as we approached 1997, we – in Tony Blair’s words in his famous ‘feral beasts’ speech – turned to ‘courting, assuaging and persuading the media… after 18 years of Opposition and the, at times, ferocious hostility of parts 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 New 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 Milly Dowler revelations shocked and disgusted the British people, leading to the establishment of the Leveson Inquiry and creating an opportunity for long overdue 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 the 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 newspapers, broadcasting and other media but also how we address monopolistic ownership within 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 for 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 which commands as great a consensus as possible, which is positive and enduring.

No-one can fail to recognise the financial pressures piling 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 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 the most painful personal and family issues – was off limits. In their pursuit of profits they dehumanised Charlotte Church and her mother. To the News of the World they were not a child and her mother but nothing more than commodities to sell more papers. The courage and strength she has shown in coming to the Inquiry to say how that felt is remarkable.

You can only admire, too, the strength of Bob and Sally Dowler. What could be worse than to lose a beloved daughter to murder? But to the News of the World they were not grieving parents deserving the greatest sympathy; they were nothing more than commodities to sell papers. 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.

PRINCIPLES 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 politicians and the press to be 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.

Below is the text of the speech made by Harriet Harman on media ownership at the 2012 TUC Conference held on the 17th March 2012.

Introduction

Good morning. And it’s great to be here this morning, with so many of you who have long worked in the press and broadcasting, campaigned for press freedom, against media monopoly and for higher press standards. Particularly the Campaign for Press and Broadcasting Freedom, the NUJ and here at the TUC.

This is an important moment and an opportunity for long overdue change.  And your insight into what needs to change and your pressure for that change is going to be vital.

The press and trade unions

You have the concerns of those who care about the public interest and you have the knowledge that comes with working in the industry.

The profession of journalism is very much in the dock because of phone hacking and the evidence that has come out of the Leveson Inquiry.  But it is important that we all remember that good journalism is vital for democracy and despite the drama round phone hacking most journalists are highly professional doing vital work and sometimes in dangerous conditions to get to the truth. The death of Marie Colvin reminded everyone that without fearless journalists the truth of suffering and oppression will remain hidden from view.

I believe that most journalists – like most politicians – go into the profession because they believe in what they do and to serve the public interest.

So, although journalism feels under attack at present we must not lose sight of the huge professional commitment in journalism and the amazing work that is done.

Pressures on journalists employment rights

But I know that you also have concerns about employment and trade unionism in the media.

Journalists have always worked under pressure – the pressure of deadlines, the pressure of being the first to get the story or the scoop. But now, that pressure is exacerbated by fewer people buying newspapers and instead, getting their news online which creates a very difficult commercial climate.

Employment in the media – particularly in newspapers – has become much harder over the last few years. Jobs have been lost. In just one week this year, 75 jobs went at Trinity Mirror’s national papers, and 30 jobs went at the Telegraph.

The competition for market share in a shrinking market has created pressure on journalistic professional standards – some feel under pressure to cut corners to get a story.  And the right to challenge that is undermined by job insecurity.  There is a fear that, if you object, then you will be the first out the door and into a world where it’s going to be hard to get another job.

But the fact that newspapers are under pressure does not justify any undermining of employment rights.

And I want to pay a really big tribute to Michelle Stanistreet and the NUJ for standing up for journalists. Michelle, you’re doing a great job and it’s always good to see you on the TV doing a great job.

And the truth is that if journalists, with the backing of the NUJ, had had more power to protect their professional integrity, some of the worst problems that have now come to light might, just might, have been avoided.

So trade unionism is good for the individual in the media and is good for press standards.

Portrayal of trade unionism in the media

We support a free press as a basic human right. And there’s another human right which we support which is freedom of association – trade unionism. We all have the sense that when it comes to news reporting of trade unions, the press is not fair. Depiction of trade unions in the press rarely highlights the life changing work of local representatives – protecting their members from discrimination and unfairness.  When did you last see reports of trade unions working patiently on behalf of their members with the management to secure a sustainable future for the business? Instead, the depiction is of extremism and perversity.

Women’s groups have made a submission about stereotyped treatment of women by the press to the Leveson Inquiry.

It’s not right for some sections of the press to abuse their right to free speech in a way that undermines another fundamental right – freedom of association.

And I think it would enhance Lord Justice Leveson’s work if evidence on that was presented to him.

Today’s conference

This conference comes at an historic time – with the media under scrutiny like never before.

The central issue is that we all want a free press which is able to report without fear or favour, but we have all been revolted at the unfairness and corruption exposed at the Leveson Inquiry. And we all want change.  Business as usual is not an option.

Invincibility and impunity

Like all of you, I’ve thought long and hard about how we ended up in this position and I think there are two deep-rooted problems which led us into this mess and which we must confront: the concentration of media ownership and the lack of redress for press complaints.

Because of the evidence at the Leveson inquiry – and the harrowing testimony of the victims such as the Dowlers – most of the discussion about change has focused on press complaints.

But the wrongdoing in the Murdoch empire was due not only to the absence of any proper complaints system which led to a sense of impunity.  But also from too great a concentration of power which led to a sense of invincibility.  And it is this combination of impunity and invincibility which lies at the heart of the problem and must be addressed

Let me start with that concentration of media ownership.

The malpractice and illegality exposed by the Leveson inquiry was never just “one rogue reporter” and a few bent policemen.  It is a symptom of an underlying structural problem.

Murdoch owns too many newspapers. 37% of national circulation before the News of the World closed – owning two of our most influential dailies and two of our most influential Sunday papers, was too much. And had it not been for the hacking scandal and Murdoch dropping his bid, the Government would have waved through his bid for the whole of BSkyB. As well as the culture, media and sport select committee, both Ofcom and Leveson are looking at ownership, and it is clear that there needs to be change.

Ownership: Opportunity for change

We must make sure that opportunity is not wasted.

There needs to be agreement on a trigger for intervention – action cannot be confined just to an event such as a takeover.

There needs to be agreement on the maximum percentage of ownership permitted.

We need to agree a methodology for how ownership is measured.

We need to agree the mechanisms for enforcing – for example, divesting.

And there needs to be agreement on a strong Ofcom, which must be powerful in practice as well as on paper.

And the issue is not just ownership across newspapers, broadcasting and other media but also how we address monopolistic ownership within those sectors.

Ownership: changes we can make now to the Enterprise Act

Of course substantive change will need to be informed by the outcome of the Leveson Inquiry and the Ofcom review. But there are things the government can and should do now to strengthen the law which was clearly revealed as inadequate by the Murdoch/BSkyB bid.

Over the course of that bid, it became clear that it was not only political unwillingness of the government to act, but legal inhibitions on action too.

We are proposing that the law be changed so that in cross media cases like this.

• First, the person making the application must prove to Ofcom that they are a “fit and proper person” at the start of the process – before the applicant notifies the European Commission that they intend to buy another company. As a precondition of entering the process.

• Secondly, that the “fit and proper person” test should be broadened to include not just criminal convictions but also any previous history of impropriety, failure in good governance, or investigation or prosecution for tax fraud.

• Thirdly, if it’s discovered that they not have been open and transparent in the information they have given in showing they are a “fit and proper” person the application should be struck out.

• Fourthly, that an applicant would have to accept the jurisdiction of the UK court.  That if your bid is successful, and your company is subsequently involved in a court case, you can’t avoid a court summons by being abroad.

Why change in the Enterprise Act is necessary

The BSkyB bid stress tested the existing legal framework and showed clearly where the cracks were.

Despite widespread and serious concern about Murdoch’s business practices, Ofcom did not initiate the “fit and proper person” test until after the Milly Dowler hacking revelations.

Under the changes we propose Murdoch would have to have full disclosure and had to prove himself a fit and proper person before he was able even to formally start the process of the takeover.

We don’t have to wait to change the law on this. My colleague in the Lords, Baroness Scotland, former attorney-general, has been telling the government since last July that they can change the law under the powers that they already have in the Enterprise Act, to do all the things I’ve talked about. And they should do this now, without waiting for the select committee, Ofcom or Leveson.

Ownership: Different priorities at local level

The situation is different for local newspapers. And the biggest danger at local level is not having a newspaper at all.

Revenue is declining as fewer people are buying local newspapers and classified advertising is moving online. Local newspapers are closing or moving to regional hubs, with the loss of local news reporting and the loss of journalists’ jobs. Claire Enders estimates that 40% of jobs in the regional press have been lost in the last 5 years.

Local newspapers are important to local communities.

They also provide a route for journalists, especially those outside London, into the national media.

So we should take the particular situation in local newspapers into account when framing protection against monopoly in the future.

Standards: The problem of impunity

As well as preventing monopoly and promoting plurality, we need to give members of the public redress where journalistic professional standards are breached.

The financial pressures which have intensified competition between papers and left some feeling that they are fighting for their lives can never justify intrusion and illegality, the terrible stories that we’ve all heard at the Leveson Inquiry.

Lord Justice Leveson has presided over a fearless and forensic process, and an emotional one, too. It has been a decisive moment for free speech – that is, the free speech of the victims of the press often heard for the first time. Even before Leveson has finished hearing the evidence and started writing his report, the Inquiry is emphatically demonstrating the need for change.

Below is the text of the speech made by Harriet Harman, the Deputy Leader of the Labour Party, to the party’s women’s conference held on 24th September 2011.

I’m delighted to see you all here today and excited to hear all you’ve got to say.

It is right to remind ourselves why we are meeting as women, as Labour women, today.

It is because we want to meet together as women, party members, MEPs, MPs, councillors, trade union women, Labour women from the Lords, to discuss what women want and what we are going to do about it.

And over the years, Labour women’s conferences have a great track record. Labour women’s conferences were where:

– we formulated the demand for a national childcare strategy.

– decided to make domestic violence and sex offences a priority in the Criminal Justice System.

– built support for all women’s shortlists for parliament.

And those policies delivered results.

We did have a National Childcare Strategy with Sure Start Centres, Childcare tax credits and more nurseries – we still had further to go. The Tories are now cutting that back but our great Labour councillors are fighting to protect them. Labour councillors are more important even than before.

We did – working with the police, the prosecutors, the courts and Women’s Aid and Refuge – transform the response to domestic violence. Again, further action was needed but it made a huge difference. And now the cuts threaten the support programmes for domestic violence, victims and councils will find it harder to support women’s refuges as the cuts bite.

And we did get all women shortlists so that we have more Labour women MPs than all the other parties put together. But we are still outnumbered by men 3 to 1 and we’ve still got further to go on Labour representation of women in councils. And I hope that tomorrow the Labour party will – as part of Refounding Labour – make the historic decision that we will always have a woman in Labour’s leadership.

But today it’s our chance to share what we think the priorities are for women right now.

Women of all ages. Women of all ethnicities. Women from all walks of life. And we need to look from the viewpoint of all the different women.

But it’s our responsibility and our opportunity to speak up for women and to shape demands so that Labour policy and Labour campaigns improve their lives.

I know that today, as well as focussing on domestic violence, women as carers, how to make work more family friendly, and childcare, we’ll focus on what women want in relation to:

– women’s pensions.

– sexualisation of girls.

– pornography and prostitution.

– the portrayal of women in the media.

– women in the developing world.

– how older women – instead of being respected for their experience – face a toxic combination of ageism and sexism.

– and the demands of those women who were part of the Arab Spring and who want to have a say in the future of their country.

We will discuss how we can campaign together, in our local communities and at national level, against the impact of the unfair Tory cuts on women; against the shame of the Tories failing to implement and enforce the Equality Act; and to increase women’s representation throughout our party.

We may be in opposition and we may be, as yet not equally represented in our Party, but we are not powerless. Far from it,

We have exposed and pushed back the Tories on women’s pensions.

We have forced them to drop their proposals to make it harder to prosecute rape by giving rape suspects anonymity.

And even though the Tories and the Lib Dems have dropped a key Equality Act clause on making employers publish what they pay on average to men and what they pay to their women, our sisters in the Trade Union Movement will get the support of their members to put it on the agenda for collective bargaining.

But above all we are powerful because we are here together, we’re determined and because we are speaking up for the concerns of women in this country.

Women’s conference has never been top down, nor is this one. It’s going to be a conference of women speaking from the floor rather than speeches from the platform.

You will decide what our priorities should be and vote on them. That will be reported back and Ed Miliband will hear that report back.

This is going to be a brilliant conference. Let’s get on with it.

Below is the text of the speech made by Harriet Harman, the Shadow Secretary of State for International Development, on the International Day for the Elimination of Violence Against Women in 2010.

I’d like to thank ActionAid for providing me with my first opportunity since being appointed as Shadow Secretary of State for International Development to set out why I see this role as so important, and how I and my team will be working with you over the time ahead.

The last 25 years has seen real progress in tackling world poverty – 500 million fewer people living in poverty despite the rapid growth in the world’s population.

But we must not take that progress for granted. Not when 1.4 billion people still live on less than .25 a day and 900 million people around the world will go to sleep hungry tonight.

We only have five years l eft to meet the Millennium Development Goals. The global financial crisis, rising food and fuel prices, together with recent natural disasters like the earthquake in Haiti and the floods in Pakistan, make meeting them even more difficult.

We must not let the momentum slide.

Today is the International Day for the Elimination of Violence Against Women, and it is particularly appropriate for me to be able to be here at ActionAid, because of the work that you have done on this issue and because of the outstanding role that you, Joanna, have played on this.

Next Wednesday is World Aids Day and we are only days away from the start of the Cancun Climate Change Summit.

All these dates are reminders of the development challenges we still face in tackling women’s and girls’ inequality, in fighting disease and in tackling climate change.

International development is of the greatest importance, in practical terms, for the lives it saves, here and now, an d for the future for the peace, prosperity and opportunity throughout the world to which it contributes.

And for Britain and our place in the world. Saving the lives of 50,000 pregnant women and a quarter of a million new born babies. Any set of priorities and values must see that as important.

Some said “but you’re in opposition – just leave the government to get on with it. You should focus on something that matters here in this country.” I thought they were wrong on both counts.

The government cannot just be left to get on with it. They have, indeed, promised to keep to Labour’s pledge to commit 0.7% of Gross National Income to Aid, from 2013. But there are all too many on their backbenches, and no doubt in the Treasury too, as well as people who write in the Daily Mail and the Sun, who regard that promise as wrong, when it was entered into, and even more wrong at a time of drastic cuts in public spending.

So those in the government, inclu ding Secretary of State, Andrew Mitchell, who want to keep that promise – they need our help. Many of our backbenchers are far more committed than theirs to that promise that was in the manifestos of all three parties. So we will strongly support it.

And I would argue, too, that though this is an international department, it is of great importance to a great many people in this country. Not least my constituents.

In this country we have a great tradition of international aid. Oxfam, set up in Oxford, Save the Children, which for a long time was based in my constituency, Cafod, Christian Aid and Action Aid – which are respected world wide. In this country, in churches and community groups up and down the country, people work together to raise money to tackle emergencies and foster development.

And there are many people in this country who came, or whose family come, from Africa, or South Asia, from countries which are still struggling with poverty and who care passionately about the prospects of people in their homeland. It is wrong to think that because the government has embarked on a rash programme of spending cuts, people no longer care about those for whom our aid means life or death.

And I was also motivated to take on this role because I think as a woman, its important to play my part in an agenda which is of such importance to women and girls in the developing world.

So I am proud to be doing this job. I hope that I can play my part, in opposition, to supporting the development agenda and hope before too long I can perform that role from government.

I’m grateful to have the chance today to say how much I look forward to working closely with you, and what I see myself and my team – working closely with you – doing in the months and years ahead.

I see one of our biggest commitments, and I would say major achievements, over 13 years of government was on international development:

We set up the Department of International Development with a Secretary of State at the cabinet table.

We trebled the Aid budget and committed to reach 0.7% from 2013.

We ended the tying of aid to commercial interests.

Through Jubilee 2000, at summits in Gleneagles and in London we put dropping debt and increasing aid at the centre of the international agenda.

We want to see all that progress taken forward… not slip back. My first preference would be to be in government delivering this agenda… But my close second preference is to see this government delivering on that agenda. And we will work with them to help them do that.

We should not be lulled into a false sense of security just because the government are committed to the 0.7%.

We have to campaign in support of it. One cast iron way to reassure ourselves that we have succeeded in securing the commitment to the 0.7% is for the target to be written into law.

When we were in government we prepared a Bill and it had “pre-legislative scrutiny” and attracted cross-party support. It is a small bill – only four clauses, and it is all ready t o be taken forward. The government have said they will bring it forward but so far there is no sign of it in their timetable for government bills. So we will continue to press them on this.

And if they do not bring it forward as a government bill it must surely be one of the top candidates for a Private Members Bill.

With an existing commitment from the government and strong support from the opposition it has every chance of making it to the statute book.

And we need to continue to campaign to show that aid matters and remains a priority. This campaign will need to be in Parliament, and amongst the aid agencies and all those in every community who support our development aid.

The commitment is there in the manifestos of both the Tories and the Lib Dems, and it is in the coalition agreement. But that guarantees nothing.

Hardly a day goes by without their performing a dramatic u-turn. We don’t want to risk this being the next promise abandone d. And we want to make sure that the money spent is genuinely on poverty reduction, and it is not diverted for other purposes. So we will be holding them to account for how development money is spent.

But overseas aid is not just what is done, importantly, by government. It is also what is done by individuals.

We have great heroes of international development – like Bill and Melinda Gates, like Bono and Bob Geldof. The leadership and inspiration they provide cannot be overstated.

But there are also the hundreds of thousands of people up and down this country who send money back to their family or their village, in their country of origin. I call them the “hidden heroes of international development”. People living in my constituency who come from Sierra Leone, Nigeria or Ghana who are living here and working hard. Sometimes doing more than one job, like office cleaning. As well as paying their taxes and providing for their family, they also send money back to their home country.

When we were in government we worked to make that easier – including helping transfers using mobile phone technology.

But I think we can and should do much more to support remittances. It is right that we help those who are giving. Especially as often it is those on low incomes. It is right that we recognise and support what they are doing. And we want to work with you, with the diaspora communities, and with the financial services sector to develop a new policy on remittances.

I think that as Labour’s team on international development, we also have an important role in supporting the development of the new UN Women’s Agency. Gordon Brown played a key part in getting it set up and it is now headed by the brilliant Michelle Bachelet – who was Chile’s first woman president.

The UK was one of the countries that were instrumental in establishing the new agency and it is right that we continue to support it. A key focus o f the Millennium Development Goals is women’s health and girls’ education; and the agenda for women and girls is central to the government’s development agenda.

The new government is committed to the Agency, but with a men-only DFID ministerial team and a men-only Foreign Office ministerial team there is a limit to how they can contribute to women and girls’ empowerment. This is something they really must sort out.

We are challenging them to ensure that they make some changes and ensure that at least one of the DFID ministers is a woman. It really is not good enough for Britain to be sending a men-only team around the world talking about the empowerment of women and girls in developing countries. The government must walk the talk. Patriarchal politics has no place in 21st century Britain.

Hitherto, countries working together has been the responsibility of men. Men leaders, men Finance Ministers, men Foreign Secretaries. There was no alternative – as th ere were only men in government. But now across the world there are strong women everywhere, in parliaments and in governments– and now is a real chance to make progress on supporting women; by women working together internationally.

With the new UN Women’s Agency we have the forum to do that. One of its most important roles is to back up women representatives. Who will fight hardest for the maternal health care of the woman in the village of Northern Nigeria? The woman in the Nigerian state legislature. Who will fight hardest for the woman in the village in Bangladesh to be able to keep her daughter in school? The woman in the Bangladesh Parliament.

When I meet my sisters in the Parliaments of Ghana, Nigeria, Tanzania – as I have over the years – I admire their determination, I see their progress and I believe they are they best hope for the women and girls in their countries. The UN Women’s Agency will back them up in their work.

It will be import ant for all women in every country in every continent. But it is essential for the UN too. It will show that the progress and change for women and girls in all our countries is mirrored by progress in change in the UN itself. The creation of UN Women must serve to be testament to the UN’s commitment to women and recognition that empowering women is essential for development. It will send a powerful signal to women struggling against the odds that the UN is indeed on their side.

And in the way it works, it must serve to help the women who are coming forward on international work. It can draw on the involvement of the women who are now there – as they weren’t some years ago – in every country’s UN mission.

And it must show women themselves making the decisions by having an executive board dominated by women. We cannot have succeeded in the struggle to have a new UN Women’s Agency only to discover that its governing board is men. That would be to contradict everything that it stands for. And the executive board should reach out beyond women in the UN missions and women in governments, and include women in civil society organisations.

UN Women also needs the resources to deliver for women and girls on the ground through its own programmes. It cannot work just through influencing other UN agencies. The UK government says it cannot set out its contribution until their aid review is over. That simply isn’t good enough. Decisions are being made now and we must play our part up front.

Today is the International Day for the Elimination of Violence Against Women and we are calling on the government to make a ministerial appointment of a woman to carry on the work that Glenys Kinnock was doing when we were in government – a role you campaigned for. She led the UK’s work on tackling violence against women overseas and she did a great job. The first time such an appointment had been made in the UK. That was important leadership and the government must continue it.

This is against a background where the UN Population Fund reported that one in three women has been beaten, coerced into sex or abused; and when in the Democratic Republic of Congo, it is more dangerous to be a woman than to be a soldier.

Violence against women and girls is not only a violation of their human rights but it undermines development when girls fear the journey to school, men won’t let their wives work and women are afraid for their safety if they stand for election.

If we are going to achieve the Millennium Development Goals we need to invest in women and girls.

I am grateful to have had the opportunity today to have spoken of my concern on the fragility of the 0.7% promise, mapped out some of my thoughts on the Women’s Agency and touched on the issue of remittances.

Along with my shadow ministerial team, Mark Lazarowicz MP and Rushanara Ali MP, we will also be focussing on o ur other 3 priorities:

Trade, tax and global growth strategies which help developing countries.

The role of development in conflict prevention and in conflict affected states.

And making sure that the needs of developing countries are at the heart of the battle on climate change.

There is huge commitment, passion and expertise amongst my Labour colleagues in Parliament on these issues. We will be working as a team and with you as we determine to make sure that the UK continues to be an international leader in helping the world’s poorest lift themselves out of poverty.

Below is the text of the speech made by Harriet Harman, the Deputy Leader of the Labour Party, on 3rd June 2010 to the UNITE Conference.

It is pleasure to be here at Unite’s first ever policy conference and to address you in my capacity as the Labour Party’s acting leader. Not a caretaker – but Labour’s active acting leader.

We are in opposition but not demoralised.

We meet today with Labour being in opposition.  And I want to start by saying something about the election result.

We knew it was always going to be a massive challenge to win again after already being in government for 3 terms.  That task was made even harder by people’s fears about their jobs and future because of the recession, the scandal of the political expenses, Ashcroft’s millions going to Tory candidates in marginal seats – all of that gave us a mountain to climb.

When the General Election was called Tory MPs told me that – having revised down their expectations – they would be back in government with a majority of 40 seats.

But we campaigned together, determined and united and though we didn’t win, we denied the Tories the overall majority which they thought was theirs by right. And we sent the message to the BNP – there is no place in this country for your racism and division.

And we could not have done that without Unite’s support.  At national level, at regional level, at local level – Unite backed us all the way.

We are bitterly disappointed to be out of government but we are not demoralised we are determined. We didn’t achieve the result we hoped for, but our battling performance did deny the Conservatives the majority they craved and the opportunity to implement their policies in full.

The hard work that you and your Unite members put in – knocking on doors, taking our message into your workplaces and providing vital resources – secured the re-election of many Labour MPs, often in the face of overwhelming odds.

Every one of those MPs  is one more Labour MP committed to defending the jobs and public services that you and your members depend on.  It is also one less Tory MP willing to gamble with the recovery and strip away your hard won rights.

Proud of our legacy. Will not oppose for the sake of it but we will defend jobs and vital public services. Though we are in opposition, we will be an effective opposition. We will not oppose for the sake of it. That’s not what the public wants.  But, we will not pull our punches. Though we are in opposition, we will be powerful in the public interest.

We will be determined – to prevent unfairness.

We will speak up – for the public services that matter.

We will be vigilant – protecting jobs and businesses.

We will fight in Parliament and local government, in Scotland, Wales and the London Assembly, to advance the cause of working people throughout the country.

And, as important, we will reflect on what people were telling us at the last election, not just those who voted for us but those who didn’t, because though they want to be able to look to Labour to understand their lives and be on their side, they felt that we were not.

Rebuilding and reconnecting labour. Rebuilding and renewing Labour is an important task and we must listen and learn.  Our biggest loss of support was from hard-working families who, worried about housing and jobs, felt insecure and concerned about immigration.

Now there is our chance to debate these issues throughout the party and through the contest for the next Labour leader.

Leadership contest. Over the next few months with our labour party members and our trade union supporters, 4 million people will have the chance to help shape Britain’s progressive future by choosing the next leader of the Labour party. This will be the biggest election   – by a mile – in any political party or any organisation in this country.  This is not the block vote – this is about millions of trade union members –  people at work in of thousands of workplaces up and down the country – each one of them having a vote.  There has been a lot of discussion about how we can have the widest possible involvement in this leadership election.  My view is that the votes of our trade union affiliates are just that.

– from bus drivers to builders;

– car workers to care workers

– nuclear workers to nurses

– ship builders to social workers

– and in the food industry – workers who provide our food from plough to plate.

With the extraordinary breadth of our affiliated supporters, as well as our members, this leadership election is crucial opportunity for the Labour party to reflect, renew itself and re-engage with the people of Britain.

The contest will be open engaging and energising. It will be a chance to invite supporters to join the party to have a vote.

This debate will involve Labour party members, supporters in our affiliated trade unions and the wider the public.  This leadership contest is Labour’s opportunity to take forward the rebuilding for our party for the future challenges ahead.

Over the coming months the candidates will meet thousands of people in meetings across the country. I hope you will organise, and invite them to, events in your workplaces. And they will be taking part in innovative on-line discussions. And no doubt they will be tweeting – following your leadership, Derek.

Labour members and supporters will be looking to choose someone who can be our next Prime Minister.  But they will be choosing someone who will be leader of our party – and first off, will be leader of the opposition.  So they will expect to see how our leadership candidates show how they

– Can inspire the activists

– Encourage more people to join as members

– Raise money for the party

– Respect the democracy of the party

– Lead the whole of Labour’s great team – in parliament, in Scotland and Wales, in local government and in our Trade Union affiliates

– They will need to land blows on the Tory/Lib/dem coalition government.

– And our party will look to the new leader to defend the legacy of our Labour government with pride and protect the advances we have made.

Our legacy. Our political opponents will make a determined effort to denigrate everything we did.  We will not let them.

For every child who – instead of being cooped up in a flat – is playing in a brand new children’s centre, that is our legacy.

For every patient who instead of waiting in pain is cared for by doctors and nurses in a brand new hospital – that is our legacy.

For every villager in Africa whose life has been transformed by cancelling third world debt – that is our legacy.

That is Labour’s legacy – that is your legacy and that is Gordon’s legacy too and we should never forget that.

Women out of the shadows

And I hope our leadership candidates will join me in ensuring that Labour women are no longer kept in the shadows.

We have 81 Labour women MPs – more than all the other parties put together. Labour is the only party in parliament which speaks up for women in this country. We have some excellent experienced women and some brilliant new women MPs.  We still do have twice as many men MPs as women.  The labour men are great – but they are not twice as good as the women – so I want the PLP when we revise our rules for shadow cabinet elections to have 50.50 men and women in the shadow. It’s time for Labour women to step out of the shadows.

The new leader will be unveiled at the start of this year’s annual Labour Party conference on Saturday 25th Sept and that will be a major step forward for us.

Derek and Tony. This is Unite’s first policy conference – but it will be Tony and Derek’s last as joint General Secretary. And I want to pay a warm personal tribute to both of you.

Derek, you rose to be elected leader of Amicus – but you started work at only 15 years old as an apprentice engineer in Sheffield.

Tony, you rose to be elected leader of the TGWU – but you too started work at only 15 as a steward for the Ocean Steam ship company.

Together, you represent one and half million working men and women from all parts of the UK and Ireland and just about every sector of industry and the public services:

You represent men and women with all kinds of skills from all over the county. Good men and women who achieve remarkable things, often in very difficult working conditions.

Like the twilight army who clean the bankers’ offices in Canary Wharf who helped highlight the need for a London Living Wage.

Your members are the backbone of our economy and our society, and you both have been stalwarts of the Labour Party.

I thank you for what you have both done over so many years and for what you have achieved on behalf of the working people you serve.

Finally I know that we were all bitterly disappointed that Labour is out of government.  We lost the election but we are not going to lose our determination and our spirit.

I know that people at work fear for their future under the new Government.

But we will stand together.

We will defend hard- working people

We will defend vital public services and together we will pave for the way for a better future.

I’m delighted to be here in Wales with so many friends and wonderful Labour Party people.

And to join you on this important day of debate and discussion and motivation at an important time

Time when because of the global recession, people are afraid for their future

Time when Labour in government and local government has stepped in to take bold action

Time when divide between Labour and the Tories has never been starker and clearer

Time when we face – on June 4th – the European elections. Which are important elections in their own right but are also the curtain raiser for the General Election.

We will face these big challenges with unity and with determination because of our values and because of our principles.

And every part of Labour’s team has a major part to play in facing these big challenges

Our whole team – like the whole Wales Labour team that is here today

Party activists – like Pat Brunker

Our Members of the Welsh Assembly – under the brilliant leadership of Rhodri. Rhodri, everyone in Wales knows you and more importantly feels that you know them. You are their voice

Our MPs and Ministers – and Paul Murphy is a clear and constant advocate for Wales not just in Cabinet but particularly on the National Economic Council. Just as Chris Ruane and our Welsh MPs are in Parliament

Our local councillors. You have had to struggle and I know that you have worked hard to move on from the set-back last May.

Our trade unionists – and I want to thank Andy Richards who co-ordinates our trade union team in Wales. The Trade unions are a vital part of Labour’s team and have always stood with us through thick and thin.

A particularly important part of our team as we go forward to June 4th is our MEPs, Eluned and Glenys and our MEP candidates – and I want to pay tribute to Glenys Kinnock who has blazed a trail, for women, for Wales, for international development, for Labour, who is a dear friend and who is leaving Europe but will continue to make a huge contribution.

It is the whole party – supported by Chris Roberts and our hard-working party staff – that will not only keep us strong in these difficult times but shape our future.

Charting the way forward should never and never could be the preserve of government.

The party is the engine of progress. And the party in Wales before Neil Kinnock and since have played a major part.

I know that as Labour in Wales, you are proud of our achievements in government, your achievements in Wales in the Assembly and in local government. But I hope you will be bold and demanding and insistent for the future.

I know that you will support the party but that you will challenge it too.

When I first joined the party in my twenties I joined because I knew and supported what it stood for – particularly on equality and social justice. But I didn’t think it walked the talk. It needed to change fundamentally – particularly to listen to, and include women alongside men. And working with other young people, young women in the party and in the Trade Union movement, we worked together and changed the party for good.

We must be sure that the next generation is the generation who will be the agents of change for the future and that is what is important about today and about all your work.

This conference comes at a time of unprecedented change. The global banking system is in crisis and its ripples reach all around the world and to Wales.

We believe that when the market fails and people are threatened – that is the time for the public sector, for the government, to act. We believe that – in a recession -when private sector construction freezes – that is the time for public sector construction projects to be brought forward.

We believe that when people’s jobs are threatened the government must intervene to get the banks lending, to give help to threatened industries, to protect those who lose their job from losing their home as well, and to help them get retrained and back into work as soon as possible.

We believe that we need to invest so that when the economy grows we are set to take advantage of it with a green, digital, highly skilled economy.

And we believe that to do this we have to allow public borrowing to rise and that public spending now will help ensure that the recession is as short and shallow as possible.

We believe that fairness and equality is necessary and that when it comes to paying back the public debt those who have most should contribute most – so in his Budget this week, Alasdair Darling announced a new top rate of tax of 50% on income over £150,000 We believe that much of the growth in the future will be generated in the emerging markets and the developing world. On humanitarian grounds we need to protect them – with our Aid budget – from the effect of the recession – but for the sake of the world economy we need to help them grow for the future.

We believe that we need to act here at home – but also to act together internationally. This is a global economic crisis which – particularly on regulation of the banks and financial services – requires global as well as national action. This would be the very worst time to turn inwards, resort to narrow nationalism and put up trade barriers. That’s why Gordon’s leadership of the G20 is so vital.

The Tories would do the opposite

All this is the polar opposite to the Tories.

They would cut public investment They would turn inwards – against Europe and the rest of the world They would cut help to the unemployed They would cut taxes for the richest – with inheritance tax cuts of £200,000 each for the richest 3,000 people They would have let the recession take its course and let the suffering of the unemployed be a price worth paying. Their approach would have been both disastrous and heartless.

And I feel that we can all be proud of Gordon’s leadership on the economy and his championing of fairness and equality. In such contrast the inconsistency and tactical manouevering of Cameron’s Tories.

And as for Cameron’s recent visit to Wales – what he calls “the Principality” – I understand that he left pledging to cut the number of Welsh MPs by 10 and boasted that the Tories now had a Tory councillor in the Rhondda. Chris Bryant – my brilliant deputy as leader of the House of Commons – tells me that the people of the Rhondda have much more sense than that and that Rhondda is a Tory-free zone.

Working together, Labour in Wales, in government, in the European parliament, we have made progress.

We can see that in every neighbourhood, in the schools, hospitals, in people’s living standards. We should be proud of that.

We have a national minimum wage

In my constituency there are now 3 times more young people going into further and higher education than there were in 1997.

Disabled people have legal rights and gay and lesbian partnerships can now be recognised in law.

Maternity pay and leave is doubled and the number of childcare places have doubled.

But there are people saying – now is the time to draw back on our quest for fairness, opportunity and equality. At least “put it on the back burner”.

But I think that when times are hard, fairness is even more important.

And I think when we look for hope for the future – it is a fair society with opportunities for all, that people want.

So we did go ahead – earlier this month – with rights for all parents of children up to 16 to request flexible work to help them balance their work with their very important family responsibilities.

And on Monday we will introduce our new Equality Bill.

The Bill will

Take a step forward on equal pay. Women are half the workforce yet still paid less than men. In the past it’s been left to the woman to complain. But its not about her – its about pay discrimination. It should be left for her to complain it should be for the employer to explain if pay is unequal and that is why we have included in the Bill mandatory pay reporting.

The Bill makes public procurement an important lever for equality. We will use the power of public spending as the public sector contracts with the private sector to widen opportunities and promote equality.

And the Bill also takes a new, bold step, to tackle the great inequality which is based on class, on family background. It sets a new duty on all public authorities when they are making strategic decisions they must ask themselves – “how can we do this so that we narrow the gap between rich and poor?” and I am proud that the Welsh administration has chosed to take powers under this part of the Bill to drive that duty through strategic public authorities in Wales.

This Bill is the work of all those who’ve struggled for equality – women like Julie Morgan and like my committed parliamentary aide, Nia Griffith.

Our argument is that fairness and equality is important not just for the individual but also for the economy and society.

Equality and fairness is necessary for a meritocracy. It is backward looking societies which are characterised by rigid hierarchies, women knowing their place and oppression of gays and lesbians.

When we see unfairness and inequality – we take action.

So this is not turning the clock back – it is looking to the future.

Our Labour team faces a big test on June 4th when everyone will have a vote in the elections for the European parliament. We need every vote out. Every vote will count. This is about electing a key part of Labour’s team – our Euro MPs.

This is about the importance of European funds helping the Welsh Economy. Its about the Welsh jobs that depend on our trade in Europe. It’s about the environment and about cross-border security.

And it is only by working together in Government, in local government, in the Assembly and in Europe that we can deliver for people.

Of course we need to be on the doorstep, on the phone. That’s the way to show that we are on people’s side

Thank you all for your work

I hope that you will continue to be energetic, idealistic and ambitious and confident.

I, for my part, promise that I will

Work side by side with you here in Wales.

Continue my unswerving support for Gordon Brown and

Leave no stone unturned in campaigning to win the next General Election

And I look forward to us working together in the demanding and important time ahead.

Below is the text of the speech which was made by Harriet Harman at the 2008 TUC Conference, 10th September 2008.

 It is a great honour and a real privilege for me to be here with you this morning and to take part in your debate.

We all know that the background to this conference is very important indeed and that whilst we have made big steps forward on the things that we care about, we face difficult economic times. We know that whilst these economic problems are not homegrown, they are certainly hitting home and they have hit hardest at those who can least afford it. That is why the job of the Government and the determination of the Government is to see the economy in this country through the difficult times, make the right decisions to do that and also to protect those who are hardest hit and most vulnerable to the economic difficulties.

There are some people who step forward quickly and say, “Because the economy is seeing difficult times, you will have to put issues of tackling inequality on the back burner, that it is a luxury that we cannot afford when the economy is hard pressed, that we will just have to take a raincheck on that and revisit it later”.

However, we are not going to do that and I want to say why. If you are discriminated against, treated unfairly, subjected to prejudice because you are a woman or because you are black and Asian or because your face does not fit or they say you are too old, that is unacceptable at any time, but it is even more objectionable when you feel times are hard for you and you feel that your back is against the wall. So we are not going to step back in our quest for equality. Quite the opposite. Just as Gordon Brown led the economy to strengthen it with more jobs and our quest for fairness, investing more in public services and helping people better off, so Gordon Brown, as our Prime Minister, will lead the country as we take the economy through these difficult times and we step up our determination to have more fairness and social justice.

These are shared values between the trade union Movement and the Labour Party. It was the trade union Movement and the Labour Party that together worked to deliver the National Minimum Wage; it was the trade union Movement and the Labour Party which introduced new rights for working parents and protected older people against discrimination and it was the trade union Movement and the Labour Party which together have worked to set up the really powerful now Equality and Human Rights Commission.

Together we have worked to make a lot of progress and together we have worked to see that even more progress will be made. So, having already increased maternity pay and leave, we are going to see maternity leave increase to a full 12 months. Having extended rights to working mothers, we are now going to ensure that fathers can take more time off when their children are young. We are going to bring in a tough new Equality Bill and we are going to make all of our work more effective by strengthening the work of trade union equality reps in the workplace.

But we all know that inequality is not just a matter of unfairness between black and white or men and women or people with disabilities. It is also a question of the gap between rich and poor and the gap between the north and south. Although we do know we have made a lot of progress, let me just give you two examples of how inequality can be stubborn and can be persistent. It used to be the case that women could expect to live longer than men. Now a rich man can expect to live longer than a poor woman. We all expect children to be able to achieve their full potential in school, but it is the case that by the time they reach the age of six, a less able child from a wealthy family will have overtaken a more able child from a poor family. These are inequalities that we must tackle and we must root out.

That is why I am announcing to conference this morning that I am setting up the National Equality Panel which will chart where we have made progress during the past 10 years and where we need to make much more progress. We could not have anybody better to chair it than Professor John Hills. I know that he is already working with the TUC and will expect the trade unions to be playing an important part in his work. He will report to Government after 12 months and then that will be able to lay the basis for even stepping further forward on the important work to tackle inequality and to bring forward social justice.

Whilst I am talking about inequality and social justice, of course, I have to mention the Conservatives who are now posing as the new friends of equality. On all the causes of Labour and the trade union Movement that we have campaigned for and worked so hard on during the last decade and that they have attacked so viciously and persistently, they have now whipped round and said: “Oh, we are in favour of it all; we are the new friends of equality”. However, they are the false friends of equality and fairness because, although they are now sidling up to trade unionists, fawning over equality campaigns and lurking around women’s organisations, they are still false friends of fairness because the Tory Party which bought this country back to basics now says it recognises that families come in all shapes and sizes. But look at their policies, their tax policies, the so-called tax break for married couples which would penalise couples who have separated or lone mothers. It would actually make their life harder. The Tory Party, the party that decried our concern for more childcare as the ‘nanny state’, now say they too want to see more nurseries, oh, but they would cut back on Sure Start. The party that decried our quest for more women Members of Parliament as political correctness gone made now say that they want to increase the number of Tory women MPs they have. By the way, we have 96 Labour women MPs and they have only 17 Tory women MPs. They say they now want to increase the number, but they would never take the positive action and the steps that we actually did to make that a reality. I always say about David Cameron that he wants women for one thing and one thing only, and that is their votes.

It is no surprise, if you look at the pattern of equality legislation, with Labour Governments in the 1960s and 1970s pioneering new legislation to tackle race discrimination, unfairness in pay for women and sex discrimination, then the Labour Government again coming in 1997 extending our equality laws for people with disabilities, older people on grounds of sexual orientation. So Labour Governments have always championed equality. And what did the Tories do when they were in power for 18 years? Can anybody remember the equality laws they brought in? Not one. Not one during 18 years unless, of course, you count clause 28.

So the Tories have always been against tackling inequality and Labour has always been for tackling inequality and so it remains. We have made progress. We do face difficulties. We will get through those difficulties and we will make further progress. But, remember, Congress, that though we have made progress, we all know there is further work to be done. That is why we need to work together to win a fourth term for a Labour Government. Thank you.