Press release Harriet Harman speech to TUC Conference: A Free Press and a Fair Press - Tackling Impunity and Invincibility - CHECK AGAINST DELIVERY - Harriet Harman MP, Deputy Leader of the Labour Party and Labour's Shadow Culture Secretary, said today: Good morning. And I’m very happy 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 National Union of Journalists 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 vital. You have the concerns of those who care about the public interest and you have the knowledge that comes with working in the media. The profession of journalism is very much in the dock because o f phone hacking and the evidence that has come before the Leveson Inquiry. But it is important that we all remember that good journalism is vital for our democracy and despite the drama round phone hacking most journalists are highly professional doing vital work and often 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 to do good and 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. 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 the story - or the sc oop... But now, that pressure is exacerbated by people not 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 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 tribute to Michelle Stanistreet and the NUJ for standing up for journalists. And the truth is that if journalists, with the backing of the NUJ, had more power to protect their professional integrity, some of the worst problems that have now come to light may have been avoided. So trade unionism is good for the individual in the media and is good for press standards. 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. And though it does not seem to have been documented, 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 extrem ism and perversity. Women's groups have made a submission about stereotyped treatment of women by the press. 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. I think it would enhance Lord Justice Leveson's work if evidence on that was presented to him. This conference has been called 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 revealed by Leveson. And we all want change. Business as usual is not an option. 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 power 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" or a few bent policemen. It is a symptom of an underlying structural problem. Murdoch owns too many newspapers. 37% of national circulation - 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 waived through his bid for the whole of BSkyB. As well as the DCMS select committee, both Ofcom and Leveson are looking at ownership, and it is clear that there needs to be 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 the maximum percentage of ownership permitted a methodology for how ownership is measured the mechanisms for enforcing – for example, divesting and 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. Of course substantive change will need to be informed by the outcome of the Leveson Inquiry and the Ofcom review. But there are thing s 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… • 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. • 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. • If it’s discovered that they not have been open and transparent in the information they have given in proving they are "fit and proper" the applicat ion should be struck out. • That an applicant would have to accept the jurisdiction of the UK court. That if your bid is successful, and your company is involved in a court case, you can't avoid a court summons by being abroad. The BskyB bid stress tested the existing legal framework and showed clearly were the cracks. Despite widespread and serious concern about Murdoch's business practices, Ofcom did not initiate the "fit and proper person" test until after the Miller 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 even able to formally start the process of the takeover. We don’t have to wait to do this. My colleague in the Lords, Baroness Scotland, has been telling the government since last July that they can change the law under the powers that they have in the Enterprise Act. And they should do this. 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. 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 cannot 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. It has been a decisive moment for free speech – the free speech of the victims 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. Look at what happened to Charlotte Church, 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. They were no thing more than commodities to sell more papers. She showed real courage in coming to the Inquiry to say how that felt. You can only admire, too, the remarkable 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 more 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. The need for change is clear. The challenge – for Leveson and for all of us – is that this change commands as great a consensus as possible, and that this change is positive and enduring. 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 measur ed. 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. As a lawyer, at the start of my professional life, I fought the cause of press freedom, working at Liberty. Because of my work holding the government to account, I was prosecuted for contempt by the then Attorney General in what became the landmark case of Home Office v Harman. As a politician, I’ve spent enough time in opposition to dread the thought of the government interfering in the press. I've spent enough time in government to recognise that government power is dangerous if not held to account by the 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. That’s why it’s all the more important that politicians must insist on the freedom of the press. Politics cannot operate in a democracy witho ut a free and fearless press. We don’t want a cowed press. Instead of doing things the usual way - where government and opposition each come up with their own proposals – we do need to do things differently. I want to see newspaper editors to get together and come forward with their own proposal. I’ve been calling for this since January and I’m very pleased to see Jeremy Hunt echo that this week. It would be better for the editors 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 which is not just rhetoric. This new system should deliver on the principles the editors say they actually want. • A system independent of political interference and also independent of serving editors, who cannot be allowed to go on marking their own homework • A system that is citizen centric, accessible and straightforward fo r all and not available only to the rich. • A system that applies to - and is able to enforce its rulings - against all newspapers. Last week, the Press Complaints Commission announced it was to close itself down and move to a transitional authority proposed by PCC chair, Lord Hunt. But the new body and Lord Hunt's proposals fail a fundamental test. It will apply not to all papers - but only to those who opt in. So it is nothing more than business as usual. A change of name but not of substance. And after all the evidence that has come before the Leveson inquiry, the status quo is not an option. Many people have asked me whether I’ve been shocked by the revelations at the Leveson Inquiry. The sad truth is, it just confirmed what I had always believed. Many people have also said to me, "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 i n what happened in the past. In our 1992 manifesto, we put in 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. Our commitment to tackling media monopoly and introducing a robust press complaints system meant that the Murdoch press was determined to stop us getting into government. Not a day went by without on every issue, his papers battering us. As we approached 1997, we – as Tony Blair said 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’. And, it is fair to say, that when we were in government, many senior figures did become too close to News International and Murdoch. However, we did some things that Murdoch objected to. We strongly supported the BBC and we established Ofcom. But we didn't sort out media ownership or complaints. We've all got a lot of baggage on this. But we've got to leave it behind. This is not a time for press or politicians to settle old scores. We must have an open debate. It cannot be a debate where the media dictates what we are allowed to discuss and propose about their future. New ownership rules must address invincibility – it has to protect against monopoly and promote the public interest. A new complaints system must address impunity and give redress to individuals. Neither of these are a threat to a free press, but they ensure it’s a fair press. The financial crisis facing print journalism cannot be used as an excuse to duck reform. This is a critical time for the media, and for public policy towards the media. The Leveson Inquiry, the Ofcom review of media ownership and the forthcoming Communications Bill green paper – all of these things could have a profound effect on the shape of our media landscape for years to come. We cannot waste this opportunity. We need free debate and we need judicious reform. We owe that to the proud tradition of the British press, we owe that to everybody who works in it and we owe it to the public. Ends

To mark 60 years of The Queen's reign the Diamond Jubilee will take place in 2012. The celebrations will centre around an extended weekend in 2012 on 2, 3, 4 and 5 June.

Find out what is being planned to celebrate the Diamond Jubilee and how you can take part.

60 years of The Queen's reign

The Queen came to the throne on 6 February 1952 and her coronation took place on 2 June 1953.

She celebrated her Silver Jubilee (25 years) in 1977 and her Golden Jubilee (50 years) in 2002.

Diamond Jubilee website

A Diamond Jubilee website, including two new photographs of The Queen, has been launched by the Royal Household. It features the latest news, photographs, announcements and historical information about The Queen's 60-year reign. Visitors can also send a congratulatory message to The Queen.

Register for free tickets for Radio 1's Hackney Weekend by 19 March

	Register for tickets by Monday 19 March to see hip hop superstar Jay-Z plus more than 100 top artists at Radio 1's Hackney Weekend. Don't miss the chance to be part of the UK's biggest free ticketed music even't - this year on a massive scale as part of the London 2012 Festival.

A star studded line up

	Jay-Z to headline Radio 1's Hackney Weekend

Selling 50 million albums and considered one of the greatest rappers of all time, Jay-Z's performance will surely set the bar this Hackney Weekend. Prepare to be blown away.

Press Releases: ICC Conviction of Thomas Lubanga Dyilo 03/16/2012 07:24 PM EDT ICC Conviction of Thomas Lubanga Dyilo Press Statement Victoria Nuland Department Spokesperson, Office of the Spokesperson Washington, DC March 16, 2012 On March 14 2012, the International Criminal Court (ICC) convicted Thomas Lubanga Dyilo, former commander of the Patriotic Forces for the Liberation of the Congo militia and president of the Union of Congolese Patriots, for his responsibility for the war crimes of enlisting and conscripting children and using them to participate actively in hostilities in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) in 2002 and 2003. Congolese authorities referred the situation in the DRC to the ICC in 2004. As the Court’s first conviction, this ruling is an historic and important step in providing justice and accountability for the Congolese people. The conviction is also significant for highlighting as an issue of paramount international concern the brutal practice of conscripting and using children to take a direct part in hostilities. These children are often sent to the front lines of combat or used as porters, guards, or sex slaves, and their conscription reverberates throughout entire communities. This conviction puts perpetrators and would-be perpetrators of unlawful child soldier recruitment and other atrocities on notice that they cannot expect their crimes to go unpunished. Congolese institutions have a critical role to play in ending impunity in the DRC. The Congolese government has taken recent positive steps, such as the prosecution and conviction in national courts of several Congolese army officers for the mass rapes that took place in the town of Fizi on January 1, 2011. The United States continues to encourage the Congolese government to arrest other alleged human rights violators and abusers still at large

DSTV's Eye on Africa Program- Focus on the 7th COMESA Business Forum

http://cnn.com/video/?/video/bestoftv/2012/03/16/erin-jason-russell-kony-filmmaker-in-trouble.cnn

Bolton midfielder Fabrice Muamba has been taken to hospital after collapsing during the first half of his team's FA Cup quarter-final against Tottenham at White Hart Lane.

With 41 minutes on the clock, Muamba suddenly dropped to the floor and six paramedics ran on to the pitch moments later to treat the 23-year-old.

The paramedics tried to resuscitate the player while players and fans, many of them in tears, looked on.

Tottenham later confirmed the match was abandoned.

A Bolton spokesman said: "Fabrice Muamba has been taken to hospital following his collapse.

"There is no further information at this time."

Both sets of fans sang Muamba's name as he lay on the pitch at the north London ground.

The announcement that the game had been called off was greeted with a round of applause from both ends.

Muamba started his career at Arsenal and spent two years at Birmingham before joining Bolton in 2008.

He was born in Zaire but has represented England from Under-16 to Under-21 level.

Tottenham later released a statement that read: "Tottenham can confirm that Fabrice Muamba has been taken to hospital following his collapse on the pitch during the match at White Hart Lane this evening.

"The match was immediately abandoned. Everyone at the club sends their best wished to Fabrice and his family."

Meet the Rwanda's foreign minister Louise Mushikiwabo the Lady who has been at the forefront of changing the Image of Rwanda internationally.

Interview With the Foreign Minister and Government Spokesperson for Rwanda

Interview by JOSH KRON

Louise Mushikiwabo speaks about politics, censorship and ethnic divisions in the country.

Q: Many human rights observers and opposition politicians say the government has gotten increasingly repressive in the run-up to the election. What’s going on?

A: I think it is a mistake to think the government has gotten repressive because the elections are coming up. I think what has been happening is that political parties vying for positions, or trying to fund their candidates, have not been doing what they are supposed to do to fulfill their requirements, and are looking for an explanation. And the easiest explanation is that ‘the incumbent is keeping me off the playing field.’

Specifically for Madame Ingabire’s party, and actually herself and her party that exists in Holland and in Europe but not in Rwanda, we in the government find it so unusual that somebody who is trying to become a politician in Rwanda, and trying to achieve something, would come into the country with divisive rhetoric and downplaying the genocide.

This is my personal opinion, that she has no purpose of truly competing, but just to complain. She should make no mistake. For the foreseeable future, Rwanda will not allow any politician, political party, any individual, to tamper with the reconciliation and unity in Rwanda. That is one of the most important founding principles of the Constitution, and was discussed for many years, and Rwandans have decided that whatever they do, they will strive to be united and work towards reconciliation, which is a process. A long process. Neither her, nor anyone else will start dividing people and rewriting history.

Q: But the Green Party has tried to register six times and has been blocked each time; Victoire Ingabire has also been blocked from registering. Staff has been beaten up, and has been accused of genocide ideology. The BBC was suspended last year. It seems like a lack of democratic space.

A: Do you think that this party is a threat to the ruling party? Where the ruling party would want to construct internal dissension? It would be important, though, especially for those in the media, to figure out how the Green Party, which I hope is green enough, is just like other parties. I am personally a bit disappointed.

They are all into these diversionary statements. I remember precisely that PSI [Social Party-Imberakuri], in the beginning, messed up. They did not fulfill all their requirements. There were forged signatures, identities of supporters that were not provided. Then they came back and registered as a party. Every party needs 200 signatures from throughout the entire country. And supporters by district. There are number of requirements which are not even complicated to reach.

I am an independent. I don’t belong to any political party, but it easy to see that the RPF has delivered.

If you are going from the perspective of no political space, then you will go about it by finding evidence that you want. BBC has toned it down. There is more rigorous editing. We still don’t like what they do in the Kinyarwanda language, which is different from what they do in English and French. That is their choice of coverage, but this radio many times crossed the lines, and that time, they went a bit too far. When they agreed to change, we brought them back. We can’t be ruling and running a party and looking after Rwandan citizens by just listening to what radio says.

Q: You said lines were crossed. What is that line?

A: It is a line that is often toed with difficulty, and it is a line that is called genocide.

One of the things that we find insulting — what the BBC tells us and what other media people do — is that they seem to think that the genocide against the Tutsi is a small thing. And we would imagine never hearing the same kind of comments about the Holocaust. But somehow, there is a sense of diluted genocide here; that genocide is something that has to be reported on, and discussed, and reported in their context.

It is very serious business.

Q: People say this government does not tolerate any dissent and that the government is a dictatorship controlled by one man.

A: By any definition it would be difficult to qualify this government as a dictatorship when in 16 short years Rwandans have been able to decide, in this decentralized system, how to run their own country. When Rwandans have been able to discuss issues of health care and education. And it’s difficult to call it a dictatorship when it gives money it doesn’t even have to bring high-speed Internet to the country. We wouldn’t open our citizens to the world if this was a dictatorship. The reality on the ground is different.

Q: The allegation is not whether or not the government is ill-intentioned, but that the system is ultimately controlled by a single person.

A: Dictatorship is a bad word, and a bad thing. There is a system of consultation that is out there and open, but no one wants to look at it. A dictatorship is when a single person can offer life or death. This man spends a lot of time across the country, talking freely with citizens, having them talk about what’s going on. I don’t know too many dictators that do that kind of thing.

Q: We’ve been told by Rwandan government officials that the genocide ideology law can only be applied to Hutus. Why is this?

A: Ideology is ideology. It is not linked to one group or another, but the reality is that the genocide was committed by the Hutu against the Tutsi, and the reality is also that some Hutu were victims of the genocide, not because they were targeted, but because they did not want to go along with the plan.

Q: But in practice, on the ground, other than the recent accusations against former journalist Deo Mushayidi, it seems to only be applied to Hutu.

A: In terms of the genocide ideology law, where is the practice? Can somebody name cases where this law has been abused? We cannot anticipate that this law is a bad law. If this law has proved to be dysfunctional, it will be revised. We don’t want to abuse our citizens. If it can be adjusted, either in ten years, or five years, or even two months, it would be. This government has no intention of oppressing its citizens.

Q: Speaking of that, why has there not been more effort to investigate crimes perpetrated by Tutsi against Hutu in Rwanda and in Congo? There is extensive documentation that tens of thousands of Hutus were killed by government soldiers.

A: This is a very, very dangerous trend. During the Holocaust there were Jews targeted and killed. There were Jews, there were Gypsies, and others. Every time you talk about the Holocaust do you need to talk about everyone who was killed?

People try to ignore that. From Day 1, there has been acknowledgment of Hutu that were killed. They try to ignore that R.P.A. [Rwandan Patriotic Army] soldiers have been tried. Anything in addition to that is diminishing the genocide.

It cannot be somewhere in between; it is either/or. That is what is a dangerous trend. It has to be clear, a genocide was committed in this country. The R.P.A. and the Tutsi are not the ones that define genocide. The term genocide was defined after excruciating debates. The whole world has acknowledged it.

Q: But we are talking about people specifically killed by the R.P.F. [Rwandan Patriotic Front] during the struggle.

A: Nobody has ever denied that. The government has the record. The government has punished soldiers who killed Hutu.

What is this new other thing? And the motives are not very clear, and they cannot be innocent, especially coming from politicians with nothing to show for their citizens, but rather go into this ideological approach. And I hope that when the time comes, Rwandan people will vote for someone with something to offer other than ideology.

Q: But would you acknowledge that tens of thousands were killed by the R.P.F.?

A: I have no numbers. I know genocide is not a matter of numbers; it is a matter of motive. People who are not Tutsi were killed, they resisted, some were innocent citizens who did not want to join the killing.

But saying that [tens of thousands were killed] would not be genocide ideology; it would be wrongly accusing the R.P.F.

Q: So are you saying that that is not the case?

A: I would have to have precise information. Let anybody who has crimes bring them to the system, so that they can be taken to the court system. People cannot just out of the blue...

Nobody can be just accused of a crime. People were punished, some people are still in prison as you and I speak. Let them, whoever has these specifics, go through the justice system. Maybe they are talking to the media. The government has not received those complaints.

Q: In general, Rwanda tries to put a happy face on a lot of problems. People in Rwanda have told us that it is dangerous to bottle up ethnic identity and not allow people to openly discuss tensions between Hutu and Tutsi.

A: We do not need to put a happy face on anything. We know as a country we have a long way to go. We have many challenges and have discussed them openly. We have a done a lot.

We have done a lot to rebuild this country, to bring back the dignity of the Rwandese people. We have put Rwanda on the map. Why do we need to put a happy face on anything? We know we have a long way to go. There is no question about it. In terms of economy, energy, infrastructure. We have a long way to go.

Reconciliation is a long process, not just a process. It is not something that is going to happen automatically. Some people might not be interested in reconciling, they might not want to.

Reconciliation is not something you throw up in the air and catch. Reconciliation starts with the killer asking for forgiveness. Without that, I find it very difficult to reconcile when nobody is repenting or asking for forgiveness.

How people feel is their personal thing. Before I take pity on the killer, I take pity on the victim.

Q: We just went to Iwawa island. It is a center to rehabilitate street children, but no one there has gone through a court, people have been rounded up off the street against their will. Some people are 14 years old and cannot call their parents. It seems like they don’t have any rights.

A: This country does not believe in not applying the law it has created. These laws are here for a reason, every law. Every Rwandese has its rights. If that has happened, indeed it is a mistake.

Q: The government is trying to revise history; for example, the government says there was no ethnicity before colonialism, that the R.P.F. did not commit crimes against humanity, and that the war from 1990-1994 was a war of national liberation and not a civil war or power struggle.

A: It was most certainly a struggle of national liberation. When Rwandans are denied their right to be Rwandan, that is liberation. When Rwandans cannot be called Rwandans because the government has decided that they are not, that is definitely a war of liberation. I would think that is the right of every Rwandan to actually try to regain that, when negotiations and talks don’t work. People pick up arms to regain what is rightfully theirs.

There was politics of exclusion. If you remember well, this was used very well during the genocide propaganda. These people are as Rwandan as it gets. Some came from Uganda, some from Congo, some from the United States. It is fundamental right that was taken away. It doesn’t matter what they are.

Q: But wasn’t it more specific than that? The R.P.F. was made up of Tutsi refugees, who had been kicked out of the country because they were Tutsi.

A: The whole Hutu-Tutsi thing is not scientific. They [Hutu] have every right to live and actually participate in the life of this country.

Let’s go back to the definition back then, the way that it was being manipulated for a certain time. It has been used to divide these groups and pit them against each other. What has been taught by whom and for what interest? I was in this country for a while before I left. What I was taught in school was that the Tutsi was a snake, was an enemy. That the Tutsi is sneaky. So if those textbooks are better than Ingando, we are in big trouble.

We are not reorienting anything. We are trying to correct mistakes of the past, when your kinship is destroyed. Hutu and Tutsi have a whole lot more in common than what divides them. One would say one is the enemy of the other. That is when we go back into discrimination and genocide. That is not what we are dreaming, that is what we lived.

Q: Is one reason why people are not allowed to talk about ethnicity is that it would become more obvious that a small minority is dominating an ethnic majority?

A: People can talk about whatever they want as long as they don’t use it in a negative sense, or use it against another Rwandan citizen. If you want to go out in the street and say you are Hutu, it is fine. I have even seen a story that says it is illegal to say you are Hutu or Tutsi. I see no law where people say they are not allowed to be what they want to be.

If they want to, they are totally free to say it, as long as they don’t say we can’t live together freely in this country.

First of all, being a minority is usually a good thing. People were singing and jumping up in the air when Barack Obama became president of the United States. People rejoice when minorities rise up in society, when they become powerful.

Q: So by what you say, it should be O.K. for Victoire Ingabire to say the things she does. Because she is not denying the genocide, and she is not saying Tutsis are bad. She, as a person identifying herself as a Hutu, has feelings she wants to express. But she keeps going to the Criminal Investigation Department. (C.I.D)

A: People can identify themselves. What they cannot do is divide people. She’s going to the C.I.D because she is divisionist and linked to the F.D.L.R.. As long as she is a citizen of Rwanda, she’s free to claim whoever she is. No one is interrogating her. The reality of Rwanda is different. If she stays here a bit, she would see that.

Minister of State for Foreign Affairs (International Affairs) Okello Oryem of Uganda and the uk foreign minister hon William Hague

Press release

Ed Balls MP, Labour's Shadow Chancellor, speech at the British Chambers of Commerce Annual Conference 2012

- CHECK AGAINST DELIVERY -

Ed Balls MP, Labour's Shadow Chancellor, said today:

John, thank you for inviting me here today to Westminster Central Hall to address your annual conference this afternoon.

And Iet me start by sympathising with you all – as I am now the third politician you have heard from today – and with two more to come, I am sure you are all flagging a little.

But I know, from my own direct experience, the passion of your members and their commitment to their businesses and their communities.

Over the last decade and more I have had the opportunity to work closely with the BCC and my local chambers in Wakefield and Leeds on many important issues from regional funding and apprenticeships through to enterprise education in schools.

In fact, I was speaking only last Friday night in Wigan at a local gala dinner organised with the excellent local Chamber.

And we talked about many issues which I am sure have come up today already

From the local – delays in planning decisions, problems at the Valuation Office in assessing business rate valuation appeals when business rates are rising by over 5%, worries that the LEPs don't have the resources and powers to do the job; through to national and global issues – rising youth unemployment, the Eurozone and why the Brazilian economy is now bigger than the UK.

And what that dinner again drove home to me is this: while the CBI, FSB and IoD also play a very important role on the national and regional stage, if you want to know the views of local small and medium sized businesses up and down the country then it is local Chambers of Commerce that you turn.

John - you truly represent the authentic voice of UK business and it is good to be here today.

And let me say on behalf of Ed Miliband, the Labour Party under his leadership will always be a good but honest friend to business - challenging when we must be - but determined to work with you to build an economy for the future that works not just for financial institutions, but for businesses large and small and the people who work for them – in an economy that is both dynamic and fair to all who work hard and play their part.

But let us be honest – these have been a difficult few months for business in Britain.

I refer, of course, to the way that the depressed consumer and business confidence here in Britain has had a direct effect on to your profits and performance alongside the Euro zone crisis.

But also the way in which issues of bonuses and executive pay have hit the headlines.

And I know how frustrating politics can be when it looks as though politicians are continually moving the goal posts.

I don’t think anyone can be in any doubt that after the financial crisis, reform is needed in financial regulation and corporate governance more widely.

But I know too that the most important things businesses need are stability and predictability - government decisions made and then stuck to so that you can plan ahead:

That it is the clear view of business that, where possible, we politicians should seek consensus where we can in the national interest;

I want to come back in a moment to where I believe we can all agree on the big strategic objectives facing our country.

But I have to say I have been dismayed over the past year by the way in which government policy and its attitude towards business has at times seemed driven more by newspaper headlines, and change for change’s sake, than what makes for good business policy.

What signal did the Government send to international investors in renewable energy when it abruptly, arbitrarily and without consultation slashed the support for feed-in tariffs and undermined the solar industry at stroke?

What signal did it send to the Chinese investors in the new Longbridge MG line that the very organisation which brokered the deal – the RDA Advantage West Midlands – has now been abolished?

What signal was sent to multinational companies about the abrupt change in North Sea oil taxation in last year’s Budget?

Or to globally mobile construction companies with the out-of-the blue and immediate cancellation of Building Schools for the Future, cancelling nearly 800 schools where millions of pounds of private sector investment had already been made and contracts drawn up and negotiated?

And the way business decisions are announced matters too.

Whatever the case for minimum alcohol pricing – and we will study the evidence carefully – is it really sensible for the Prime Minister to announce his intention to proceed the day after Boxing Day without any proper consultation with the beer, cider or pub industries, which will be heavily affected by policy in this area?

And what signal did it send that the Prime Minister – having rejected our calls for greater transparency in City bonuses and a repeat of the bank bonus tax to fund a youth jobs programme – ended up telephoning individual chief executives from Brussels to order them to give up their bonuses?

And whatever you think of the culpability or otherwise of Fred Goodwin – and I don’t think there are many who would defend his behaviour over his pension payments after he resigned, or some of his decisions which took RBS to the brink –what signal did it send to businesses round the world that the decision to remove his knighthood was first announced by the Prime Minister to the Daily Mail, with the decision of the supposedly independent committee then announced just in time for the 6 o’clock news?

The right decision – but handled, in my view, in a dreadful manner.

For a country like Britain, the signals we send around the world about Britain as a place to do business really do matter.

And starting with next week’s Budget, this Government needs to do a better job of it.

I know you will be expecting me to highlight my differences today with Coalition politicians. And I will.

But, in the spirit of consensus, I also want to set out where, on each of the three big questions of our time..

- deficit reduction;

- the long-term prospects for jobs and growth in the UK

- banking and regulatory reform

.. the Chancellor George Osborne and I agree on the strategic goals even if we disagree on how to get there.

The first thing that George Osborne and I agree on is that, after the global financial crisis, we do need a credible plan for deficit reduction.

For a country like the UK, open to trade and commerce, dependent on the support of international investors, a credible deficit reduction plan is now vital – just as a credible independent monetary policy was one of the most important reforms I was involved in delivering in the last Labour government, alongside keeping Britain out of the Euro.

But we need a plan which will work, and which pulls all the levers required to deliver deficit reduction.

Of course, we need spending cuts and tax rises as part of that package.

But we also need jobs and growth to get the deficit down.

In office, our plan was based on restoring strong, sustainable growth, getting people back into work, and then beginning the difficult task of cutting spending and raising taxes where necessary.

But nearly two years ago, when the Coalition was formed, they took a radically different path.

First, they decided that the speed of deficit reduction had to be substantially increased.

Second, the emphasis of their plan took a sharp turn from increasing jobs and growth to immediate and steep spending cuts and the VAT rise.

But since the Chancellor’s spending review we have grown by just 0.2%, while America has now more than recovered all the output lost in the global recession.

Our recovery was choked off in the autumn of 2010, well before the recent euro zone crisis.

Unemployment continues to rise and over the last year the number of jobs created in the private sector has been outweighed by the huge loss of jobs in the public sector.

And the result is that the Government is having to borrow £158 billion more than they planned, to pay for the cost of this economic failure.

If the economy isn’t growing and so fewer people are in work paying taxes – and more people claim benefits instead – it makes it harder to get the deficit down, and harder to maintain confidence – of businesses and the markets too.

Don’t forget it was the impact of slow growth on deficit reduction here in the UK which prompted the Moody’s credit rating agency to put the UK on ‘negative outlook’ last month, followed yesterday by Fitch. As another agency, Standard and Poor’s said this year, ‘austerity alone risks becoming self-defeating’.

Many of you will remember the 1980s. Of course, action was needed then to get inflation down from its 13 per cent peak. But who now doubts that the depth of the resulting recession did permanent damage?

Manufacturing jobs and companies lost – never to return. Small businesses bankrupted – losing skills, ideas and potential. Infrastructure plans first postponed, eventually dropped and never resurrected. Adults and young people out of work for years, leaving a permanent scarring effect on their skills, their health, and their ability ever to work again.

That is why, alongside tough decisions on tax, spending and pay, I believe we do need urgent action in next week’s Budget to kick-start the recovery.

A Budget for jobs and growth including a temporary cut in VAT and genuinely bringing forward infrastructure investment to strengthen our economy for the long term.

And let’s use the almost £1 billion of unspent money in the Treasury’s failed national insurance holiday for new firms and extend it to give a tax break to all small firms taking on extra workers.

Because without action now to support growth and jobs, I fear we are in for a lost decade of slow growth and high unemployment which will leave a permanent dent in our nation’s prosperity.

But reducing the deficit is not by itself a guarantor of economic success.

So the second thing George Osborne and I agree on is that a credible deficit reduction plan is a necessary condition but it is not by itself a credible plan for jobs and growth.

The question is what form that plan for growth and jobs should take.

And whether it is backtracking on planning for large- scale infrastructure projects, the abolition of the RDAs or the scrapping of skills programmes, I fear that the current Treasury view that the only thing government needs to do for business is just to get out of the way risks undermining your efforts, not backing them.

As the Business Secretary himself wrote a few weeks ago in his famous leaked letter, the Government lacks "a compelling vision of where the country is heading beyond sorting out the fiscal mess"

He is right – and - on transport, planning, skills, strategic industrial support – government has a vital role to play and cannot just walk away.

With China currently producing more graduates a year than the whole population of Scotland; and adults in Brazil already twice as likely to be running their own business as Britons – I believe here in Britain we do need a long-term plan for growth to support and back your leadership and innovation and risk-taking.

That is why Ed Miliband, Chuka and I are clear that a modern industrial and business policy needs:

- government action to back business and ensure markets work for the long-term, including tougher competition rules, tax incentives for long-term investment, research and development and skills;

- stronger corporate governance and transparency in executive pay to make sure decisions are taken in the long-term interests of wealth creation and jobs;

- and tougher financial regulation and banking reform to make sure that the needs of small businesses are addressed, including examining the case for a British Investment Bank.

Which takes me to the third thing that George Osborne and I agree on - - the need for banking reform.

The global financial crisis started with the reckless lending practices of American financial institutions, but it exposed risky behaviour by banks and inadequate regulation in every major country of the world, including in Britain.

This must never happen again.

And while it was the irresponsible actions of banks which caused the crisis, it was also the fault of governments and central banks – including Britain’s – who did not see the financial crisis coming and should have been tougher in regulating the banks.

Every government in the world got that wrong. We did here in Britain. And while it is not good enough simply to be wise after the event, life is also about admitting when you get things wrong and learning from your mistakes and that is what we must all do.

For the longer-term, I do believe that the report from the Vickers Commission on banking reforms is the right way forward – though the devil will be in the implementation detail.

But I know too from my own constituents the huge frustrations that many small and medium sized businesses currently feel about the ways the banks are now behaving.

Since the widely criticised Project Merlin deal between the Government and the banks, net lending to businesses has fallen by £10 billion over the last year.

And despite all the promises that credit easing would be a short term solution to this problem, in the six months since it was announced not a single businesses has yet been helped, indeed the details of the National Loan Guarantee scheme have yet to be announced.

Vickers is right to argue that to protect customers and taxpayers we need much tougher accountability and transparency and clear, workable and robust firewalls – as well as stronger competition, especially in business lending, where the Government is taking much too long to make progress.

But on regulation, we must take a careful and balanced approach

Too soft: and we risk again leaving taxpayers and businesses exposed.

Too heavy-handed: and we risk throwing the baby out with the bath water and ignoring the needs of businesses small and large.

The easiest way to avoid any financial risks at all would be to have no transactions at all. But a lurch to regulatory risk aversion would be disastrous for the UK economy.

That is why in Parliament we are arguing that the proposed permanent Financial Policy Committee of the Bank of England should have a clear objective, alongside financial stability and consumer protection, to promote economic growth – a proposal which has been supported by many business organisations.

In my view, we need to have in our minds the US response to the WorldCom and Enron accounting scandals a decade ago.

The US Congress reacted with a heavy-handed piece of rules-based legislation – Sarbanes-Oxley. But it didn’t work.

It did not stop the financial crisis which started in the US.

And its complexity drove jobs and tax revenues out of the US year by year.

This audience doesn’t need telling that rigid rules-based regulation is often not the answer, and that small and medium-sized businesses desperate for much needed risk capital and fair terms are likely to be the losers if regulation is too heavy-handed.

Let me be clear - I know many of your members worry about the burden of regulation.

It is always important to keep Government under pressure on that issue as on spending too where wasteful public investment can never be justified.

As my colleague the Shadow Business Secretary Chuka Umunna said in his speech earlier this week, a good industrial policy:

“is as much about knowing when not to intervene, to let business and competition thrive in healthy markets, as it is about knowing when to intervene to address market failure where needed. Active, intelligent government understands its limits.”

But that does not mean the only thing government needs to do is cut regulation and spending and then leave business alone to get on with it.

I am not going to claim to you that Labour got everything right in government – let alone that you all agreed with what we did.

But many of our most successful economic policies:

- record investment in rail and roads,

- an expansion of higher education and science,

- a renaissance in apprenticeships,

- CGT for entrepreneurs cut to 10%

- faster business planning decisions,

- the car scrappage scheme,

were successful because we had moved beyond the old-style British debate – public bad, private good? private bad, public good? – and recognised that partnership between business and Government is vital if we are to rise to the competitive challenge.

Peter Mandelson was right when he said:

“ministers and markets can and should mix.”

And at a time like this, when we need to rebuild our economy for the future, that partnership is needed more than ever.

I said at the beginning of my speech it is the clear view of business that you need stability and predictability and, where possible, we politicians should seek consensus where we can in the national interest.

In all sectors, but especially in manufacturing, aviation or energy, that is the only way to ensure businesses can invest.

Consensus is not always a good thing. But nor is headline-grabbing change for the sake of it.

That is why – issue by issue - whether we agree or disagree - I am committed to working with you and listening to you on all issues which affect your businesses and our economic future.

It is the only way forward for Britain.

Ends