We've got two big speeches today. In a speech to the Progress annual conference on Saturday, Ed Miliband said David Cameron and the Conservatives were just offering Britain "a shrivelled, pessimistic, austere view of the future".

Cameron will seek to counter that today with a speech on the "big society", his vision for the future that he presents as anything but pessimistic.

Miliband will be setting out his own manifesto for the future in a speech at the Royal Festival Hall. It will be one of those relatively rare occasions when the leaders of Britain's two largest parties go head to head over policy and vision.

Those are the highlights – but there's plenty of other politics around too. Here's the agenda for the day:

9.30am: The Bank of England publishes figures showing whether the banks are meeting their Project Merlin lending obligations.

10am: Lord Hanningfield's expenses trial continues. The Tory peer is expected to give evidence today. He denies fiddling his expenses.

10.30am: Ed Miliband delivers a speech at the Royal Festival Hall. He will warn about the prospects facing today's young, a "jilted generation" because they will have to wait too long until they can afford to buy a home.

10.30am: Lord Prescott and others find out if they have won the right to a judicial review of the Metropolitan police's handling of the phone hacking affair.

Around 11am: David Cameron delivers his speech on the "big society". As Nicholas Watt reports, he will describe the project as the project as being more than a "fluffy add-on" to the government's agenda. He will also promote some of the ideas set out in the white paper on giving being published today.

1.30pm: Alex Salmond, Scotland's first minister, delivers a speech in London on Scotland's constitutional future. He will also take questions from journalists.

3.30pm: Owen Paterson, the Northern Ireland secretary, publishes the report into allegations of police collusion in the murder of Rosemary Nelson.

As usual, I'll be covering all the breaking political news, as well as looking at the papers and bringing you the best politics from the web. I'll post a lunchtime summary at around 1pm, and an afternoon one at about 4pm.

David Cameron was on ITV's Daybreak this morning. Being a Today man, I missed it, but PoliticsHome were monitoring. Here are the main points.



• Cameron said the current law on privacy was "unsustainable".

It is rather unsustainable, this situation, where newspapers can't print something that everyone else is clearly talking about. But there's a difficulty here because the law is the law and the judges must interpret what the law is ... It's not fair on the newspapers if all the social media can report this and the newspapers can't and so the law and the practice has got to catch up with how people consume media today.

Cameron said he wanted parliament to have "a proper look at this". But there was not "simple answer", he said.

• He said he accepted that some people did not understand his "big society" concept. That was because it was "not simply one thing", he said. It involved devolving power and encouraging more volunteering and giving.

• He said that he had given interview training to young people as part of his own contribution to the "big society". Downing Street was linked with a charity called Street League and everyone at Number 10 was contributing some time.

They do a lot of football training, which I'm not very good at, but they also do interview training and so I helped a bit with that and gave some interview practice to a couple of young people who are going for a job. It was fascinating.





• He said that he had a genuine partnership with Nick Clegg. Clegg was doing an "excellent job", he said. "This is not a sort of Conservative government with a sort of small Lib Dem annex," he said. "It's a partnership government. That's the only way you can make a coalition work. You've got to trust each other."

• He said that he had a 'try out" yesterday for the barbecue being held in the Downing Street garden for President Obama. "We've got a wet weather plan," Cameron said.

And Ed Miliband has been doing breakfast TV too. He was on BBC Breakfast. Here are the highlights. Again, I'm using quotes from PoliticsHome.

• Miliband said that if he became prime minister his "central mission" would be to ensure that the next generation has better opportunities than the last. He calls this the British promise.

The central mission of my government will be to ensure that we get the next generation to have better chances than the last, because that is under threat in this country and unless we make that the focus - unless we make that the mission of the government - I fear the situation will get worse.

• He said that he was wrong when he said the Labour fightback would start in Scotland. He said Labour failed in Scotland because "we didn't set out a clear enough sense of a national mission". (This is exactly the argument set out by Douglas Alexander recently in an interview with Progressonline.)

• Miliband said he was looking forward to his wedding on Friday.

I think we'd always planned to get married and this feels like the right time for us. And I always said that I'm not going to get married for political pressure, I'm going to get married at the right time for me, and it feels like the right time for us.

• But he also said that he did not have quite the same faith in marriage as David Cameron.

I'm pro-commitment but I think that, unlike David Cameron, I'm not going to say that those families that aren't married are automatically less stable than those families that are. Marriage is a good institution – it's right for me and Justine but the thing that really matters to people is stable families and they come in different forms.

The banks have missed their Project Merlin lending targets. According to the BBC, figures from the Bank of England show the "big five'"loaned £16.8bn compared with a de facto target of £19bn.

It looks as if Lord Prescott may have won his phone hacking judicial review application. Chris Bryant, the Labour MP who is one of the people seeking a judicial review alongside Prescott, has just put this on Twitter.

Some good news coming in a few minutes. #metgate

Ed Miliband will be giving his speech at the Royal Festival Hall in about five minutes. It's called "the Promise of Britain" and the text has just landed in my inbox. David Cameron will be setting out his own version of the promise of Britain within an hour. I'll summarise both speeches, cover anything Miliband and Cameron have to say if they speak to reporters and compare the arguments they are both making about the challenges facing Britain.

I'm not sure we'll be seeing much of either Ed Miliband or David Cameron on BBC News or Sky this morning. President Obama in Ireland is hogging all the attention.

Never mind. I've got their speeches. Summary of the Miliband speech coming up soon.

If you're only going to read one Ed Miliband speech today, read the one that he delivered to the Progress conference at the weekend. The Promise of Britain one - which isn't on the Labour website yet, but which should be there later - doesn't have the same breadth as the Progress one. But it's still got a big, clear message and it lays down a challenge to David Cameron. Here are the main points.

• Miliband says that "for the first time for more than a century, the next generation will struggle to do better than the last". He claims that this is "one of those unspoken truths that people know about – but somehow politicians seem to refuse to discuss".

• He says that this means the young will become "the jilted generation".

Some people have called us the Jam generation because of the music we grew up with. But our generation is on course to totally fail in meeting our duty to the next: to uphold the promise of Britain from which we all benefited, which we all took for granted. The current representatives of the Jam generation are on course to create a jilted generation.

As examples of the problems facing the "jilted generation", he mentions youth unemployment, higher tuition fees, longer working hours - Britain is the only country in Europe with longer working hours than 25 years ago, he says - global warming and rising house prices.

• He suggests that become a father has strengthened his determination to address this problem.



I suppose every father says this, but becoming a parent really does change the way you think about life. The love you feel overwhelms you. Like most fathers I was unprepared for that. It broadens your perspective ... As a parent, like all parents, I judge myself on the opportunities my children will have - and the happiness that can provide.

• He accuses the government of having no plans to address this issue. The Tories are just obsessed with deficit reduction, he says.

I am not just criticising their deficit strategy, I'm criticising them for having a pessimistic, austere vision for the country. They have no ambition, no national mission.

• He says that as prime minister he would concentrate on improving opportunities for the next generation. This is what he means by "the promise of Britain". He has used the phrase before, to refer to the idea that progress will enable children to have better opportunities than their parents, and in his speech he makes defending "the promise of Britain" the key aim of Labour policy.

When people ask me what our task will be, inheriting from this Conservative-led government the kind of country it is creating, my first answer, our first challenge, our greatest task, must be to take head on the decline in opportunities for the next generation.

As examples of his commitment to this, he says that he has already proposed using a bank bonus tax to fund jobs for young people, an alternative approach to tuition fees, action to tackle the long hours culture at work and a home building programme. Labour's policy review is looking at ways of stopping "the inexorable rise in the average age of home ownership".

• He says he will expect young people to contribute to Britain too.

The promise of Britain is not just about the promise we make to [young people], but the promise they must make to themselves and our country to be good citizens.

Lord Prescott has won the right to a judcial review of the Metropolitan police's handling of the phone hacking affair.

David Cameron is delivering his "big society" speech now. By some counts, it is the fourth time he has tried to launch the idea.

If you want to know why he's having problems generating public enthusiasm for the idea, read these comments from two commentators broadly sympathetic to Cameron.

Lord Ashcroft recently published Project Blueprint, a report based on detailed polling of Conservative voters and potential Conservative supporters (pdf). He suggested that, in campaigning terms, the "big society" is a non-starter.

However commendable the idea of encouraging personal responsibility and relinquishing state control, the Big Society, the theme that is intermittently claimed as the government's guiding philosophy, shows no sign of resonating with voters. The very few who mentioned it during the course of our research usually did so in tones of bemusement. Most people still do not understand what it is supposed to mean, or find the concept too nebulous to get to grips with. They do not connect it with any of the government's more concrete policies, whether they support them or not.

And David Brooks, the American columnist whose new book, The Social Animal, is widely admired in government circles, said much the same thing in an interview with the Sunday Times (paywall).



Politically the big society is a damp squib; it's a hard sell for the Tory base. They like things which are hard and vigorous; the big society is a bit soft and squishy and a bit upper middle class. It doesn't have much to say to your immigrant or aspiring working-class person who doesn't get home till 10pm, who has no time to volunteer.

David Cameron's speech on the big society is now on the Downing Street website.

I'll post a summary of it shortly.

This morning we're hearing political dialogue through speech making. The Miliband and Cameron speeches don't cover exactly the same territory, but there is some thematic overlap and Cameron (who has just finished) did use his to directly answer some of the challenges laid down by Miliband. On Saturday Miliband used his progress speech to set out Labour's "national mission". Today Cameron appropriated the phrase himself, and said that his was creating the big society. Cameron also directly rejected a claim made by his Labour opposite number. At the Royal Festival Hall this morning Miliband accused Cameron of having "a pessimistic, austere vision for the country". The Tories had no ambition, no national mission, he went on. Wrong, claimed Cameron.

Today, I want to address a question that I know real people are asking: is this government about anything other than cuts? The answer is yes ... As our debts are paid off, this is what I want to endure as the lasting legacy of this administration, helping to build a society where families and communities are stronger, where our nation's well-being is higher, and where all these things are accepted as central, not peripheral aspects of what modern governments should hope to achieve.



So the Big Society is not some fluffy add-on to more gritty and more important subjects. This is about as gritty and important as it gets: giving everyone the chance to get on in life and making our country a better place to live.



That was the key message in the speech. But he did flesh in some detail what his ambition to create a "big society" actually involves. Here are the main points.

• Cameron said his "big society" philosophy covered public services and society at large.

• He said "people power" was at the heart of his "big society" approach to public service reform. He also mentioned decentralisation, opening up services to new providers and transparency.

• He said the "big society" was also about creating a "culture of responsibility" in society.

To me, the idea is simple. Responsibility is people doing the right thing – by themselves and each other. It is the essential quality of the good society – of a strong society.



That's not theory – it's fact. And yes it is a "burden" in that it requires commitment, but it is one that we should actively want to undertake.

• He said the government would encourage donating to charity. Mentioning some of the proposals in the giving white paper, he said the government would make giving easier, cut the paperwork for gift aid donations up to £5,000, cut inheritance tax for estates that donate 10% or more of their assets to charity and make giving a "social norm". In America one third of workers donate through the payroll, he said. In the UK only 3% of workers do so. "We want that to be a lot higher," he said.

• He said the Office for National Statistics would be measuring well-being by the end of this year.

• He insisted that conservatives have always been in favour of strengthening society.

The idea that the centre right is simply about the philosophy of individualism – of personal and commercial freedom – is a travesty of our tradition. From Edmund Burke and Adam Smith in the 18th century, from Hegel and de Tocqueville in the 19th, to Hayek and Oakeshott in the 20th – all have been clear that individual freedom is only half the story. Tradition, community, family, faith, the space between the market and the state – this is the ground where our philosophy is planted.

Here are a few more thoughts on the two speeches we've had from Ed Miliband and David Cameron today.

• Miliband and Cameron both want to establish themselves as champions of stronger communities. This is what Miliband said in his speech on Saturday.

The third [task for Labour] is to understand what really matters to people ... It starts from what we see in our country. A sense of people being buffeted by storm winds blowing through their lives. A fear of being overpowered by commercial and bureaucratic forces beyond our control. And a yearning for the institutions and relationships we cherish most to be respected and protected ... We can't save every pub. We don't want to preserve every high street in aspic. And we can't stop the takeover of all British companies. But let's face it: our apparent indifference to some of these issues told people a lot about us.

And this is what Cameron said this morning.

Above all we must build a bigger, stronger society because in the end the things that make up that kind of society - strong families, strong communities, strong relationships - these are the things that make life worth living and it's about time we had a government and a prime minister that understands that.

In other words, both speeches suggest communitarianism is becoming the most contested territory in politics.

• Miliband and Cameron both probably need better slogans. The problems with the "big society" phrase are well documented. (See 11.34am.) But is "the promise of Britain" any better? I haven't seen any focus group or polling evidence on this, and so I don't know, but I suspect that it hasn't really caught on yet.

• There's a clear difference between Miliband and Cameron on the subject of inequality. In his Progress speech at the weekend Miliband was quite explicit about the need to reduce inequality. "The truth is that we cannot create a society that is equal to the aspirations of the British people in a world of wide and growing inequalities," he said. In his speech this morning, Cameron did allude to the need to promote social mobility (which is not quite the same thing), but only as one of several benefits to be gained from the "big society". "We must build that bigger, stronger society because we can't keep tolerating the wasted lives and wasted potential that comes when talent is held back by circumstance," he said.

• Cameron appears to have gone quiet on the subject of marriage. In his speech, there were four references to "strong families" but only one reference to marriage ("I back marriage"). Maybe he has read what Lord Ashcroft's research into the views of Tory voters (pdf) says on this issue. It's in the report, on page 23.

Most Conservative voters and considerers [ie, people who would consider voting Conservative] were bemused by the idea that the coalition was, or should be, promoting or supporting marriage. Some had heard the government talking about couples in relation to welfare reform. Few, however, thought supporting marriage in a wider sense was part of the government's agenda, or ought to be, whether in principle or as an effective way of tackling social breakdown.

Here, a little later than usual, is a lunchtime summary.

• David Cameron has said that Britain's laws on privacy are "unsustainable". He made the comment in an interview as it emerged that lawyers for the Sun will ask for an injunction banning the identity of the footballer at the centre of a controversial privacy ruling to be lifted. There will be an urgent question in the Commons on the subject at 3.30pm. (See 9.07am.)

• Cameron and Ed Miliband have delivered rival speeches about the vision they each have for the future of Britain. Miliband said his priority was to ensure that opportunities are better for the next generation. This is "the promise of Britain", he said. But now it is not being honoured. "For the first time for more than a century, the next generation will struggle to do better than the last," he said. In what was described as his fourth attempt to launch the "big society" idea, Cameron said he wanted to create a culture of responsibility. "Responsibility is people doing the right thing – by themselves and each other. It is the essential quality of the good society – of a strong society," he said. (See 10.48am, 12.10pm and 12.50pm.)

• Lord Prescott has won the right to a judicial review of the Metropolitan police's handling of the phone hacking case.



• Figures released by the Bank of England have shown that the top banks are on course to miss Project Merlin lending targets for small businesses.

• Alex Salmond has said that the government's tax increase on North Sea oil revenues could cost up to 10,000 potential jobs. As Hélène Mulholland reports, he made the claim as he prepared to meet the chancellor, George Osborne, to make the case for increased economic powers for Holyrood.



• Nick Clegg has said that UK's green investment bank will be investing in UK low-carbon infrastructure projects within a year.

Simon Parker, the director of the New Local Government Network thinktank, has put out this statement about David Cameron's "big society" speech.

The government constantly tells us it does not want top-down decision-making by Whitehall, but in repeatedly re-launching this agenda with newer, catchier schemes, ministers are in danger of missing the point. Big society schemes are already happening up and down the country. What they need now is time, space and support rather than any further disruption. Take Knowsley, which is improving community safety through anonymous crime-reporting; or Wiltshire, where volunteers are being recruited to take control of running libraries. In Hertfordshire, a new scheme will enable middle-aged people to stay healthy while caring for older people. Local government has a key role to play in stimulating the social capital that already exists in communities. The discussion should not be about creating artificial activism and engagement out of thin air, but about how local government can be empowered to nurture the energy that is already there.

Nick Seddon, the deputy director of the centre-right thinktank Reform, has also put out a comment about David Cameron's "big society" speech. Reform wants private providers to be able to run public services and Seddon says the passage on public services in the speech today didn't chime with what the government has been saying on this subject recently.

The government's message on the big society is inconsistent. Today the prime minister promised to 'break open state monopolies' yet in recent weeks ministers have been arguing against competition and the private sector in the NHS. The big society will be hard to get going if ministers can't explain what it is.

Here's an afternoon reading list.

• Tribune in an editorial wants to know why Ed Miliband is not doing better.

So, against all that is going wrong for the Government, why isn't Labour doing better? Supporters of leader Ed Miliband, Tribune among them, are increasingly worried that a void is opening up where Labour's voice should be. Policies are under review but it is the fundamental and binding principles which hold society together, principles of fairness and equality that are under attack from the coalition. Surely Labour has something more positive, more bold, to set out without prejudicing the outcome of the policy reviews which are in danger of imposing a self-denying ordinance on the party? Anyone hoping that behind the silence emanating from Ed's bunker frantic energies are being put into a secret weapon would be sorely disappointed. It isn't. Four years until the next general election may seem a long way away, but elections are not won in the last few weeks. Something needs to stir.

• Matthew Barrett and Tim Montgomerie at ConservativeHome have a guide to the best and worst of the "yellow bastards" (ie, the least and most irritating Lib Dems, from a Conservative point of view).

There's going to be an urgent question in the Commons at 3.30pm about privacy and superinjunctions. It has been tabled by John Whittingdale, the Conservative chairman of the Commons culture committee, and, after some confusion, we've learnt that Dominic Grieve, the attorney general, will be responding on behalf of the government.

John Whittingdale was speaking about superinjunctions on ITV earlier. He said that he agreed with David Cameron (see 9.07am) about the current law being unsustainable.

The law at the moment is being made to look an ass. It is ridiculous that you practically have to live on a different planet not to know who this person is and yet if reporters print it they face prosecution. I think the government needs to act to restore confidence and respect for the law and that means tightening or making it clear to the courts there needs to be strong cases for injunctions to be granted.

Labour's Chuka Umunna has been made a shadow business minister. As is conventional these days, he has broken the news on Twitter. His position as Ed Miliband's parliamentary private secretary will be taken by Michael Dugher.

John Whittingdale asks for a statement about privacy injunctions.

Dominic Grieve, the attorney general, is responding.

He says he knows this matter is important to MPs.

Freedom of speech is very important. But there are times when an individual has the right to have his privacy protected. There is a balance to be struck.

The complexity of this issue, and the lack of consensus, are some of the reasons why Friday's report from the Master of the Rolls was so welcome.

The report should allay fears that superinjunctions are being granted too readily.

Today David Cameron is writing to John Whittingdale recommending that a joint committee should be set up to consider this matter.

• David Cameron is setting up a joint committee of MPs and peers to consider privacy law.

Whittingdale says he welcomes the decision to set up the joint committee.

But does Grieve accept that things are moving very quickly.

You would have to be virtually "living in an igloo" not to know the identity of one of the footballers covered by an injunction.

Whittingdale says the report from the Master of the Rolls raised doubts about the ability of the press to report parliament. Will the committee consider this?

Grieve is replying to Whittingdale.

He says he won't comment on individual cases.

On the issue of reporting parliament, he says the point raised in the report from the Master of the Rolls was not a new one.

Labour's Sadiq Khan is speaking now.

Will the new committee be a joint culture/justice one?

The government's position has been muddled, he said. Last week Kenneth Clarke suggested there should be a privacy law. A day later, Jeremy Hunt, the culture secretary, said there was no need for such a law.

Does Grieve believe there should be a privacy law?

When will the new committee report?

Are the sanctions sufficient for anyone who breaks an injunction?

Can Grieve confirm the right to speak freely in parliament will not be undermined?

Grieve says the new committee will be a joint committee. It will report in the autumn. Kenneth Clarke and Jeremy Hunt will agree the terms of reference.

The Commons could pass a privacy law if it wanted, Grieve says. But Kenneth Clarke did not call for one last week, Grieve says.

Grieve says it is debatable whether a privacy law would change the situation, given the fact that a right to privacy is already guaranteed under the Human Rights Act.

Grieve says the internet does pose "a challenge" to the law. But that does not mean that the law has no value. Sometimes the release of private information could be very damaging.

Labour's Stuart Bell says the use of parliamentary privilege by MPs to subvert court orders is an interference with the separation of powers.

Grieve says parliamentary privilege is a privilege that must not be abused.

Grieve says that people who think modern methods of communication mean they can act with impunity may well find themselves in for "a rude shock".

Labour's Keith Vaz asks if Grieve is considering taking legal action against a journalist for a contempt of court in relation to an injunction.

Grieve says he would not normally comment. But no one has referred a case of this kind to him, he says.

• Grieve denies claims that he is considering legal action against a journalist for contempt of court in relation to a privacy injunction.

John Hemming, the Lib Dem MP, names the footballer involved in one injunction. He also names the journalist who was reported to be the subject of contempt of court proceedings.



• A Lib Dem MP names the footballer at the centre of the injunction row.

John Bercow, the Speaker, interrupts him and tells him he should be talking about the principles involved, not naming people.

Labour's Chuka Umunna criticised John Hemming for naming the footballer when he might not have known all the facts.

Peter Bone, a Conservative, asks Grieve if he agrees that the judges should "butt out".

Grieve says he is not sure what judges are supposed to "butt out" from. They have to do their duty, he says.

Labour's Tom Watson says he welcomes the review. But at least one person who was involved in a superinjunction has had their phone hacking. Shouldn't the inquiry by widened?

Grieve says the phone hacking case is being investigated by the police.

Philip Davies, a Conservative, says Britain needs freedom of speech laws. Footballers seek publicity when they want it, but then use superinjunctions when it suits them.

Grieve says there are already laws protecting the freedom of the press.

Robert Buckland, a Conservative, asks if the press would be able to report unsuccessful applications for injunctions under the Master of the Rolls's plan. Would that act as a deterrent?

Grieve says it would be up to the judge in any case to decide what could be reported.

Labour's Ben Bradshaw says the Press Complaints Commission was ineffective over phone hacking. Grieve says he does not have such a pessimistic view of the PCC.

Tom Brake, a Liberal Democrat, says any legislation must be "future proofed" against technological changes.

Dominic Raab, a Conservative, says the Human Rights Act has contributed to undermining the separation of powers between the legislature and the judiciary.

Grieve says parliament was "open-eyed" about the implications of the HRA. The legislation was drafted to give priority to freedom of expression, he says.

He also says the case law has not always developed because some of these injunctions have not been put to appeal.

That's it. The statement is now over.

John Hemming, a Lib Dem MP, has named the footballer involved in the injunction row.

The law covering the media in relation to this is not quite as simple as some would claim. Our lawyers are discussing this now, as, I think, are the BBC's. If I get legal approval, I'll post the name as soon as I can.

Ryan Giggs was the footballer named by John Hemming, the Lib Dem MP. Hemming said that 75,000 Twitter users had already discovered his name. He said he was the footballer involved in the injunction row.

• Ryan Giggs named in parliament as the footballer involved in the injunction row.

Hemming also said that Giles Coren, the Times columnist, was the journalist supposedly threatened with contempt of court proceedings in relation to a privacy injunction. Although Dominic Grieve had already said that he was not planning legal proceedings against a journalist in relation to this case.

Forget about Ryan Giggs. What's really interesting about this is that we are witnessing a no-holds-barred battle between parliament and the judiciary over privacy.

The courts granted Sir Fred Goodwin an injunction in relation to his private life. Last week Lord Stoneham, a Lib Dem peer, tore it to pieces by naming Goodwin in the Lords and saying that the injunction was granted to hide an "alleged relationship" between Goodwin and a senior colleague.

And today John Hemming, another Lib Dem, names Giggs as the footballer at the centre of another injunction row. Hemming blurted out the name just hours after Mr Justice Eady in the High Court rejected an application from the Sun for the injunction to be lifted.

MPs and peers are free to say whatever they want in parliament - it's a privilege that goes back to the Bill of Rights of 1689 - but the Commons and the Lords have their own internal sub-judice rules and normally members of both Houses avoid saying anything that would be a contempt of court.

But Stoneham and Hemming both flouted court orders because they believed that courts were over-reaching themselves. Many parliamentarians agree. There is nothing the judges can do about this, but it's nevertheless a mighty clash of wills.

This is what John Bercow said to John Hemming after Hemming had named Ryan Giggs.

Let me just say to the honourable gentleman, I know he's already done it, but occasions such as this are occasions for raising the issues of principle involved, not seeking to flout for whatever purpose. If the honourable gentleman wants to finish his question in an orderly way he can do so.

And this is the exact quote from John Hemming about Ryan Giggs.

Mr Speaker, With about 75,000 people having named Ryan Giggs on Twitter it is impractical to imprison them all and with reports that Giles Coren is facing imprisonment.

Interestingly, the first politician to speak out against John Hemming on TV has been Evan Harris, the former Lib Dem MP. Harris said that MPs should think twice before defying a court order in this way because they will not know all the facts considered by the court granting the injunctions. Some of these privacy cases involve allegations of blackmail, Harris said.

John Whittingdale, the Conservative chairman of the Commons culture committee, has described John Hemming's behaviour today as "cheap", according to Tim Montgomerie on Twitter.

John Whittingdale said in the Commons earlier that you would have to be "living in an igloo" not to know who the footballer involved in the injunction controversy was. Now that the name is out it is safe to point out some of the rather unsubtle clues that newspapers have been dropping. The Mail's website had this story, with the headline, "Record-breaking Ryan Giggs leads celebrations with his family as Manchester United wins yet another another title", prominently on its site earlier.

The BBC has finally named Ryan Giggs as the injunction footballer. They're generally more cautious than other news organisations, but the 5pm bulletins have just used the name.

Lawyers were cautious because, although parliamentary privilege gives journalists the right to report what is said in parliament, it is a "qualified privilege". Generally, this means that it only applies to reports that are fair and accurate, published without malice and on a matter of public interest.

A further complication arises from the fact that the legal textbooks normally discuss qualified privilege in relation to the law on defamation. But this isn't a libel issue; it's to do with contempt of court.

As my colleague Ian Katz points out, you can say what you like about John Hemming, but you can't accuse him of hypocrisy. His own domestic arrangements are unconventional, but he does not appear to have tried to hide this. He once even voted for himself as love rat of the year.

John Hemming is on the PM programme now.

He says he decided to name Ryan Giggs because Giggs was threatening people with jail for gossiping about him on Twitter. He describes this as "oppression" and says we have got to "stop jailing people" for this.

The presenter, Eddie Mair, points out that no one has actually been jailed over this.

Q: If Ryan Giggs's family suffer, is that his fault or your fault?

Hemming says it will depend on what he's done.

Roughly two thirds of the country knew who he was, Hemming says. He suggests that this figure comes from a poll.

(Does it? Does anyone know which one?)

Hemming says the Speaker may not be happy about what he said, but his job is not to make the Speaker happy.

We've had it confirmed that there is to be a fresh court hearing on the Giggs injunction, but it will be in front of Mr Justice Tugendhat

not Eady. Our reporter Josh Halliday is at the high court.

Helena Kennedy, the Labour peer and QC, is on the PM programme now arguing against what Hemming did. She says there may be a case for defending someone's privacy. Newspapers are fighting these injunctions for commercial reasons, she says. Breaking an injunction in this way could harm the interests of children involved, she says.

My colleague Matt Wells says that the BBC may have slow to name Ryan Giggs because they wanted all their outlets to identify him at the same time. That's what happened. At 5pm the PM programme led with the name, and BBC News named Giggs too.

Here are some more quotes from the John Hemming interview on the PM programme. He said he did what he did because Ryan Giggs was threatening "relatively ordinary people" for gossiping about him.

I worry greatly about this country's willingness to lock people up in secret. You have the situation, as I mentioned with Giles Coren as well. I really don't think that we should allow a situation where people are prosecuted and potentially jailed for two years, and it all happens in secret and you can't know who it's being done to or what's being done.

Asked if it was right to use parliamentary privilege in this way, Hemming replied:

I think there is an important point. If there is oppression going on, we should be willing to speak out about oppression ... If you are jailing people for gossip ... The step has started, the first step of identifying who people are has started. And there are people are jailed in secret in this country. We really have got to put a stop to jailing people in secret.

My colleague Josh Halliday is tweeting from the high court on the new hearing about the Giggs injunction.



Alastair Campbell is commenting on Twitter too. Here's a key post.

Compare and contrast excitement levels at Sky News as they pave way for Sun 'triumph' with general media blackout re phone-hacking

John Hemming is on Sky now. He says that it was Giggs's decision to launch legal action against Twitter that made him decide to name Giggs.

Meanwhile, here's another story from injunctionland. I've taken the copy from the Press Association.

Lawyers representing a woman who had a sexual relationship with former bank boss Sir Fred Goodwin has asked a High Court judge to launch contempt proceedings against a national newspaper.

They accused the Daily Mail of "deliberately flouting" a High Court order saying the woman should not be identified and asked Mr Justice Tugendhat to refer their complaint to the Attorney General, who would decide whether to prosecute.

Lawyers for the Daily Mail said there had been no "deliberate intention" to flout or frustrate the court order and argued that a report in the newspaper had not breached it.

Mr Justice Tugendhat reserved judgment following a hearing at the High Court in London.

Here's an early evening summary.

• The worst-kept secret in Britain has now been made public after a Lib Dem MP named Ryan Giggs as the footballer at the centre of an injunction controversy. John Hemming named the Manchester United player shortly after the High Court rejected an application for the injunction banning the use of his name to be lifted. Although Hemming was flouting the court order, he was speaking in the chamber of the House of Commons, where parliamentary privilege means he is immune from prosecution. Hemming later said that he had decided to name Giggs because the footballer had initiated legal action that could lead to someone going to court for spreading "gossip" about his private life - even though there was no imminent prospect of anyone being jailed in this case. Hemming also said that the journalist Giles Coren was facing imprisonment, but only a few moments before he spoke in the Commons Dominic Grieve, the attorney general, said that he was not considering a prosecution against Coren or anyone else. In response to an emergency question on injunctions, Grieve also announced that a new parliamentary committee will be set up to consider the privacy law, but Hemming's behaviour has given the matter a new urgency. Within the last seven days, two Liberal Democrat parliamentarians have used parliamentary privilege to defy court injunctions. Rarely in recent years have relations between the legislature and the judiciary been so fraught.

• Owen Paterson, the Northern Ireland secretary, has published a report saying that the security services did not directly collude with the loyalists who murdered the solicitor Rosemary Nelson in 1999. But, as the BBC reports, the inquiry said that it could not exclude the possibility that a rogue member of the security forces had been involved.

I'm finishing for the day now. But my colleagues will be taking over to cover all the next developments in the Ryan Giggs story, including the outcome of the latest hearing into the injunction which is underway at the High Court now.

This is Matt Wells with further updates. The high court has rejected a third attempt to lift an injunction that prevents journalists from naming a married footballer at the centre of a Twitter row over his private life. The footballer was named in parliament this afternoon as Ryan Giggs.

We are in the realms of the bizarre. In strict legal terms, I can't name the subject of the injunction that has just been upheld. The injunction prevents that. If I am only reporting details if the injunction, no names can be mentioned. But if I move on, as I am doing in this sentence, to reporting the proceedings of parliament, I can quite legally tell you that an MP today named the footballer Ryan Giggs as the subject of an injunction relating to a Twitter privacy row.

The third hearing today was held in front of Mr Justice Tugendhat. According to my colleague Josh Halliday, who was at the high court, he said: "It is obvious that if the purpose [of the injunction] was to protect a secure then it would have now failed – but as it is to do with harassment it has not failed."

Tugendhat conceded that Giggs's anonymity had been lost. But he said the injunction was about harassment, not just privacy. He said John Hemming's question in parliament today serves to "increase, not decrease, the strength of his [Giggs] case that he needs protection." The judge went on to say: "If a court can stop one person or five people [from harassing Giggs] – not 50,000 – is there not something to be achieved?"

I'm wrapping this blog up now. Here is an updated summary.

• A Lib Dem MP named Ryan Giggs as the footballer at the centre of an injunction controversy on Twitter. John Hemming identified the Manchester United player in the chamber of the House of Commons, where parliamentary privilege means he is immune from prosecution. Hemming later said that he had decided to name Giggs because the footballer had initiated legal action that could lead to someone going to court for spreading "gossip" about his private life – even though there was no imminent prospect of anyone being jailed in this case.

• A judge has upheld an injunction that prevents journalists from naming a married footballer at the centre of a Twitter row over his private life. In strict legal terms, the footballer cannot be named, but as we have just said, an MP identified Ryan Giggs as the footballer at the centre of a privacy row.

• Hemming also said that the journalist Giles Coren was facing imprisonment. But only a few moments before he spoke in the Commons Dominic Grieve, the attorney general, said that he was not considering a prosecution against Coren or anyone else. In response to an emergency question on injunctions, Grieve also announced that a new parliamentary committee will be set up to consider the privacy law.