The statement made by Kerry Law on behalf of the University of Leicester on 16 May 2022.
The University of Leicester has a longstanding history of supporting art, fostering creativity and protecting creative freedom. It does not condone any form of defacement and takes any act of defacement extremely seriously. This matter will be addressed in line with the university’s own procedures.
The comments made by Liz Truss, the Foreign Secretary, on 16 May 2022.
In an increasingly geopolitical world, we must use development as a key part of our foreign policy. Malign actors treat economics and development as a means of control, using patronage, investment and debt as a form of economic coercion and political power. We won’t mirror their malign tactics, but we will match them in our resolve to provide an alternative.
The new strategy, launched today, will ensure that our international development work brings benefit across the globe and here at home. Our strategy will deepen economic, security and development ties globally, while delivering jobs and growth in both the UK and partner countries.
The comments made by Steve Rotheram, the Metro Mayor of the Liverpool City Region, on 16 May 2022.
Liverpool’s Capital of Culture year was a catalyst for transformation across our whole city region, and we’re still reaping the rewards almost 15 years on. Bradford’s bid could be a boost for the whole North.
The comments made by Simon Lightwood on 15 May 2022 following his selection as the Labour candidate for the Wakefield by-election.
I’ve lived, worked and studied in Wakefield. Twenty years ago, I joined the Labour Party right here in the city.
It is the privilege of my life to be selected by local members as Labour’s candidate for the Wakefield by-election.
Thank you for your support.
The comments made by Colm Gildernew, the Sinn Féin MLA for Fermanagh and South Tyrone, on 16 May 2022.
These latest closures are a hammer blow to rural communities which will be deprived of banking services and I would urge Dankse Bank to listen to customers and maintain services.
It is Sinn Féin’s view that there should be no bank branch closures and planned closures should be paused to evaluate customer behaviour post-pandemic.
While the trend is towards increasing digital banking, for some customers this is not convenient or possible and for rural communities, important services are disappearing.
Sinn Féin would like to see a future banking forum so that policy makers, banks and other stakeholders can discuss issues including banking in a digital age and how banks and other service providers can best respond to serve customers and communities that rely on their services.
The article written by Boris Johnson, the Prime Minister, and issued as a press notice by Downing Street on 16 May 2022.
I am visiting Northern Ireland today at a time of considerable political change. The Assembly elections brought forth a new generation of voters and representatives who are confident and optimistic about the future.
The Northern Ireland of today does not see itself as a post-conflict society but one that is maturing into a story of sustained success. One in ten of the population were not born here. Local people have thrown open their doors to those fleeing Ukraine. A sizeable portion of the electorate were not even born in 1998. They are at ease with change, and at ease with each other.
The Northern Ireland of today is a place that has rediscovered the manufacturing verve that once made it the biggest shipyard in the world. Harland & Wolff is cutting steel again. Belfast is host to some of the world’s most innovative companies in biotechnology and the creative industries, and the No1 international investment location for US cyber security firms.
This means Northern Ireland contributes a huge amount to the rest of the UK. When the pandemic hit, it was a County Antrim diagnostic company, Randox, that was at the forefront of the UK’s Covid testing regime. Today, I will visit Thales, the high tech company which has played a vital role in the defence of Ukraine.
But there is more to be done to level up this place with the rest of the UK. If NI’s productivity grew to match the UK average by 2030, its goods exports could be around double the level recorded in 2020. The Government will do its part with record investment, funding and the new City Deals. But I know from my time as Mayor of London that there is no substitute for strong local leadership. I will tell party leaders today that this progress will be stalled without a functioning Assembly and Executive.
Restating our commitments
In a time of change, against the backdrop of European war and a cost of living crisis, I also want to use my visit today to affirm some core principles about the UK Government’s approach to Northern Ireland.
Thirty-two years ago, the then Secretary of State for Northern Ireland made a speech which many see as playing an important role in the initiation of the peace process.
Peter Brooke argued that Britain had “no selfish strategic or economic interest” in Northern Ireland. Not no strategic or economic interest – but no selfish strategic or economic interest.
It was a concept that became a pillar of the peace process – the basis of “rigorous impartiality” and “the principle of consent”, from the Downing Street Declaration of 1993 to the Belfast Good Friday Agreement itself.
Times have changed, at home and overseas. But our commitment to these principles is as strong as ever.
Equally I want to be clear that this Government is not neutral on the Union.
Indeed I was heartened to hear that Sir Keir Starmer made clear in a recent interview here that the Labour Party under his leadership would campaign for the Union, should there ever be a border poll.
There should be nothing controversial or surprising about that.
The Government’s commitment to the Union is above politics.
It was proved – with no politics attached – during the pandemic, with one of the fastest vaccine roll-outs in the world. It was proved – with no politics attached – by the remarkable furlough scheme that kept so many businesses and families afloat.
It is partly because of the Belfast Good Friday Agreement that the benefits that accrue from being part of the fifth largest economy in the world need not be a source of controversy, or eternal debate in political life.
They just exist, like Samson and Goliath on the Belfast skyline. They are the structural facts of economic life here, welded even more tightly by the rapid evolution of a high-skilled and high-tech economy.
Embracing change
But nor is there some perfect constitutional clockwork version of how the Union should be. Northern Ireland has always been a place in its own right, in which governance has been contested, broken, re-imagined and carefully nurtured.
Those arrangements continue to evolve. And far better, I think, is the Northern Ireland of today in which people look any way they want (north-south, east-west, or both) – depending on their identity, and their family, and their economic interests.
In today’s debates about Brexit and the Protocol, let us embrace that hybridity. Let us make it work.
We stand above all else for the 1998 Agreement. Its three strands. Its commitment to harmonious relations across all these islands.
We do so, first and foremost, as co-signatories and as co-guarantors. And as partners of the Irish Government.
And we do so, next, with a commitment to work with the democratically elected parties in Northern Ireland, whom I see will today.
That means abiding by the rules that have previously been agreed, including those around the title of First Minister.
So I want to repeat my congratulations to Sinn Fein as the largest party. Respect for the rights and aspirations of all communities are an essential part of the Belfast Good Friday Agreement.
And I think it is testimony to the path that Sinn Fein have taken from 1998 that Michelle O’Neill is now awarded the position of First Minister. I have no doubt we will work together well.
But it is equally clear that the balance on which the Northern Ireland institutions have been built has not been fundamentally transformed by these elections.
The unionist and nationalist blocs are largely matched, as they have been at every election since 1998, with the unionist electorate remaining slightly larger. Unionist parties performed well in the recent election, affirming overwhelming support for power-sharing on the basis of consent.
The most significant development in recent years has been the growth of a third grouping in Northern Ireland, represented by the Alliance Party – to whom I also pay tribute. They are an important voice in the new Northern Ireland but also, let’s be clear, a party which stuck to its principles in a darker and more difficult past.
Taken together, what the election results tell me is that the basis for successful power-sharing and stability is actually enhanced. Whichever way you cut it, there is a large majority for making Northern Ireland work.
And every single party and MLA has heard the same message from their constituents.
Focus on everyday issues. Schools. Hospitals. Cost of Living.
So it is time for all of the local parties to get back to Stormont. Elect a Speaker. Create an Executive. Get back to work.
Unique responsibilities on the British government
But the 1998 Agreement bestows other commitments on the British Government that go beyond its position as a co-guarantor.
One of those is to take difficult decisions: to assume a burden of responsibility, and indeed unpopularity, when consensus cannot be reached.
That is why we will deliver on three pre-existing commitments in the coming weeks.
We will take forward the Language and Culture Package agreed as part of the New Decade New Approach agreement, thereby addressing an issue that has prevented the formation of the Executive in the past.
We will intervene to ensure that women and girls have access to abortion services in Northern Ireland that are their legal right, following the failure of the Executive to deliver this.
And this week we will introduce into Parliament new measures to deal with the legacy of the past. These are different from those in our Command Paper last year. We have listened to many people in recent months and reflected on what we heard. Dealing with the past will still require difficult decisions but there will be no blanket amnesty. Immunity will only be available to those who co-operate and prosecutions could follow for those who do not.
Addressing the issues with the Protocol
In the international agreement that sits alongside the Belfast Agreement, as the sovereign government of Northern Ireland the UK also assumes specific responsibilities that go beyond its role as co-guarantor.
To protect the “economic rights” of the people of Northern Ireland. And to ensure “just and equal treatment for the identity, ethos and aspirations of both communities”.
We must admit that those commitments have sometimes been difficult to navigate through Brexit.
We insisted throughout that there would be no scenario in which a hard border would be allowed to emerge. And we have delivered that 100%, as we said we would, protecting in full the rights that were enshrined in 1998.
We told the Irish Government that we would take special measures within the UK’s internal economy to protect their place in the EU single market. And we have done that.
We committed to maintain the Common Travel Area and associated rights. It is another commitment that British Government has kept, even throughout the pandemic when so many restrictions were enforced.
Seeking changes to the Protocol
It is because of these complexities that the Protocol exists. It is why the Protocol was agreed in good faith. And it is why those who want to scrap the Protocol, rather than seeking changes, are focusing on the wrong thing.
But there is no disguising the fact that the delicate balance created in 1998 has been upset. One part of the political community in Northern Ireland feels like its aspirations and identity are threatened by the working of the Protocol.
And the Protocol involves other responsibilities which also need to be lived up to by all sides, including the commitment to protect the Belfast Good Friday Agreement in all its dimensions.
We cannot allow the impression that one strand is deemed more important than others; or that EU custom codes – designed for vast container ships coming from Shanghai to Rotterdam, not supermarket lorries from Liverpool to Belfast – somehow trump everything else.
We must remember that all parties to the Protocol made a commitment to be willing to revisit, adapt and change these arrangements over time – and to protect the internal market of the UK.
In the absence of change, the prior commitments made by the British Government – to protect all three strands of the Belfast Good Friday Agreement, to protect economic rights and parity of esteem – are coming into sharper focus.
Every unionist representative campaigned against the Protocol, as currently constituted. More importantly, every party, across the divide, seeks mitigations and change. None support a zealous zero risk approach to its implementation. None wants to see grace periods terminated, as the EU insist they must be in return for limited mitigations elsewhere. Some feel that their economic rights as members of the United Kingdom are threatened, which the 1998 Agreement is supposed to protect.
The simple reason for this is that the East-West dimension – by far and away the principal artery in Northern Ireland’s economic life – is taking too much of the strain.
Strand 3 of the Agreement, which promised the “harmonious and mutually beneficial development of the totality of the relationship among the people of these islands”, is not functioning as it must. And Strands 1 and 2 – of equal importance and mutually dependent – are now being negatively impacted too.
Many things have changed since the Protocol was agreed. It was designed in the absence of a Trade and Cooperation Agreement and when it was unclear one would be agreed. It has not been adapted to reflect the realities of the TCA.
It was designed before a global pandemic and a European war which has created a cost of living crisis on a scale not seen for half a century.
For there even to be a question about the fast availability of medicines or medical testing in Northern Ireland (between two constituent parts of the same National Health Service) is incompatible with the post-Covid era.
For the Chancellor of the Exchequer to say in his Spring Statement that people in Northern Ireland could not be granted the same benefits in terms of tax and VAT as those in the rest of the same country is a serious issue. It means that our ability to assist with post-Covid recovery and – moreover, the long-term economic development of Northern Ireland – is restricted.
We have been told by the EU that it is impossible to make the changes to the Protocol text to actually solve these problems in negotiations – because there is no mandate to do so.
We will always keep the door wide open to genuine dialogue. And we will continue to protect the single market – as it has been protected throughout the existence of the Protocol so far – and the open border with the Republic of Ireland which will always be of paramount importance.
There is without question a sensible landing spot in which everyone’s interests are protected. Our shared objective must be to the create the broadest possible cross-community support for a reformed Protocol in 2024.
I hope the EU’s position changes. If it does not, there will be a necessity to act. The Government has a responsibility to provide assurance that the consumers, citizens and businesses of Northern Ireland are protected in the long-term. We will set out a more detailed assessment and next steps to Parliament in the coming days, once I return from discussions with the local parties.
In doing our part, we expect all elected representatives to get back to work and deliver for the people of Northern Ireland.
The comments made by Priti Patel, the Home Secretary, on 16 May 2022.
The devastating impact of knife crime on families who have lost their loved one is unbearable. No one should have to endure the pain and suffering of the victims of these appalling crimes and we have a responsibility to them to do everything in our power to prevent future tragedies.
Since 2019, the police have removed over 50,000 knives and offensive weapons from our streets and in the 2 years to March 2021, over 150,000 arrests were made following stop and search, preventing thousands of possible fatal injuries.
I stand wholeheartedly behind the police so that they can build on their work to drive down knife crime by making it easier for officers to use these powers to seize more weapons, arrest more suspects and save more lives.
The speech made by Volodymyr Zelenskyy, the President of Ukraine, on 12 May 2022.
Ladies and Gentlemen!
On behalf of all Ukrainians, I would like to thank you for this award. It is a fair and correct gesture to honor with this award all the people of Ukraine, because courage is our national trait of character. Today the whole world witnesses this and admires the heroism of Ukrainians.
At the same time, I want it not to become something ordinary for everyone. And for this we must say and remember that behind the courage and wisdom of our people, there are thousands of real stories, names and heroic feats.
The world should know about them and to have a clear idea and understanding about the people of Ukraine. First of all, we are the nation of the best defenders. These are our ground forces, air and naval forces, airborne assault troops, special operations forces, the National Guard, intelligence, border guards, and territorial defense fighters.
This is Vitalii Skakun, who blew up a bridge sacrificing himself to stop a column of Russian tanks.
This is 21-year-old lieutenant Vitalii Sapilo, who neutralized 30 units of equipment of the enemy and died from an air strike.
Serhiy Pantelyuk, who was injured while repelling the attack and died at the hospital while his first daughter was being born.
These are the border guards of Zmiinyi Island, who were not afraid of the flagship of the Russian fleet – cruiser Moskva – and sent a Russian ship in a direction that became world-famous.
These are the indomitable defenders of Mariupol and Azovstal, who have been holding the line there for several months.
These are all our fighters who died defending Ukraine, hence defending Europe. I would like to ask you to honor their memory with a moment of silence.
Thank you.
The Ukrainian people are people who do not spare themselves for the sake of others. This is combat medic Diana Kukurudziak, who pulled 16 wounded soldiers off the battlefield in one day.
Paramedic Serhiy Chornobryvets in Mariupol, who has been on duty for 22 days since the beginning of the war.
The Ukrainian people are a nation of courageous children.
This is 11-year-old Maksym, who said nothing to his mother, ran away from home and came to ask for permission to be a part of territorial defense.
This is 7-year-old Varya from Kropyvnytskyi who gave her money saved for a smartphone to buy bulletproof vests, and then sold flowers and drawings.
This is a 15-year-old girl from the Luhansk region who was driving a car with shot legs and took out four wounded.
A 15-year-old boy who carried his wounded mother in his arms for 3 kilometers to the evacuation point.
Our people are also elderly people who have experienced too many ordeals.
This is Borys Romanchenko, who passed through the hell of Buchenwald and died at the age of 96, at home, during the shelling of Kharkiv by the Russian Federation.
This is Vanda Obiedkova, who as a child, hiding in the basement, survived the Holocaust and the Nazi occupation of Mariupol, saw the second occupation of the city in 2014, and the third – this year. At the age of 91, she had to hide in the basement again, where she died on the 40th day of the war.
This is 87-year-old Halyna Kotubey from Mykolaiv region, who remained the only and last resident of her village, but refused to leave.
The Ukrainian people are a nation where hundreds of thousands fight and millions help.
This is a business that has shifted to the needs of the country. Clothing designers sew military uniforms, restaurateurs feed free lunches, bakeries bake bread for IDPs and lonely people.
This is a university professor who continues to lecture to his students in the trenches. A violinist playing for people during an air alarm in a bomb shelter.
These are civilians of Ukrainian cities and villages, who became a living wall on the way of the occupiers – stopping military machines and turning tanks in the opposite direction.
These are inhabitants of Demydivka, who flooded their own village not to let the occupier into Kyiv.
Those who despite threats, shots and stun grenades go to peaceful rallies, reminding the occupants that this is Ukraine: Kherson, Melitopol, Berdyansk, Enerhodar, Mariupol and all other cities and villages of Ukraine occupied not for a long time.
These are millions of Ukrainians who are now defending their Homeland and the whole world.
Do not be afraid and come to Ukraine. Hear thousands of similar stories about us, Ukrainians. Look into their brave eyes, shake their strong hands, and you will see that they are doing all this not for glory, that they need not only awards, but also concrete help and support.
Weapons, equipment, financial support, sanctions on Russia, and the most important: the feeling that in this difficult struggle they are not alone, that they are supported by you, by the whole world – free states and free nations of our planet.
Thank you!
Thank you for your attention!
Thank you for your support!
Thank you for the award and welcome to Ukraine!
The speech made by George Daggar, the Labour MP for Abertillery, in the House of Commons on 23 March 1932.
I think every Member of this House will agree with me when I say that there is no more important question at the present time claiming our consideration than the problem of unemployment. If any justification for a discussion of this question is necessary it is to be found in the speech of the Lord President of the Council, delivered by him on the 15th of this month, at Ilford, in the course of which he used these words: This present House of Commons will give the Government authority for anything they want to do, provided it is designed to help the finances, trade, industry and employment in our country. I admit that we shall be judged when the time comes by what we have been able to do for the employment of our people. That is far and away the gravest and most serious question we have to face. The Minister of Labour in a speech delivered at Nottingham on Saturday last made this statement: I believe that we are justified in entertaining feelings of restrained optimism as to the future.
Those of us who occupy these benches entertain feelings of unrestrained pessimism as to the future. The Labour Minister also stated that the figures on the unemployment register were at their peak in September last when they reached 2,825,000. We heard a good deal of criticism of the Labour party when they were in office in regard to the total of the unemployed, but the Minister of Labour has the honour of being a member of a Government under whose administration the greatest number of unemployed persons we have ever known are on the register. I want to be quite frank with the Government, and I wish to say that I do not expect them to solve the problem of unemployment. The object of this discussion is to emphasise again certain aspects of the unemployment problem. The Lord President of the Council, in the speech to which I have referred, said that unemployment statistics were very misleading unless they were read with comprehension. I take it that that is an observation which can be made in connection with the use of any figures, but I submit that there are two figures which, with or without comprehension, will never be mistaken either by the single man or the married man who has a wife and two children to maintain, and those are the figures of reduction made by this Government in unemployment insurance benefit, in the case of the single man from 17s. a week to 15s. 3d., and in the case of the married man from 30s. to 27s. 3d. a week. We are told by representatives of the Government that there are more persons in employment since the National Government was formed, but is that statement correct? It depends, in the words of the Lord President of the Council, whether the figures are read with the necessary degree of comprehension. For instance, if we take October, November or December of last year and compare the number of unemployed during any of those three months with the number of unemployed registered in January of this year, we find that there was an increase in January compared with October of 70,700; compared with November, an increase of 145,200; and compared with December, an increase of 227,300.
Even assuming that there are more men in employment at the present time, what earthly consolation is that to the man who has been unemployed for years? According to the official figures, on 25th January of this year, if we exclude persons normally in casual employment, there were upon the register 2,131,298. According to the statement which accompanies those figures there were 128,834 more than a month before, and 255,968 more than a year before. If we include the persons who are normally in casual employment, we have a total figure of registered unemployed of 2,728,411, which, again, is 218,490 more than a month before, and 135,761 more than a year before. If regard is had to the increase as compared with a month before, we find that the increase of 218,490 is the largest monthly increase ever recorded in this country. I am aware that, according to the same source of information, on 22nd February the number of persons on the unemployment register, including those normally in casual employment, was 2,112,927, which was, as was pointed out in the Gazette, 27,238 fewer than a month before, but we must bear in mind the other fact that it means 83,515 more than a year before.
We on these benches are very much concerned about the effort which has been made by the Government to guarantee regular employment for those who happen to be in employment at the present time, and the provision it is proposed to make for the persons who are idle. Quite recently a detailed statement was issued by the National Federation of Building Trade Operatives, according to which schemes have been held up or abandoned by local authorities in the interest of economy to the value of something like £50,000,000, which is 25 per cent. of the normal annual value of building trade work, which is estimated to be within the region of £240,000,000. Had those schemes been allowed to operate, they would have provided 12 weeks’ employment for every man in the trade concerned; in other words, it would have provided 12 weeks’ employment for 858,170 persons who are trained for this particular kind of work. I am aware that the reliability of those figures has been questioned, but I submit that they have never been corrected, and, until they are corrected by the critics, they stand as being a reliable statement as to the position in the building industry.
What a contrast with what is now proposed in Germany, where there are schemes under consideration which will provide employment for something like 1,000,000 men! I know the argument which is adduced by those opposed to these schemes being carried out: it is that the money cannot be found. I cannot understand why £1,000,000 a week for unemployment benefit is regarded as a burden, while £1,000,000 a day in interest on the War Debt has never been described in this House as a burden. I am comparatively a new Member of the House, and I am amazed at the different language which is used when an effort is made to reduce the unemployment expenditure, and when it is a question of subsidising or giving grants to industry. Whereas unemployment benefit is always referred to as a “dole which demoralises the recipients,” doles to industry are “a means of resuscitation.” It is always “doles” to the unemployed and “financial assistance” to industry. The recent proposal to grant a subsidy of £6,000,000 does not even carry that degree of honesty, because it is simply referred to as a quota. Many new Members must be amazed at the language selected when industry is to be subsidised. The word “murder” gives one an unpleasant thrill, but substitute the word “homicide,” and we are left undisturbed. I am not impressed by the contention that the money cannot be found. Money can be found in this country. If it is possible to find money to destroy life, it is to the discredit of this country that money cannot be found to maintain and sustain life. In any case I prefer the German method of providing employment for the unemployed. The Lord President of the Council, in the speech to which I have already referred, said: It is quite true that there generally is an improvement in trade in the last quarter of a year, but we have to remember that the improvement in the last quarter of last year was not shown in the last quarter of the preceding year. Let us hope that the check that has at last come may form the springing-off ground for those better times so long overdue. The Minister of Labour also stated in the speech to which I have also referred: There is some hope that the corner has been turned. I am pleased to know that there now appears to be some unity among Members of the Government, and that every week-end they have commenced to sing the same song. No word in the speech of the right hon. Gentleman was more frequently used than the word “hope.” I submit that our people, particularly the miners, have been living on hope since 1920, that they have experienced considerable disappointment in endeavouring to live upon faith, and that at the present moment many of our people are being supported by charity. I represent a mining constituency. The Division, for local government purposes, is administered by three local authorities. At the top end of my Division, in 1920, there were from 4,000 to 5,000 miners employed, and now there is working only one pit, which employs 220 miners. In the Abertillery area there have been five pits closed. In the Abercarn area we have one pit working. So that at the present time, as far as one company’s interests are concerned, we have got only four pits working in the whole Division, where, in 1920, there were over 18,000 miners. The Secretary for Mines was in my Division last week, and there was only one pit of the Ebbw Vale Company, and that at the extreme end of the Division, which made it possible for him to see the working of a colliery.
Whenever questions of a commercial or financial character are discussed in this House letters received by Members are referred to, especially if they contain additional orders due to the tariff policy of the Government. I want to read a few extracts from a letter which was recently sent by the education committee of the Abertillery Urban District Council to the Prime Minister—why to the Prime Minister, I hope I shall not be asked to explain. The letter states: Parents are not in a position to provide sufficient food, clothing and boots for their children in attendance at schools of the authority. It is true to say that the position has been somewhat relieved by the introduction of provision of meals to necessitous school children, but much difficulty is experienced in obtaining funds for the provision of suitable clothing and foot-wear. The urban district council have opened a special fund in order that boots might be distributed amongst scholars, but the moneys available are not nearly sufficient to meet the need … It is most pitiful to see some of these little ones attempting to reach school with no soles to their boots, and very poorly clad. That is typical of the conditions in my Division. I have a letter here from the British Legion. I hope I shall not be expected to give the name of the place from whence it came, except to say that it is from my Division. It reads as follows: The joint sections of the above organisation have requested me to make an appeal for assistance to relieve the excessive distress existing amongst the unemployed in. … Owing to the reduction in unemployment benefit, the means test and the chief collieries being closed for the past eight weeks, I can assure you that the distress in this area can truly be regarded as excessive. Although other areas in distress have received wide publicity through the Press and other organisations, this is the first appeal to be made from this district. Any donations, such as cash, new and worn clothing, boots, or any other necessary commodity you can send us will be deeply appreciated, and distributed after the most careful investigation to the most necessitous cases. That is an appeal for clothing for children who are in their present position largely because of the great distress that exists in the Division. That is not an exception. I have also a letter from Merthyr Tydvil, which was printed in the Press. At Merthyr Tydvil there is an insurable population of 20,000, of whom 3,000 are compelled to appeal to the public assistance committee. The letter is signed by the mayor of the town and also by the rector and the rural dean and by a Free Church minister. It says that it is pitiful in the extreme to watch children going to school with their bare feet protruding through their boots.
I have referred to my own constituency because it is typical, not, only of the district of South Wales, but of many of the mining areas in Great Britain, and we want to know, and are entitled to know, what the Government are doing in order to attract new industries of which we have heard a great deal in this House during recent discussions. What are the Government doing, or what are they proposing to do, in order to attract new industries to these districts in South Wales, which cannot by any stretch of imagination be described otherwise than as derelict? We have been told by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade that 21 factories are in course of erection, and that statement has been corroborated by the Lord President of the Council, who stated during his speech that: One of the interesting results already of our departure from the Free Trade policy has been a certain influx of foreign manufacturing business. That tendency has been rather exaggerated in the Press, but it is a real movement and I would remind you that we in England have owed a good deal in the past to some of these importations of new manufactures. He went on to point out that these industries which it was proposed to set up in this country were to be set up without the aid of British capital, and he was pleased with the fact that the building of these factories is largely dependent upon capital from foreign countries. Ha continued: We brought weaving, a typical British industry to-day, from the Flemings. It was the French Huguenots who taught us how to make silk; and so it is to-day that we find the toymaker from Nuremburg, the clock makers from the Black Country, the perfumery and toilet accessories made in Paris are coming over to be made in this country, and also the finest kinds of ladies’ stockings from Saxony. Those are industries that will be valuable to us because they will not only provide work to meet the demands of our own customers at home, but they will broaden our equipment for competitive orders coming from abroad, and increasing, I hope, our exports and trade. It is very remarkable that an almost identical speech was delivered in February, 1927, by the same right hon. Gentleman. He then stated that the newer industries were flourishing, and that there were more men and women in employment at that time than there were before the War. The only difference between the speech of 1927 and the speech of 1932 is that in 1927 he stated that the increase in population had beaten us. Here is another instance of complete harmony between the members of the present Government. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade and the right hon. Gentleman the Lord President of the Council are singing the same song at week-ends, but does either of them believe that the mere making of toys, or clocks, or ladies’ silk stockings, or perfumes or face paints, will have any substantial or material effect in reducing the amount of unemployment in this country?
There is a phase of the question of attracting new industries to this country to which, perhaps, I might be permitted to refer. I should like to know whether the Government have considered whether it is more economical to attract new industries into those areas where houses are already in existence for housing the people, or whether it is preferable to leave those in charge of such industries to plant them where they may desire? The question is whether it is not more economical to attract these industries to the areas to which I have referred, or to allow them to be established at places like Slough or Dagenham. I wonder if the Parliamentary Secretary could do a sum for me? If the policy for which he is at present responsible is capable of making possible the erection of 21 factories in so short a time, how long will it be before the whole of this country is covered with similar factories when the complete tariff policy of the Government commences to operate? The Minister of Agriculture has undertaken his task at the proper time. Had he been a little slower, there would, according to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade, be no land on which to grow wheat in this country, because, at the rate at which these factories are going up, they will soon cover the whole country.
I have been associated recently with a movement in South Wales the object of which is to attract, if possible, some of these industries into the distressed areas, and the following particulars may be of some importance, as bearing upon the question whether it is not more economical to do as I have suggested, and as has been suggested in this movement, namely, to attract those industries into South Wales. I attended a conference at which 10 local authorities in South Wales were represented, and, in the course of the discussion, my hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. A. Bevan) quoted the case of a town of 14,000 inhabitants, and pointed out that the actual cost of building a town to house a population of that size would be between £2,000,000 and £2,500,000, or, roughly, a charge of 150 per head of the population, men, women and children. If it were assumed that all the industries in the localities represented at that conference were becoming extinguished, and the communities were to be moved elsewhere, the cost of re-housing them would be somewhere in the neighbourhood of £25,000,000. That would be the first cost; and, if other items were taken into consideration, the figures became staggering. With these facts in mind. I would ask the Government to consider whether it is not better to attract these new industries into existing areas, instead of allowing places like Dagenham and Slough to be over-populated, as will be the case within a very short time.
I want now to refer to the effect of the French and German quotas upon the employment of miners in Great Britain. I do so with the specific object of ascertaining from the Government whether any importance is to be attached to their declaration that tariffs can be used as a lever. It is true that the 15 per cent. French surtax has been removed from the coal that leaves this country for France, and the Government have prided themselves on that achievement. But what did they do? They did not use the tariff as a lever to compel France to reduce or lift her surtax, but simply arranged an interview between the British coalowners and the French Government. That is all that they did, and even the lifting of the 15 per cent. surtax has not made possible the employment of one miner in South Wales or in any other district in Great Britain. We are told that there is no connection between the Abnormal Importations (Customs Duties) Act and what France and Germany have done with regard to the surtax and the quota. Is that true? I find that the first information made public in this country as to what France intended to do was on the 15th November, and yet, before the 15th November, this Government had introduced a Measure imposing a tariff upon certain articles coming from France into this country. On the 15th November we had the first public news that France intended to reduce her quota of British coal, and on the 20th November the Abnormal Importations (Customs Duties) Act commenced to operate; and to assume that there is no connection or relationship between the attitude of France and the tariff policy of this Government is a reflection upon the intelligence of the French people, because they knew that immediately a Tory Government was in a position to legislate in this country tariffs were the only policy that such a Government would have, other than the policies of the Labour party or of the Liberal party.
In my opinion the Government have done nothing to affect the French quota. Mr. W. A. Lee, the Secretary of the Mining Association of Great Britain, stated, after his return from France, when the French Government had decided to reduce the Surtax, that: The additional quantities of coal from Continental coalfields thus allowed to enter France have resulted in the reduction of the general quota, first to 80 per cent, then to 72 per cent., and, finally, to 64 per cent. In effect this has been discrimination against Great Britain and in favour of Germany. It has been contrary to the interests of the French mines and the French mine owners have, in fact, complained that 500,000 tons in excess of the quota have been imported from Continental countries. 4.30 p.m.
Mr. Lee went on to say that the actual amount is very much more, and also that the British delegation informed the French authorities that they would have to take the matter up again with the British Government immediately upon their return. I desire to know whether it is the intention of the Government to arrange another interview for the representatives of the British coalowners, in order to see if it is not possible to increase the quota of British coal? With reference to the German quota, it has created a very serious situation for the miners. I find that British coal exports to Germany have been reduced from 5,386,000 tons in 1929 to 3,733,000 tons in 1931, a reduction of 1,653,000 tons in two years. Before the War we were sending into Germany something like 9,000,000 tons a year. It is estimated that the reduction in the German quota will put something like another 8,000 of our miners out of work and, in my opinion, that is evidence that tariffs are not an effective instrument and that you cannot hope to secure reciprocity by acts of retaliation. That is borne out by a German, Herr Bennhold, who spoke for the Prussian Administration of Mines quite recently. He said that the real cause of the coal crisis was the depression in German industry and that it was quite understandable that there should be a desire to preserve the limited home market by excluding British coal imports. He also lamented that Great Britain’s depreciated currency and new tariff policy were not favourable for an international agreement and said that for some time to come the German coal industry would have to rely upon its own fighting powers. For the Government to assume that there is no relationship between the actions of the French and German coal importers and the tariff policy of the Government is a reflection upon the intelligence of those people, who did not anticipate a change in our fiscal system immediately upon the formation of the National Government. I found this information in the Press on Monday: Germany has secured the Brazilian Central Railway contract for 75,000 tons. It is understood that there is some disagreement as to an amount of money that is due to the Welsh coalowners, and as a result there was no desire on their part to make a bid for this contract. We are also informed in the Press that the Board of Trade and the Foreign Office have had the facts placed before them and that representations are being made to the Brazilian Government in the hope of a settlement being reached on the matter. I am hoping that the Parliamentary Secretary will give us some indication in order that our people may have real hope, and not the false hope that they have experienced recently in statements that there are more in employment and that we are about to turn the corner. That cannot be borne out by statistics even if you use them with comprehension. You cannot convince either the British or the South Wales miner. In 12 months, from February, 1931, to February, 1932, unemployed miners have increased in Great Britain by 54,390, and in South Wales and Monmouthshire during the same period there has been an increase, according to official figures given in answer to questions in the House, of 17,536. Again, I shall be told that Labour was in office during part of that time, but, even if you compare December, 1931, with February, 1932, the increase in the number of unemployed miners in Great Britain has been 37,500, and in South Wales 20,280. It is no consolation to tell us that there are more people in employment when there has been that substantial increase in the number of unemployed miners. I have endeavoured to secure some hope from the last statement made in the House by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour. He said: I venture to think that the goal that I have indicated, namely a constructive attempt to find other occupations for the unemployed men and women in this country until such time as they are able to be reabsorbed in industry by the revival which we believe will follow the passage of the Tariff Act and an agreement at Ottawa, is well worth many and varied efforts.”—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 3rd March, 1932; col. 1412, Vol. 262.] The Tariff Act has not been in operation for any considerable length of time, but surely the effect of the Abnormal Importations Act should be an indication as to whether it is possible to absorb some of our unemployed. What do we find in connection with that piece of legislation? According to figures submitted by the Minister of Labour on 25th January, 1932, in 12 industries which are directly or indirectly affected by that piece of legislation there were no fewer than 334,413 unemployed.
Earlier in my speech I referred to a statement made by the Lord President of the Council. I deliberately did that because I attach more importance to the statements of the night hon. Gentleman, who is a loyal, sincere Conservative, than I do to the unreliable statements of the one-time Socialist who is now Prime Minister. I hope I shall not be asked why it was that the education authorities in my division wrote to the Prime Minister, but in any case they did not write him in anticipation of being promised anything in the form of a humane administration of existing regulations or of new legislation, and they might before writing that letter be informed of this statement, which is to be found in the last speech that the right hon. Gentleman delivered in the House. This is what he promised, if it is a promise: The Government has approached its work in a spirit of realism. It has examined the whole facts. Observation has to be made over the whole field.
I am not committing the Government but the Government has decided to produce legislation. I have shown that it is the mandate that we are carrying out. He completed his speech by saying: I have really very little to say. That is typical of the right hon. Gentleman. He will probably be known in history as the man who could say a lot and mean nothing and take a tremendous lot of the time of the House in saying it. I do not expect this Government to cure unemployment. No Government can. It is a characteristic of all Governments that they legislate after the facts, and this Government more than any, because they believe in perpetuating a system under which all our people cannot be employed. I am asking them to leave alone the authorities who are humanely administering the so-called means test. No more incorrect language has ever been used than to refer to it as the means test. It would be much more correct, much more honest and much more honourable if the letter “s” was dropped and it was referred to as the “mean test.” You can only deal with the unemployed by one of three methods. You can either starve them, or sustain them, or shoot them. You have not the courage to do two of those things, and you have not up to now had the decency to sustain them during their period of unemployment.
The speech made by Geoffrey Mander, the then Liberal MP for Wolverhampton East, in the House of Commons on 23 March 1932.
I beg to move, That leave be given to bring in a Bill to encourage the formation of industrial councils and to legalise voluntary agreements when so desired. Already this Session I have introduced two Measures on industrial subjects, and I fully realise that they are controversial, but the one I am bringing forward to-day comes, I think, under the heading of non-controversial, because it has the support of Members belonging to every party in the House. A Bill of the same nature was introduced in 1924, when the Second Reading was carried, on a Friday, by an overwhelming majority. On that occasion the whole of the Conservative party voted for it, the whole of the Liberal party and nearly the whole of the Labour party. That shows the volume of support which the Measure can command in this House. There are in the country at the present time about 37 joint industrial councils, and, including other bodies of a similar nature, there are about 47. They have been doing a great deal of excellent work of a voluntary kind, where the two sides of industry are equally represented—employers and employed—through their respective organisations. In spite of their good work they have been hampered by the fact that the decisions arrived at are purely voluntary and have no legal force, and in fact need not he carried out if anyone does not choose to recognise them. Unfortunately, there have been a certain number of cases where the few employers have defied the decision of the whole trade, have undercut wages, and produced a most unsatisfactory position. Such a state of things is very bad, not only for the good employer, but for the workers.
This Bill attempts, in a very moderate and limited way, to prevent occurrences of that kind. It provides for the formation, on a voluntary basis, of joint industrial councils with equal representation of the two sides. The Measure suggests the discussion of a number of industrial questions described in the Schedule, and the most important Clause authorises the Minister in proper cases to make statutory the decisions arrived at by the joint industrial council. First of all, there is to be an agreement of the two sides and an application to the Minister. If the Minister issues an Order, it can be annulled by a Resolution of this House or the other House. The limited powers under the Bill are amply safeguarded, and nothing of a dangerous nature is ever likely to be put forward. I think it is very relevant to point out that powers of this kind are jointly asked for by many industrial councils themselves. Let me give the example from my constituency of the lock, latch and key industries where the joint industrial council, with the unanimous approval of both sides, asked for powers of this kind. This Measure is purely permissive, and it need not be made use of unless it is desired. You must have agreement on both sides, you must have the consent of the Minister, and the agreement must have the consent of both Houses of Parliament. I hope hon. Members will feel, when this Bill has been printed, and when they have studied it, that it is non-controversial, and we are simply doing something to help those who are trying to help themselves in industry along the lines of conciliation and peace.
Question put, and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Mander, Sir Percy Harris, Mr. Granville, Mr. David Grenfell, Mr. Lovat-Fraser, Mr. Macmillan, and Sir Cooper Rawson.