Blog

William Davison – 1932 Speech on the Creation of a National Lottery

The speech made by William Davison, the Conservative MP for Kensington South, in the House of Commons on 22 March 1932.

I beg to move, That leave be given to bring in a Bill to authorise the raising of money by means of lotteries for charitable, scientific, and artistic purposes, or any public improvement or other public object. I hope that the House will allow the Bill to be printed so that hon. Members may see its provisions in black and white. When I introduced a similar Bill last year, I confined its scope to the provision of funds for hospitals on the same lines as the Irish Free State lottery. In view, however, of representations that were made to me, I have drawn the present Bill on somewhat wider and simpler lines, though British hospitals will still be within its scope and can take advantage of it should they desire to do so. It is interesting to note that of the 180 Members who voted against the Bill which I introduced last year, 130 have since lost their seats. I would not say that they lost their seats solely because they voted against the Bill, but I do say that they represent a type of mind which is not acceptable to the majority of their fellow citizens.

This is a very short Bill. Clause 1 provides that, nothwithstanding anything to the contrary in any Act of Parliament or any rule of law, it shall be lawful for the governing body or trustees of any charity or any trustees or other body of persons appointed solely or mainly for the purpose of raising money for philanthropic, scientific or artistic purposes, or for the initiation and assistance in carrying out any public improvement or other public objects, to hold, with the approval of the Secretary of State and subject to the provisions contained in this Bill, a lottery in order to raise money for such charity, purpose or object. Clause 2 provides that no lottery shall be held under this Bill except in pursuance of a scheme sanctioned by the Secretary of State, and for the charity or object named in such scheme and subject to the terms and conditions of the scheme. Clause 3 sets up certain conditions and regulations but does not preclude the Secretary of State from making others if he thinks fit. The Bill will not apply to Northern Ireland. Such are, shortly, the provisions of the Bill as drafted, but if it is thought that the scope of the Bill is too wide, or that it should be confined to hospitals, as the last Bill was, or that the number of lotteries in any one year should be fixed, that can easily be arranged in the Committee stage.

As the House is aware, there is nothing inherently vicious or demoralising in the holding of a lottery. Such lotteries were held in this country over a period of many years. Queen Elizabeth was the first patron of State lotteries—of a great lottery which was held in this country for the repair of the havens of the realm and other public works. Members of the House often see the statue, close by here, of George Washington. He was a strong supporter of lotteries under public control, and in 1769 he helped to pass a law against ate holding of a lottery without special authority, as my Bill now proposes to do. The penal legislation under which the Home Office now acts was passed so long ago as 1834—nearly 100 years ago. It is under that law that they now search travellers arriving at Holyhead, open private letters, even the letters from a solicitor to his client, as was pointed out in the House a few days ago by an hon. Member. That legislation was not passed with any idea of stopping a vicious or immoral practice, but in order to protect the State lotteries from unfair competition by private lotteries and lotteries organised abroad.

May I remind the House that at the present time we have the totalisator as a national institution, formally approved by Parliament? We have the telegraph and telephone services deriving a large part of their income from transmitting betting news. There is scarcely a church or chapel bazaar in the country which does not have its little raffle. Newspapers of all parties are continually promoting thinly disguised lotteries, and as Socialist Members opposite are aware, the “Daily Herald” has recently held a lottery on behalf of hospitals, offering to pay £20,000 for 6d. I have referred to the “Daily Herald” as representing Socialist opinion, but I would remind my Conservative friends that last year, at the annual meeting of the Women’s Organisation of the National Union of Conservative Associations in this country, a resolution was passed unanimously—without any opposition—condemning the present law respecting lotteries and sweepstakes, and urging that lotteries should be legalised under proper control, exactly as my Bill proposes.

Mr. MACQUISTEN They are women. Marriage is a lottery.

Sir W. DAVISON Hon. Members should also bear in mind that the British Museum was started by means of a lottery; and that old Westminster Bridge was erected out of the proceeds of a lottery. New bridges are still needed. As we know, there is urgent need for a new bridge at Charing Cross. Why should it not be possible now to erect a bridge across the river by means of a lottery? If a bridge were erected at Charing Cross it would save Waterloo Bridge as a national monument, and prevent its demolition, which we should all be glad for. The new Cunarder was started with Government approval and assistance, and there is no reason why, under proper conditions, we should not have funds provided by means of a lottery to enable this great ship to be proceeded with. In Germany, Spain, Czechoslovakia, Austria, Switzerland, Poland, Italy and elsewhere State lotteries are regularly held. In Madrid a great university building is being put up by means of a lottery. By the Irish sweepstake just concluded the Irish hospitals are the recipients of £841,000. From previous lotteries they have received more than £2,000,000. In all, they have received practically £3,000,000. How much sickness and suffering in this country might have been saved had that money been available to us? A recent visitor to Dublin saw the sweepstake revolving drum which brought £841,000 for the Irish hospitals. When he arrived back at Euston he saw another drum—a hospital student beating a drum in the streets, with a procession behind him collecting money for a great London hospital. Which of the two methods is the more dignified? A correspondent wrote to me yesterday stating: We are letting our brothers and sisters suffer through a lot of old Mother Hub-bards and pedants out of touch with the realities of every day life. A hospital appeal recently stated that a thousand surgical cases were waiting for beds owing to a lack of funds. The funds could be provided by a lottery under this Bill. Hon. Members should bear in mind that of the £3,000,000 raised for hospitals in Ireland more than £2,000,000 came from this country. Let me say at once that no one must imagine that if lotteries were established in this country they would maintain hospitals entirely. Of course they would not; but at any rate they would provide funds for urgently-needed equipment and urgently-needed beds. More than 7,000,000 tickets were sold in the Irish Sweepstake, and it is estimated that 5,000,000 tickets were purchased by citizens of Great Britain. At any rate, British citizens won 800 of the first 1,120 prizes, about 71 per cent. I ask the House why these millions of British citizens should be made into criminals by an absurd and out-of-date law, and why the time of the police should be occupied in chasing people who sell Irish sweepstake tickets rather than looking after the bag snatchers and those who smash shop windows? Why should our magistrates be reduced to every kind of pretext in order not to convict the people brought before them in connection with this lottery? The “Times” of last Tuesday contained 10 columns of the names of 1,100 criminals who had won prizes in the Irish sweepstake, and there were similar lists in other papers. In conclusion, may I quote a sentence from an article last week in the “Morning Post,” of whose Lobby correspondent we all took leave last night with much regret. The “Morning Post” is not a paper which is likely to recommend anything demoralising or vicious. The sentence is: The State finds itself unable to check what it condemns. To conclude that the public is depraved is to bring an indictment against a nation, which is absurd. The only other conclusion is that the law, which is so much in conflict with public opinion, is in need of amendment. It is with the object of altering the present absurd law that I ask leave to bring in my Bill.

Mr. HOPKIN MORRIS I ask the House to reject this Motion, and I hope that hon. Members will not be unduly influenced by the illustration given by my hon. Friend of the 130 Members of the last House who lost their seats. He has talked of the anomalous state of the betting law. I fully agree with what he has said about that law; I agree that a far-reaching inquiry is necessary into the operation of these laws and their codification. It may be that the laws are in urgent necessity of modification and alteration, and there is a wide field for inquiry; but this Motion, if passed by the House, instead of providing for an inquiry, would prejudge that inquiry. During the War a proposal was put forward to set up lotteries, and, indeed, a Bill was introduced into the other House and into this House to legalise lotteries in order to provide money for the Red Cross Society. There could have been no more laudable object. That Bill was preceded by an inquiry. The majority of Members who conducted that inquiry started by being in favour of a lottery for that specific purpose, but by the time they had concluded their investigations they had come unanimously to the conclusion that they ought not to recommend the setting up of a lottery. They heard evidence from different classes of the community. They took evidence from my right hon. Friend the present Secretary of State for the Dominions, who told them that when he went to Derby to consult his constituents they asked him about the best investments they could make, and he was alarmed to think that in the future they would be asking him about the best lottery in which to take tickets. In spite of the fact that the Committee’s recommendation was against the adoption of the lottery system, Lord Lansdowne introduced a Bill in the House of Lords, but he said a very remarkable thing in justification for the introduction of the Bill. He said that he supported the Bill because War conditions were abnormal, but that if they were living in peace time, he should oppose it. That was his view. If there was a need for inquiry in those abnormal times, surely there is a need for inquiry now. I do not this afternoon raise the moral issue—not that I brush it aside by any means—but I am basing my case now upon the rights and the obligations of the State. The first obligation of the State in all circumstances is to preserve itself. There are numerous Acts of Parliament dealing with this subject. The Act of 1541, which put a stop to this practice, mentioned in its preamble that the young men in the country, instead of making themselves proficient in archery —the mode of defence of the realm at that time—were spending their time in betting and gambling. The preamble of the Act of 1698 stated that they had to put a stop to lotteries because, in the language of the preamble, it was detrimental to the “good trade, welfare and peace of His Majesty’s Kingdom.”

That was the experience at that time. It was purely a practical reason which prompted the State to put an end to the practice. Act after Act was passed between 1541 and 1823 to stop private lotteries, but the Acts could not be effectively enforced because the State lottery was still lawful. In 1823, however, an Act was passed as a result of a Select Committee which reported—it is a very important finding—that The foundation of the lottery system is so radically vicious that your Committee feel convinced that under no system of regulations which can be devised will it be possible for Parliament to adopt it as an efficient source of revenue, and at the same time divest it of all the evils of which it has hitherto proved so baneful a source. That was the view of the Select Committee. I come to the safeguards. What safeguards are you going to put up? The one exception upon the Statute Book today is the Act of 1846 providing for lotteries to be set up for the Art Union, but even there these lotteries cannot be set up without first of all obtaining a Royal Charter. These are far greater safeguards than are proposed in my hon. Friend’s proposed Bill. Having obtained the Royal Charter they have still further regulations authorised by the Privy Council for safeguards, as far as safeguards can go. Notwithstanding that, you cannot restrict the area; you cannot enforce the law with regard to other lotteries once you have permitted it in one field. That has been the experience. It was the experience in 1823, when they had to abolish State lotteries because they could not enforce the law. [An HON. MEMBER: “It is very difficult now!”] It is very difficult in the case of the Irish Sweepstake. What will the difficulty be when you have lotteries in this country? That difficulty is illustrated by my hon. Friend’s Motion. Last year he asked leave to introduce a Measure merely setting up lotteries for hospitals. This afternoon, as a result of representations, he has asked to be allowed to widen the scope of the Bill. That is a situation where you will never be able to enforce the law. Parliament, I have no doubt, took action in 1823 largely because sweepstakes by then had been set up even for the sale of land. Can anything be conceived that can go further to undermine the social structure than legal sweepstakes?

Now it is said, “Look at the object!” It is to support charitable institutions and hospitals. I agree at once, and every Member here will agree, that the object is a worthy one, but are you going to support this worthy object by questionable means? I am not going to give my own opinion in support of that. I will take the opinion of the hospitals themselves. In London and the provinces last year the sum raised for voluntary hospitals by bequests, subscriptions, savings associations and paying patients was between £13,000,000 and £14,000,000. That was last year—a year of acute depression in the country. Of that sum, between 50 and 60 per cent. came from voluntary contributions. What is the amount of sweepstakes which would be required to assure an income equivalent to that amount?

Sir W. DAVISON That is not suggested.

Mr. MORRIS Take the figures of a very competent hospital accountant. He says it will require three sweepstakes a year each yielding £10,000,000—in all £30,000,000 a year. If you take the figures of the Irish Sweepstake and assume—it is a great assumption—that there would be treble the number of subscribers to an English sweepstake that there are now to the Irish Sweepstake, it is computed that that would yield £15,000,000, leaving a deficiency of £15,000,000 in the sum necessary to be raised. I am not giving my own figures, but the figures of the hospitals themselves. I go further. I have here the testimony of the Chairman of the Royal City of Dublin Hospital itself. He said: that annual subscribers are withdrawing their gifts, on the ground that they are no longer needed. That paying patients—generally working class men and women—are objecting to pay anything for their treatment and ‘keep,’ and that considerable loss has ensued. That business firms whose employés used to pay a penny or twopence a week to the hospital, now refuse to pay anything. Loss from this source is 50 per cent. of income. That people are not leaving money by wills and bequests. That reduction has already taken place, and there is no comparison between the position of the hospitals in this country and those in Ireland. The Irish Sweepstake is a success from the Irish point of view, because Ireland is a small country, and they are drawing English money, but if the hospitals of this country rely upon the same position, the amount of Irish money which they will draw will be negligible. That is why the house-governor of Charing Cross Hospital, Mr. Philip Inman, stated last May: Speaking for myself and this hospital, we will have neither part nor lot in any such schemes. And our reasons are not simply moral ones, though they weigh very considerably. Looking from simply a business standpoint, we believe that the gains would be outweighed by the losses. What does that great expert Sir Arthur Stanley say? This is the testimony of hospitals, the very institutions it is intended to support. This is a case for not prejudicing the issue, for not coming down on one side or the other. It is clearly a case where there should be an inquiry first. This is a great new departure in policy. It is true that man very often over-rates two things—his own capabilities and his own good luck. As my hon. Friend the Secretary for Mines said last year in a very powerful speech, you cannot put these charitable institutions, depending as they do upon the moral good will of men, upon a basis of chance, and you certainly dare not do so without a proper inquiry first. On those grounds, I ask the House to reject the Motion.

Question put, That leave be given to bring in a Bill to authorise the raising of money by means of lotteries for charitable, scientific, and artistic purposes, or any public improvement or other public object.

The House divided: Ayes, 176; Noes, 123.

15/05/2022
Declan Kearney – 2022 Statement on the Northern Ireland Assembly Elections

The statement made by Declan Kearney, the Sinn Féin National Chairperson, on 14 May 2022.

The 5 May election has indeed proved to be the most important of a generation. It was a watershed.

Brexit changed everything, and now the political and societal landscape has changed again.

There can now be a First Minister for all – for the first time in 101 years.

And there is now the potential for proper power sharing to be established.

However, that positive democratic agenda is now being directly threatened with a refusal by the DUP to allow the power sharing and the north/south political institutions to be restored.

The most serious and profound political crisis of the post-GFA era is currently unfolding in plain sight.

The entire basis of power sharing is being imperilled by the tactics of both the DUP and the Tory government; and in particular, a toxic alliance between the Tory Foreign Secretary, the Economic Research Group (ERG) and the DUP.

International treaties and international law in the form of the Protocol and GFA are under direct attack.

A wrecker’s charter is being used to dismantle the GFA by stealth, alongside the use of a phoneywar against the EU, ostensibly to dismantle the Protocol.

But the fact is that the Tories’ objective is all about shoring up its electoral coalition in England; while the DUP’s objective is to try to reassert itself as the dominant force within political unionism, and stem the hemorrhage of its political power and influence in the north.

The current Tory administration has no investment in, or attachment to the Irish peace process. The Tory fat cats in Whitehall don’t care about anyone in the north.

This current leadership of the DUP is unable and unwilling to adapt to the changed political landscape.

The Tories and the DUP are outliers in terms of respect for international treaties and all forms of democratic conventions, principles and values.

The Tories and DUP must not be allowed to drag us all into their race to the bottom.

This is a defining moment.

The EU, and the US administration, must hold firm on the GFA, and the primacy of international treaties and international law.

There should be no renegotiation of either the Protocol or GFA.

It is time for the Irish government to step firmly up to the mark, and adopt an unequivocal position against the destructive behaviour of both the DUP and the Tories.

The united voice of wider civic society across the north must also be heard loudly.

15/05/2022
Oliver Locker-Lampson – 1932 Speech on Goods Made by Forced Labour

The speech made by Oliver Locker-Lampson, the then Conservative MP for Birmingham Handsworth, in the House of Commons on 15 March 1932.

I beg to move,

“That leave be given to bring in a Bill to prohibit the importation of goods made by foreign forced labour.”

It is the fate of hon. Members who have been for some time in this House to find how difficult it is to catch those two most elusive elements—the eye of the Speaker and the ear of the House. I have suffered as a victim in this pursuit for many years, and I therefore welcome the opportunity of the Ten Minutes Rule under which a Member may ask leave to bring in a Private Bill and speak for a matter of 10 minutes only after Question time. The Bill which I wish to ask leave to bring in is to prohibit the importation of goods made by foreign forced labour.

I do not wish to approach the issue in a controversial spirit. It seems to be a question, not merely of politics nor of state craft, but of ethics, as well as of economics, and also a question of honour as well as of trade. I should like to bring in the Bill and see it carried and voted for by every Member of the House. Briefly the position is that at the moment goods are being imported from Russia at debauched prices for four major reasons. First of all, the Russian State itself is the trader unlike any other State in the world, secondly, the Russian State has expropriated property in Russia and is therefore free of any capital commitments, thirdly, the laws against sweating in Russia are very indifferent and lastly the Russian State is allowed to use political prisoners in order to make its goods and to carry them. Therefore you have four exclusive causes operating for cheapness in goods coming from Russia which do not operate in any way in England or in any country under the Union Jack. I may be told at the outset that I am not correct when I say that goods are made by forced labour in Russia. On the last occasion upon which this issue was discussed in this House Mr. Taylor, who was then a Member of the House, got up and categorically denied that fact. I am not required to-day to prove it, for in an admirable book since produced by the Noble Lady the Member for Perth and Kinross (Duchess of Atholl), on page 173, will be found Mr. Stalin’s own speech at the Economic Conference, delivered in June of last year, in which he says that:

“He could offer very little hope of relief for the worker, and admits that the peasant can no longer be recruited voluntarily for industry.”

Therefore, I am not required to prove my case in that respect. I would, however, point out that none of the causes referred to operate in England. We have not in this country expropriated property. [Interruption.] The hon. Member must wait until he has a chance of doing so. We have not any form of convict labour except in our prisons, and we look upon convict labour so badly there, that we do not allow the goods made by convicts in our prisons to come into competition with goods made outside. Lastly, we have in this country laws against sweating. It may be that our laws against sweating are insufficient and that a lot may have to be done in that respect. I would say to the hon. Member who laughed when I mentioned sweating, that he and those who sit with him on the Labour benches are the chief champions, according to themselves, of anti-sweating laws, and are always telling us that trade unions will have nothing to do with sweating. Moreover, they are always claiming for themselves the privilege of caring most for the worker and desiring to make conditions better than they are. I would ask them, therefore, to remember those professions and put them into operation to-day by voting against the sweating of Russian labourers.

Why are the Government treating Russia better than England? Why should British traders be penalised in order to allow in goods which are not only stolen but sweated out of the life’s blood of poor prisoners and convicts? Our fight for freedom is a great and traditional one. We entered the Great War mainly to win what we all believed was a fight for liberty. For generations we have fought slavery. It was voices in this House of Commons that sounded the death knell of slavery years before the United States of America put a stop to it. It was our citizens, 300,000 of them, over 100 years ago, who went without sugar three years rather than buy sugar grown under slave conditions in the West Indies. Who were those people who refused to buy sugar grown under slave conditions? We would call them Socialists to-day.

I would invite the Socialists to remember that fact, and I would ask every Socialist whether he can accommodate his conscience to not voting for this Bill. It is an odd fact that there is, so far as I know, no Socialist voice raised at any time against the introduction of these tainted goods into this country, and yet the Labour party is loudest in its professions of great international ideals. Moreover, Socialists are always preaching the solidarity of the workers of the world. I would like them to remember that fact to-day and to ask themselves whether they like Russian peasants to go starving in order that Englishmen may be full. I would like them to look into their own hearts and see whether or not they can go on perpetuating conditions which are a traffic in human flesh and blood.

I shall be expected before I sit down to offer a remedy. I may be told that it is impossible for our Government to place an embargo upon these Russian goods. I am aware that it is very difficult for the present Government to withdraw recognition from Russia, but there are two ways in which His Majesty’s Government could act. They are faced with a Government, the Soviet Government, which preaches the brotherhood of man with bombs, bullets and imprisonments. I would suggest two courses. I would invite His Majesty’s Government to ask the League of Nations to take action in Russia. I ask them to invite the League of Nations, which likes to interfere in the affairs of other countries, to interfere in Russia. They interfered in the case of Liberia, where there is slavery. Liberia is a member of the League of Nations, it is true, whereas Russia is not, but I would point out that America, which the League of Nations first approached, is not a member of the League of Nations. If the League of Nations could take action in respect of a small country like Liberia, why should they not take action in respect of Russia? Why should they not send a commission to investigate on the spot? If there is nothing wrong in labour conditions in Russia, why should the Soviet Government object to a commission of investigation? Lastly, I would suggest that the House should carry this Bill and refuse any longer to sell our birthright as freemen for a mess of Bolshevist pottage.

15/05/2022
Thomas Moore – 1932 Speech on the Slaughter of Animals

The speech made by Thomas Moore, the then Scottish Unionist MP for Ayr, in the House of Commons on 1 March 1932.

I beg to move,

“That leave be given to bring in a Bill to provide for the humane and scientific slaughter of animals; and for purposes connected therewith.”
The title of the Bill which I am asking the leave of the House to introduce today is not unfamiliar to me or to many of my older colleagues—[HON. MEMBERS: “Agreed!”] I am sorry that I cannot accept the suggestion of hon. Members, although it is very kind of them. There are one or two important announcements in connection with the Bill which I wish to make, and which, I hope, will facilitate its further passage upstairs to Committee. I apologise for taking up the time of the House under the Ten Minutes Rule, but there are one or two points which have guided me in making this selection. It is not with any view to getting publicity for the Bill or for myself. The Bill does not need publicity. It has received it all over the country. There are three points. The first is that there are over 200 new Members in the House of Commons who know little or nothing, possibly, of the slaughter of animals. The second is, that there will be no opportunity for a Second Reading Debate, and therefore I wish to put before Members the reasons why I should like, not only to get the First Reading of the Bill, but an undertaking that I shall get the Second Reading at a later date without discussion, so that the Bill can go upstairs to Committee, where we shall be able to thrash out any minor points which may arise. I will not even take up my full 10 minutes, so hon. Members need not get upset.

I introduced a. Bill about four years ago, but on account of the fact that we had some doubts as to whether England was a sufficiently progressive country to try out the experiment, we limited its application to Scotland. The Bill in due course passed into law, and it has been working for three years to the satisfaction of those who kill, and to the even greater satisfaction of those who eat. In view of that success, I introduced the Bill last year. It received its Second Reading, after a full and exhaustive Debate lasting an entire day, without a Division. It went upstairs and got halfway through Committee when the unfortunate national crisis arose, so that the animals as well as the rest of us had to suffer from the crisis. After that all our efforts were brought to nought, and so to-day I am presenting the Bill again. I hope that after all the knowledge and experience gained upstairs in Committee and discussions with Members of the House of Commons, I shall have no difficulty in inducing my hon. Friends to give me what I want.

For the benefit of new Members, I will briefly explain what we desire to do. We want to ensure that all animals killed for human food are slaughtered by a mechanical instrument and also that all animals killed in knackers’ yards are slaughtered by the same mechanical instrument instead of by the present barbarous and inhumane method known as the pole-axe. At the present time 500 local authorities out of 1,500 have voluntarily adopted the Ministry of Health model by-law making the mechanical killer compulsory. Thousands of practical butchers have voluntarily adopted the same method. The Bill is supported by leading scientists, many of whose names I mentioned last year, including such eminent men as Lord Moynihan and Sir Bernard Spilsbury, by the veterinary profession headed by that distinguished official Professor Hobday, by all the women’s organisations, and by all humane and progressive butchers. I have in my office to-day some thousands of signatures to a petition launched by the Council of Societies for Animals which expresses the desire of the world and his wife to have this system adopted and to have the recalcitrant local authorities and butchers brought into line with those who are more progressive. The Bill is promoted by that great society, the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, and that fact should be a sufficient guarantee that it is good in its intentions.

When the Bill was promoted last year every newspaper in the country, headed by the “Times,” had leading articles advocating that this long overdue reform should take place. Not only were hon. Members affected by their assurances, but they were also affected in their pockets by the Bill of last year. Last year a very considerable tax was put upon hon. Members, because their mail bags were very heavy. Therefore, in these days of national economy it would be well, even on that ground, that the Bill should be passed without delay. The Bill is a national one. It cuts across no party interests. There are no party issues involved. No Members of the Cabinet need fear a twinge of conscience about supporting the Bill. No one need fear being suspected of the paternity of the child. One of the most important reasons for my speech and one which my agricultural friends will welcome as a concession, relates to pigs. Pigs were included in the last Bill, and during the Second Reading and Committee Debates attacks were made upon that provision. Therefore, I have decided, in order to facilitate the passage of the Bill, to withdraw pigs from its scope. I do that because many of my hon. Friends fear that the agricultural industry or the pig-breeding industry might be hurt. I also do it because we are making experiments with a system of electric stupefaction which may revolutionise the whole of the pig-killing process.

I desire to introduce the Bill line by line similar to the Scottish Act, which has been working successfully for three years. Last year it was stated that there are 16,000,000 animals involved in this question of slaughter annually. Owing to the attitude of the local authorities and butchers who have adopted humane methods of slaughter 4,000,000 animals have been relieved from suffering under the old system, but there are 12,000,000 animals which are still affected annually. By our action in this House we can show that we are determined finally to remove that stigma from our national conscience. The present Minister of Agriculture was Secretary of State for Scotland when the Scottish Bill was introduced. He gave us wonderful support then, and he can back up everything that I have said. I believe the present Secretary of State for Scotland would be prepared to do the same thing, because he has seen the Act working in Scotland and knows of its success. I believe the present Minister of Health would be delighted also to speak in favour of the Bill, knowing how well his model by-laws have worked. I leave the matter in the hands of my hon. colleagues, who will see that justice is done to suffering animals.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Lieut.-Colonel Moore, Mr. Buchan, Countess of Iveagh, Mr. Lansbury, Mr. Macpherson, Sir Rennell Rodd, Miss Lloyd George, Sir Hugh O’Neill, Sir Stafford Cripps, Sir Ernest Graham-Little, Sir William Davison, and Sir Robert Gower.

15/05/2022
Geoffrey Mander – 1932 Speech on the Disarmament Conference

The speech made by Geoffrey Mander, the then Liberal MP for Wolverhampton East, in the House of Commons on 17 February 1932.

I desire to call attention to a matter of which I have given notice to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, one in which a great amount of interest is taken in this country, and not in this country alone. I raise it in no spirit of hostility, but in order to give the Government an opportunity of making clear to the public exactly what the position is. The question concerns the appointment of Lord Cecil as a member of the British delegation to the Disarmament Conference. It has come as a great surprise and a shock to many people in this country to discover that he has not found it possible to accept the invitation extended to him.

I venture to say that on this matter Lord Cecil occupies an almost unique position in the country. In very wide circles, in all three parties, Conservative, Liberal and Labour, he is regarded as the leader of the peace and disarmament movement in the country. More than that, for years past he has represented successive Governments on the Preparatory Commission of the Disarmament Conference. He has worked right through the technique and the details for a number of years past, and from that point of view is as well fitted as any living individual to be there to assist, to advise and to conduct negotiations. He knows the whole technique, he knows the personalities of the different individuals with whom one comes into contact there, and he knows exactly how far one could go in this, that, or the other direction. It is difficult enough to hope for the success of a Disarmament Conference when one finds the machinery of the League of Nations functions rather feebly in the case of open aggression, when there may be a tendency arising in the world once more to regard treaties as only scraps of paper. In those circumstances, I am sure it would be the desire of everybody in the House and the country to see the British delegation as strong as it is possible to make it.

What are the facts so far as they are known to the public? We know that Lord Cecil has been invited to be a member of the Delegation, and that he has not been able to accept, and the reason given by the Lord President of the Council in this House the other day, as I understood it, was that Lord Cecil felt that he would be of more assistance outside the Conference. If a person is not in accord with the policy of a certain group, he naturally would not feel very useful inside that group. It rather makes one wonder and ask questions to get information as to what exactly is going on inside. It is clear from the statements made at the Geneva Disarmament Conference, both by the right hon. Gentleman the Foreign Secretary and by Lord Cecil, that there is a certain divergence of view. The statement of the Foreign Secretary, if he will permit me to say so, seemed to me to be in a great many respects a most admirable statement. All I would say about it is that I hope that it does not represent the last word on what the Government might be prepared to do, after negotiation with other Powers. Lord Cecil in his statement did go a good deal further. I do not know that in the long run there would necessarily be any complete divergence of view. I hope not. I hope that in due course it may be possible—and I trust that the Foreign Secretary will be able to make some indication of this kind tonight—that, although Lord Cecil is not able at the moment to join the Delegation, he is not without hope that at some later stage of the proceedings he may be brought in to the great satisfaction of all people in this country who are keen on this movement and on the promotion of the interests of the Conference.

There is only one other word I would say, that is that if it became known—and there is a chance of this in the minds of people in this country—that Lord Cecil was unable to serve the country in this capacity because he was out of sympathy or in disagreement with the policy of the Government, I feel, in all seriousness, that it would do as much as anything to damage the prestige of this Government as a truly national Government.

15/05/2022
John McGovern – 1932 Speech on Rent Controls for Shops and Homes

The speech made by John McGovern, the then Labour MP for Glasgow Shettleston, in the House of Commons on 10 February 1932.

I beg to move,

“That leave be given to bring in a Bill to provide for the reduction and control of rents of houses and shops.”

A similar Bill to this was introduced by my former colleague, Mr. Campbell Stephen, the late Member for Camlachie, on the 2nd December, 1930, and later received a Second Reading in this House, and I am asking the House again to endorse a Bill of that description. I may say at the outset that I am rather disappointed that the Government have not seen fit to bring in such a Bill themselves, seeing that they profess to believe in sacrifices being made equally by all sections of the population. I can assure the Government that, if they bring in a Bill embodying the principles of the Bill that I am proposing, I will not ask the House to proceed further with my Bill.

In asking that there should be control of these houses and a reduction of rents, the reduction I have in mind is a reduction to what was in operation previous to the Act of 1920, which gave power to make certain increases. The powers of the Act of 1920 were given because of the fact that an increase had taken place in the cost of building materials and labour, and also in the cost of the materials and labour involved in the repair of these properties, but the reason for that has practically disappeared. I have before me a chart from the National Federation of Building Trades Employers, in which they show that the pre-War costs of house-building were almost similar to those of to-day. A very considerable drop has taken place, and I suggest that that is a reason why these reductions and control should take place.

There are probably hundreds of thousands of houses in this country which have been decontrolled, and people are compelled to pay the high prices charged by the house-owners. I think that these houses ought again to be brought under control, because of the fact that we have, in tenements and houses next door to one another, such disparities in charges as 20s. per month for a controlled house and 30s. per month for a decontrolled single-apartment house. I suggest that, as the reason for these increases has passed away, sacrifices ought now to be made by the landlords of this country. During this period wages have fallen to the ex-extent of almost £900,000,000 per year, every section has been asked to make its sacrifice, and we find the same rates prevailing in 1932 as were operating in 1920. I would remind the House that millions of people are being asked to bear burdens which have become almost intolerable and unbearable. With the reductions in unemployment benefit and in wages and salaries, and the application of the means test, it is not justifiable to expect that these people should pay the same rates as were paid in 1920.

I also ask that small shops in working-class areas should be brought under control, and that some reduction should take place in regard to them, because many of these shopkeepers, with the reduced purchasing power of the people in their areas, are also quite unable to bear this burden, and we find them day after day being summoned to the Courts because they are unable to pay their way. On the other hand, hundreds of thousands of people in this country are being summoned to the Courts, and many are being evicted, because they cannot pay the rents that are being demanded. I ask the House again to endorse this proposal of control and reduction, in the interests of equal sacrifice by all classes.

May I remind the House, in regard to cuts, that the much despised German Government brought in in the Reichstag two cuts in the rents of working-class houses? When they asked for reductions in wages and in unemployment benefit, they jointly applied a reduction in working-class rents. Surely we are not entitled to expect at this time of day that an unemployed man with a, wife and one child who is in receipt of 21s. 3d. should be compelled to pay to a landlord in some cases eleven shillings to twelve shillings out of that miserable pittance. The House would be doing well and would be passing one of the most important Measures that have been undertaken if it gave a First Reading to this Bill and gave it a quick passage through its further stages to ease the burden of millions of human beings who, I am sure, would endorse the action of Members as being one of a very humane character.

15/05/2022
Sadiq Khan – 2022 Comments on Affordable Homes in London

The comments made by Sadiq Khan, the Mayor of London, on 13 May 2022.

I am delighted to be able to announce that record-breaking numbers of genuinely affordable homes are being built in London. Fixing the housing crisis is an enormous challenge, but these latest figures show that even in the face of the pandemic, Brexit and soaring construction costs, we are continuing to turn the tide.

I would like to thank councils, housing associations and the wider London housing sector for their work in helping us to continue building a better, more affordable London for everyone.

We have once again exceeded our annual targets, but we still have a mountain to climb. I urge the Government to recognise the progress we are making in London and to provide the additional funding for housing we need to go even further and faster.

15/05/2022
Boris Johnson – 2022 Statement on the Death of Sheikh Khalifa bin Zayed Al Nahyan

The statement made by Boris Johnson, the Prime Minister, on 14 May 2022.

I am deeply saddened to hear of the death of His Highness Sheikh Khalifa bin Zayed Al Nahyan, President of the United Arab Emirates and ruler of Abu Dhabi.

He was a wise and respected leader who will be missed enormously. Through his work as President and Sheikh he has made a personal contribution to regional stability and conservation which will long be remembered. I know that the long and deep ties, which unite our countries, will continue and through our cooperation and friendship, we can ensure peace, prosperity and justice in the world.

I would like to offer my sincere condolences to the people of the United Arab Emirates.

15/05/2022
G7 – 2022 Joint Statement on Russia’s War Against Ukraine

The joint statement made by the G7 Foreign Ministers on 14 May 2022.

We, the G7 Foreign Ministers of Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, the United Kingdom, the United States of America, and the High Representative of the European Union, are steadfast in our solidarity with and our support for Ukraine as it defends itself against Russia’s unjustifiable, unprovoked and illegal war of aggression, a war in which Belarus is complicit. We are committed to helping Ukraine, a democracy and a UN member, uphold its sovereignty and territorial integrity, to defend itself and resist future attacks or coercion, choose its own future and prosper.

In the presence of the Foreign Ministers of Ukraine and Moldova, we underscore Ukraine’s sovereignty, territorial integrity, independence and right for self-defence under the UN Charter. This war of aggression has reaffirmed our determination to reject outright attempts to redraw borders by force in violation of sovereignty and territorial integrity.

We are providing significant humanitarian assistance to Ukraine and its neighbours to meet urgent protection and other lifesaving needs. We continue to make substantial financial and economic support available to Ukraine to strengthen the resilience of its economy. We reaffirm our commitment to support Ukraine, including in the reconstruction of the country, and call on all partners to join our efforts to ensure support for Ukraine in meeting its immediate humanitarian and financial needs and for Ukraine to rebuild its future. We will pursue our ongoing military and defense assistance to Ukraine as long as necessary.

We reiterate our demand that Russia put an end to the war it started unprovoked and to end the tragic suffering and loss of life it continues to cause. We also continue to call on Belarus to stop enabling Russia’s aggression and to abide by its international obligations. We urge full compliance with international humanitarian law, allowing and facilitating rapid, safe and unimpeded humanitarian access as well as the humanitarian evacuation of civilians safeguarding evacuees’ freedom to choose their destination. We call on Russia to immediately comply with the legally binding order of the International Court of Justice of 16 March 2022 and to abide by the relevant resolutions of the UN General Assembly and stop its military aggression – to cease fire, and immediately and unconditionally withdraw its troops from the entire territory of Ukraine within its internationally recognised borders.

Russia has violated the UN Charter, undermined the fundamental principles of the European security architecture as enshrined in the Helsinki Final Act and the Charter of Paris and will have to face consequences for its actions. We reject any notion of spheres of influence and any use of force that is not in compliance with international law. We will never recognize borders Russia has attempted to change by military aggression, and will uphold our engagement in the support of the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Ukraine, including Crimea, and all states. We condemn as irresponsible threats of use of chemical, biological or nuclear weapons or related materials by Russia and reiterate that any use of such weapons would be met with severe consequences.

Russia’s war of aggression against Ukraine as well as its unilateral actions restraining Ukrainian agricultural exports, are leading to steep price rises in commodity markets and the threats we are now seeing to global food security. As global markets suffer from Russia’s war of choice by rising food and commodity prices, thus affecting the lives of people around the world and exacerbating existing humanitarian and protection needs, we are determined to contribute additional resources to and support all relevant efforts that aim to ensure availability and accessibility of food, energy and financial resources as well as basic commodities for all. We call on Russia to cease immediately its attacks on key transport infrastructure in Ukraine, including ports, so that they can be used for exporting Ukrainian agricultural products. We will address the causes and consequences of the global food crisis through a Global Alliance for Food Security, that is to be launched officially at the G7 Development Ministers meeting, and other efforts in close cooperation with international partners and organisations beyond the G7. We will closely cooperate with international parters and organisations beyond the G7, and, with the aim of transforming political commitments into concrete actions as planned by various international initiatives such as the Food and Agricultural Resilience Mission (FARM) and key regional outreach initiatives, including towards African and Mediterranean countries.

We underscore that our sanctions and export controls against Russia do not and will not target essential exports of food and agricultural inputs to developing countries and to this end include measures to avoid any negative consequences for the production and distribution of food. We reaffirm our commitment to protect the most vulnerable countries and people suffering from Russia’s war against Ukraine and its global repercussions.

We condemn and will systematically expose Russia’s policy of information manipulation and interference, including disinformation which it employs to justify and support its war of aggression against Ukraine and which deliberately aims at manipulating public opinions domestically and worldwide with a view to covering its responsibilities in the ongoing war. We will continue to work together to address this manipulative behavior, in particular within the G7 Rapid Response Mechanism, and promote the exercise of freedom of opinion and expression and access to reliable information from free, pluralistic and independent media, notably on the war and its consequences for the world.

We stand united against Russia’s violation of the UN Charter and other fundamental principles of international law. We condemn in the strongest terms the ongoing attacks killing and wounding civilians and non-combatants, the systematic targeting of critical infrastructure and the extensive harm to healthcare personnel and facilities, as well as conflict-related sexual and gender-based violence in Ukraine. We will continue to support the ongoing investigations into violations of international law, including violations of international humanitarian law, and human rights violations and potential war crimes and crimes against humanity committed in Ukraine. We support investigations by the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court, the Prosecutor-General of Ukraine, and other national prosecutors who are able to establish jurisdiction under national law. Further, we fully support the Commission of Inquiry mandated by the UN Human Rights Council, the UN Human Rights Monitoring Mission in Ukraine and efforts of civil society organizations to investigate violations and document potential war crimes. We commit to providing investigative support, technical expertise, funding and other assistance to work towards ensuring the accountability of those who are responsible for the atrocities and crimes committed.

A number of countries have shown solidarity and provided safe haven for those who have fled from Russia’s war of aggression. We particularly commend Moldova’s remarkable efforts in hosting so many refugees, both in relative and absolute terms. Through the Moldova Support Platform launched in Berlin on 5 April and other formats, we will support Moldova to meet short-term needs and its longer-term development and reform programme. We express our concern regarding the recent attempts to destabilise the Transnistrian region and emphasize our support to Moldova’s stability, sovereignty and territorial integrity.

We reaffirm our determination to further increase economic and political pressure on Russia, continuing to act in unity. We will do so, as underlined by G7 Leaders on 8 May, by imposing coordinated further restrictive measures on Russia‘s economy and financial system; by further targeting Russian elites including economic actors, the central government institutions and the military, that enable President Putin to lead his war of choice; and by isolating Russia from our economies, the international financial system, and within global institutions. We will broaden our sanctions measures to include sectors on which Russia has a particular dependence.

We commend partners that have aligned with us, and encourage others to adopt measures to increase the cost of the war for Russia by isolating it, and Belarus for its support, from the global economy, and to prevent sanctions evasion, circumvention and backfilling. We will listen to and work with partners around the world through increased outreach to mitigate any impacts to their own economies caused by Putin’s war, and pledge our support in mitigating the costs.

We will expedite our efforts to reduce and end reliance on Russian energy supplies as quickly as possible, building on G7 commitments to phase out or ban imports of Russian coal and oil. We will accelerate the energy transition and enhance energy efficiency in the context of the accelerated phasing out of our dependency on Russian energy, in accordance with our climate objectives and energy security imperatives, thereby steadily reducing foreign currency flows into Russia and restricting the financial means available to fund Russia’s war machinery. We will ensure that we do so in a timely and orderly fashion, and in ways that provide time for the world to secure alternative supplies.

We deplore the domestic repressions in Russia and Belarus against independent media, civil society, the opposition and citizens who peacefully express their disapproval of Russia’s war against Ukraine. The Russians and Belarusians deserve better: They should be able to make full use of fundamental human rights, most basically the right to decide their own fate and the fate of their countries. We, the G7, are not at war with Russia or the Russian people. The Russian decision to attack Ukraine was taken by leaders who reject democratic responsibility. We lend our support to those who have fallen victim to repression. We reaffirm the right of Russians and Belarusians to seek, receive and impart fact-based information from free, pluralistic and independent media and condemn the Russian government’s and Belarusian regime’s recourse to censorship and other methods of hampering Russians’ and Belarusians’ access to independent media, including through restrictions on access to the internet and social media platforms.

We condemn actions perpetrated by Russia, which compromise the safety and security of nuclear material and facilities in Ukraine and consequently pose serious risks to human life and the environment. We underline our full support for the efforts of the IAEA and its Director-General to ensure the nuclear safety and security of, and the application of safeguards to, nuclear material and facilities in Ukraine. We call on Russia to immediately withdraw its forces from Ukraine’s nuclear facilities and to return full control to legitimate Ukrainian authorities. We reiterate that the IAEA must be able to access all nuclear facilities in Ukraine safely and without any impediments.

15/05/2022
Sajid Javid – 2022 Comments on Freezing Prescription Charges

The comments made by Sajid Javid, the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, on 15 May 2022.

The rise in the cost of living has been unavoidable as we face global challenges and the repercussions of Putin’s illegal war in Ukraine. Whilst we can’t completely prevent these rises, where we can help – we absolutely will. This is why I am freezing prescription charges to help ease some of these pressures and put money back in people’s pockets.

15/05/2022