UKPOL.CO.UK

Tag: Speeches

  • Sir John Major – 2022 Speech at Newcastle Cathedral

    Sir John Major – 2022 Speech at Newcastle Cathedral

    The speech made by Sir John Major at the National Cathedrals Conference held at Newcastle Cathedral on Monday 16 May 2022.

    DIFFERENT COUNTRY, DIFFERENT CHURCH

    The theme of your Conference – “Different Country, Different Church” – is our national story through the ages. Both Church and Country have always evolved, but rarely as fast as now. I am now out of public life, away from partisan influences but, as an observer, would like to offer some thoughts about our future.

    THE CHURCH

    Firstly, the Church.

    Our Church faces many dilemmas, in a society that has grown to distrust authority, and is drifting to secularity.

    There are those in our nation who prize celebrity, wealth and fame more than values once believed to be inviolate.

    This cultural change presents an extraordinary challenge to a Church that does have eternal values: it is both a threat and an opportunity. But – if the opportunity is to be taken – the Church must be bold in its actions, and outspoken about its concerns.

    My father was elderly when I was born and, from the time I was nine years old, mostly bedridden. My mother cared for him, and rarely left our home.

    But the Church came to us in the form of our local Vicar, the kind and gentle J. Franklin Cheyne. My elderly and sick parents lived by the precept that God was in our house every day, and so we had no need to attend his once a week.

    This was a trite and self-serving excuse, but The Reverend Cheyne smiled and taught me, as a boy, that our Church is greater than the size of its congregations. People who are not regular church-goers can still – and do – live by Christian principles.

    Some people turn away from religion because, as someone put it to me, “Science is daily destroying the biblical bases of faith”.

    But science can’t replace faith. It can’t remove the hope and the comfort that a “Perfect Being” can exist. This is a belief shared with other faiths. Man will cling to that hope, until the last of our kind is extinct.

    The Reverend Cheyne told me that: “The best argument”, for Christ’s divinity, “is that without the support of secular power, he changed the whole world”. So he did – so far, for two thousand years. No military conqueror has ever made such a mark on our lives – nor ever will.

    And if biblical stories, often in parable form, seem unrealistic to our modern ears, the lessons they teach, and the ideals they preach, are not: they continue to appeal to the better selves within us. They are a protection against the worst our material world can throw at us.

    “The Kingdom of God”, we are told, “is within you.” We should be grateful for that: the alternative is selfishness, disorder and the advance of savagery.

    In our world of change, the Church offers stability. Many changes are beneficial – but not all of them. Sometimes change leaves values behind.

    And, in the bustle of change, where stands happiness? What value is put on peace of mind?

    Should we stand by silently when vile opinion is lauded; when truth is disposable: when authority is mocked; when tradition is trashed; when bad men hold sway in many countries?

    I think not. It may be unfashionable to speak of values, but it should not be. They should never be cast aside.

    Our churches today may be fewer in number, and less full than in years past, but their pulpits still have a distinctive voice.

    Millions of people wish to hear that voice used loudly, clearly, and often – either to uplift hearts and smooth away despair or, where necessary, to speak out on issues that depress or oppress our fellow citizens.

    A single voice can easily be shouted down – but the Church cannot.

    Some argue that the Church should “keep out of politics”, and stick to promoting faith and filling their pews. If by “politics” the critics mean partisan Party politics, I agree. But if they mean politics in its wider sense, then I do not agree.

    The Church mustn’t be pushed into the side lines of life. It must be alive in our communities. In our discourse. In our daily concerns. Politics is about how we live.

    That cannot – and should not – be ignored by the Church.

    Is not the state of our nation – politics? Are not our values – politics? How can it possibly be argued that the Church should be silent on these issues?

    Is not poverty about politics? Yes, it is – and surely the Church must speak about that too. Jesus most certainly did.

    And, if any part of our nation is lost or forgotten by authority, then surely the Church should be a voice for the weak and the voiceless.

    And, above all, the Church must remain the ultimate sanctuary for those in despair who – in our modern world – are many in number.

    What we are as a nation, and what we stand for, is a legitimate issue for the voice of the Church to be heard, and that voice must carry to the faithless as well as the faithful.

    But, if it is to deliver its message, the Church cannot ignore its own problems. I won’t trespass upon matters of conscience, only on practical issues.

    Many parishes face financial challenges, and there is doubt around whether a nationwide parochial system can be sustained.

    It is a herculean task. The Church of England – with its Cathedrals and Parish Churches – is responsible for a very large part of our architectural and cultural heritage, including no less than 45% of all Grade 1 listed buildings.

    The lion’s share of the cost of maintaining this huge community asset falls on the diminishing number of regular worshippers. This is unjust.

    Some argue that it may be necessary to close churches, reduce the number of stipendiary clergy, and sell assets. I do hope not.

    It would be a grim outlook, and I hope Christians will rally to prevent it. Churches are not only part of our lives – they are also an important part of our landscape. If lost, we would all be the poorer. And by “we” I don’t mean church-goers only – I mean everyone.

    I live in Eastern England, and John Betjeman’s famous lines come to mind:

    “What would you be, you wide East Anglian sky
    Without church towers to recognise you by?”

    Whether we choose to acknowledge it or not, the Church is always there when needed. And it is more than a place of worship. It is where we may seek the comfort of community; of companionship; of solace – and of sanctuary.

    Often silently, perhaps subliminally, the Church is a guide to our lives and our conscience.

    We should be grateful that it is, and do everything we can to protect its place in our society.

    OUR COUNTRY

    Let me turn to the future of our country.

    First, I should set out some context. We are an island geographically, but in no other way. Our lives are inter-connected with, and affected by, the wider world. We have alliances for security, and trade deals for economic welfare.

    At the moment, our world is not in a state of grace: not every nation is led by men or women of good intent. Democracy has fallen back: freedom – or freedom of religion – has not grown and spread as we would wish.

    We live in uncertain times. Times in which – if good men are complacent – bad men will take advantage.

    In countries where democracy is absent, or weak – or merely under strain – nationalist and populist sentiment has taken root, and grown. Populism is self-interested and can be unscrupulous.

    It makes promises that can’t be kept; creates division; scapegoats minorities; and controls or threatens or undermines the judiciary.

    Populist leaders favour obedience over ability. Acolytes and sycophants are rewarded. Dissenters are abused and crushed. Where possible, the electoral system is perverted.

    All this is a corruption of a free society, and even the strongest democracy must guard against it.

    In our country, we view authoritarian governments with distaste and rejection. They are alien to our way of life and our instincts for freedom. But not everyone feels the same.

    People know that authoritarian rule can bring tyranny and a loss of freedom. But millions also see that economic growth in China – with her long history of autocratic rule – has improved living standards more rapidly than in any democracy.

    To those who are hungry or oppressed, or homeless, or jobless, that is attractive. If their bellies are full, and there are clothes upon their backs, their lives are improving – and millions prize that above the individual freedoms that characterise the Western democracies.

    Nor are democracies always their own best advocates. In America, the Statue of Liberty bears the inspiring inscription “Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses”. For generations America accepted migrants. More recently, they built a wall to keep them out.

    In England, in 1763, Lord Chancellor Henley said: “If a man steps foot in England, he is a free man.” Today, under the pressure of numbers, if that man is a refugee in a rubber boat he receives a chilly welcome, and the threat of deportation to Rwanda.

    I cannot believe that is the right way forward: such a policy is not a moral advance, and I hope the Government will look again.

    We need a policy that is Europe-wide, to contain people smuggling, and help the miserable and unfortunate victims of this trade.

    I do understand the Government’s difficulties, which are real. But – however you look at this policy – it is wrong to forcibly transport people to a far-away land, when all that most are seeking is a better life.

    I hope – in their own interests – the whole Cabinet will reject this policy. If they do not, they will stain not only their own reputation, but that of the entire Government – and, most of all, our country – for a very long time.

    Our shortcomings may be far less than others, but pragmatic self-interest tells us that we cannot simply ignore autocracies: on arms control; on climate change; on counter terrorism; democracies and autocracies must work together or we will all lose.

    The more we divide into tribes, the more likely it is we will come to blows.

    Thirty years ago, we glimpsed a better world. The Soviet Union imploded. Germany re-united. Apartheid ended. Democracy spread across Eastern Europe. The Liberal Order was dominant.

    It looked as though our values of democracy – of freedom of thought and deed – had won the battle of ideas, and that our way of life would become accepted as the general ideal. It was a time of hope.

    We were naïve. Complacent. Wrong. We forgot the human capacity for folly. We see that now in Ukraine. Freedom needs eternal vigilance. Democracy has to be protected.

    If it is not, it can be overwhelmed – value by value, freedom by freedom, country by country.

    * * * * *

    In the UK, two blockbusting events will affect our future: Brexit and Covid.

    Brexit has not presented Britain’s best face to the world. It is our modern day break with Rome – in this instance, the Treaty of Rome – and it will take years for all the implications to become apparent. Some will be positive; far more will not.

    Some applaud Brexit for reasons of democracy and sovereignty. Others deplore it on economic and social grounds. The debate was rancorous, and factually dubious.

    Brexit divided our four nations and our politics, as well as family from family, and friend from friend. If Scotland and Northern Ireland secede from the UK, Brexit must bear a part of that blame.

    The severity of Covid was surpassed only by Spanish Flu a century ago. Like Brexit, Covid was enormously expensive.

    I have made no secret that I believe that leaving the European Union will – indeed, has – weakened our country and damaged our future. But I am a realist.

    It may not be conceivable to re-enter the Union for many years.

    An early attempt to do so would fail, and worsen the ruptures in our national politics system. Nor could we re-join upon the favourable terms we once enjoyed.

    But attitudes to Europe may change when today’s young, in due time, govern our nation. All the evidence suggests they are overwhelmingly pro-European.

    If the promised benefits of leaving continue to be elusive – if not all-but-invisible – their resolve to re-join may be strengthened.

    Until then, we must try to restore links with our neighbours where it is sensible to do so, and otherwise live with the consequences of our referendum decision.

    Brexit is emphatically not done. The effects of breaking away from the richest free trade market in history will seep out, year upon year, for a very long time.

    As for Covid, the Government acted boldly in setting up furlough payments; and swiftly to ensure the vaccine roll-out.

    But there remain valid questions to be answered about advice to the public; wasteful expenditure; a lack of control over fraud; the decision to transfer elderly patients from hospital to care homes; and the slipshod manner of awarding Covid-related contracts.

    A Public Inquiry has been promised, and should not be delayed. At the very least, the country deserves an interim Report within this Parliament.

    Between them, Brexit and Covid have driven our national debt to previously unknown heights.

    The cost of Covid is estimated as equivalent to one quarter of the total cost of the Second World War. Over time, estimates suggest that the cost of Brexit could be higher yet.

    It took decades to repay the debts of War, and it will take many years to repay the cost of Brexit and Covid.

    This raises an unwelcome question. How can we pay for future policy ambitions? Demography ensures that the mega-budgets – of health, education, and social care – will increase year on year. Our national security ensures that the cost of defence will rise too.

    So will the costs of climate change, and the plans to “level up” communities to end historic injustices.

    Some people deny the existence of climate change with the same fervour with which our predecessors once insisted the world was flat.

    But the evidence can’t be put aside.

    Sea levels are rising on over 70% of the earth’s surface. Storms, hurricanes and floods are increasing in number and severity. The Arctic is warming twice as fast as the rest of the planet. Across the globe, the weather is freakily unpredictable.

    We are losing whole species of plants, animals, insects. We all know the litany.

    Can we ignore this? No. Can any one nation overcome this alone? No, again. Dare we leave this for the next generation? No. It would be wrong in principle and – in any event – it may, by then, be too late, and the burden too great.

    *****

    Nor can “Levelling Up” be ignored. There are serious inequalities in our United Kingdom.

    For many years, Governments comforted themselves that – if our country was doing well – wealth would “trickle down” to lift up the poorest: it hasn’t done so. Of course, there has been improvement – but not enough.
    In times of austerity, we are told that we are “all in it together”. If so, then logically, we should “all be in it together” in times of prosperity.

    I hope the Government will devise a policy that encourages “trickle down” and shares national growth more fairly.

    Don’t misunderstand me. I certainly don’t favour some “bash the rich” policy. Wealth in our country is important to us all. We should welcome investors and innovators – as job creators, as philanthropists, as tax-payers.

    But, as a nation, we must be fairer in distributing the fruits of national growth.

    You will all remember the “key” workers, for whom we stood applauding on our doorsteps during the Covid crisis. They were mostly poorly paid. There was no “trickle down” to them – and yet it was they upon whom we relied in a crisis.

    Our values need “Levelling Up” as well as our communities.

    But we must be realistic. “Levelling Up” will take many Parliaments to complete, and will only succeed if future governments buy into the concept and the cost.

    How can all this be paid for? There are options.

    It could, over time, be met by above average growth in our economy. This is possible, but cannot be relied upon.

    If growth is insufficient, which experience suggests is probable, the cost can only be met by higher taxes, or more borrowing or cuts in other budgets.

    It is an unwelcome truth that lower taxes for everyone – and higher spending – do not go together. Hard choices must be made.

    And some hard choices must be made without delay, as inflation rises – especially on food and fuel – while growth falls, and stagflation threatens.

    Many people will be utterly unable to meet the bills that lie ahead. Help must come. And I hope it will come soon.

    As it does, it will help bring trust and respect back to our politics: electors must have trust in The State, The Government, and the independence and impartiality of The Law.

    But, if the nation is to be loyal to The State, The State must be loyal to the people – and that is why the provision of quality public services is so important.

    Everyone needs to believe that The State cares about them – and not just the interests of the powerful, the motivators, and the elite.

    If the streets are unsafe, do the people who live in them believe The State is invested in them?

    If the week lasts longer than the money, do the penniless believe The State cares about them?

    If children attend a poor school, with disillusioned teachers, do the children or the teachers feel protected and valued by The State? It is so important that they do.

    In our democracy we rely upon one another in nearly every aspect of our lives. We need to respect and protect those with whom we share a common dependence.

    * * * * *

    There is much that is good in our way of life that no previous generation has enjoyed. Personally, I know of nowhere else I would prefer to live.

    Every day, medical science is improving treatment of cancer and blood diseases. New knees and new hips can help those crippled with pain. The cure of cataracts can restore sight.

    Hope is on the horizon for sufferers of Alzheimer’s and Parkinson’s – not an outright cure, perhaps, but an ability to diagnose them early, and stop them in their tracks.

    We are not short of good Samaritans. The caring professions do not walk by on the other side. Nor do the millions who work for charities, or volunteer for them, or donate to them.

    There is hope in two irresistible social changes. The rise of women to prominence in nearly every field of endeavour is as staggering as it is overdue.

    We are, at last, utilising the skills of half our nation that were hidden away for far too long.

    It is odd, isn’t it? Throughout the ages men have trusted our most treasured possessions – our children – to women. But we have not trusted women to contribute more widely to society and, at times, have positively prevented them from doing so.

    Yet they bring a moderating and restraining force, to a world that is in need of these attributes.

    There is another human influence I wish to mention as an overall force for good: the young. They have grown up in a different world to their elders. They think differently. They are unburdened by old shibboleths.

    We may be wary of their music. Their dress-down style. Their habit of cutting holes in the knees of new jeans for the sake of fashion. I have no doubt that past generations have baffled their parents in similar ways.

    The legacy we leave our young includes many difficulties but – from all I have seen – this is a good generation. I have high hopes for them.

    I have enough confidence to believe that, however much longer I live, my country will be in very good hands with our young.

    And, beyond that – for me, as a Christian – the greatest consolation is that … one day … I shall be in better hands still.

    Both our Country and our Church are more precious to our very being than most either acknowledge or realise. Are they “Different” now than in the past? Yes. Will they be “Different” in the future? Of course. For – as the world around us changes – so, too, will they.

    But our Country and our Church are eternal. And my hope is they will always remain shining beacons of goodness and decency in a world that – at the moment – is badly in need of both.

  • Vicky Ford – 2022 Statement on the Elections in Somalia

    Vicky Ford – 2022 Statement on the Elections in Somalia

    The statement made by Vicky Ford, the Minister for Africa, on 16 May 2022.

    I welcome the conclusion of the electoral process in Somalia and warmly congratulate Hassan Sheikh Mohamud on his election as President.

    After the protracted electoral process, the UK encourages Somalia’s leaders to work together with a new focus on issues of urgent national importance such as tackling al-Shabaab, responding to the devastating drought, maintaining fiscal stability, and constitutional reform.

    At this critical juncture, the United Kingdom remains committed to supporting all the people of Somalia, and to working alongside President Hassan Sheikh and his government as they seek to build greater stability, security and prosperity. I look forward to continuing to strengthen the UK – Somalia relationship.

  • Boris Johnson – 2022 Article in the Belfast Telegraph on the Way Forward in Northern Ireland

    Boris Johnson – 2022 Article in the Belfast Telegraph on the Way Forward in Northern Ireland

    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.

  • Volodymyr Zelenskyy – 2022 Speech at The Atlantic Council’s Distinguished Leadership Awards

    Volodymyr Zelenskyy – 2022 Speech at The Atlantic Council’s Distinguished Leadership Awards

    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!

  • George Daggar – 1932 Speech on Unemployment

    George Daggar – 1932 Speech on Unemployment

    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.

  • Geoffrey Mander – 1932 Speech on Industrial Councils

    Geoffrey Mander – 1932 Speech on Industrial Councils

    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.

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

    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.

  • Declan Kearney – 2022 Statement on the Northern Ireland Assembly Elections

    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.

  • Oliver Locker-Lampson – 1932 Speech on Goods Made by Forced Labour

    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.

  • Thomas Moore – 1932 Speech on the Slaughter of Animals

    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.