Results 1–20 of 27 for speaker:Mr Edward Moeran

Orders of the Day — FORESTRY BILL [Lords] (6 Jul 1951)

Mr Edward Moeran: The hon. Member for Salisbury (Mr. J. Morrison) and my hon. Friend the Member for Bootle (Mr. Kinley) are the first speakers in this debate to have paid more than passing attention to the interests of agriculture. The tenor of the whole debate and of the Bill itself has been to treat timber as a crop, which indeed it is—and a crop of great importance in the strategies both of peace and war....

Orders of the Day — REVEREND J. G. MacMANAWAY'S INDEMNITY BILL (18 Apr 1951)

Mr Edward Moeran: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. Is it in order to go back over the rights and merits of the proceedings of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, as the hon. Member seems to be doing?

Orders of the Day — REVEREND J. G. MacMANAWAY'S INDEMNITY BILL (18 Apr 1951)

Mr Edward Moeran: While my right hon. and learned Friend is on that point, would he deal with a question not of law but of the etiquette and custom of the House? I am sure that we should all welcome his remarks as to whether there was a breach of the established etiquette and custom of the House, apart from a breach of law.

Orders of the Day — LUTON CORPORATION BILL (By Order) (17 Apr 1951)

Mr Edward Moeran: If we considered this Bill on its merits and in isolation, I think that we should all agree, as the hon. Member for Luton (Dr. Hill) said, that Luton has a strong case, whether we consider it on the ground of population, of rateable value, of progressiveness or industrial efficiency. In isolation, Luton has a strong case for the Bill, but we cannot consider it in isolation. We must look at...

Orders of the Day — LUTON CORPORATION BILL (By Order) (17 Apr 1951)

Mr Edward Moeran: That is a matter with which I shall deal later, if I may be allowed to make my speech in my own way. I was saying that the county needs Luton in other ways than the purely financial. The hon. and gallant Member for Bedford (Captain Soames) said that the county had given the borough a fair deal. The chairman of the county council is a Luton man who has been chairman for 15 years; the...

Orders of the Day — LUTON CORPORATION BILL (By Order) (17 Apr 1951)

Mr Edward Moeran: That reinforces the argument that you cannot put an iron curtain round an urban area. The borough needs the county no less than the county needs the borough. As the hon. and gallant Member for Bedford pointed out, the borough will still use the roads for which the county will have to pay. The police must have rights over the county and the borough. In terms of education, in four schools in...

Orders of the Day — LUTON CORPORATION BILL (By Order) (17 Apr 1951)

Mr Edward Moeran: Would my hon. Friend not consider that, in criminal proceedings, it is possible for a case not to be made out as a prima facie case, and then to be rejected out of hand?

Orders of the Day — LUTON CORPORATION BILL (By Order) (17 Apr 1951)

Mr Edward Moeran: Would not the hon. Member agree that, upstairs, a one-Clause Bill can be rejected just as it can be rejected here after the evidence has been gone into?

Orders of the Day — Matrimonial Causes Bill (9 Mar 1951)

Mr Edward Moeran: Will the hon. Member read the words of the provision, "as the court consider reasonable"? Is he not aware that there is well established procedure upon which the court judges what is reasonable maintenance to be paid by a man of whatever means? I presume that this would would apply here.

Meat Supplies (8 Feb 1951)

Mr Edward Moeran: I have listened with attention to all the speeches from the Opposition, including that of the hon. Member for Luton (Dr. Hill). Apparently the hon. Member would like more meat; so would we all. Apart from the fact that he put his plea in the demagogic rhetoric of which he and other hon. Gentlemen opposite are such masters—always ready to turn the hardships of the common people to political...

Meat Supplies (8 Feb 1951)

Mr Edward Moeran: —the standard of diet which we might expect under a Conservative Government. I should be delighted if any hon. Member opposite would come to my constituency and tell the ordinary working people that the unemployed man of 1937 had a better diet than the employed man of 1951. Or perhaps they would like to visit Jarrow or some of the other constituencies of my hon. Friends and say that.

Meat Supplies (8 Feb 1951)

Mr Edward Moeran: The problem—it is, of course, a real problem—of our meat supplies, as a food importing country, can only be understood if it is seen against the background and the context of the world food situation. I want to take up the point, upon which my right hon. Friend the Minister touched in his speech, of the world conditions in which we have to purchase our food supplies. As he mentioned, we...

Meat Supplies (8 Feb 1951)

Mr Edward Moeran: Hon. Members will continue, I have no doubt, to make capital out of these difficult conditions and to suggest that their party would overcome them. We do not complain about that; we have learned to expect it from hon. Gentlemen opposite. I am concerned to outline some of the facts behind the difficult position in which this country, under whatever Government, must find itself. However skilful...

Paper and Boards (Shortage) (24 Nov 1950)

Mr Edward Moeran: Can the hon. Member suggest any way by which the misuse of paper by private industry can be controlled—for example, the 3½ million pamphlets which were given away at the recent Motor Show?

Orders of the Day — Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill: Clause 2. — (Schemes for Subsidising Use of Fertilisers.) (13 Jul 1950)

Mr Edward Moeran: I assume that my Amendment to define "fertilisers" has not been selected, and, therefore, I wonder if the Parliamentary Secretary could give some assurance about what the word includes. It looks as though there will be no definition in the Bill. Will the Minister have power to grant for organic, as well as inorganic, fertilisers? Will farmyard manure be included? What wider powers can be...

Class I: War Damage (Late Claims) (11 Jul 1950)

Mr Edward Moeran: I wish to make one short point in this Debate, because I believe the hardship cases of which we have heard from both sides of the House arise largely from the fact that the War Damage Commission has now no discretion whatever allowed to it. Until some time ago they could exercise discretion in admitting a claim which had not been notified within the time. Today, according to my information in...

Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill (30 Jun 1950)

Mr Edward Moeran: There is one point I should like to raise on Clause 2 of this Bill—a Bill which I think will be widely welcomed. Clause 2 provides for subsidies for the use of fertilisers, and it is the meaning of the word "fertilisers" that I wish to discuss, because it is not defined in the Bill. If that word bears its common meaning of chemical fertilisers to the exclusion of such organic manures as...

Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill (30 Jun 1950)

Mr Edward Moeran: No, I am certainly not. What I am suggesting is that in any scheme which is introduced under this Clause the Minister should have power to include such organic fertilisers as may be proper in a particular case. As the Bill is drafted, if the word "fertilisers" has the meaning I am suggesting, he is precluded from including anything but the purely chemical fertilisers. He is even excluded...

Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill (30 Jun 1950)

Mr Edward Moeran: I quite agree that is covered, but that is a limited scheme. What I should like to see, and what I think is desirable, is for the Minister to have flexible powers, and not to be condemned in advance to limiting his subsidy to the output of chemical fertilisers. It would be wholly wrong if the Government swallowed, hook, line and sinker, the arguments which are put up by some firms producing...

Clause 20. — (Surtax to Be Charged on Consideration for Certain Restrictive Covenants, etc.) (19 Jun 1950)

Mr Edward Moeran: I suppose that one thing upon which both sides of the Committee would be agreed is that retrospective legislation as a general principle is repugnant to us all, but what this Amendment asks us to do is to dismiss retrospective legislation in any circumstances whatever. It has always been understood by those concerned in the process of law that we do not make our laws rigid in the continental...

1 2 > >>

Create an alert

Did you find what you were looking for?

Advanced search

Find this exact word or phrase

You can also do this from the main search box by putting exact words in quotes: like "cycling" or "hutton report"

By default, we show words related to your search term, like “cycle” and “cycles” in a search for cycling. Putting the word in quotes, like "cycling", will stop this.

Excluding these words

You can also do this from the main search box by putting a minus sign before words you don’t want: like hunting -fox

We also support a bunch of boolean search modifiers, like AND and NEAR, for precise searching.

Date range


You can give a start date, an end date, or both to restrict results to a particular date range. A missing end date implies the current date, and a missing start date implies the oldest date we have in the system. Dates can be entered in any format you wish, e.g. 3rd March 2007 or 17/10/1989


Enter a name here to restrict results to contributions only by that person.


Restrict results to a particular parliament or assembly that we cover (e.g. the Scottish Parliament), or a particular type of data within an institution, such as Commons Written Answers.


If you know the actual Hansard column number of the information you are interested in (perhaps you’re looking up a paper reference), you can restrict results to that; you can also use column:123 in the main search box.