Mr Ian Orr-Ewing: 10. asked the Minister of Agriculture whether be has seen the report of the judgment of the High Court, dated 30th November, 1934, to the effect that the City of London is not entitled to limit the right of sale by auction within the Spitalfields Market; and whether he will now have the statement upon page 157 of the Ministry's publication, Markets and Fairs, that the fruit exchange, which is...
Mr Ian Orr-Ewing: 51. asked the Minister of Agriculture what steps he is taking to carry out the recommendations appearing on pages 85 and 86 of the report of the reorganisation commission for fat stock, and page 150 of the report of the reorganisation commission for eggs and poultry, that immediate investigation should be made of the mechanism of distribution, including a scientific analysis of demand for...
Mr Ian Orr-Ewing: 63. asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he has approached Timber Distributors, Limited, with a view to the removal of the fall clause or any other alteration in their recently concluded contract for the purchase of Russian timber?
Mr Ian Orr-Ewing: Arising out of the reply, for which I thank the right hon. Gentleman, may I ask whether, in future, where he finds it necessary to intervene as regards any clause in a particular contract, he will intervene at the earliest possible date in order to do away with any risk of trade dislocation?
Mr Ian Orr-Ewing: I rise for a few moments to add my very small tribute to the many tributes which have been paid already to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. More particularly would I stress the tremendous value of the relief of taxation to those with smaller incomes which has been granted, representing as I do a constituency which contains one of the healthiest of all the seaside resorts of the country, and...
Mr Ian Orr-Ewing: I cannot accept that comparison. So far as I know, tobacco has never been looked upon as liable to bring about a more efficient state of society. On the other hand, in my opinion the Diesel engine would undoubtedly make for a more efficient community.
Mr Ian Orr-Ewing: I beg to move, in page 2, line 30, to leave out from "thirty-five," to the end of the Sub-section, and to insert: the rate of the rebate to be allowed under sub-section (3) of section two of the Finance Act, 1928, as amended by section six of the Finance Act, 1933, shall be reduced from sevenpence to fourpence per gallon in respect of all heavy oils used as fuel for mechanically propelled...
Mr Ian Orr-Ewing: I feel some sense of disappointment in the reply given by the Chancellor of the Exchequer to what I looked upon as a reasonable proposal. I had hoped that he would have answered my question as to whether he had consulted with the industry and what information he had got from it as to the effect of his original proposal. I would ask now whether he would be prepared, without pledging himself in...
Mr Ian Orr-Ewing: I rise to support the Bill, not only because I think it will be useful but because I am glad of the realisation which has grown up and which has brought the Bill into being. I would make one or two suggestions in regard to what appear to be possible improvements. I was delighted to hear the Minister say, when introducing the Bill, that he was prepared to consider making improvements in Clause...
Mr Ian Orr-Ewing: Surely, my hon. and gallant Friend is not suggesting that the honest landowner would make evil use of any powers that might be given to any local authority?
Mr Ian Orr-Ewing: Can my hon. Friend tell the House what rent would be lost—in fact, what rent is paid at the present time in Norfolk for these 6,000 acres?
Mr Ian Orr-Ewing: I must thank the Minister for this Amendment. I cannot agree with the hon. and gallant Member for Christchurch (Major Mills). To me the words appear absolutely clear. After all, land which is not required to be retained as part of a park could not really claim to be part of that park in the sense that a park is an amenity to a house which it surrounds. I will not detain the House by going...
Mr Ian Orr-Ewing: Is the hon. and learned Member suggesting that official papers were circulated before the scheme came into force, and before the vote was asked for, which were deliberately misleading?
Mr Ian Orr-Ewing: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether it is the intention of His Majesty's Government to publish as a White Paper the document relating to Abyssinia which has been published in an Italian newspaper?
Mr Ian Orr-Ewing: If I may interrupt my hon. and gallant Friend for a moment, I am not interested in any "old gang," but I think the House itself would be interested to know exactly why the people of Inverness would like this Bill defeated. I ask only for information.
Mr Ian Orr-Ewing: My hon. and gallant Friend has not given the answer, which I think would interest the House, as to why it is that those in Inverness wish to defeat this proposal.
Mr Ian Orr-Ewing: Is the hon. and gallant Member suggesting that 16 per cent. of the water is going to be taken away from the River Ness at all times of the year? Will there not be at some times of the year more water coming down the river than has ever come before?
Mr Ian Orr-Ewing: It was with some sense of alarm that I listened to the speeches which have been made by hon. Members on this subject. I am a very warm supporter of everything that pertains to the good of the agricultural industry, and in what I am going to say I do not want to seem to imply that there is any weakening on my part in supporting any steps that can reasonably be taken to improve the conditions...
Mr Ian Orr-Ewing: I think that bears out my first argument that evidence was not produced before the committee. We are informed that there was some gap between 2nd March and 24th March. During that period evidence might have been put forward, and if that evidence was not put forward, there is nothing to prevent it being submitted to the committee now. To claim that the Potato Marketing Board should have...
Mr Ian Orr-Ewing: With all due respect, I do not think that affects the argument. We come back to the statement that the case is not proven and again I submit that if new evidence exists, it is still open to those concerned to submit that evidence. We can only take it that the committee considered that the case had been proven. They are not going to take action on a case in which they have not satisfied...