Mr James Reid: I refer to the Minister's instructions to food officers to collect B.Us. from bakers, because I have had many instances given to me where no question has ever been raised, and these things have remained in the bakers' shops for years.
Mr James Reid: Is it not a fact that this is just another example to show that bread rationing has become a complete farce?
Mr James Reid: Does the Minister not have these cargoes examined by his inspectors before they are shipped from the Argentine?
Mr James Reid: rose—
Mr James Reid: Is the hon. Gentleman in a position to dominate the Central Land Board? Is the Central Land Board merely the creature of the Minister of Town and Country Planning? If so, of course the hon. Gentleman can give an undertaking here which binds the Central Land Board, but if, as I suspect, the Central Land Board is entitled to have some independence of its own, then how can the hon. Gentleman...
Mr James Reid: May I take it that, contrary to the principle which has now been established about nationalised industries and Questions in this House, the Minister of Town and Country Planning will answer Questions directed to him about the doings of the Central Land Board? If some hon. Member puts down a Question asking the Minister of Town and Country Planning why the Central Land Board have not received...
Mr James Reid: I thought not.
Mr James Reid: Does the right hon. Gentleman ask us to pass these regulations without having firm legal advice about the meaning of these provisions? I should have expected a Law Officer to be here to tell us. I see there are two Scottish Law Officers here, and we shall, therefore, receive authoritative advice on this part of the Scottish Order. Surely the right hon. Gentleman is not asking us to part with...
Mr James Reid: With great respect, the right hon. Gentleman has no right to say that Mr. Deputy-Speaker has allowed discussion on either side of the House to proceed out of Order. It is perfectly plain to my mind that everything that has taken place in this discussion up to date has been in Order, and is not in the least in conflict with any pronouncement which was made by Mr. Speaker. I do not think the...
Mr James Reid: We cannot leave the matter where it is. We have got into an astonishing tangle. In March, 1947, the Minister gave an undertaking that allowance would be made for the cost of restoration in considering the amount of the development charge. Presumably, before he gave that undertaking he was advised by the Law Officers and did not give it without some assurance that he could give it. Now what...
Mr James Reid: I do not want to pursue the matter beyond the bounds of Order, but may I explain why I went so far? I do not like to trespass in these matters. We are now being asked to approve of certain methods, or a lack of method, of fixing a development charge. When we were told at an earlier stage that the development charge would be fixed on a certain level, that was an undertaking given to us by the...
Mr James Reid: I think the right hon. Gentleman is answering a point which I raised, among others. Why should not there be a statement of a general principle that the Central Land Board has to pay attention in a certain way to the questions of amenities including the question of restoration? That seems to me perfectly general.
Mr James Reid: In view of the fact that we are taking 10,000 tons of tinned Irish meat under the new Eire Agreement, and that only 10,000 tons was previously offered according to the hon. Lady's answer, why did we refuse part of that 10,000 tons, seeing that it went to Czechoslovakia?
Mr James Reid: Does the Minister mean that the price asked for the consignment in March by the Eire Government was excessive?
Mr James Reid: What was the price?
Mr James Reid: Does that mean that we are less well off now than Czechoslovakia, and is that the result of Socialist policy?
Mr James Reid: Could the hon. Lady say what is the estimated saving in bread by this regulation or whether this is another of those psychological regulations?
Mr James Reid: Does that mean, Mr. Beaumont, that if this Amendment were carried, none of the consequential Amendments on the Schedule would be called?
Mr James Reid: It was agreed on all sides of the House at one time that it was proper to remit a problem of redistribution to the Boundary Commission. Even when that was done we never got a solution which satisfied everybody. Though the solution to be got in that way did not satisfy everybody there were only two proper things to do. The first was to take the rough with the smooth and accept the Boundary...
Mr James Reid: I am very sorry for the right hon. Gentleman. He is trying, so far as I can see, to conduct with justice and equity the affairs for which he is responsible, but he is not allowed to do so.
