Mr James Reid: We are in Committee, and there is nothing to prevent the right hon. Gentleman speaking twice. Moreover, I should like to say now—and I shall develop it further—that we are in a very great difficulty here The Government have held back the Argentine Agreement, which is the main subject for our discussions tonight, and I had thought that, in view of the fact that they have not published that...
Mr James Reid: Where is it?
Mr James Reid: There is such a thing as the telegraph.
Mr James Reid: There is air mail.
Mr James Reid: I am sure the Committee are obliged to the Chancellor of the Exchequer for the clear way in which he explains the terms of this agreement. I shall have some comments to make on that matter as I go along. I am a little surprised that the Minister of Food has not seen fit to follow the usual practice and come to explain his Estimate to the Committee. After all, even leaving aside the Argentine...
Mr James Reid: I must have failed to follow it.
Mr James Reid: That does not explain why we take £43 million out of the B account and why we have unblocked £117 million. I can well understand an agreement in which some equivalent sum, such as £40 million or even £50 million, of the A account was unblocked; that would be logical. Even that would be giving a very great advantage to the Argentine Government and would be storing up for the Chancellor...
Mr James Reid: This becomes of great importance when I come to the subject of meat. I have great difficulty in disentangling the information which we have on that subject. Because of the difficulty which results from that, I thought it best to have it clear. I take it that this agreement supersedes the agreement of 1946. Under that agreement, prices were not to be readjusted until September, 1948, and I...
Mr James Reid: Up to date this Debate has been conducted, certainly, by the Chancellor of the Exchequer and myself, on the footing that the Minister of Food is asking us to pay £110 million in order that a certain agreement may go through. That is the whole basis of the Supplementary Estimate. If we are to determine whether it is a good thing that the agreement should go through, we must look at all the...
Mr James Reid: Further to that point of Order. I do not think you, Sir Robert, were in the Chair at the time when this Debate began, and it would be most unfortunate if the character of the Debate were altered at this juncture. I can assure you—and I am sure that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would agree—that in the earlier stages of this Debate it was common ground that the Government had to convince...
Mr James Reid: I take it that the right hon. Gentleman is not prepared to deny that the price of maize under the agreement exceeds £30 a ton.
Mr James Reid: I beg to move: That the Rationing (Personal Points) Order 1947 (Amendment) Order, 1947 (S.R. & O, 1947, No. 2786), dated 24th December, 1947, a copy of which was presented on 20th January, be annulled. I think it will be agreed that the whole food position of this country has now become so critical that it is the duty of this House to examine very carefully any further food cuts to...
Mr James Reid: I am saying, though perhaps I did not make the basis of my argument quite clear because I wanted to save time, that the hon. Lady's Department has wasted dollars during the last 12 months and I want to be assured that this wasteful practice has stopped.
Mr James Reid: In this way. The only excuse that the Minister has given for not getting more sugar for us is that he has not got any dollars to spend. If I can show that he has the dollars but is spending them on the wrong things, surely, I can perhaps induce him to stop buying things that are not essential and start buying things that are essential and thereby avoid the cut in this Order. That is what I am...
Mr James Reid: I am showing concrete instances where exactly the sum required to meet this was wasted last autumn. It seems to me that that is a good argument to show that this cut would never have been necessary if there had been good management on the part of the Department. I could give many more but I do not intend, in view of the lateness of the hour, to give any more. But I will just say that I hope...
Mr James Reid: I agree that that was right.
Mr James Reid: It is all you can get.
Mr James Reid: The right hon. Lady took all her time in answering points I did not make. She completely failed to answer the points I did make and, therefore, I shall certainly advise my friends to show their protest against her attitude in the Division Lobby. I would like to say one other thing. I should have thought that, whatever divided the two sides of the House at this time, we should all have been...
Mr James Reid: As the hon. Gentleman the Joint-Under Secretary of State has said, these regulations follow pretty closely the English regulations. There was a debate on the English regulations in which a large number of points were raised, and I do not think that the House would appreciate my raising these points again now. I have no doubt they have been studied by the Department, and I trust they will...
Mr James Reid: Is it proposed that the new Food Corporation should be involved in this, or is it on the Food Ministry's own Vote?
