HC Deb 09 October 1946 vol 427 cc306-19

9.44 p.m.

Sir John Mellor (Sutton Coldfield)

I beg to move, That the Control of Engagement (No. 2) Order, 1946 (S.R. & O., 1946, No. 1278), dated 25th July, 1946, a copy of which was presented on 31st July be annulled. With permission, I propose that it would be convenient for the House to discuss the additional Motion relating to Order No. 1417 which is also on the Order Paper, together with this Order, as the Order No 1417 amends No. 1278. The other Motion is as follows: That the Control of Engagement (No. 3) Order, 1946 (S.R. & O, 1946, No. 1417), dated 20th August, 1946, a copy of which was presented on 8th October, be annulled. I hope that this Motion will be received with interest, and indeed with sympathy, in all parts of the House, having regard to its nature and its merits. I object very strongly to certain parts of these Orders. The parts to which I object have the effect—if I may first express it briefly, if not accurately—of providing that a person between the ages of 18 and 50 in the coal mining industry cannot engage himself for work outside that industry, except through a local office of the Ministry of Labour. To express it rather more precisely, and at rather greater length, these Orders provide that a person between the ages of 18 and 50 who is, or whose normal employment is, in the coal mining industry cannot engage himself, or be engaged by an employer, for work outside that industry, except through a local office of the Ministry of Labour and National Service or through an employment agency that has been approved by the Ministry. These Orders, in effect, partly cancel the measure of freedom which was accorded through the revocation of the Essential Work Order which concerned the coal mining industry. That latter Order ceased to have effect on 1st September.

Under the Essential Work Order, a man was tied to his job unless he obtained permission of a National Service officer to work elsewhere. Under these Orders he is, instead, tied to the industry unless he is able to obtain employment outside the coal industry through the local office of the Ministry of Labour. I would like the Parliamentary Secretary, when he comes to reply, to tell us the nature of the instructions which have been given to the local offices of his Ministry with regard to the carrying out of their duties under these Orders. It is extremely difficult to assess the manpower requirements of the coal industry. I think it is made all the more difficult by the conflicting announcements of the Minister of Fuel and Power. On 26th September the Minister of Fuel and Power said at Nottingham: We do not require to increase the labour force in the industry, which is now about 700,000, except as regards the repair of natural wastage. It is a completely erroneous conception that more men are required. Then, on 8th October, he said: There is a shortage of manpower and materials. We must recognise that the manpower in the coal industry is declining. Without emergency measures to repair the wastage and secure recruitment from new resources, this decline must continue. We are also faced with the fact, which seems strange to many of us, that at present there are over 12,000 men unemployed in the coal industry. It is common ground to all of us that an increase in output is vital, and, in my submission, on the labour side, that increased output must depend upon the good will and energy brought to bear by those now in the industry and also by the extent to which it is possible to find new recruits for the industry. Will not attendance be better and will there not be a greater output per man-shift if the men no longer feel that they are tied to the industry? So far as the Armed Forces are concerned, I think most of us agree that it is necessary to retain measures of compulsory service, but, surely, now, when a year or more has passed since the end of hostilities, it is high time that all men in civil life were free to offer their services where and when they please.

Then, take the aspect of recruitment to the industry. Who readily enters an industry when he knows that he will not have an entirely free right to withdraw from it? I think this must especially affect the coal industry. There may be many men who would be willing to give it a trial, but I think that many of them must be deterred when they know that, should they desire to leave, they can only obtain other employment through the local office of the Ministry of Labour. I think that claustrophobia is a thing not only induced by physical circumstances. I submit that this Order, because it restricts freedom, and because, assuming that it is designed to maintain manpower, it will tend to defeat its own object, should be annulled.

I should mention that, of course, I welcome the increased freedom given to pharmacists. There is only one other point and that arises on the Explanatory Memoranda to the Orders in question. The Explanatory Memorandum to Order No. 1417 says that the Order is made to correct an ambiguity. In my submission, it does nothing of the kind. The second Order, in fact, makes a far-reaching change of considerable importance, because, under the first Order, a coal miner would have been free to engage himself in agriculture. The amending Order No. 1417 stops him, and there is no question at all about ambiguity. Therefore, whereas the Explanatory Memorandum to the first Order was misleading in the sense that it was incomplete, the Explanatory Memorandum to the second Order is misleading because it is completely inaccurate.

9.55 p.m.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter (Kingston-upon-Thames)

I beg to second the Motion.

It is regrettable although, perhaps, characteristic that a matter which affects the personal liberty of some 700,000 men should be discussed in this House in the complete absence of one section of the Liberal Party. I am perfectly certain that hon. Members opposite who represent mining constituencies are well aware of the great importance to their constituencies of the subject matter of these two Orders inasmuch as they do, for better or worse, tie down to the industry every man at the moment engaged in it. Party considerations apart, that is obviously a matter of some considerable seriousness.

It was refreshing to observe in the Explanatory Memorandum to the second Order which the hon. Baronet the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir J. Mellor) quoted that, for once, a Government Department has admitted ambiguity in these Orders. These Orders are studded with ambiguities, and I hope that when the Parliamentary Secretary comes to reply he will invite the attention of the House to the particular ambiguity to which reference is made because, among the very considerable number included in the Order, it is, perhaps, a little difficult to be certain which is referred to. But the fact remains that, apart from admitting ambiguity, this is as I say a matter of very considerable seriousness. I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will tell the House why, in time of peace and some 15 months after the end of the war, it is necessary to tie down every man inside a particular industry. Surely, it is a matter that can be discussed without heat, although it is one which calls for some explanation.

Orders having this tremendous effect have been issued under delegated legislation, and one of the objects of putting down this Motion tonight is to call for a clear and unambiguous explanation of this necessity. The hon. Baronet the Member for Sutton Coldfield has already referred to the statement of the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Fuel and Power in which he stated that there is adequate manpower in the industry at the present moment. Further, there is the consideration as to whether, in those circumstances, it is fair to the men in this industry to impose restrictions upon them from which most of their colleagues are at this moment free. That is a matter which should surely appeal to hon. Members opposite who represent mining constituencies. It certainly appeals to all hon. Members of this House who are interested in the liberty of the subject, and I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will be able to satisfy the House that at this moment and in the light of the statement made by the Minister of Fuel and Power there is any justification whatsoever for this grave infringement of the liberty of the mining community. It is surely a matter on which the House of Commons should be quite united that no restrictions of this sort should be imposed upon any man save for the gravest national reason, and I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will tell the House what those grave national reasons are.

Mr. Speaker

As both these Motions are being discussed at the same time, I propose to put the Question on the second one formally after this has been disposed of.

10.0 p.m.

Major Peter Roberts (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

If I can, I would like to assist the House on this point by bringing to bear a certain amount of practical knowledge upon it. I know, and the Parliamentary Secretary is also aware, that there are a certain number of misfits in the mining industry who have been held there under the Essential Work Order. Some were released when that Order came off. What has happened in practice in a lot of cases is that these "misfits" have at once either applied or been asked to go from the industry, but in some cases they have not been found other employment by the labour exchanges and, therefore, have been tied within the industry. From the management point of view, I think it is most unfair on the industry at this present stage that these people should be kept on the books. In point of fact, what happens is that they are touted round from pit to pit by the labour exchanges because they are still within the industry, and it is a very bad example to management when they are trying to get recruits.

I suggest to the Minister that to make the labour, exchanges the only channel of escape, so to speak, ties down a man instead of enabling him to exercise the freedom of trying to get other employment, and I am not satisfied that the labour exchanges are doing their utmost. I expect the Parliamentary Secretary will say that they are doing their best, but I would like him to look into that point very carefully before he answers. These men who are on the books are almost a drag upon the recruiting campaign of the management at the moment. I wish to stress that the management are having a very difficult time under the present organisation between now and the unknown vesting date which is still being kept from us. I suggest that one of the easiest ways of dealing with this problem of what I might call "misfits," is to give free and wide play to these men to obtain employment by themselves if they can find a job, and secondly to assist the management by saying what the vesting date will be.

10.3 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour (Mr. Ness Edwards)

It is rather surprising that this Debate is taking place to annul this Order. I cannot say that it is due to Blackpool, because notice was given before the Blackpool conference was held, but on 24th July I made a statement to the House indicating the intention to produce this Order and stating the nature of relaxation of restrictions that would be applied to the mining industry in the future. A very long statement was made. It was listened to very carefully and immediately afterwards a Debate took place on the mining industry. From the Opposition Front Bench there were two speeches and not one of those speeches attacked this relaxation of the Essential Work Order on the mining industry. It was accepted on both sides of the House as a desirable step to take, one that was welcomed on both sides of the House and in all quarters of the industry, and in that sense I am surprised that tonight we have to face this Prayer to annul the Order. All that the two Orders do is to give effect to the statement and to the pledge given to this House, and which was accepted by this House.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter

Will the Parliamentary Secretary allow me to interrupt? Surely it is the fact that the relaxation of controls upon the mining industry was effected not by reason of these two Orders in respect of which a Prayer is moved tonight, but by reason of another Order, No. 1279, in respect of which there is no Prayer.

Mr. Ness Edwards

It is all part of the pledge and the intention— [Interruption.] I have the statement here, and if hon. Members on the other side will read the statement I made on 24th July they will see that this Order was envisaged in that statement. The House was told that the Essential Work Order would be cancelled and a new Order brought in to put a ring fence around the industry, and this is the Order which puts the ring fence around the industry. As I say, the statement was made on 24th July. On 25th July the Order was made, and on 31st July it was made available to Members of this House.

Therefore, on the process of bringing in the Orders and placing them before hon. Members there cannot be any complaint with regard to the speed with which it was done. At the same time as this Order was brought in advantage was taken of laying this Order—and there is no objection to this—to free the pharmacists from control. I take it that is accepted by both sides of the House as something which is welcome, and to that extent this Order is accepted even by the hon. Gentlemen who have moved the Prayer. I take it they have no desire to push the pharmacists back to the position in which they would be controlled by the previous Order controlling them.

The next point was this. In the 1945 Control of Engagement Order there was a misprint that has not, until this point, been noted by any hon. Member of the House, namely, that "ZVM," which was supposed to refer to market gardening, was a misprint for "ZVN." That part of the Order which is now before the House deals with that point; it puts "N" instead of "M." Otherwise the market gardeners would be running away, and we should be having pressure from the other side of the House to get more people into agriculture. As was stated by the hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir J. Mellor), the intention of this Order was to give to the workmen in the mining industry freedom to move from pit to pit. We gave to the employers in the industry the right to discharge a man from his employment in a given pit, but we went one step further and said that no man now engaged in mining shall be allowed to take a job outside the mining industry without the consent of the Ministry of Labour. I will deal with the misfits later on, but that was the intention. We thought that intention was completely embodied in the No. 2 Order, but on examination it was found that the form of amendment to the Control of Engagement Order had left a legal gap in this ring fence, and men in the mining industry would be free to leave the pit to go into agriculture, to go into market gardening, to join the police or to get some administrative job. In the circumstances of the mining industry we felt it would be quite wrong to leave that gap there and defeat the undertaking given to this House, and accepted by both sides of the House without criticism. Therefore, we took steps by the No. 3 Order to close the gap.

Sir J. Mellor

Surely the Parliamentary Secretary will not suggest that what he has described as a "legal gap" was an ambiguity? If so, was not the Explanatory Memorandum most misleading?

Mr. Ness Edwards

I thought the Black-pool vigour had gone, but apparently it has not. I will come to the point now. I quite agree that the use of the word "ambiguity" in the Explanatory Memorandum is entirely inadequate.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter

It is ambiguous.

Mr. Ness Edwards

It is quite inadequate. What has been done in the No. 3 Order is to stop up the gap, to make good a deficiency, and I am satisfied that it would be far better that a word other than "ambiguity" should be used. I make that statement without qualification. I am quite sure there was no intention to mislead on the part of the Parliamentary draftsman when he put that word there. I am asked to justify the tying of men to the mining industry under this Control of Engagement Order. There have been quotations from the speech of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Fuel and Power. I saw nothing contradictory in the statements that were quoted. The Minister of Fuel and Power did not say he wanted to lose men from the mining industry. What he did say was that he must maintain his manpower; he must replace his wastage; and he did lay great emphasis on a point raised by the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Ecclesall (Major Roberts), that we must try to get inside the industry that spirit of good will which would obtain the best results from those engaged in the industry. In the quotation given us I think the point was made about that.

The position is this. It is well known in the House that we must get all the coal we possibly can to see us through this winter, and it would be wrong on the part of the Government to release from the mining industry men of 20, 21 and 22 whilst, at the same time, we are calling up for the Armed Forces from other industries men of that age. They could get into excepted industries if we did not have an iron ring round this industry, and in that way they would escape service in the Armed Forces. Whilst we have been calling up men of the age of 30, with regard to that category of men there could be no reason at all for releasing them from the obligation of rendering the most vital national service that can be rendered in the circumstances.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter

Before he leaves that point, will the Parliamentary Secretary say that I am right in suggesting that this Order ties to the industry not only men under 30 but men up to 51?

Mr. Ness Edwards

I did not think I had said anything to contradict the statement the hon. Gentleman has now made. It does tie them all. I accept that. I come to the next point. It is said there are 12,000 unemployed in the mining industry. But there are not 12,000 fit men unemployed. A substantial proportion of those men are men who are on the books of the companies. Many of them are on partial workmen's compensation and, therefore, drawing unemployment benefit and signing the unemployment register. In the South Wales coalfield there is a very substantial number—far too great a number—of men waiting for medical examination by the silicosis medical board, and one ought not to draw too readily wrong conclusions from this fact that there are 12,000 men registered as unemployed in the mining industry.

Then the point was raised about getting goodwill in the industry. There are misfits in the industry, and under this arrangement we can now handle those misfits to a very great degree. The young man who will not play his part in the industry, the young man who is absent frequently from his work, is warned. If he repeats his offence he is called up again, and the Ministry of Fuel and Power inform us if they decide that he is a misfit, and that that man ought to do his national service in another form. Many of those young men who are of military age are now being called to the armed forces, and in that way we think we are improving the atmosphere in the mining industry by taking away from the industry those who are not prepared to make the contribution that normal miners are prepared to make.

Major Roberts

Will the Parliamentary Secretary kindly allow me? Can he give us an assurance that where, at the present moment, we have men who are, we admit, misfits, being handed round from colliery to colliery, making managements very chary of employing them, the labour exchanges will go carefully into those cases to see if those men can render more useful service outside? I do not think the labour exchanges are doing that. They are trying to keep them in.

Mr. Ness Edwards

I am afraid we must try to keep in the mining industry as many men as we reasonably can, that it will pay us to keep in. In regard to those who are obviously not going to fit in, there is a clear remedy. But then there is another set of cases; they are not whites, neither are they blacks, they are the greys, and that is a debatable field. You may get a man who has had a quarrel with a colliery manager, and he thinks he would be far better off, and would probably work much better, in another place. Sometimes there is no room in that other place and you have to move him on to the next, and encounter difficulties of that sort. But I am satisfied that once we get over the first effects of this Order we shall have a system which will enable us to fit men into the places where they can work comfortably, efficiently and regularly.

One or two other points were made, but I think I have covered the main portion of the ground. The position is this. In the circumstances which face the nation now we must try and keep in the mining industry all the willing miners we can keep, and the intention of this

Order is to see to it that we try to maintain the manpower there, so that we may get the best possible results. I should like to see us in the position of abolishing control altogether, but we have to decide which comes first. Shall it be the national interest, or shall it be a sectional interest? The same thing applies to the men who are now being called up for National Service. If we have regard purely to their interests, we shall leave them where they are, but this House has decided that they must be called up. That is the question we have to decide, between, on the one hand, the broad national interest, and on the other the rights of the individual section. I would suggest to hon. Gentlemen opposite that if this Order is annulled they enforce control upon the farmers and leave the market gardeners free. We must maintain the manpower in the mining industry, and these steps have had the approval of both sides of the industry. What has been done has been done after negotiations with the National Union of Mineworkers and the Coal Owners' Association. Now, it is the National Coal Board which will take over their functions. Having carried out what they regard as the best thing, we think the House should reject this Prayer, and at the same time congratulate the Government for carrying out so clearly the undertakings given on 24th July.

Question put, That the Control of Engagement (No. 2) Order, 1946 (S.R. & O., 1946, No. 1278), dated 25th July 1946, a copy of which was presented on 31st July, be annulled.

The House divided: Ayes, 46; Noes, 252.

Division No. 284. AYES. [10.17 p.m
Agnew, Cmdr. P. G. Lindsay, M. (Solihull) Scott, Lord W.
Assheton, Rt. Hon. R. Linstead, H. N. Shephard, S. (Newark)
Bowen, R. Lloyd, Maj. Guy (Renfrew, E.) Smiles, Lt.-Col. Sir W.
Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T. Lloyd, Selwyn (Wirral) Smith, E. P. (Ashford)
Byers, Frank Lucas-Tooth, Sir H. Snadden, W. M.
Challen, C. McKie, J. H. (Galloway) Spence, H. R.
Conant, Maj. R. J. E. Macpherson, Maj. N. (Dumfries) Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.
Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E. Medlicott, F. Strauss, H. G. (English Universities)
Drayson, G. B. Morris, Hopkin (Carmarthen) Turton, R. H.
Drewe, C. Mullan, Lt. C. H. Wadsworth, G.
Gomme-Duncan, Col. A. G. Peto, Brig. C. H. M. Wheatley, Colonel M. J.
Hannon, Sir P. (Moseley) Raikes, H. V. York, C.
Hope, Lord J. Ramsay, Maj. S.
Howard, Hon. A. Renton, D. TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
Hutchison, Lt.-Cm. Clark (E'b'rgh, W.) Roberts, Emrys (Merioneth) Sir John Mellor and
Joynson-Hicks, Lt.-Cdr. Hon. L. W. Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.) Mr. Boyd Carpenter.
Keeling, E. H. Sanderson, Sir F.
Adams, Richard (Balham) Allen, Scholefield (Crewe) Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)
Adams, W. T.(Hammersmith, South) Alpass, J. H. Austin, H. L.
Allen, A. C.(Bosworth) Anderson, A. (Motherwell) Awbery, S. S.
Ayles, W. H. Grey, C. F. Randall, H. E.
Bacon, Miss A. Grierson, E. Ranger, J.
Baird, J. Griffiths, D. (Rother Valley) Rankin, J.
Balfour, A Haire, Flt-Lieut. J. (Wycombe) Rees-Williams, D. R.
Barstow, P. G. Hale, Leslie Reeves, J.
Barton, C. Hamilton, Lieut.-Col. R. Reid, T. (Swindon)
Battley, J. R. Hannan, W. (Maryhill) Richards, R.
Bechervaise, A. E. Haworth, J. Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)
Benson, G. Henderson, A. (Kingswinford) Robertson, J. J. (Berwick)
Berry, H. Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick) Rogers, G. H. R.
Bing, G. H. C. Herbison, Miss M. Scollan, T.
Binns, J. Hewitson, Capt. M. Scott-Elliot, W.
Blenkinsop, A. Hobson, C. R Sharp, Lt.-Col. G. M.
Blyton, W. R. Holman, P. Shawcross, C. N. (Widnes)
Boardman, H. Holmes, H. E. (Hemsworth) Shawcross, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (St. Helens)
Bowden, Flg.-Offr. H. W. Hoy, J. Silverman, J. (Erdington)
Bowles, F. G. (Nuneaton) Hubbard, T. Silverman, S. S. (Nelson)
Braddock, Mrs. E. M. (L'pl, Exch'ge) Hudson, J. H. (Ealing, W.) Simmons, C. J.
Braddock, T. (Mitcham) Hutchinson, H. L. (Rusholme) Skinnard, F. W.
Brook, D. (Halifax) Janner, B. Smith, C. (Colchester)
Brooks, T. J. (Rothwell) Jay, D. P. T. Smith, H. N. (Nottingham, S.)
Brown, George (Belper) Jeger, G. (Winchester) Smith, T. (Normanton)
Brown, T. J. (Ince) Jeger, Dr. S. W. (St. Pancras, S.E.) Snow, Capt. J. W.
Buchanan, G. John, W. Solley, L. J.
Burden, T. W. Jones, D. T. (Hartlepools) Sorensen, R. W.
Burke, W. A. Jones, Elwyn (Plaistow) Soskice, Maj. Sir F.
Butler, H. W. (Hackney, S.) Jones, J. H. (Bolton) Sparks, J. A.
Castle, Mrs. B. A. Jones, P. Asterley (Hitchin) Stamford, W.
Chamberlain, R. A Keenan, W. Steele, T.
Champion, A. J. Kenyon, C. Strauss, G. R. (Lambeth, N.)
Chater, D. Kinghorn, Sqn.-Ldr. E Stross, Dr. B.
Chetwynd, Capt. G. R. Lavers, S. Stubbs, A. E.
Clitherow, Dr. R. Lee, F. (Hulme) Summerskill, Dr Edith
Cocks, F. S. Leslie, J. R. Swingier S.
Coldrick, W. Lewis, J. (Bolton) Symonds, A. L.
Collick, P. Lewis, T. (Southampton) Taylor, H. B. (Mansfield)
Collindridge, F. Lipson, D. L. Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)
Collins, V. J. Lipton, Lt.-Col. M. Thomas, I. O. (Wrekin)
Colman, Miss G. M. Logan, D. G. Thomas, John R. (Dover)
Comyns, Dr. L. McAdam, W. Thomson, Rt. Hn. G. R. (Ed'b'gh, E.)
Cook, T. F. McAllister, G. Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)
Cooper, Wing-Comdr. G. McEntee, V. La T. Thurtle, E.
Corbet, Mrs. F. K. (Camb'well, N.W.) Mack, J. D. Tiffany, S.
Corlett, Dr. J. McKay, J. (Wallsend) Timmons, J.
Corvedale, Viscount Mackay, R. W. G. (Hull, N.W.) Tolley, L.
Crawley, A. McKinlay, A S. Turner-Samuels, M.
Daggar, G. Maclean, N. (Govan) Ungoed-Thomas, L.
Daines, P. McLeavy, F. Usborne, Henry
Davies, Edward (Burslem) MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles) Vernon, Maj. W. F.
Davies, Harold (Leek) Macpherson, T. (Romford) Viant, S. P.
Davies, Hadyn (St. Pancras, S.W.) Mainwaring, W. H. Walkden, E.
Davies, S. O. (Merthyr) Manning, Mrs. L. (Epping) Wallace, H. W. (Walthamstow, E.)
Deer, G. Mathers, G. Warbey, W. N.
de Freitas, Geoffrey Medland, H. M. Watkins, T. E.
Diamond, J. Messer, F. Watson, W. M.
Dobbie, W. Middleton, Mrs. L. Weitzman, D.
Donovan, T. Mitchison, Maj. G. R. Wells, P. L. (Faversham)
Driberg, T. E. N. Monslow, W. Wells, W. T. (Walsall)
Dumpleton, C. W. Moody, A. S. West, D. G.
Durbin, E. F. M. Morgan, Dr. H. B. Westwood, Rt. Hon. J.
Edelman, M. Morley, R. White, C. F. (Derbyshire, W.)
White, H. (Derbyshire, N. E.)
Edwards, A. (Middlesbrough, E.) Morris, P. (Swansea, W.) Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.
Edwards, N. (Caerphilly) Mort, D. L. Wigg, Col. G. E.
Edwards, W. J. (Whitechapel) Murray, J. D. Wilcock, Group-Capt. C. A. B.
Evans, E. (Lowestoft) Nally, W. Wilkins, W. A.
Evans, John (Ogmore) Neal, H. (Claycross) Willey, F. T. (Sunderland)
Evans, S. N. (Wednesbury) Nichol, Mrs. M. E. (Bradford, N.) Williams, D. J. (Neath)
Ewart, R. Nicholls, H. R. (Stratford) Williams, J. L. (Kelvingrove)
Fairhurst, F. Noel-Baker, Capt. F. E. (Brentford) Williams, W. R. (Heston)
Farthing, W. J. Noel-Buxton, Lady. Willis, E.
Follick, M. Oliver, G. H. Wills, Mrs. E. A.
Foot, M. M. Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury) Woodburn, A.
Forman, J. C. Palmer, A. M. F. Wyatt, E.
Fraser, T. (Hamilton) Parker, J. Yates, V. F.
Freeman, Maj. J. (Watford) Paton, J. (Norwich) Young, Sir R. (Newton)
Gibson, C. W. Pearson A. Younger, Hon. Kenneth
Gilzean, A. Perrins, W. Zilliacus, K.
Glanville, J. E. (Consett) Piratin, P.
Gooch, E. G. Porter, E. (Warrington) TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
Goodrich, H. E. Proctor, W. T. Captain Michael Stewart and
Gordon-Walker, P. C. Pryde, D. J. Mr. Popplewell.
Grenfell, D. R. Pursey, Cmdr. H

Question put, and agreed to.

Sir J. Mellon

I beg to move, That the Control of Engagement (No. 3) Order, 1946 (S.R. & O., 1946, No. 1417), dated 20th August 1946, a copy of which was presented on 8th October, be annulled.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter

I beg to second the Motion.

Question put, and negatived.