Lords Amendment: In page 8, line 28, at end, insert:
and the Postmaster-General and the President of the Institution of Electrical Engineers shall each exercise his powers under this subsection in such manner as to secure that the committee or the panel, as the case may be, is in his opinion sufficiently representative of persons whose interests are likely to be affected as aforesaid.
I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
The wording of the Bill as passed by this House was such as to leave it possible for the advisory committee and, indeed, the panel from which the committee should be drawn, to be composed entirely of persons who possessed expert knowledge. The question was raised at the time by right hon. and hon. Members opposite, who suggested that the committee ought to include persons whose interests were affected. This Amendment is designed to give expression to that.
I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
This Amendment concerns procedure. The rules which this Amendment will allow to be made will obviate the expense which might arise if, in the absence of such rules, one of the parties were unduly late in requesting the appointment of specially qualified assessors. This rule gives a time limit in which these parties can make the appeal.
Lords Amendment: In line 32, at end insert:
(5) If, in the case of any reference or application to the appeal tribunal under section eleven of this Act, any of the parties or the president of the tribunal, within such time, if any, as may be limited in that behalf by the rules regulating the procedure of the tribunal, request the Lord Chancellor, if the proceedings are in England and Wales, or the Secretary of State, if the proceedings are in Scotland or Northern Ireland, to appoint two additional members of the tribunal to act for that case, the Lord Chancellor or Secretary of State, as the case may be, shall select and appoint two persons, who need not possess any legal qualifications or expert knowledge, to act as additional members of the tribunal for that case, and the additional members so appointed shall act therefor accordingly in addition to the president and the assessors or assessor.
I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
In regard to the tribunal, the position in the first instance was that it comprised one legal man and two assessors, and the decision was left solely to the person who was appointed by the Lord Chancellor, namely, the legal person. Criticism was levelled on the grounds that this was open to the charge of being a one-man show and, therefore, in order to obviate that, it is proposed now that these tribunals should consist of one legal person and four members, two of the members to act as jury.
Lords Amendment: In page 10, line 32, at end insert—
Provided that nothing in this section shall render a person liable to incur any expenditure for the purpose of complying with any requirement in excess of one florin in respect of each one apparatus in his possession which is made or adapted for use for ordinary domestic purposes and is used by him for those purposes in his household and is in reasonable repair and running order.
I beg to move, "That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
The Clause of the Bill into which the Amendment was imported by the House of Lords is the Clause which empowers the Postmaster-General, after consultation with the advisory committee, to make regulations prescribing the requirements to be complied with for the purpose of avoiding undue interference. It is manifestly impossible that regulations of a highly technical character, laying down requirements with the object of avoiding undue interference, could be framed on the footing that they will secure that certain people using certain apparatus for household purposes only should not have to meet the cost of complying with the requirements if the cost exceeded one florin. This Clause deals with the making of regulations. It would be quite anomalous for the framers of the regulations, in addition to making regulations for the purpose of dealing with undue interference, to have to introduce a provision restricting the possible payment to one florin in certain cases. It is clearly absurd in this particular instance, and for that reason the Amendment is absolutely unworkable.
If the Amendment had been framed in a better understanding of the Bill it would, no doubt, have figured in Clause 11. That is the enforcement Clause. Then the objective would have appeared to have been, to prevent the Postmaster-General from serving an effective enforcement notice even when interference of a really serious character was taking place, if the cost of removing interference would exceed one florin in respect of a piece of domestic apparatus. That would take outside the Bill the bulk of domestic apparatus in reasonable working order. It may be described as coming very close to a wrecking Amendment. This is based on no principle, but on an arbitrary cost figure. The Amendment seems to pay no attention whatever to the hardships of the listener subjected to constant interference, nor does it even concede the possibility—though in this case it is rather remote—that interference with the safety of life may be involved.
As hon. Members opposite know, the basis of all this business is voluntary co-operation. If an Amendment like this were to succeed it would take outside the Bill the bulk of domestic apparatus that might be causing interference, and would be likely to break the amount of co-operation which has been a rather good factor in the situation up to the present time, and it would help, if anybody, the people who were most difficult. There is a Lords Amendment we shall consider later which gives another safeguard to people, that if they go to the tribunal to appeal, and if the cost to them of removing interference would create hardship, the tribunal can take that into consideration at the same time as it is discussing the undue interference.
The Postmaster-General does not seem to like this Amendment, but, if I may disagree with him, a matter of some principle is involved here. The whole House showed some concern upon the point that underlies this Amendment when the Bill was going through this House originally. The position then was, and is now, with some modification, that anybody may purchase a piece of apparatus quite legally and properly and then find that, because it is causing interference, he may have to spend money upon it if he is to be allowed to continue to use it. I think the whole House was somewhat concerned about that, and during the discussions on the Bill the point was made—and accepted by the Postmaster-General—that something should be done at the manufacturing end. Moreover, Amendments were introduced.
The purpose of this Lords Amendment—I am not talking about the actual 2s.—is to put some ceiling upon what an ordinary housewife, for instance, using domestic apparatus may be called upon to pay to make her instrument free of interference. I think that, in principle, it is right that there should be some limit of that sort. Whether 2s. is the right limit is another matter, but without this Amendment there is no limit. There is some safeguard, as the Postmaster-General has said, on the hardship question. Nevertheless, here is an attempt to put a ceiling upon what an ordinary domestic user may be called upon to pay extra on an apparatus which he or she has already legally purchased before he or she can continue to us it. I also think that if this provision were in the Bill there would be more of an urge on the Postmaster-General to get the manufactures to do something to attack the problem at their end, which is what the House was anxious that he should do. Difficult as the matter was, the House insisted upon its being approached from that angle.
Altogether, I do not think that the Postmaster-General has come down very heavily against this Amendment. I do not know how far I am allowed to refer to what happened in another place, but an offer was there made that a limit of some such amount might be accepted if this particular amount was unreasonable. However, if the Postmaster-General does what the House wants, and attacks the problem from the manufacturing end, the thing will solve itself in the process of time. It is only a transitory provision, and one hopes that much of it will not have to be used. The problem, if tackled properly with the powers the right hon. Gentleman now has, will solve itself. For those reasons my hon. Friends and I feel very much inclined to press for the insertion of this provision, in order to give the housewife protection against any disproportionate charge consequent upon using a domestic utensil which she has bought legally, and which she is entitled to use.
The Postmaster-General says that 2s. is an arbitrary figure. No doubt it is; it may well be that the figure should be 3s. or 5s. to cover the majority of cases. But if my memory serves me aright, he himself, when questioned about this on Second Reading, told the House that it could be done for 1s. 6d. or 2s.; he said that a very modest charge would be imposed upon the ordinary user of domestic electrical apparatus. I do not think people appreciate fully what will be the result of this Measure. This Bill will threaten every domestic user with an extra charge of a few shillings on ordinary household electrical apparatus; it will impose an extra charge upon many thousands of housewives who have bought electrical apparatus for ironing, for heating water, or for drying clothes. A housewife will not know whether the apparatus interferes with her neighbour. At any time, subject to these regulations, investigation may be made, and she may be compelled, under pain of penalties, to buy an additional piece of apparatus and have it fitted to the instrument she uses in her home.
This is a serious interference with people's liberty. In addition, it imposes an extra charge on many people. A florin, although a small amount, may be as much as 10 per cent. of the value of the apparatus to which the appliance it buys has to be fitted. A threat to add 10 per cent., or even only 5 per cent., to the cost of a piece of ordinary household electrical apparatus is not lightly to be thought of. It seems to me that since the purpose of getting rid of the interference is to enable television viewers to see the picture more clearly, and since they are, therefore, those who will enjoy any benefit of this, it should be they who pay for this. They ought to pay an extra shilling or half-a-crown on their licences to provide a fund out of which to compensate the housewife for the extra charge that is being put upon her.
This Lords Amendment applies solely to domestic apparatus, so I presume that apparatus used by, for example, physiotherapists will be covered at a later stage, and I shall not now address myself to that question. I do think that, on its merits, some limitation of this kind ought to be in the Bill. I discerned in the Minister's objection a hint that if this Amendment had been proposed to a later Clause he might have accepted it.
I thought the right hon. Gentleman said that it would have been better if it had been included in a later Clause. If he would indicate what he has in mind it might affect our attitude to this Amendment. So far as this particular matter is concerned, we ought to protest strongly against the Postmaster-General's proposal to reject the Lords Amendment.
The Postmaster-General, in opposing the Lord Amendment, said that if it were carried it would, in effect, wreck the Bill, and that is undoubtedly the case, as anyone knows who understands this kind of problem from the practical point of view. In listening to the previous Debates, it seemed to me that the House generally was agreed that we could not allow domestic apparatus, which interfered severely with radio navigation, whether for ships or aircraft, to interfere with safety of life. If this Amendment were carried, it would interfere with the Postmaster-General's efforts to see that this interference did not occur. No limitation in money can be put on it, because no one can say what the cost of eliminating the interference in any given case would be. Therefore, I say that my right hon. Friend could not permit any financial limitation.
I should like to deal briefly with the point made by the Opposition, that manufacturers ought to bear the cost of making alterations of this description. It will be remembered that on the Second Reading of the Bill I went into this from the point of view of the manufacturers, and I should like to put it to the House again. The difference, as a rule, in the case of electrical apparatus, between manufacturing cost and the price paid by the public is somewhere in the region of three to one. Therefore, if it costs 2s. at the manufacturing stage to make this alteration, it would be somewhere in the region of 6s. extra to the public. A million irons might be made, but only 1 per cent. of them would cause any interference. Surely it is far better for the 1 per cent. to be ordered to meet this extra cost, even though it may be 7s., than to have an alteration made in every piece of apparatus sold to the public. This seems to be ordinary common sense from the manufacturers' and users' point of view. I would oppose the proposition that the manufacturers should pay.
In any case, it is not a logical suggestion, because, if the apparatus which creates interference is sold by the manufacturer, then the laws of private enterprise start to operate, and the public stop buying the apparatus which causes the interference. They would buy a competing apparatus, which has some kind of an eliminator fixed to it. This is one occasion on which the laws of private enterprise should operate; hon. Members opposite must be impressed by such an appeal as that.
It is very interesting to listen to the hon. Member for Elland (Mr. Cobb) asking for the free play of private enterprise in the sphere of industrial activity, with which he himself is connected. I have no doubt that the steel industry would be accorded entirely different treatment, but here the hon. Gentleman wants to see the full play of private enterprise. He says that if people buy instruments which cause interference they will have to pay a substantial sum to have it corrected and will cease to buy that piece of apparatus. That does not stop a person from buying the thing in the first place. It does not deal with the issue of millions of people who have purchased electrical appliances of various kinds, who have used them legally for many years and who are entitled to some consideration. At the time they purchased that apparatus it was quite legal for them to use it in the manner in which they were employing it. We are in a very strong position to resist what the Postmaster-General said this afternoon.
The hon. Member knows there are methods of dealing with it, and that it does not mean that we have to inflict this burden upon housewives. The hon. Gentleman very kindly cut all the ground away from under the Postmaster-General's feet when he said that no one could say what the cost would be. The Postmaster-General refused to put any ceiling on this cost, but now the hon. Gentleman has said that it might amount to anything. We are, therefore, asking housewives to bear a charge which cannot yet be determined, and which may be considerably beyond their means.
It does not necessarily mean that because it is the desire of the House to see that safety appliances are not interfered with we should place an indefinite burden upon housewives. There are other means by which the object can be achieved. [HON. MEMBERS: "What are they?"] I would ask hon. Gentlemen not to be so impetuous; I will come to that point in good time. Let me remind the House that we have taken the Postmaster-General a long way on this Bill. When he first brought it in, he had a very big stick with which to beat housewives. We have made this stick smaller and smaller. We have forced manufacturers to do something; we have limited the severity of the penalties which can be inflicted on those who will not obey; we have made the position of the housewife much more tolerable. Tonight, we want to make it more tolerable still, and there is a way by which it can be done.
My hon. Friend the Member for Lonsdale (Sir Ian Fraser) very properly said that a considerable amount of money might be involved in the correcting of apparatus. As he said, that is being asked for to provide safety for navigational aids and, secondly, to prevent undue interference with television. People have bought apparatus when they were perfectly entitled to buy it and to use it. If something else has since come along to upset that position, it should be the duty of the State to pay any charge above a certain maximum of cost necessary for the correction of the apparatus. The Post Office ought to bear that charge, or it could charge a bit more to television users. At any rate, let us not inflict upon the housewives a burden which they are not capable of bearing and ought not to bear. I hope that we shall have no hesitation in deciding against the view expressed by the Postmaster-General. It is essential to get justice for housewives, even from a Socialist Government.
It seems to be the general impression that interference from domestic apparatus affects only television sets. That is far from being the case. Where there is an escape of electro-magnetic energy there can be interference with wireless sets, which is the most common form of interference. I recollect that during the earlier stages of the Bill the hon. Member for Westbury (Mr. Grimston) said categorically, and without any equivocation whatsoever, that if safety of life at sea was concerned, he would agree to anything. The position is that if we agree to this Lords Amendment it means that interference from domestic apparatus can jeopardise safety equipment for the landing of aircraft or in connection with navigation.
Can the hon. Gentleman put his hand on his heart and affirm that the emission of electro-magnetic energy from an apparatus such as the thermostat in a domestic iron could interfere with powerful navigational aids? Even the Postmaster-General did not go so far, and he half swallowed the words when he said that it might do so a little.
If there was a lot of domestic apparatus in the region of a dock or harbour—Merseyside is a good example to take—and there was an emission of electro-magnetic energy from that apparatus, it might be at the same frequency at which the safety devices were working.
This is not in the nature of a tax. The Opposition have forgotten that in most cases the housewife herself is a listener. They have failed to realise that the majority of people—when it is brought to their notice that their apparatus is causing interference—do everything they can to eliminate the interference. Why, then, should we agree with this Amendment, which would penalise the good citizen?
That is as I see it. There is a further point, and I will give a specific case with regard to the amount of a florin. It is quite common to find faulty wiring in a house. Interference may be caused to someone's wireless set, and the Post Office engineers may find that it is due to faulty wiring. Do the Opposition say that the Post Office should pay the whole cost of rewiring that house in order to satisfy the housewife? Regulations are made with regard to interference, and they are laid before the House and may be prayed against. They are not brought forward unless they have been approved by a panel of eminent engineers. I do not see why we should be saddled with an Amendment whereby the cost of removing interference should be limited to the sum of 2s.
Are we to wait until an accident occurs and it is found that the cause was domestic apparatus emitting electro-magnetic energy? Is that what the hon. and gallant Gentleman wants?
I think the reply of the Assistant Postmaster-General has been most unsatisfactory. He used the emotional argument of danger to aircraft and to navigation in confined waters as an excuse for introducing a wide measure of control and supervision over the householder. It is obvious that if there is any question of safety to aircraft or ships such powers would be granted to him willingly, but he is not asking for those powers for these specific cases, but to apply his restrictive activities generally.
I ask him if his engineering experts, whom he has been frequently calling in aid of his argument, have been able to quote him any example where interfer- ence from domestic apparatus could interfere with port radar of the type he has in mind at Liverpool? Would he, in that case, indicate the frequency of electromagnetic radiation which would cause such interference? If he knows, perhaps he will tell us? I suggest that he does not know. He has been glad to accept this advice from the people he is pleased to call his experts or, perhaps he is pleased to misread it whenever it suits his purpose.
I would be quite prepared to go to Dollis Hill at any time, but at the moment it is the duty of the Minister to come to this House and to explain to us what we might otherwise see at Dollis Hill. It is no answer to say that if we want to see it we can go to Dollis Hill; it is the task of the Minister to bring the arguments about Dollis Hill to the Despatch Box, and he has so far failed to do so.
Post Office to pay for the cost of rewiring. Of course we should not, but that is in quite a different category. If the wiring is faulty there is an obligation on the householder to put it right, and it is the duty of the supply authority to see that he does. There is no question at all of the Post Office or of anyone but the householder having to put that right. In the same way, if the police find a motor car in a faulty mechanical condition on the road, the onus is quite clearly on the owner of the motor car to make good the faults in it.
We are concerned with the householder who has a properly functioning piece of domestic apparatus and who may find that as a result of the Bill being passed without this Amendment he is called upon to go to considerable expense at the instigation of an inspecting engineer. We object very much to this being imposed upon the householder, particularly in view of the flimsy supporting evidence so far brought for the examination of this House.
|Division No. 208.]||AYES||[9.0 p.m.|
|Acland, Sir Richard||Brown, T. J. (Ince)||Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.|
|Albu, A. H.||Burke, W. A.||Edwards, W. J. (Whitechapel)|
|Allen, A. C. (Bosworth)||Butler, H. W. (Hackney, S.)||Evans, S. N. (Wednesbury)|
|Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)||Carmichael, James||Ewart, R.|
|Alpass, J. H.||Champion, A. J.||Fairhurst, F.|
|Austin, H. Lewis||Chetwynd, G. R.||Farthing, W. J.|
|Awbery, S. S.||Cobb, F. A.||Field, Capt. W. J.|
|Ayles, W. H.||Cocks, F. S.||Follick, M.|
|Bacon, Miss A.||Coldrick, W.||Foot, M. M.|
|Balfour, A.||Collick, P.||Forman, J. C.|
|Barstow, P. G.||Collindridge, F.||Fraser, T. (Hamilton)|
|Barton, C.||Collins, V. J.||Gaitskell, Rt. Hon H. T. N.|
|Battley, J. R.||Colman, Miss G. M.||Ganley, Mrs. C. S.|
|Bechervaise, A. E.||Cook, T. F.||Gibson, C. W.|
|Benson, G.||Cooper, G.||Gilzean, A.|
|Berry, H.||Corbet, Mrs. F. K. (Camb'well, N. W.)||Glanville, J. E. (Consett)|
|Bing, G. H. C.||Crossman, R. H. S.||Gooch, E. G.|
|Binns, J.||Cullen, Mrs.||Goodrich, H. E.|
|Blenkinsop, A.||Daggar, G.||Gordon-Walker, P. C.|
|Blyton, W. R.||Davies, Edward (Burslem)||Greenwood, A. W. J. (Heywood)|
|Boardman, H.||Davies, Haydn (St. Pancras, S. W.)||Grenfell, D. R.|
|Bowden, Fig. Offr. H. W.||Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)||Grey, C. F.|
|Braddock, Mrs. E. M. (L'pl. Exch'ge)||Deer, G.||Grierson, E.|
|Bramall, E. A.||Delargy, H. J.||Griffiths, D. (Rother Valley)|
|Brook, D. (Halifax)||Diamond, J.||Griffiths, Rt. Hon. J. (Llanelly)|
|Brooks, T. J. (Rothwell)||Debbie, W.||Griffiths, W. D. (Moss Side)|
|Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.||Donovan, T.||Guy, W. H.|
|Brown, George (Belper)||Dumpleton, C. W.||Haire, John E. (Wycombe)|
|Hamilton, Lieut.-Col. R.||Messer, F.||Shurmer, P.|
|Hannan, W. (Maryhill)||Middleton, Mrs. L.||Silverman, J. (Erdington)|
|Hardy, E. A.||Millington, Wing-Comdr. E. R.||Simmons, C. J.|
|Harrison, J.||Mitchison, G. R.||Skeffington, A. M.|
|Hastings, Dr. Somerville||Moody, A. S.||Skinnard, F. W.|
|Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick)||Morley, R.||Smith, C. (Colchester)|
|Herbison, Miss M.||Morris, P. (Swansea, W.)||Smith, Ellis (Stoke)|
|Hewitson, Capt. M.||Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Lewisham, E.)||Smith, S. H. (Hull, S. W.)|
|Hobson, C. R.||Mort, D. L.||Sorensen, R. W.|
|Holman, P.||Moyle, A.||Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank|
|Holmes, H. E. (Hemsworth)||Nally, W.||Sparks, J. A.|
|Horabin, T. L.||Naylor, T. E.||Steele, T.|
|Houghton, A. L. N. D.||Neal, H. (Claycross)||Stross, Dr. B.|
|Hoy, J.||Nichol, Mrs. M. E. (Bradford, N.)||Stubbs, A. E.|
|Hudson, J. H. (Ealing, W.)||Nicholls, H. R. (Stratford)||Sylvester, G. O.|
|Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)||Noel-Buxton, Lady||Symonds, A. L.|
|Hynd, H. (Hackney, C.)||Oldfield, W. H.||Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)|
|Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.||Paget, R. T.||Thomas, D. E. (Aberdare)|
|Janner, B.||Paling, Rt. Hon. Wilfred (Wentworth)||Thomas, I. O. (Wrekin)|
|Jeger, G. (Winchester)||Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)||Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)|
|Jenkins, R. H.||Palmer, A. M. F.||Thurtle, Ernest|
|John, W.||Pargiter, G. A.||Titterington, M. F.|
|Jones, D. T. (Hartlepool)||Parkin, B. T.||Tolley, L.|
|Jones, Elwyn (Plaistow)||Paton, Mrs. F. (Rushcliffe)||Vernon, Maj. W. F.|
|Jones, P. Asterley (Hitchin)||Paton, J. (Norwich)||Viant, S. P.|
|Keenan, W.||Pearson, A.||Walkden, E.|
|Kenyon, C.||Peart, T. F.||Warbey, W. N.|
|Kinley, J.||Platts-Mills, J. F. F.||Watson, W. M.|
|Lang, G.||Porter, E. (Warrington)||Webb, M. (Bradford, C.)|
|Lavers, S.||Porter, G. (Leeds)||Wells, W. T. (Walsall)|
|Lewis, T. (Southampton)||Price, M. Philips||West, D. G.|
|Lindgren, G. S.||Proctor, W. T.||Wheatley, Rt. Hon. John (Edinb'gh, E.)|
|Logan, D. G.||Pryde, D. J.||Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.|
|Longden, F.||Pursey, Comdr. H.||Wigg, George|
|Lyne, A. W.||Randall, H. E.||Wilkins, W. A.|
|McAdam, W.||Rankin, J.||Willey, O. G. (Cleveland)|
|McEntee,, V. La T.||Reeves, J.||Williams, D. J. (Neath)|
|McGhee, H. G.||Reid, T. (Swindon)||Williams, J. L. (Kelvingrove)|
|McKay, J. (Wallsend)||Rhodes, H.||Williams, Ronald (Wigan)|
|McKinlay, A. S.||Ridealgh, Mrs. M.||Williams, Rt. Hon. T. (Don Valley)|
|McLeavy, F.||Robens, A.||Williams, W. T. (Hammersmith, S.)|
|MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)||Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)||Williams, W. R. (Heston)|
|MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)||Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)||Willis, E.|
|Mainwaring, W. H.||Ross, William (Kilmarnock)||Wise, Major F. J.|
|Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield)||Royle, C.||Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.|
|Mann, Mrs. J.||Sargood, R.||Woods, G. S.|
|Manning, C. (Camberwell, N.)||Scollan, T.||Yates, V. F.|
|Manning, Mrs. L. (Epping)||Sharp, Granville||Zilliacus, K.|
|Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.||Shawcross, C. N. (Widnes)|
|Mathers, Rt. Hon. George||Shawcross, Rt. Hn. Sir H. (St. Helens)||TELLERS FOR THE AYES:|
|Mr. Snow and Mr. George Wallace.|
|Amory, D. Heathcoat||Grimston, R. V.||Morrison, Maj. J. G. (Salisbury)|
|Baldwin, A. E.||Harvey, Air-Comdre. A. V.||Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (Cirencester)|
|Barlow, Sir J.||Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir C.||Nicholson, G.|
|Bennett, Sir P.||Henderson, John (Cathcart)||Nield, B. (Chester)|
|Birch, Nigel||Hogg, Hon. Q.||Noble, Comdr. A. H. P.|
|Boles, Lt.-Col. D. C. (Wells)||Hope, Lord J.||Prior-Palmer, Brig. O.|
|Bower, N.||Howard, Hon. A.||Roberts, H. (Handsworth)|
|Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.||Hudson, Rt. Hon. R. S. (Southport)||Robertson, Sir D. (Streatham)|
|Bracken, Rt. Hon. Brendan||Hurd, A.||Sanderson, Sir F.|
|Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.||Hutchison, Lt.-Cm. Clark (E'b'rgh W.)||Scott, Lord W.|
|Carson, E.||Jeffreys, General Sir G.||Shepherd, W. S. (Bucklow)|
|Challen, C.||Joynson-Hicks, Hon. L. W.||Snadden, W. M.|
|Channon, H.||Kerr, Sir J. Graham||Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.)|
|Clarke, Col. R. S.||Lancaster, Col. C. G.||Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.|
|Clifton-Brown, Lt.-Col. G.||Law, Rt. Hon. R. K.||Studholme, H. G.|
|Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.||Lloyd, Selwyn (Wirral)||Turton, R. H.|
|Cuthbert, W. N.||Lucas-Tooth, Sir H.||Vane, W. M. F.|
|Darling, Sir W. Y.||McCallum, Maj. D.||Walker-Smith, D.|
|Digby, Simon Wingfield||McCorquodale, Rt. Hon. M. S.||Wheatley, Colonel M. J. (Dorset, E.)|
|Dodds-Parker, A. D.||McFarlane, C. S.||White, Sir D. (Fareham)|
|Drewe, C.||Mackeson, Brig. H. R.||Williams, C. (Torquay)|
|Erroll, F. J.||Maclay, Hon. J. S.||Willoughby de Eresby, Lord|
|Fraser, Sir I. (Lonsdale)||Macmillan, Rt. Hn. Harold (Bromley)||York, C.|
|Fyfe, Rt. Hon. Sir D. P. M.||Maitland, Comdr. J. W.||Young, Sir A. S. L. (Partick)|
|Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D. (Pollok)||Marples, A. E.|
|Galbraith, T. G. D. (Hillhead)||Marshall, D. (Bodmin)||TELLERS FOR THE NOES:|
|Gomme-Duncan, Col. A.||Mellor, Sir J.||Commander Agnew and|
Question put, and agreed to.