§ 3.13 p.m.
§ The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment (Lord Bellwin)
My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now further considered on Report.
§ Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
Lord Underhill moved Amendment No. 29:
Page 71, line 12, leave out from ("but") to end of line 14.
§ The noble Lord said: My Lords, at Committee stage I tabled an amendment to substitute the entire paragraph 8 of the Schedule that we are now considering. The main purpose of that amendment was to provide that a person would always have the option of providing a blood specimen or, in certain circumstances, a urine sample. As that amendment was very comprehensive, it covered a number of points, and in the light of some of the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, about the drafting of the amendment, that amendment was withdrawn.
§ Noble Lords will notice that the amendment now before us is in much more simple form. The deletion of certain words concentrates now solely on the central issue. By deletion of the words as specified in the amendment, subsection (6) would provide that of any of the two specimens of breath provided, that with the lowest proportion of alcohol should be used, and these are the important words, but the person who provided it may claim that it should be replaced by a specimen of blood, or specimen of urine, according to the particular circumstances.
I must stress that this amendment has the full support of the Automobile Association, the Royal Automobile Club, and the Royal Scottish Automobile Club. At the Committee stage, I referred to a statement issued jointly by the clubs on 6th May. For the benefit of noble Lords who may not have heard that statement, I should like to quote from it. The statement urged that all alleged offenders should be given the right to demand a blood test if they do not accept the findings of the proposed new breath machines. One paragraph states:
While the motoring organisations fully support all reasonable measures to prevent drinking and driving, and the imposition of appropriate penalties for such offences, they are nevertheless anxious that there will be adequate safeguards to ensure no risk of injustice, and also to permit justice to be seen to be done".
Therefore, the issue before us is quite a simple one.
§ I would stress that the introduction of the new breath machines will be a completely new innovation. It should be the task of all of us to see how we can possibly get these generally accepted by the motorist and the public in general. This can be helped by ensuring that a person always has the option of providing a blood specimen should he, or she, so desire. For there are bound to be persons who will have serious doubts about the breath machine reading. They will consider it absolutely wrong to be found guilty by a machine reading without, so far as they will be aware, any opportunity at all to defend themselves.700
I believe, and the motoring associations believe that, the majority of motorists will readily accept the new procedure, but others may do so in the course of time when experience builds confidence in the machines. At the outset the absence of any opportunity to challenge a machine reading without the option to provide a blood specimen will be considered by many people to be a gross injustice. This is in line with what was proposed on this question by the Blennerhasset Committee. Paragraph 4.7 of that report says:
We also think that a suspect whose breath analysis is over the limit should be entitled to offer a specimen of blood. Analysis of this would then determine whether he was over the limit, and used in any proceedings instead of the breath reading".
And the actual recommendation of the committee refers to the blood analysis as a fall-back option.
In appendix 6 of the report, which sets out a draft law, the following appears:
The constable must then offer him a blood test. if he then gives blood, the result of analysing this specimen supersedes the result of the breath test".
Therefore, the amendment that I am asking your Lordships to approve is in line with what has been stated on this matter by the Blennerhassett Committee. At the Committee stage I referred to some disagreements there have been over the accuracy of the breath machines. Although the Home Office tests show that there was a high degree of accuracy, it is plain that there were some defects; differences which could have affected the result in some court cases. Even if it is in only a small number of cases, justice says that we must pay attention to that fact.
§ Also at Committee reference was made to the advice of the Magistrates' Association regarding various periods of disqualification which could be determined according to the degree of alcohol contained in breath. The motoring organisations argue that their own scientific tests show that at the higher levels there is the possibility of greater inaccuracies, and it is at those levels that there is no option at all for a driver under the Government's proposals, of providing any blood.
§ I would also ask the noble Lord who will be replying whether the Home Office have carried out any tests as to whether the proposed breath machines are affected by interference from radio transmitters. I am given to understand that the machines have the same crystal content as in hand-held radar devices, which certainly have been found to be affected in this way. If such specific tests—and I mention specific tests—have been carried out, then I hope that the Minister will be able to give us information on the results. If there have been no such tests, they should be carried out as urgently as possible because they could affect the whole operation and procedure of these machines.
§ It is argued that the adoption of the option procedure which the amendment seeks to apply would take up the time of the police and courts. I remind the Committee that we are dealing with a person's possible conviction or innocence, and we may also be dealing with a period of disqualification. That fact should not be disregarded as a result of any suggestion that we should the wasting the courts' time. It goes even beyond the question of conviction and disqualification; for some, disqualification could affect their livelihood, 701 while for others the very stigma of a disqualification could have far-reaching effects on their lives. Therefore, it is not right that the matter should be determined solely by a machine reading, which is a new innovation which some will regard with suspicion, when the simple procedure of a blood option should be available if requested, either to corroborate the machine reading or to show there is a difference. The amendment seeks to deal with the matter as a question of fairness and justice.
§ The Blennerhasset Committee and the motoring organisations have all expressed the view that only a relatively small number of people are likely to avail themselves of the opportunity of the option if it is put into the Bill. Nevertheless, that small number should not be disregarded because we want the new procedure to be freely accepted. In time it may be, but for a period we need this optional test for blood.
§ Lord Lucas of Chilworth
My Lords, I support the amendment which, as the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, reminded us, is in very similar terms to one moved at an earlier stage. I should at the outset thank my noble friend for arranging a series of demonstrations at which members of the department showed your Lordships a number of machines that might be used. The three machines demonstrated to us were all American—it seems a rather unhappy situation that the British industry has not been able to provide such a machine—and I understand that other machines are being evaluated by the department. If by virtue of the demonstrations it was sought to persuade us that the machines are as near foolproof as possible, one cannot accept that in that we did not see other machines which might be used. In addition, although we had quite clearly explained and demonstrated to us the way in which the machine could start at zero, take a reading and finish at zero, I am happy to say that we were not invited to provide our own blood or urine samples against which the machine could be tested and checked, so there could reasonably remain some doubt.
I accept all that the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, said, but I would add the additional point that, in so many of the measures we have been discussing during the passage of the safety parts of the Bill, we have referred to public acceptance—the public relations element of it—and I do not know of any noble Lord who has spoken against tightening up the law in regard to alcoholism. Indeed, some of us have said we have not gone far enough. We are, therefore, after all the years since Blennerhasset, making a fairly major change in procedure, and I believe it would enhance the provisions if alleged offenders had the option which the amendment would provide, and, like the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, I believe that within a year or two the option would not be exercised and the machine would come to be recognised as an acceptable device.
I was not much enamoured by the answer we received on 8th June from my noble friend Lord Skelmersdale, in which he said—his comments appear at column 105 of Hansard—that if we allowed such a discretion to drivers it would inevitably perpetuate unnecessary delays and obstructions. I do not wish to weary the Committee with reminders of the exchanges I have 702 had with the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate in regard to justice, time and resources. I believe we should give an alleged offender all the opportunities he could reasonably require to prove his innocence. The amendment would provide one of those and therefore I support it.
My Lords, it might be helpful if I indicated that my noble friends on these Benches support the amendment very strongly, for reasons not entirely the same as those admirably put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Underhill—although I agreed with everything he said—but rather more for the point touched on by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas. If we go back to the days before we came to the concept of a blood-alcohol level as being an offence, we were in an area of extreme difficulty because fitness or unfitness to drive was largely a matter of opinion. It was also a matter of opinion based on a recollection. Juries were asked to convict on the basis of an expression of opinion and there was no permanent record at which courts could look which gave incontrovertible evidence of the condition of the driver. It was for that reason among others that we moved on, sensibly and rightly, to the concept of a permissible or impermissible blood-alcohol level, and that did an enormous amount of good to get away from perhaps wrongful acquittals and prolonged legal processes which were entirely unnecessary, and that change got us on to a much more orderly footing.
If we are able to design and introduce new, rapid, efficient and reliable screening methods to discover blood-alcohol level, that is obviously for the public benefit. But I feel it right to remind the Committee that we live in an era when there is some suspicion of experts; perhaps there has been even more suspicion of forensic experts in recent months. It is absolutely essential, if a measure of this kind is to work, that the new method is fair, just and accurate, we should be and support of the public as a whole.
I believe that time must elapse before people will be entirely convinced that this new method of screening is wholly accurate. It is my view that time will show that it is wholly accurate, but until that time has elapsed and people have had an opportunity to develop confidence in the new method and to learn that the new method is fair, just and accurate, we should be very wise indeed to preserve this safeguard which, as the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, said, will be resorted to very rarely indeed. Thus, we support the amendment because we believe that in the long run it will be for the good of the new measure which the Government wish to introduce, and that that new measure will become much more effective if it is given time to earn public acceptance and confidence. Until that time, we should be wise to retain the safeguard which the amendment would provide.
§ 3.29 p.m.
§ Lord Bellwin
My Lords, not for the first time I find myself assaulted from all sides, but I am not daunted because the case against the amendment is not simply as powerful as the arguments adduced for it, but is more powerful. We afforded the opportunity for your Lordships to come and examine the machines, 703 which were displayed in another part of your Lordships' House. We did that because we appreciate the concern there is about the new breath analysis machines, and it is right that there should be concern because what we are proposing is an important and serious matter—not least to those people who one day, for whatever reason, might find themselves in the position of having to use one of these machines.
That is why we gave your Lordships the opportunity to see the machines in practice. We gave the machines some pretty severe tests; there are some Members of your Lordships' House, as I am sure all your Lordships will know, who would put such machines to a very severe test, and indeed some of them did. From the observations that I made at the time—and I certainly have no intention of mentioning any names—I thought that the machine stood up very well. I really do not see how anyone who observed or took part in this test could have any doubts about the accuracy of these machines. But it is a very important matter and perhaps I should spend a few minutes discussing it.
The use of breath as a means of establishing the concentration of alcohol in the body has been recognised for a long while. It has been in use in other countries for some years—for example, in some States in the USA since 1956. The technology of breath analysis has advanced considerably in recent years. In 1977 the Home Office Central Research Establishment evaluated a number of machines by extensive laboratory and field trials and concluded that breath analysis was a reliable and accurate means of determining the amount of alcohol in the body. Indeed, they discovered that the machines were accurate to plus or minus 2 milligrammes although the manufacturers only claimed an accuracy of plus or minus 5 milligrammes. Further tests are under way on a new generation of machines and I have no reason to suppose that they will be any less accurate.
As we are proposing largely to replace the well-established methods of laboratory analysis, we have provided a large number of safeguards for drivers. I consider it is important that I should give noble Lords some detailed information about this aspect. The machines will have to be approved by the Home Secretary. Before they are installed in a police station they will first receive a British Calibration Service certificate. The British Calibration Service is a branch of the National Physical Laboratory and, for a fee, provides a service to industry in checking measurements et cetera. The machines will be regularly inspected and, if necessary, recalibrated by British Calibration Service approved laboratories. Proper instructions for the operation and maintenance of the machines will be issued and a select group of police officers will be properly trained to operate the machines.
When a driver suspected of driving while impaired or while exceeding the prescribed limit is at the police station, he will be asked to give two breath specimens. A police officer authorised to use the breath analysis machine will first check it for accuracy in the presence of the suspect. He will do this by passing through the machine a standard alcohol vapour sample equivalent to the prescribed limit and certificated by the British Calibration Service. The driver will be required to provide two consecutive samples of breath only if this 704 test shows that the machine is working correctly. The machine will then be checked again by the same method, and only if it is still working correctly will the results of the driver's breath samples be used. The lower of the two results will be taken as evidence of the suspect's breath alcohol concentration, thus giving the suspect the benefit of the variation between the two samples. The suspect will then be given a copy of the print-out from the machine, showing the results of the two checks and the two breath samples. I should like to think that this very much covers the point that was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley.
The machines which the Home Secretary will eventually approve for use could be as accurate at the prescribed limit as those already tested. However, an allowance will have to be made on top of the prescribed limit for machine variation, and therefore prosecutions are unlikely to take place below this level. This follows the current practice with blood, where analysts deduct 6 milligrammes from an analytical test below 100 milligrammes per 100 millilitres of blood and 6 per cent. from results above this figure. Although present prosecutions start at a certificated result of 81 milli-grammes per 100 millilitres of blood, the analytical figure obtained for such a result was in fact 87 milli-grammes per 100 millilitres of blood.
In our new arrangements we will also be providing the driver with an additional safeguard. In a small number of cases, it is possible for a person with an unusual blood-to-breath ratio to exceed the prescribed breath limit but to be under the limit on blood. All drivers whose results do not exceed 50 microgrammes (that is equivalent to an average of 115 milligrammes in the blood) may provide a specimen of blood for analysis to replace the breath test result. Similarly, if a machine is not available or is not working correctly, the suspect will be required to provide instead a specimen of blood. If the doctor then decides that a specimen of blood cannot or should not be taken, a specimen of urine will be required.
There is also provision that where the constable making the requirement for breath has reasonable cause to believe that for medical reasons a person cannot provide a breath specimen or should not be required to do so, the constable can ask for blood instead. The medical reasons could cover those who clearly could not give a breath specimen; for example, asthmatics and those who may have special problems, which they should make known to the constable. Again, if the doctor decides on medical grounds that a sample of blood cannot or should not be taken, the person will be asked to give a specimen or urine instead.
This is an extremely important amendment and it is right that we should spend the time which we have in discussing it. The noble Lord, Lord Underhill, said that he was anxious that everyone should have the right to a blood test and that it was important that justice should not only be done but should be seen to be done, and that in this way public confidence in the new system would be established. Indeed, that very point was also made by the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley. On the other hand, the Government believe that the breath analysis machines are sufficiently accurate and well-tried, that the built-in safeguards on procedures are sufficiently strong, and that the margin 705 allowed for the right to a blood test is sufficiently generous to ensure that justice will be done without the need for this amendment.
I listened carefully to my noble friend Lord Lucas of Chilworth because I know that he too, in associating himself with this amendment, is very concerned and anxious about this point. That is why I was very pleased that he, too, was present at the testing of the machines, and I know that he looked into this aspect very closely indeed. I had hoped that because of that I might have had my noble friend on my side, but I suspect that he is not really all that far away. Supporters of the amendment argue that there would be no harm in accepting the amendment, because once drivers get used to the breath analysis machine they will not bother to ask for blood tests unless they really believed that a blood test would give a different result. But no one can really predict with any certainty how drivers will react.
The noble Lord, Lord Underhill, spoke about only a "small number" of drivers; but what if blood tests are asked for by large numbers of drivers, faced with the possibility that they will have a year off the road and who have nothing to lose by undergoing a second test—and that is a very likely scenario, because who would not elect for an alternative in case the result was different? The consequences would be so serious that it could undermine the whole objective. Not one of the noble Lords who have spoken against have objected in principle to what it is that we seek to do here. I do not make the whole of this case on the basis that police time and court time will be saved and that more police will be on the road. It will do more than that. The other aspects are far more important; the fact that a test will be done better, with more accuracy, and that the procedure will be better. All those noble Lords who have spoken said that something better than we have at the present time is wanted. Blennahasset did not go for this, but one must bear in mind that there has been much technological advance since Blennahasset reported in this whole area.
Before I finish I should like to refer to the concern expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, in respect of speed guns. My information is that all breath-testing instruments work on different principles from speed guns and that radio transmissions using various types of police transmitters have been made in the vioinity of evidential breath-testing instruments without any detectable effect. I hope that will satisfy the noble Lord.
I ask the noble Lords who have tabled the amendment to consider not pressing it, despite their concern, which I appreciate and understand. What they propose would drive a coach and horses through all our drink/ driving proposals in the Bill; and everyone is agreed that we must do something about this aspect of safety on the roads. That is why I believe that we are entitled to ask noble Lords at least to consider not pressing the amendment; but if they do press it, I hope that we shall have the support of your Lordships against it.
§ 3.40 p.m.
§ Baroness Wootton of Abinger
My Lords, I sometimes think that on all sides of the House we are in 706 danger of minimising the virtues of simplicity. We are grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, for the elaborate precautions that he is including in the Bill in order to prevent mistakes by the machine; it has to be tested beforehand, retested again afterwards, and so on. The great merit of the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, is that it is perfectly simple. If the person who is suspect does not like the machine, does not trust it, he asks for the old-fashioned method. I am sure that the noble Lord is right in thinking that in the course of time the simple use of the machine will gain on the fuss of having to give a urine or a blood specimen.
§ Lord Noel-Baker
My Lords, I hope that I am in order in making some observations arising from the speech of the noble Lord who speaks for the Government. I thought that he was extremely persuasive in his account of the precuations that are to be taken to ensure that the machines are fair to the driver. Nevertheless, I would support the amendment put forward by my noble friend on the Opposition Front Bench if he presses it to a Division. But I venture to make an observation before the vote is taken. We are dealing with drunken driving. Drunken driving is a matter of the very highest importance. If we want to reduce the appalling toll of death and mutilation on the roads, drunken driving is one matter on which vigorous action must be taken. I speak with feeling because my own driving career was finished by a drunken driver who struck my car sideways on against the back wheel axle at 40 miles an hour. He destroyed both his own car and my car. He spent the night in a police station because he was so obviously very heavily under the influence of drink. Had he been one-fifth of a second earlier in hitting my car, probably I should not be here. I had a miraculous escape.
It is right to have safeguards for the driver, but in my view infinitely more important are safeguards for the victims of the drunken driver. I venture to urge again what I urged at an earlier stage; namely, that the penalty for drunken driving should be much more severe than it has ever been in the past. I believe that fines are of no effect. I believe that suspension of the licence is of considerable effect, but it is not enough. I believe that for drunken driving there should be imposed long terms of imprisonment. Nothing but imprisonment will restrain the drunken driver who takes from the bar "one for the road" and then goes out and commits a murder. I submit that the driver who drinks and then drives is in fact committing a murder with premeditation. He knows that the drink may cause him to kill someone, but he drinks and then goes out and drives. I hope that before the Bill completes its passage the Government will be able to insert penalties that will really restrain people who are guilty of this most heinous crime.
§ Viscount Simon
My Lords, I am sure that no noble Lord in any part of the House wants to drive a coach and horses through the drink and driving laws, as was suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin. I humbly suggest to the noble Lord that he did not really take the point of my noble friend about public acceptance. It is quite true that the noble Lord was good enough to arrange a demonstration. Unfortunately, I was 707 not able to be present, but many noble Lords went along, and for all I know were well satisfied. But I suggest that that is quite different from satisfying the general public, who will always suspect new methods of this kind. As I say, I do not want to drive a coach and horses through the drink and driving laws, but I do not understand why it should be thought that the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, would do that.
§ Lord Bellwin
My Lords, I do not want to extend the matter any further, but, with the leave of the House, I should like to reply to the noble Viscount's last point. I spoke earlier about the reality of a person who, when tested by the machine and found to be marginally over the limit, is then given the right regarding a blood sample. Almost always he will say, "Well, have a blood test as well". Surely that will be the almost inevitable reaction, and in such circumstances we therefore need not have the whole thing in the first place. That is why I was so convinced about this question.
§ Lord Wilson of Radcliffe
My Lords, will Her Majesty's Government consider the question of whether a driver who requests a blood test should be responsible for all the costs involved in the event of the result of the blood test going against him?
§ Lord Bellwin
My Lords, once more I ask for the leave of the House in order to reply to a point—and I had better not ask again! The noble Lord has made a very interesting suggestion, which of itself is not unhelpful. But we are talking about a situation which many of us believe will be on so great a scale that we might then have to abandon our proposals and start all over again. That would be a great shame. No noble Lords who have spoken have really doubted that basically the machines are accurate and that they will become even more accurate. The Government have given undertakings, as I gave in my remarks, that the machines will continue to be accurate and will become more accurate. For that reason we want the legislation to go forward, so as to make a major contribution to road safety—if I may use the phrase.
My Lords, I have not spoken previously and so I think I am in order in seeking to speak now. I feel that I must support the amendment, though I understand the reasons why the Minister wants the machine to operate alone. Any machine, no matter how accurate, is only as accurate as the extent of the fallibility of the human being who is involved with it, whether he installs it, calibrates it, or operates it. Therefore I cannot believe that we ought to rely only on the results of a machine. We must give the individual concerned the opportunity of an alternative choice.
§ Lord Underhill
My Lords, I always listen very closely to what the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, says in his persuasive way. I, too, wish to thank him for the 708 facilities arranged regarding the demonstration. Unfortunately, I went along at the last moment, I had had no alcohol, and so I could not be tested; I had to wait for other people. In my opening remarks I made it quite clear that I am not challenging the general statements about the basic accuracy of the machines, even though the motoring organisations claim that scientific tests carried out by them show that there could be greater inaccuracies at the higher levels, which are very important from the point of view of periods of disqualification.
However, leaving apart that aspect, the important question is that of general acceptance by the public. It will be noticed that not one noble Lord has come to defend the Minister on this question. All noble Lords who have spoken have supported the principle of the amendment, and, as has been emphasised, there is certainly no intention of driving a coach and horses through the provisions.
In another place, reference was made to "rough justice". You cannot be satisfied with rough justice when you are dealing with an important issue of this kind. What we are endeavouring to do by this amendment is to ensure that at least in the initial period, while people are getting used to the machines, the Ministry, as I am certain they will, with all their information network, will be able to obtain sufficient publicity as time goes on for the effectiveness of the machine, and, where there has been a blood option, will be able to put one against the other. I am certain that will be done; and if the Government are right, then the numbers claiming the option will decrease rapidly.
If this amendment is carried, as I hope will be the case, there is nothing to prevent the Minister, if he so desires, coming back at Third Reading with an amendment to provide that what I am proposing should be there for only a period. But I believe this is such an important issue—it is a question of justice and public acceptance—and, obviously, so many noble Lords from all parts of the House believe in this amendment, that I must press it to a Division.
§ 3.52 p.m.
§ On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 29) shall be agreed to?
§ Their Lordships divided: Contents, 97; Not-Contents, 111.710
|Adeane, L.||Caccia, L.|
|Ailesbury, M.||Caradon, L.|
|Amulree, L.||Chitnis, L.|
|Ardwick, L.||Clancarty, E.|
|Balfour of Inchrye, L.||Collison, L.|
|Balogh, L.||Cross, V.|
|Banks, L.||Crowther-Hunt, L.|
|Barrington, V.||Davies of Leek, L.|
|Beaumont of Whitley, L.||De Freyne, L.|
|Birk, B.||Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.|
|Bishopston, L.[Teller.]||Elwyn-Jones, L.|
|Blease, L.||Evans of Claughton, L.|
|Blyton, L.||Fisher of Rednal, B.|
|Boston of Faversham, L.||Gaitskell, B.|
|Bowden, L.||George-Brown, L.|
|Briginshaw, L.||Glenamara, L.|
|Brockway, L.||Gore-Booth, L.|
|Brougham and Vaux, L.||Gosford, E.|
|Gregson, L.||Porritt, L.|
|Grey, E.||Reilly, L.|
|Hale, L.||Robbins, L.|
|Hampton, L.||Roberthall, L.|
|Hatch of Lusby, L.||Rochester, L.|
|Henley, L.||Saltoun, Ly.|
|Hill of Luton, L.||Shinwell, L.|
|Houghton of Sowerby, L.||Simon, V.|
|Hughes, L.||Somers, L.|
|Inglewood, L.||Spens, L.|
|Jeger, B.||Stewart of Alvechurch, B.|
|Jenkins of Putney, L.||Stewart of Fulham, L.|
|John-Mackie, L.||Stone, L.|
|Kaldor, L.||Strabolgi, L.|
|Kinloss, Ly.||Strathcarron, L.|
|Leatherland, L.||Strauss, L.|
|Lee of Newton, L.||Taylor of Blackburn, L.|
|Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.||Taylor of Gryfe, L.|
|Loudoun, C.||Taylor of Mansfield, L.|
|Lucas of Chilworth, L. [Teller.]||Tweeddale, M.|
|McNair, L.||Wallace of Coslany, L.|
|Milford, L.||Walston, L.|
|Monson, L.||Wells-Pestell, L.|
|Noel-Baker, L.||Whaddon, L.|
|Northfield, L.||Wigoder, L.|
|Pargiter, L.||Willis, L.|
|Parry, L.||Wilson of Radcliffe, L.|
|Peart, L.||Winstanley, L.|
|Phillips, B.||Wootton of Abinger, B.|
|Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.|
|Allerton, L.||Gainford, L.|
|Alport, L.||Gardner of Parkes, B.|
|Ampthill, L.||Gisborough, L.|
|Auckland, L.||Glasgow, E.|
|Avon, E.||Greenway, L.|
|Barnby, L.||Gridley, L.|
|Bathurst, E.||Grimston of Westbury, L.|
|Bellwin, L.||Halsbury, E.|
|Belstead, L.||Hayter, L.|
|Berkeley, B.||Hornsby-Smith, B.|
|Bessborough, E.||Hylton-Foster, B.|
|Blake, L.||Ilchester, E.|
|Boothby, L.||Kilmany, L.|
|Boyd-Carpenter, L.||Kimberley, E.|
|Campbell of Alloway, L.||Kinnaird, L.|
|Cathcart, E.||Kinross, L.|
|Chelwood, L.||Lane-Fox, B.|
|Clifford of Chudleigh, L.||Lauderdale, E.|
|Clwyd, L.||Long, V.|
|Cockfield, L.||Lyell, L.|
|Cork and Orrery, E.||McAlpine of Moffat, L.|
|Craigton, L.||McFadzean, L.|
|Crathorne, L.||Mackay of Clashfern, L.|
|Crawshaw, L.||Margadale, L.|
|Cullen of Ashbourne, L.||Marley, L.|
|Dacre of Glanton, L.||Melville, V.|
|Daventry, V.||Mersey, V.|
|Davidson, V.||Milverton, L.|
|De La Warr, E.||Morris, L.|
|Denham, L. [Teller.]||Mottistone, L.|
|Derwent, L.||Mountevans, L.|
|Drumalbyn, L.||Mowbray and Stourton, L.|
|Duncan-Sandys, L.||Moyne, L.|
|Eccles, V.||Murton of Lindisfarne, L.|
|Effingham, E.||Noel-Buxton, L.|
|Ellenborough, L.||Norfolk, D.|
|Elliot of Harwood, B.||Northchurch, B.|
|Elton, L.||Nugent of Guildford, L.|
|Energlyn, L.||Nunburnholme, L.|
|Erne, E.||Orkney, E.|
|Evans of Hungershall, L.||Orr-Ewing, L.|
|Exeter, M.||Portland, D.|
|Faithfull, B.||Rankeillour, L.|
|Falkland, V.||Renton, L.|
|Ferrier, L.||Rochdale, V.|
|Fraser of Kilmorack, L.||Romney, E.|
|Freyberg, L.||Salisbury, M.|
|Sandys, L. [Teller.]||Thorneycroft, L.|
|Sefton of Garston, L.||Trefgarne, L.|
|Selkirk, E.||Vaizey, L.|
|Sharples, B.||Vaux of Harrowden, L.|
|Shrewsbury, E.||Vickers, B.|
|Skelmersdale, L.||Vivian, L.|
|Soames, L.||Wakefield of Kendal, L.|
|Stamp, L.||Westbury, L.|
|Thomas of Swynnerton, L.|
§ Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.