Lords Sitting of 6 July 1922

Preamble
The House met at a quarter past four of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.

SITUATION IN IRELAND.
THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE: My Lords, I beg to ask the noble Viscount on the Woolsack a Question of which I have given him private notice—namely, whether he has any statement to make to the House with reference to the progress of events in Ireland.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT BIRKENHEAD): My Lords, I am glad that the noble Earl has asked me this Question, although I have not a great deal of information which adds substantially to that which your Lordships will have gathered from the daily papers. But nevertheless the progress made, if we are right in supposing it to be progress, is considerable, and it ought, I think, to be made the subject of observation in Parliament. Three or four weeks ago we were deploring in this House, and we were genuinely misunderstanding, the relationship that had been entered into between Mr. Collins and Mr. Griffith, of the Provisional Government, and Mr.de Valera, and the so-called pact, which was entered into between these personages, occasioned no small anxiety to the Government. Events have developed since then, and the position to-day is shortly this.
When the Provisional Government saw themselves to be armed with the democratic authority which was plainly conceded to them as the result of the recent Elections, they immediately struck. Let us not under-rate the effects and the contingent importance of that which they have done. Its consequences in many respects have been most melancholy, for they have destroyed, in the course of their necessary operations, some of the most beautiful and some of the most historic districts of Dublin. Nevertheless, let us see what they have done. There never could be, there never would be, peace or order in Ireland until the strong hand was used against those who are the avowed and violent opponents of the Treaty. Therefore, there were only two parties from whom the necessary degree of coercive strength could in the
292
alternative be required. The one was the Provisional Government, the other was the forces of His Majesty's troops. I, for one, rejoice, as I have said before in this House, that this task, painful, costly, bloody as it must ultimately prove, is being undertaken by those to whom it properly falls, by those to whom it as directly falls as it would fall in the case of any Dominion which was menaced within by domestic dissension.
It is possible, to-day, to say that, for the moment at all events, this movement has been crushed in Dublin. It would be grossly unfair to those who have made this immense endeavour that we should ignore the character of the task which they undertook. Consider! Only a short I year ago these men and those whom they are attacking were banded together under a single uniform—the uniform of the Irish Republican Army—in order to destroy all that they thought was left of British sovereignty and authority in Ireland. And our policy, with all its difficulties, with all its disadvantages, with all the obvious points in which it has been exposed to criticism, has at least secured this result in less than a year: that this task is to-day being undertaken by a Party, and a strong Party, in Ireland—a Party which represents in the South of Ireland the overwhelming majority of the electors—and is not being put upon those who too long have been called upon to make sacrifices of blood and treasure in Ireland.
As I have said, the movement in Dublin, to judge from the information at my disposal, appears, for the moment at least, to be completely crushed. There remains the task of introducing law and order into the country as a whole. Do not imagine that any member of the Government is so inattentive to matters that are happening before our eyes as to be unaware how formidable this task is, and how ruthless are the weapons that must be used to execute it. Many specific instances of great cruelty and hardship have been brought by us, with every circumstance of particularity and formality, to the notice of the Provisional Government, and I myself think it is of high augury and high hope for the future that for the first time to-day the Provisional Government has appealed, not merely to its own troops, not merely to those who in the last five years have shared their political views or political prejudices, but to all men of good will in

293
Southern Ireland who wish to see order restored in that community.
I am hopeful that the response to that appeal will be one which will be genera and that many of the young gentlemen of Southern Ireland, all those people who have played a great part there for centuries and have been vilely treated in the past, will realise, too, that the great hope in Southern Ireland, the great hope for the whole of Ireland, and the great hope for the Empire is that the Provisional Government shall be equipped with all the necessary powers, with the aid of all persons of good will, to put down, and to put down swiftly and by whatever violent methods may be required, the disorder in the Southern provinces of Ireland, as they have already put it down in Dublin. I am even bold enough—cautious as I have been throughout all these discussions—to say that at the moment the situation is more hopeful than it has been at any moment since this Treaty was come to.

LONDON ELECTRIC AND CITY AND SOUTH LONDON RAILWAY COMPANIES BILL.
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (THE EARL OF DOINOUGHMOBE): My Lords, I beg to make the Motion which stands in my name on the Paper in regard to this Bill.
Moved, That the order made on the 4th day of May last, "That no Private Bill brought from the House of Commons shall be read a second time after Thursday the 15th day of June next," be dispensed with, and that the Bill be now read 2a.—[The Earl of Donougkmore.
On Question, Motion agreed to, and Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed.

SWANSEA CORPORATION BILL.
Read 3a, with the Amendments: Further Amendments made: Bill passed, and returned to the Commons.
PADIHAM URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL.
Read 3a, with the Amendments: Bill passed, and returned to the Commons.
NEWCASTLE AND GATESHEAD WATER BILL.
Read 3a: Amendments made: Bill passed, and returned to the Commons.
BRITISH EMPIRE EXHIBITION (AMENDMENT) BILL.
Brought from the Commons, read 1a, and to be printed.
ANGLO-PERSIAN OIL COMPANY (PAYMKNT OF CALLS) BILL.
Brought from the Commons, read 1a, and to be printed.
PILOTAGE PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 4) BILL.
Brought from the Commons, read 1a, and to be printed.
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 5) BILL.
House in Committee (according to Order) on recommitment of the Bill: Amendments proposed by the Committee made.
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 2) BILL.
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 3) BILL.
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER (WATER) BILL.
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 6) BILL.
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.
GIRVAN WATER ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL.
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.
BUCKHAVEN AND LEVEN GAS COMMIS SION ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL.
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND OTHER OFFICERS' SUPERANNUATION BILL.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE EARL OF STRAFFORD: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. The Bill has had what I may call, I think, the benevolent cooperation of the Minister of Health in another place and, though examined in great detail in Committee, has not met with any serious opposition in any quarter. It must be conceded that a properly devised scheme of superannuation is of advantage to any service both for the employer and the employed. Railway companies, insurance companies, and other great industrial undertakings have found that superannuation schemes for their staff are of great advantage.
As long ago as 1859 a superannuation scheme was devised for the Civil Service. At various subsequent dates the police, poor law officers, school teachers, and asylum officers have all been provided with superannuation schemes. But up to the present no comprehensive scheme has been devised for local government officers, although, in certain cases, local authorities have obtained powers by means of Private Bill legislation to adopt superannuation schemes. Speaking generally, however, local authorities have no such power, and the result is that many anomalous positions are created. To quote but two cases, officials appointed by a board of guardians to collect the poor rate are entitled to superannuation allowance; whereas those appointed by a local authority to collect the district rates have no superannuation allowance. School teachers are entitled to pensions; whereas the clerks of the education department have no such right.
The matter has had the attention of the Government for many years and, if your Lordships will permit me, I should like to quote from the reply of the President of the Local Government Board to a deputation which attended on him in 1914 from the National Association of Local Government Officers, because what he stated therein practically applies at the present time. He said:
"The present position with respect to superannuation for officers of local governing authorities is one of much confusion. Some places have local Acts and have established superannuation schemes, and others have not. Those that have established such schemes have not created them
296
on necessarily uniform lines. With regard to the general legislation, Parliament has dealt with some classes of officers, and has left other classes of officers, whose claims are difficult to distinguish from the others, quite untouched.
"Those men who are serving in any capacity in a police force are assured of a pension; if they are poor-law officers, asylum officers, school teachers, they have prospects of superannuation, and it is difficult to distinguish these classes in which Parliament has already taken action from those with which it has omitted to deal. If it is right that officers of a certain class should have the advantage of superannuation in one town, it is difficult to understand why officers engaged in the same work in a town four or five miles away should not have the same right; and if it is right for those officers to enjoy the benefit of superannuation schemes established by Parliament, it is hard indeed to understand why the same principle should not apply to the rest.
"Difficulties necessarily occur from this state of confusion. Officers feel aggrieved when they are engaged in similar work to friends and colleagues, and yet have no prospect for their declining years which those friends and colleagues enjoy; and when an officer transfers from one place to another he may forfeit expectations for his later years which he previously enjoyed, and restriction is placed upon officers who have shown capacity in one service to move to another. A capable man in the poor law service or asylum service cannot be moved by the local authority to some other service on account of the difficulty of continuing his pension rights. Furthermore, the effect upon the efficiency of local government is necessarily considerable if men are continued in office not because they are still capable of performing their duties satisfactorily but because the local authorities to whom they have given many years of good service are not hard hearted enough to turn them adrift in old age without making provision for them."
Shortly after that interview the great war supervened, and nothing was done until the year 1918.
Then, the Government, still being of opinion that, this question demanded investigation, appointed a Departmental Committee to enquire into the whole matter. That Committee stated that—
"It is undoubtedly desirable that a scheme of superannuation should be introduced, and the fact that there is no such scheme in general application at present points rather to the difficulties of framing one than to any doubts of its desirability. An acceptable scheme of superannuation tends to safeguard efficiency. By this means the persons employed are relieved of anxieties for their future when advancing years or failing health may deprive them of the power to work. The employer, on the other hand, secures a more contented staff, unburdened by the presence of aged or infirm members retained out of compassion, who although they can no longer discharge adequately the duties of their offices, remain to block the promotion of younger men and to lower the quality of the whole service. This is no imaginary picture. Numerous instances have been cited, in which local authorities, out of regard for long and faithful service,

297
have continued to employ persons who are unfit by reason of old age or infirmity to carry on their duties efficiently. Some continue to do their work, though not as it should be done. Some virtually do no work at all though retaining titular posts and drawing their salaries. Others have been appointed to consultative posts at a reduced salary not always with advantage to the service, by which roundabout means some of the difficulties have been obviated which a superannuation scheme would have removed."
It is to remedy this existing state of things that this Bill has been introduced, but it has been recognised that however desirable the object to be attained may be any result which might add to the burden of the already overwhelmed ratepayer must be very carefully applied.
I do not think that this Bill, if consideration is taken for the increase of efficiency, will throw any additional charge upon the ratepayer. However, the Bill is entirely permissive. There is no obligation on any authority to adopt it, and it is contributory. If your Lordships refer to Clause 2 you will see that the Bill cannot apply to a local authority unless (1) a resolution adopting it is passed by a majority of two-thirds of the members present and voting; (2) a month's notice of the meeting is given to each member; (3) an actuarial estimate of the cost of adoption accompanies the notice; (4) the resolution is confirmed after an interval of not less than one month; and (5) the resolution is approved by the Minister of Health. It is recognised that the incidence of rates varies so much in different districts that the application of the Bill should be left to the discretion of the local authorities.
There are thirty-one clauses in the Bill, but your Lordships need not be apprehensive that I propose to take you through all of them. I propose to call your attention to some of the principal clauses only. Clause 4 limits the application of the Act to local authorities who employ not fewer than fifty officers and servants. Under Clause 5 combination of local authorities is permitted. Clause 7 provides for the situation of an officer or servant leaving the service of one authority and entering the service of another authority, both of whom may have adopted the Act. Clause 15 establishes the principle that a contribution of 5 per cent, shall be made by officers and servants together with an equivalent contribution by the local authority. Clause 19 provides for a quinquennial valuation of the fund to be
298
set up, and deals with how the deficiency or the surplus is to be treated. I hope I have sufficiently indicated the general provisions to your Lordships, and that the Bill will commend itself as an attempt to remedy anomalies of long standing, and one that will stimulate efficiency in a great branch of the public service. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Earl of Strafford.)
LORD STRACHIE: My Lords, on behalf of the County Councils' Association I should like to say that we support the principle of the Bill introduced by the noble Earl, especially because it is permissive and is not obligatory on any local authority; but it will be my duty, on behalf of the association, to move certain Amendments to Clause 4. We do not think that it is right that the whole of the temporary bonus should be applied towards superannuation. In our opinion only that part of the bonus which is made permanent should be taken into consideration when superannuation is fixed. As to Clause 5, authorising the combination of local authorities, we believe there ought to be power given to enlarge the combination of the various authorities; otherwise, difficulties might arise. With respect to Clause 11, dealing with the return of contributions in certain cases, we think that discretion ought to be allowed in this matter to local authorities. Those are the principal Amendments that it will be my duty to move in Committee, but there may be one or two others. I thought that perhaps the noble Karl would like to have notice of the intention to move certain Amendments.
EARL STANHOPE: My Lords, I rise with some hesitation with regard to this Bill, because it was only delivered to your Lordships yesterday morning, and my noble friend opposite has told us that it contains thirty-one clauses. Obviously it is by no means a simple Bill. I think that few of your Lordships are averse from pensions, and I imagine that practically every member of the House has a pensions list on which appear the names of those who have served him for a number of years. In very few cases are such pensions upon a contributory basis. But it is one thing to be generous with our own money, and another to be generous with the money that belongs to others. This Bill imposes

299
on local authorities the obligation of paying superannuation allowance to all their officers and servants at a rate, roughly, of one-sixtieth of their salary for every year of service. Only one-half of that superannuation allowance is to be contributed by the officers and servants concerned, and I rather hoped that the noble Earl, in moving the Second Reading, would have assured the House that the five per cent. deducted from salaries and wages would be sufficient to pay half the cost of the superannuation scheme, including the cost of running it.
Consider for a moment what this superannuation scheme means to the country. There are a large number of officers and servants of local authorities, and every one of them under this Bill becomes entitled to expect a superannuation allowance. That superannuation allowance, except in so far as they pay for it as a deduction from wages, is to be found from local rates. Is this a moment to add further burdens on local authorities, and on those who pay rates? I submit that the officers and servants of local authorities are, as a rule, better paid than those who have equal qualifications and ability in other services. You are asking every one, down to the very poor, to contribute out of rates to superannuation allowance for those whom I may describe as their more fortunate brethren.
Under this Bill the Minister of Health is constantly called in to settle questions and draw up rules. For instance, in Clause 2 you will see that the resolution to come in under the scheme has to be approved by the Minister of Health. If the Minister of Health is going to do his duty properly, as he will, he will look into the question as to whether the resolution fulfils the various conditions imposed. And the scheme can be adopted if two-thirds of the members of the local authority present at a meeting vote in favour of it. That is not the same thing as two-thirds of the members of a local authority. It is two-thirds of those present and voting, which is a different thing. Then, in Clause 5 the Minister is to approve the combination of local authorities where it is desired to make such combination, and in Clause 8 he has to make rules for the transfer of employees from one authority to another. In Clause 16 the Minister is to prescribe how capital sums shall be payable to officers or servants under the provisions of the Bill, and he appears also to have duties placed upon him under Clause 19.
300
It is all very well for us to ask the Government to reduce the number of people in Government Departments if at the same time we place further burdens on those Departments and expect a reduced staff to carry them out. I am not accused, as a rule, of being friendly to the Government, but I do not think it fair to any Government Department to place additional duties upon it and then expect it to cut down its staff. It is true that local authorities have the option of taking on this additional charge, and that they may refuse to do so. But every one of your Lordships knows that the pressure that will be brought to bear by officers and servants of local authorities will be considerable. Few of the general public realise the enormous number of municipal employees in this country. What it really comes to is this: that where a local authority adopts this scheme they are going to increase their expenditure by five per cent., possibly more.
I submit that a Bill of this importance requires careful consideration. As I have said, it was only delivered to your Lordships yesterday morning, and I imagine there are not many members who have had an opportunity of reading it. It is obvious from the number present in the House that your Lordships did not realise its importance, and in those circumstances it would be advisable to adjourn the debate until there has been an opportunity more fully to consider so important a Bill. I propose, therefore, at the request of several noble Lords, to move that the debate be now adjourned.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: May I appeal to the noble Earl not to make his Motion until my noble friend Lord Onslow has made his statement on behalf of the Government?
EARL STANHOPE: Certainly.
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY OF THE MINISTRY OF HEALTH (THE EARL OF ONSLOW):My Lords, I need not trouble your Lordships with a long statement as the ground has been well covered by the noble Earl in moving the Second Reading. He referred to the Departmental Committee which reported in July, 1919, and said that the Committee was in favour of a universal compulsory scheme of superannuation. Since that Committee reported a number of local authorities have

301
obtained Superannuation Acts, and a number of private Bills containing superannuation schemes have been promoted during the present session. These local schemes, although they follow generally on the lines of the Report of the Departmental Committee, differ materially in some respects both from the recommendations of the Committee and from each other.
But it is clear, from the number of applications and the number of private Bills promoted, that there is a demand on the part of many local authorities for superannuation schemes, and there are obvious disadvantages in any new schemes submitted not conforming to some general standard such as was recommended by the Committee. The difficulty of securing uniformity becomes greater as each new local Bill is placed on the Statute Book. Assuming that the principle of a universal scheme is accepted, but that, for the present, such scheme is not practicable having regard to the financial position both local and national, the need for a uniform scheme seems of immediate importance, and for this reason it appears to the Government there would be a distinct advantage in the passage of the present Bill. That is the attitude of the Government. If drastic Amendments were made to the Bill in Committee we should, naturally, have to reconsider our attitude.
EARL STANHOPE: My Lords, I beg to move that the debate be now adjourned.
Moved, That the debate be now adjourned.—(Earl Stanhope.)
On Question, Motion agreed to: Debate adjourned accordingly.

BREAD ACTS (AMENDMENT) BILL.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
LORD SOUTHWARK: My Lords, this Bill has passed through a Grand Committee of the House of Commons and it was read a third time without opposition. It is, I believe, a thoroughly non-contentious measure, and has the support of His Majesty's Government. I will not, therefore, trouble your Lordships with any further remarks, but will merely move that the Bill be now read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Southwark.)
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: My Lords, I need only say that the promoters of this Bill were in communication with the Ministry of Health last year, and that no objection is offered to their proposal.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

RULES FOR PEDESTRIANS.
LORD NEWTON LORD NEWTON rose to ask His Majesty's Government if they are aware that forty local authorities in the London police area exhibited notices "Walk on the Left" On July 1 and that the change has been widely approved in the Press; and whether having regard to the fact that the Ministry of Transport and all the national organisations of local government have recommended the change, the Home Office would be willing to authorise the police to assist in recommending it, as has been done with success in various large provincial towns which have already adopted the change.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a question which I have already brought twice to the notice of my noble friend. I should like to take this opportunity of pointing out that the proposal does not originate with cranks and fanatics, but is put forward by business people representing transport, such as the tramway and omnibus companies, and people of that nature. The proposal has not only been adopted by no fewer than forty local authorities within the Metropolitan police area, but has been recommended for adoption by the County Councils' Association, the Association of Municipal Corporations, the Urban District Councils' Association, and the Rural District Councils' Association. It has also been approved of by the Advisory Committee of the Ministry of Transport, and it has been adopted, and is actually in operation, I believe with success, in Ayr, Birmingham, Bristol, Blackpool, Coventry, Glasgow, Halifax, Nottingham, Exeter and many other places. I should like to add, and to lay stress upon the fact, that the proposal is regarded with benevolent neutrality by the Metropolitan Police, although they have not ostensibly committed themselves in favour of it.
On July 1, last Saturday, as the result of a campaign which was largely supported by the Press, invitations and exhortations were addressed to pedestrians in London to walk on the left, and, so far as I am able

303
to gather, the results were by no means unsatisfactory. When I say that they were by no means unsatisfactory, I bear in mind how difficult it is to get people to change fixed habits. I admit that there is one section of the population to which all appeals and exhortations would be perfectly useless—I allude, of course, to those females of all ages who congregate in solid masses in front of the great drapers' shops, and upon whom, probably, no means of persuasion short of machine guns or tanks would have any effect at all. The passage of these persons along the pavement is not influenced by any considerations of their own safety or the safety of the public, but is determined by the nature of the shops which are to be found in the course of their progress. The ordinary person, if questioned on the matter, would probably reply that, so far as he was aware, there was no rule in existence, and that he was perfectly indifferent as to which side of the pavement he walked, provided that he were requested to do so in a reasonable manner.
The only real, solid objection to the proposal appears to come from the City Commissioner of Police. I desire to speak with all respect of this gentleman, who, for all I know, may be a most capable official, but I cannot help feeling the suspicion in my mind that he must have an affinity with a certain Austrian general, who laid it down as a principle that all changes should be resisted, even if they were in the nature of improvements. I cannot conceive any reason for adhering to the ancient practice, unless it is that regard is paid to the fact, alluded to by my noble friend the other day, that some hundreds of years ago people used to walk about carrying swords, and, therefore, it was more convenient to move in the present way. But the City Police Commissioner has the audacity to contend that you are actually safer with the traffic moving behind you than with the traffic facing you; in other words, that, if you step off the pavement with your back to oncoming traffic, you are in less danger of being run over than if you are facing the traffic.
No alderman, or Police Commissioner, or common council man, or even a Lord Mayor, is going to convince me that that is anything but absolute nonsense. I have had so many hairbreadth escapes myself from accidents arising from this practice, and I expect many other people
304
have had the same experience, that, to my mind, an argument of this kind is perfectly valueless. As an instance of the absurdity of the argument, I may point out that, if I am not mistaken, workmen employed upon railways, platelayers and men of that kind, invariably face the trains, in preference to working with the trains behind them, and, against the mistaken views of the City Commissioner of Police, I can also quote the Metropolitan Police, who, I have reason to believe, are favourable to the change.
The only argument that is worth considering at all in favour of the existing practice is that a change might lead to confusion. That is precisely what it would remove. Confusion arises owing to the present practice. If, for instance, you are crossing a road in the neighbourhood of this building, and if you stop on a refuge, you will be confronted with the legend: "Keep to the Left." When you have advanced a few yards, and reached the pavement, you are expected to conform to the old, silly practice of keeping to the right. If you travel by the tubes, you will see displayed in the stations the exhortation to "Keep to the Left." If, on the other hand, you go to a congested area, like Wimbledon at the present moment, where the lawn tennis tournament is being carried on, the public are invited to keep to the right. If, again, you happen to be proceeding along the Strand, you are invited to keep to the left until you reach Temple Bar, when, I presume, the City Police Commissioner would exert his influence, and you would be requested to keep to the right.
The most striking instance of the confusion of this arrangement is supplied in a letter which I observed in The Times this morning. It appears that pedestrians crossing Richmond bridge are invited by overhead placards to keep to the right, whereas there is chalked upon the pavement an invitation to walk on the left. Surely this is an absurd and ridiculous state of which I do not think you could find in any other civilised country. So far as that goes, I am absolutely certain that there is no other country where there are two rules, one for pedestrians and another for vehicles. Obviously, what is required is unification, and the first thing to do is to assimilate the rule of the road and the rule of the pavement. The only solid argument which anybody can pos-

305
sibly advance in favour of the present system, except for its antiquity, is that in country lanes, where there are no footpaths, it is safer to keep on the right side of the road; but a lane without a footpath is not a roadway in which there is likely to be much traffic, and pedestrians can very well look after themselves.
This is a change which is really only necessary in crowded areas and in towns, and once the practice is adopted in the Metropolis I have very little doubt that it will be followed elsewhere. In fact, I have not the smallest doubt that this proposal will ultimately be adopted. It is very much in the same position as the question of daylight saving when it was first proposed. That proposal, which has been of the greatest possible benefit to everybody in this country, and I might say in Europe, was vehemently resisted by the same kind of people as resist the present proposal. I am certain that this change will come, but at the same time it will be very considerably delayed unless the Home Office show its approval of the project. I hope, therefore, that my noble friend, in view of what I have stated, and in view of the sympathetic statements which he has already made on previous occasions, will be able to assure me this afternoon that the police will be instructed, not to order people to walk in a particular way, but to exercise a certain amount of discretion in the matter, in an unostentatious way, and bring about that which I believe will be for the general convenience and safety of the public.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: My Lords, my noble friend asked me if the Government are aware that forty local authorities in the London police area exhibited notices "Walk on the Left" on July 1. I can only, say that we have no official information as to how many local authorities in the London police area are in favour of the change. I think that on the last occasion the noble Lord mentioned fifty-six, but now it appears that there are forty in favour of the change. I do not know the exact figure, but we do know this: that the City are not in favour of the change.
LORD NEWTON: That is only one authority.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: Quite so, but we know that one is not in favour and we do not know how many are actually in favour, and at the present moment my
306
rights honourable friend is not prepared to recommend the Metropolitan Police to take action in the matter as suggested. I might, however, give a little more information of a general character as to how the matter is progressing in the provinces. I think I said on the last occasion that there was a considerable difference of opinion, according to the information of the Home Office, on this question, and that we proposed that the matter should be discussed at the district conferences of chief constables.
Since I made that statement the central conference of chief constables has been held at the Home Office. This question was raised there, and I believe was discussed at considerable length. It was found that there was a very wide difference of opinion between these gentlemen, quite a number being opposed to the change. I should say, of coarse, that these chief constables were expressing their personal views only, the opinions of their districts not having been ascertained. Of course, their views may have coincided with those of the districts from which they came, but not officially so, and it was agreed at the conference that the question should be raised and further discussed at the district conferences. That is all the information I have, and in view of the state of opinion on the matter my right honourable friend is not prepared to go any further at the present juncture.
THE EARL OF MAY0: My Lords, I live close to that big street—Oxford Street—referred to by the noble Lord, where the ladies in London crowd against the shop windows, and during some part of the day it is exceedingly dangerous to walk in Oxford Street. If you, so to speak, hop off the kerb, an omnibus or a taxi may hit you, and you may wake up in hospital with your leg off. It is excessively dangerous. I do not quite understand the answer of the Government. They say they have very little information, but surely the noble Earl has seen on the pavement the notice: "Keep to the Left."
TEE EARL OF ONSLOW: I said that we had no official information as to the number of local authorities who have adopted it.
THE EARL OF MAYO: I suppose even officials walk about and see these notices. I should like to know who has paid for

307
these notices and posters, because it would be very interesting information if we could get it. I should also like to ask Lord Newton whether, in the places he has mentioned, they have really obeyed this order, or taken it in good part, and are keeping to the left, because I saw a letter the other day from an indignant gentleman who said he walked where he liked. He intimated that this was a free country and he had every right to walk where he liked. If he walks off the pavement in Oxford Street he will be killed to a certainty. I think it would be a good thing if people would keep to the left. In that street the present condition of affairs is excessively dangerous, and more than one person has been killed. I sympathise with the noble Lord, who said he had had very narrow escapes of being killed. I am very glad he has escaped, because we should be sorry to lose the clever and witty speeches which he delivers in this House.
LORD NEWTON: My Lords, perhaps I may be allowed to answer the question of the noble Earl. I understand that in the places to which I alluded, where the rule has actually been instituted, it is considered to work successfully. I may be misinformed, but that is my information. I should like to add that I protest against the idea that, because the City Police Commissioner does not approve of this proposal, he is going to hang the whole thing up. The City is only one of the London local authorities; it covers only a square mile; and why should a proposal which everybody recognises as being in accordance with common sense be indefinitely hung up because this gentleman chooses to oppose it? I make a most emphatic protest on behalf of all people of common
308
sense in this country. It is a grotesque position to take up by a man who has no foundation for his opposition, and I trust that some means will be found of overcoming this obstruction. I hope my noble friend will assist me in keeping the question alive, and eventually bringing this obstructive official into line.
THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (THE EARL OF CRAWFORD): My Lords, I take the view myself that Lord Newton indicates about the desirability of keeping to one specified side of the street, but I should like to say that the Commissioner of the City Police is a man of great experience and standing, and, if he takes an opposite view, I have not a doubt that he does so for very good reasons; at least, for reasons that satisfy him.
[From Minutes of July 5.]

BIRMINGHAM CORPORATION BILL.
RIVER CAM CONSERVANCY BILL.
LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (MONEY) BILL.
LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (GENERAL POWERS) BILL.
Committees to meet on Tuesday next.

GLASGOW CORPORATION ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL. [H.L.]
Pursuant to the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899, deemed to have been reported from the Committee, and Bill to be read 3a on Monday next.
House adjourned at ten minutes past five o'clock.