Clause 1.—(ORDERS IN COUNCIL FOR FACILITATING INTERNATIONAL TRAFFIC.)

HC Deb 26 June 1952 vol 502 cc2600-50

11.30 p.m.

Mr. R. T. Paget (Northampton)

I beg to move, in page 2, line 18, at the end, to insert: (3) Provided always that no such Order in Council shall permit any person who has not passed a driving test or who is unfamiliar with the provisions of the Highway Code to drive a motor vehicle upon the highways of Great Britain or of Northern Ireland.

The Temporary Chairman

I intended to ask the hon. and learned Gentleman and the Committee whether we might not take this Amendment and those in the name of the hon. and learned Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Bing) and the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale) together for the purpose of discussion. I hope that the hon. and learned Gentleman will agree.

Mr. Paget

Yes, Sir. This is a Bill giving effect to an international agreement and permitting foreigners to bring their cars to this country and to drive them on our roads. It seems to me that if this is to occur, in view of the heavy toll of the roads, provision should be made for the safety of our citizens.

In the first Amendment I ask that the people who come here to drive should undergo a driving test and satisfy an examiner that they are familiar with our Highway Code. They may be competent drivers in their own country, but the rules of the road there may be, and often are, different from the rules in this country. There may be different systems of signals; it may be custom to drive on a different side of the road, and there may be different habits and rules. Before we allow these people to drive on our roads, bringing this added risk, they should understand our Highway Code and what they ought to do on our roads.

The second Amendment with which I am dealing is the third on the Paper, which provides that no person shall be authorised to drive on the roads here if he has had his licence suspended. I understand that at present this situation can arise. A man who is not a citizen of this country can have an English driving licence. That licence may be suspended. He can then go to France, or elsewhere, get a French licence and a French car, and come and drive here on his French licence although his English licence has been suspended.

Mr. Gerald Nabarro (Kidderminster)

Surely the hon. and learned Member realises that a French licence can only be granted to a French citizen.

Mr. Paget

Precisely; but in England an English licence can be granted to a French citizen.

Squadron-Leader A. E. Cooper (Ilford, South)

But surely there are only two forms of licence which he can get in this country. One is the learners' licence, granted for a certain period, which requires the L plates to be carried on the car, and a permanent licence for which the holder has to pass a driving test.

Mr. Paget

Precisely. Let us get the situation clear. In England one gets a learner's licence and then a permanent licence. A Frenchman resident here could do that. I put this interrogatively, because I want to understand the effect of the Bill—a Frenchman with a French driving licence could, by international agreement, come and drive here on his French driving licence. Is that accurate?

If so, there could be a situation in which a Frenchman here gets an English driving licence, which is subsequently suspended; he then goes to France, gets a French driving licence and brings a French car over here which he can drive on his French driving licence, during the period of the suspension of his English licence. Is that the situation? If it is, it does not seem to be right and I hope steps will be taken to deal with it. The object of the Amendment is to put it right.

Further, I want to be reassured that anybody who is driving a foreign car which he brings over on a triptyque must have that car insured under the same terms as those provided in the Road Traffic Act, so that if he injures anyone that person will know that there is somebody solvent whom he can sue.

That is the object of the Amendments. I hope the Minister will be able to assure us that these dangers are being dealt with. If they are dealt with effectively without the Amendment, I shall, of course, be happy to withdraw it.

Mr. Wedgwood Benn (Bristol, South-East)

There is little to say on the first Amendment. It is unlikely that one could introduce such a scheme whereby people coming here were forced to pass a driving test in their own country. It would be very difficult to insist on their knowing the Highway Code. At the same time, my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) was right to put the Amendment on the Paper in the hope of extracting some sort of assurance from the Minister about how these regulations will work. When people come to this country—and in their own country if it could be arranged—steps should be taken to see that they have a copy of the Highway Code so that, when they arrive, they know some of our road regulations.

The second Amendment deals with the case of the man whose licence is suspended by a court of law in Great Britain, and the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) made great play of the fact—which I did not know until he told us—that in order to get a French driving licence one has to be a Frenchman. That certainly is not the case everywhere, and it is not the case in the United States, for I went to America four years ago and got a temporary licence in a local laundry——

Mr. Nabarro

I was not talking of temporary licences. To get a permanent driving licence in most Western European countries it is necessary to prove residence, which generally rests on three years' stay in the country.

Mr. Benn

If the hon. Gentleman had not been so quick to interrupt, and had allowed me to finish, I should have explained that I went into a local laundry where there was a notary, and got a temporary licence for three months, paying eight dollars. Later on, I turned it over for a permanent licence, and that permanent licence would enable me to drive in this country, even if my British licence was suspended. I think that the Minister might make some observation on that because of the consequences which might result.

The last Amendment is, of course, a far longer one. I understood during the Second Reading debate that some sort of arrangement should be made by which insurance could be proved, and if I understand this Clause correctly, one of its purposes is to enable us to reach agreement about foreign visitors in this country and the vehicles they bring with them. It is only right, therefore, to refer to the adequacy of compensation to British subjects hurt in accidents involving American Forces. Clause I states, at the beginning, that it is, For the purpose of enabling effect to be given to any international agreement for the time being in force in respect of the United Kingdom… That must include any agreement between the United States Forces and ourselves, but this is an intensely complicated question. Speaking for myself, I think the position of the British subjects injured in motor accidents by Forces of another nationality is not satisfactory, and that the Minister, if he cannot accept this Amendment, might turn his attention to this matter when he comes to reply.

Mr. Nabarro

I drew attention during the Second Reading to the extraordinary complexity involved in taking a motor car through countries in Western Europe, and I would thank the hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) for his remarks about visitors understanding our Highway Code. There are great variations in road safety standards in the many countries of Western Europe, and in Clause I there arises this point. Whether the Orders in Council which will enable permission to be given to foreign visitors to have a temporary driving facility will rest on those visitors having an international driving permit. Because, to get that in Western Europe, it is necessary for a person to produce a driving licence issued by the country concerned; and if the international permit is produced in this country it would be a reasonable assurance that certain driving standards had been achieved.

Mr. Benn

I think I am right in saying that the United States are not signatories to the international convention, and when one can get a licence from a laundry, there would be no safeguard in this Clause.

Mr. Nabarro

I think the hon. Member is right, but I am directing my remarks to Western European countries; and the short point is that, in the case of a foreign visitor coming here, he or she should be able, before being given permission to drive on our roads, to produce an international permit which would not have been given in that person's own country unless that person was able to produce a driving licence. That would be evidence, I suggest, that the person had achieved a reasonable standard of efficiency in driving on the roads.

11.45 p.m.

Mr. Geoffrey de Freitas (Lincoln)

I wonder whether the Parliamentary Secretary could tell us what the effect of the Bill would be as drafted and if the Amendment were accepted in the case of someone coming here from a State like Texas. It used to be the case in Texas —I do not know whether it is so still or not—that Texans regarded driving a car as they regarded riding a horse. One did not have to have a licence to ride a horse, so one did not have to have one to drive a car. A Texan could drive a car in any of the other 47 States quite legally, because, of course, under their Constitution, they had to have respect to the laws of every other State. That used to be the position, and, for all I know, it is still the position today.

Suppose a Texan comes here—and I do hope many Texans will, for they are welcome visitors in the summer or at any other time—what will be the position under the law, and under the law if and when the Bill is passed? Because, of course, it could be said that a Texan was entitled to drive a car in the United States, and yet he may not have passed the test, and we should not have any evidence if he had. That is one small point.

Another point on which I should like information from the Minister is on the matter of the categories of licence. Is it not fact that we have three categories of licence? I am not very familiar with the subject, but is there not a temporary or "visitor to Great Britain" permit— not a learner's licence, but another one valid for six months or something like that, and which is got—not at the laundry —but at the L.C.C. or some other county hall?

Mr. Leslie Hale (Oldham, West)

Speaking as a director of a laundry, I deprecate this constant reference to one of the forms of my occupations— although, of course, I entirely concur that it is desirable to see that dirty sheets become clean as soon as possible. I do feel that these Amendment are exceedingly important, and I do feel that they merit the closest possible consideration. With very great respect, Mr. Thomas, I do not want them to be represented as being merely of an exploratory character. I feel that some of them are very vital indeed. Perhaps it would be best if I were straight away to direct my attention to the Amendment standing in my name, in page 2, line 18, at the end, to insert: (3) Provided always that no such Order in Council shall exempt any person from the provisions of Part II of the Road Traffic Act, 1930 (which imposes an obligation to insure against third-party risks). You suggested, Mr. Thomas, it would be desirable to consider all the Amendments at the same time.

I should think that no amendment in the law in regard to motor cars has been more universally approved than the position with regard to motor cars being driven by persons insured against third-party risks, but I have always thought a mistake was made there, and that the law should have included passengers. That was one of the unfortunate omissions. I do say that, having spent most of my life dealing with motor accidents, I do know—[Interruption.] Well, indeed, I have. I have been at the head of a not inconsiderable litigation in connection with claims for passengers arising out of accidents. Of course, the whole situation was altered by this provision. There was tragedy after tragedy.

So one has to face this now. It is that tragedies do arise all too frequently now in connection with persons who come from other countries, however friendly and however generous they may be. We know that it is a frightful difficulty that there are different systems of law and different rules. I want to say that I have always found the United States' authorities in this matter to be perfectly generous, and as generous as ours, and perfectly prepared to deal with matters on a sympathetic basis.

I should like the Committee to remember that there are quite different rules—a different period of limitation, for instance. In England, if a man is killed in a motor accident, the period of limitation runs from the time when death occurs. In the United States it runs from the date of the accident—not even from the date of the death. Therefore, it is possible to find—I have known many cases in which I have found—that on the basis of English law the right of compensation is important.

Now I want to say something quite bluntly—and probably I shall say something that is not universally agreed. I do not think it is important that we should go to the tremendous trouble of attracting people to bring their motor cars over here and drive them for ordinary purposes. I really do not. Certainly, if the price we must pay is that we restore chaos on the roads, and if the price we must pay is that drivers who come over, and are being urged to come over, have not got to pay regard to the Highway Code or the provisions of our law, that may be too heavy a price to pay.

Of course I am in favour of attracting visitors from overseas as much as possible, but if it is necessary for them to bring a motor car over here, then they should in any case read the Highway Code. As I apprehend the matter, they should know the Highway Code, and that is the purpose of our first Amendment. It is a matter which falls well within the provisions of the Convention on Road Traffic, because Chapter V of that Convention, which we are considering ratifying, says: Each Contracting State shall allow any driver admitted to its territory who fulfils the conditions which are set out in Annex 8 and who holds a valid driving permit issued to him, after he has given proof of his competence, by the competent authority of another Contracting State or subdivision thereof, or by an Association duly empowered by such authority, to drive on its roads without further examination motor vehicles of the category or categories defined in Annexes 9 and 10 for which the permit has been issued"— I am reluctant to interrupt the conversation taking place in such loud terms from below the Bar, but it is exceedingly difficult to pursue an important argument in the circumstances in which these interruptions are being made.

I understand it is clearly implied in the Convention that it is the duty of the driver at least to familiarise himself with the rules of the country he goes to. Nobody would say that a man who comes over from France with his car has not got to find out that we drive on the left-hand side of the road whereas in France they drive on the right. But in addition, surely he ought to know our system of signalling. Surely he must know what is mean by the signal of somebody in front of him when they are going to turn across him. In other words, surely he owes a duty to familiarise himself with the provisions of the Highway Code.

I remember when I took a car across to Ireland in the last two years I was provided with a mass of material to enable me to study any mild diversity there may be between Great Britain and Ireland, whereas there are very substantial diversities between ourselves and various other countries, and it is because of those diversities that this international Convention is in one respect sought to be made.

I sincerely suggest to the Minister that the proposal about insurance is a vital one. If it is to be said to the people of this country that we want to attract foreign visitors here but that if our people get killed by a car driven by a foreign visitor they will have no chance of compensation, that is a very serious thing to say, and it is a matter this Committee ought to challenge at once. The amount of suffering, loss, deprivation and damage that can be caused, and is caused, in a motor accident is very great indeed, and it is exceedingly difficult, even when the foreign visitor is a person of some wealth and substance, to enforce these judgments abroad. It is almost impossible when trying to deal with somebody who is trying to dodge the judgment and is taking active steps to do so, as anybody who has tried to enforce these international judgments will know.

Of course, it is literally almost impossible for a widow of a person in England, even with the aid which would be readily granted under the legal aid procedure, to embark on litigation against someone resident abroad where there is no insurance company in this country who can take up negotiations. I think we ought to insist on some undertaking of the fullest possible character that there must be some method by which people can be compensated for the loss of a relative in this sort of accident. It really is quite nonsense to pass an Act to regulate this Convention when there is nothing in this Convention which precludes any such provision being imposed in that Act by any of the assenting parties. I hope we shall have the fullest assurance. It is far too serious a matter to let it go by default.

Mr. James Hudson (Ealing, North)

The hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale) is right in the emphasis he has laid on insisting on proper standards, such are imposed on the citizens of this country, relating to security on our roads. In Switzerland particularly, the Swiss are not wholly satisfied with the insurance arrangements made by our companies under our laws. During the last three years when I have driven in Switzerland I have had to sign a special declaration through my insurance company to satisfy the Swiss on the particular insurance conditions that they impose, and I am told by the Automobile Association that this year also, if I endeavour to go into Switzerland, I shall have to follow the same procedure.

I think the Swiss are right. They have special dangers involved in driving in their country. But we, too, in view of our road accidents have our special situation, and it is right that we should be well assured by the Government that either in connection with this Measure, or any other arrangement we make, proper insurance cover is fully provided for foreigners who drive in this country.

I noted in the general discussion, and perhaps even in the speeches of my hon. Friends, a weakening of emphasis in relation to the first Amendment on the importance of the Highway Code. I agree that probably we are not very keen about being well assured that the Highway Code is understood by our own citizens. There are many occasions in the courts when it comes out that the culprits and convicted persons have admitted stupid misconceptions over considerations clearly laid down in the Code. Hon. Gentlemen will be well aware upon which particular point I shall dwell to illustrate this matter.

The Highway Code lays down what apparently some hon. Gentlemen do not know, that it is inadvisable before driving to take alcohol at all. Yet special claims are made for foreigners, whose drinking habits are of such a character that we have to break or amend the law in order to meet their drinking habits. I can well imagine foreigners coming from countries of that sort, who have to be provided for by proposals to alter the law without one injunction about the danger of alcohol in driving, readily falling into the consumption of alcohol and the accidents which will inevitably result.

12 midnight.

Mr. Nabarro

Hear, hear.

Mr. Hudson

I hope that "hear, hear," from the depths of the soul of the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) marks the sense of seriousness which he shares with me about this matter.

I would warn hon. Members that countries about whom we have been very critical in our relations lately were much more alive to this situation than we seem to be. If before the war any of us had driven in Germany or had a temporary licence——

The Temporary Chairman

I think the hon. Member would be better advised if he confined his remarks to this country and the application of the Highway Code here.

Mr. Hudson

I was upon the point of the application of the particular clauses in our Highway Code here and was wishful of showing that the seriousness of the point in our own Highway Code had been recognised in other countries, which in itself is a reason why we should recognise it. I was not. however, wishing to press that point.

I do not see why in this country we should not insist on the foreigner coming here and signing a declaration that he has read our Highway Code and has noted the points. I think we might pick out the points of importance for foreigners to observe. That has been done and is being done in other countries, and I do not see why it should not be done here. We ought to see to it that foreigners, who are not likely to be aware of what we lay down, have all these matters brought clearly to their attention before they drive on our roads, and that the same inhibitions are observed by them as we are asked to observe ourselves.

Mr. Geoffrey Bing (Hornchurch)

There are three points which arise from the three Amendments which we are taking together. In the first place, of all people those who come from abroad are those to whose attention it is most necessary to bring the Highway Code, because the people who live in this country, even if they are only starting to drive, from their experience as pedestrians are familiar to some degree with what are zebra crossings, the nature of signals by drivers and the like. Therefore, it is particuliarly important from the point of view of foreigners that they should know about these things, but as the law stands at present they are the people on whom there is no necessary obligation either to pass a driving test or to familiarise themselves with the Highway Code.

Secondly, there is this difficulty about line 18 of the Bill, that it is possible, particularly in regard to visiting forces, for permits to be given by those forces for somebody to drive a vehicle on the roads here who has been disqualified. Even though we, in our own courts, were to disqualify someone from driving, under the international arrangements— and such arrangements, I understand, are to be made under this Bill—it is still possible for that person to be given a permit by his own military authority, disregarding entirely the ruling of the court here, and permit him to go on driving. That point at least needs the attention of the Committee.

Thirdly, there is what I consider the most important of the three points raised by these Amendments, the question of the payment for any injury that may be done. Not only can somebody come here without any knowledge of the Highway Code, without having passed a driving test, and continue to drive after being disqualified by the court, but if a person has the misfortune to be knocked down by him there will not necessarily be any redress. Of all the people one requires insurance against is someone not living in this country. If a person lives here, there is the possibility of taking action against him, but someone living abroad is not only outside our jurisdiction but there are all sorts of practical difficulties in suing him. Even the difficulties of tracing him may be very great.

Therefore, I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will give some satis- faction on this and the other points. The third point is by no means a fanciful one; it is coming up from time to time and results in great hardship. A member of my own union was knocked down by a car driven by a national of another country and was completely disabled from work. He has not been able to work for two years, and he has not been able to get any compensation at all. I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will be able to do something on the point.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Mr. Gurney Braithwaite)

I am sure the Committee are grateful to you, Mr. Thomas, for permitting these three Amendments to be taken together, because they have much in common. All of them are provisos which it is sought to add to Clause I, and all have a general background which I will endeavour to place before the Committee without repeating arguments I put on Second Reading before Whitsuntide.

The main purpose of the Measure is to enable the Government to ratify and give effect to the United Nations Convention on Road Traffic of 1949, which was presented to the House in 1950. When one is endeavouring to get an international convention there has to be a good deal of give and take—what I would call the lowest common denominator—and in many cases there are things one would like to see included in international negotiations that do not find their way into the final agreement.

Under this Convention, the Government of the day—that refers to our predecessors—agreed that they would take the necessary steps, of which this is the first, to introduce certain modifications into the present arrangements relating to the use and driving of motor vehicles by temporary visitors to the United Kingdom coming from countries that are parties to the Convention. On Second Reading I ventured that the word "temporary" is taken to mean a period of 12 months, which I think is a generous interpretation.

The modifications spring from long experience. They go back even before the existing International Circulation Act of 1909, which was in the very early days of motoring. Each has been very carefully evolved, and none of them affects in any vital manner public safety on the roads or the basic principles of the Road Traffic Acts, such as third-party insurance, with which I shall deal when I come to the last of the Amendments in the name of the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale). The Convention of 1949 is already in force in some countries. Until this Bill is passed, H.M. Government cannot themselves ratify it, and any delay would, in our view, be unfortunate, in view of this country's strong interest in the tourist trade in both directions.

In regard to the Amendment in the name of the hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget), the driving test proviso, if I may so call it, would prevent H.M. Government from fulfilling their obligations under the United Nations Convention on Road Traffic of 1949. of which Article 24 provides, among other things, that a contracting State shall allow any visiting driver, who nolds a valid driving permit issued, after he has given proof of his competence, by another contracting State, to drive on its roads without further examination.

Mr. Nabarro

My hon. Friend says "a valid permit." That is a point I have raised three times. Is a valid permit an international driving permit?

Mr. Braithwaite

We are discussing three matters together, and, if we can get along, and my hon. Friend is not satisfied and wants further elucidation, as we are in Committee, I shall be able to speak again, though I hope it will not be necessary.

The hon. Member for Lincoln (Mr. de Freitas) put a rather specific point about Texas. I have not had time to find out if there is a driving test there, and I am assuming that the hon. Gentleman was correct in saying that there is not.

Mr. de Freitas

I said there was not in the thirties.

Mr. Braithwaite

I am informed that, if there is no driving test, in the sense in which we mean it here, anyone coming from that country may declare that he is a person who is permitted to drive in his own country, and, if he so satisfied our officials, he would get a British driving licence.

The object of the Bill, in general, is to facilitate international traffic, and, if we were to accept this particular Amendment, it would place visiting drivers, from both Convention and non-Convention countries, in a less favourable position than they are in at the present time. We are anxious that those which are at present non-Convention countries may be encouraged themselves to sign the Convention and come into the general arrangements.

Of course, the hon. and learned Member for Northampton, in moving his Amendment, had very much in his mind road safety, and, indeed, we all have, and we had a debate on it only on Friday last. All of us are seized of the importance of that question. A very careful examination has been made of this problem, and there is no evidence that driving by foreign visitors gives rise to any special danger.

Indeed, it is reasonable to suggest that they are generally experienced drivers, who take especial care in this country, if only because of the fact that our rule of the road is opposite to theirs, in almost every case. The foreigner coming here is particularly careful in his use of the road because of that one factor, and there is no evidence that the foreign drivers who come here are an element of danger or carelessness. In fact, they often set an example which might well be followed by some of our own citizens in that respect.

The Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for Hornchurch puts us in a little difficulty, for this reason. Article 24 of the United Nations Convention of 1949 provides, again among other things, that a contracting State may withdraw from a visiting driver the right to use a driving licence if the driver has committed a driving offence of such a nature as would entail the forfeiture of his driving permit under the laws of that contracting State. The procedure to be followed where a visiting driver has his licence suspended by the courts will be set out in the Order in Council, a draft of which must be laid before Parliament and approved by Resolution of both Houses before it is, in fact, made.

12.15 a.m.

I think it was the hon. and learned Member for Northampton who suggested that anyone suspended in this country could, for example, go to France and get a French licence and return to this country to repeat the offence, or the danger. That will not be so. There will be machinery by which a person suspended in this country will not be permitted to drive during the period of suspension with a French or any other licence. The country of origin will be notified of the offence and the suspension. There are officials who "vet" people coming to this country at any time, particularly foreign nationals. They have to go through a procedure of which the hon. and learned Member is well aware. There will be a black-list of foreigners who have had their licences suspended in this country.

Mr. Paget

Surely that is impracticable. It would mean a black-list of everyone here who had his licence suspended. The people in France would have not the slightest idea that a person who got a licence there had had his licence suspended here. When that person came along with a French licence and with a triptyque issued through the French equivalent of the R.A.C., no one would have any idea that his English licence had been suspended.

Mr. Braithwaite

That is wrong. It is intended to set up machinery through which it will be known when offences have been committed. The procedure to be followed when a visiting driver's licence is suspended will be set out in the Order in Council which will have to be laid before both Houses of Parliament by Resolution of each House before it is made. To include in the Bill a proviso on the lines of the hon. and learned Member's Amendment is, we suggest, unnecessary and would be contrary to the general principle on which the Bill is framed, which is that we deal with detail of this sort through the medium of the Order in Council. In any case, I do not think the wording of the Amendment would be appropriate.

Regarding the observation of the hon. Member for Bristol, South-East (Mr. Benn) about visiting forces, it is not because of the lateness of the hour, or lassitude, that I inform the Committee that in another place yesterday there was taken the Second Reading of a Measure which is intended to deal with this aspect of the problem, namely the Visiting Forces Bill, which will be coming to us in due course. It would be more appropriate and convenient to discuss details of that aspect of the matter then.

Mr. Benn

Before the hon. Gentleman leaves that point, may I ask whether this Bill, when enacted, will be used as a means of providing facilities for visiting forces to be covered by the Bill which has not yet reached the House?

Mr. Braithwaite

The Bill which is coming from another place deals with N.A.T.O. Forces in general. The difficulty which the hon. Gentleman mentions refers to the fact that there are at present visiting forces of only one nationality in the country, and they are in a position of immunity under the 1942 agreement, which has been mentioned in the debate.

Mr. George Wigg (Dudley)

I was listening to the Minister with close attention. I did not think he dealt with the point made by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget). My hon. and learned Friend was referring to a British subject whose licence was suspended in a British court, who went to France, let us say, took out a driving licence, went to the French authorities, got the necessary papers and came back to this country. He would proceed to get a British licence. I thought the Parliamentary Secretary dealt effectively with the case of foreign subjects, but not with what I thought was the point made by my hon. and learned Friend.

Mr. Philip Bell (Bolton, East)

No one seems to have referred to Section 4 of the Road Traffic Act, 1930, which says A person shall be disqualified from obtaining a licence— (b) if he is by a conviction under this Part of this Act or by an order of a court thereunder disqualified from holding or obtaining a licence. The question is—What is a licence? In this Bill it is defined as 'licence' means a licence to drive a motor vehicle granted under this Part of this Act or under article 5 of the Motor Car (International Circulation) Order, 1930. I may well be wrong, but I should have thought that says that a person is disqualified from obtaining a licence, even a foreign licence or an international permit, if he is disqualified in this country. I should have thought that anything in the Bill which enables an Order in Council to be made must be subject to the provision in Section 4.

Mr. Paget

That is so if he obtains his foreign licence subject to the 1930 agreement. I want to make sure that the rule which applied to the 1930 agreement, with which the Road Traffic Act deals, will also apply to this agreement, with which the Road Traffic Act does not deal. The position at present under the Bill would be this. A man gets his licence suspended here, goes over to France, gets a French licence, comes back and drives here under the French licence. That French licence being a licence subject to this agreement, it is not a licence subject to the 1930 agreement, and he is allowed to drive here. That is a state of affairs which I think we ought to avoid.

Mr. Braithwaite

I am in the fortunate position of having what is known as free legal aid from both sides of the Committee. I think my hon. Friend the Member for Surrey, East (Mr. Doughty) was putting far more competently than I can hope to do what I believe the position to be——

Mr. Ede (South Shields)

It was not the hon. Member for Surrey, East.

Mr. Braithwaite

I am sorry; it was my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Bolton, East (Mr. Philip Bell). The hon. and learned Member for Northampton raised a point of great substance on which the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department is trying to seek inspiration under the Gallery. We shall be most anxious for the Order in Council to cover that situation, and we will do our best to see that it does.

May I turn to what I think was the most important of the three Amendments, that in the name of the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale)? I want to give him this assurance. There is no intention to include in any Order in Council under the Bill any provision which would affect the rights of third parties to secure compensation for injuries arising from the use of a vehicle by a visiting motorist. It is inconceivable that this or any future Government would seek to make such a provision, and the reason why it is considered unnecessary to insert into the Bill a special proviso to preclude such action, is that a draft of any Order in Council must be laid before Parliament and receive an affirmative Resolution by each House before it is submitted to Her Majesty.

I do not think that the hon. Member was with us on the Second Reading debate, but I then said that a new international scheme relating to the insurance of motorists against third party risks is being brought to finality at Geneva by the Road Transport Sub-Committee of the Economic Commission for Europe; and this scheme, which will provide for foreign visitors to have insurance certificates, will be a great advance on the current arrangements applicable to them. It will be a great advantage from the point of view of safeguarding the interests of injured third parties, and the scheme, when ready, will be introduced by Regulation in this House under the provisions, not of this Bill, but of Section 41 of the Road Traffic Act of 1930.

Mr. Hale

I appreciate the courteous information which the hon. Gentleman has given us, but I am a little worried as to his phrasing; because it is capable of being termed ambiguous. Do I gather that if I go to France, or to Ireland, my insurance company will, in future, insist on an insurance certificate being produced? Is there a clear undertaking that no permit will be granted to people who come here with cars unless there is evidence that they are insured against third party risks?

Mr. Braithwaite

The scheme does not operate under this Bill; it arises from the agreement being negotiated at Geneva.

Mr. Hale

I understood that quite clearly, but if I remember rightly, he said that no Order in Council would be made which did not make provision for protecting the rights of a person to sue for injuries arising from a third party risk. There must be an insurance to cover such action, but it is not clear if there will be compulsory insurance provided for by the Order in Council which, he says, will be made under the 1930 Act.

Mr. Braithwaite

I would adhere to the wording which I used originally; but the machinery which it is proposed to operate would cover completely what he seeks in his proviso; and before sitting down, I would say why it is that the Government think it is a mistake to insert these words. It would somewhat handicap the machinery of international ratification if where we are seeking to give our ratification to an international convention we put in too much detail in the ratification Act itself.

Her Majesty's Government prefers to leave itself with the machinery of the Order in Council—which procedure will permit of adequate debate in Parliament —and while it is felt that there is nothing in this proviso to which we take exception, it would be a mistake to insert it in the statute; for the very good reason which I have given, namely, because it might be regarded as a handicap to the spirit of the Convention where there will be the signatures of a number of countries. It is not easy to get agreement, and we prefer to follow the course I suggest to the Committee.

Mr. Paget

Will the Parliamentary Secretary give a firm undertaking that no foreign motorist, as a result of this Bill, will be able to drive on our roads while not insured?

12.30 a.m.

Mr. Braithwaite

I do not think I can add to what I said. Perhaps I may repeat the phrase I used in reply to the point that the hon. Gentleman the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale) was anxious about. I was able to give him a certain assurance. Perhaps I may repeat it, because it was phrased with great care. There is no intention to include in any Order in Council under the Bill any provision which would affect the right of third parties to secure compensation for injuries arising from the use of a vehicle by a visiting motorist. That is as far as I can go.

Mr. Ede

May I put it as one layman to another? I think the hon. Gentleman will understand why I put it like that. What we had to provide against in this country was the fact that it was necessary to ensure that the injured party should be in a position where he could recover damages that were awarded by the court. The phraseology used by the hon. Gentleman does not give that assurance.

I have deplorable cases coming in front of me as a justice of the peace concerning people driving uninsured. A man of straw knocks down a person and widows some woman. I recollect one case where the dead man was a solicitor, and all that she was left with was the goodwill of the solicitor's practice. I do not want to say anything disparaging to my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale), but I understand that that is not a very valuable asset to have—although this was a young man who was making his way, and, undoubtedly, would have provided a substantial income for that woman. The right to sue is of not great advantage unless one can be certain that the damages awarded by the court will in fact be recoverable by the injured party after the case has been heard.

Mr. Braithwaite

I am able to give this undertaking. It is proposed that no person will be permitted to drive in this country without third party insurance. That is, perhaps, putting the thing in rather plainer language. It is now on record. Perhaps the Committee will say that that is a more definite form in which to put it. It so often happens on Committee stages that we find elucidation of these points.

Mr. Ede

Third party insurance enforceable in this country?

Mr. Braithwaite

Yes.

Mr. Eric Fletcher (Islington, East)

Third party insurance with a British insurance company?

Mr. Paget

Not necessarily a British insurance company, but an insurance organisation which, under international agreement, has agreed to be sued in England. That is the important thing.

Mr. Braithwaite

I think that that is so.

Mr. J. Hudson

Before the hon. Gentleman sits down. He has not really referred to the points I urgently pressed upon his attention. One difficulty is that our Highway Code is different from the road codes of other countries. Will there be some attempt to bring to the attention of persons coming here the precise differences between their road codes and ours? It was on that that I specially wanted an answer. Is nothing to be said about that matter?

Mr. Braithwaite

Of course, everything said on the Committee stage today will be of value when Orders in Council are being framed, and we shall carefully study all the suggestions made, but I could not give an undertaking here and now that everything the hon. Gentleman asked for will be included in the Orders in Council. I can assure him that we shall go through the OFFICIAL REPORT of this debate carefully and include what we think is practical.

Several Hon. Members rose——

The Deputy-Chairman (Mr. Hopkin Morris)

Mr. Ernest Davies.

Mr. Paget

Surely the hon. Gentleman will give an assurance——

The Deputy-Chairman

Order. I have called on Mr. Ernest Davies.

Mr. Ernest Davies (Enfield, East)

I am sorry to come between my hon. and learned Friend and the Parliamentary Secretary, but perhaps he will have an opportunity of pressing the matter later.

I am a little disappointed at some of the replies the hon. Gentleman has given to this discussion because, while I think that he was endeavouring to be helpful, he only gave a certain assurance after being very hard pressed for it, and I consider that he has left far too much to Orders in Council rather than to the Bill itself. He has put off each one of these Amendments, as it were, to be dealt with in Orders in Council or in other legislation and left the matter in suspense to a certain extent; it is still rather in the air.

On the first Amendment, I think my hon. Friends were pressing largely for the Highway Code to be brought to the attention of all foreign visitors to this country, and for it to be made certain that they would study and understand this Code, as far as it was possible for them to do so, in order that we could expect as high a standard of driving from foreign tourists as from our own citizens. I should have thought the Parliamentary Secretary could give us a little further assurance on that and say that every effort will be made to bring the provisions of the Highway Code to the attention of tourists coming to this country and the necessity for their studying it.

Perhaps it would be possible to arrange that when tourists express their intention of coming to this country and apply for the necessary papers in their own country copies of the Highway Code could be made available to them in the better known languages. In that way we could be more certain that the Highway Code was studied by them prior to their coming to this country. I appreciate the difficulty of imposing the driving tests suggested in the first Amendment, because that would destroy the purpose of the Bill.

What we are concerned about is that the dangers of the road will not be increased, and that the driving of anyone coming to this country will be of the same standard as we expect from our own drivers. While we cannot insist on this driving test and at the same time ratify the Convention, I think that a little more attention should be given to the driving standards of those drivers, particularly from those countries which have not ratified the Convention.

On the second Amendment, concerning the licence suspended by any court of law, again the Parliamentary Secretary indicated that in an Order in Council it would be provided that no one who had had their licence suspended would be allowed to drive, and that a practicable administrative scheme would be instituted. We shall anxiously await to see exactly how this is included in an Order in Council, and to see what the scheme is, because I think it will be rather difficult to work out a practicable scheme. Certainly we would much prefer to see these provisions in the Bill. It is not desirable to leave too much to Order in Council. After all, Orders in Council can be annulled later, whereas repealing an Act is somewhat more difficult to undertake.

As regards insurance, the last statement by the Parliamentary Secretary is certainly a satisfactory one. It is now going to be a provision in this country that tourists and everyone must be insured for third party risk. As regards the drivers of foreign countries, this matter has again been put off, and we must await the legislation in another place. During the Second Reading debate I was not happy at the reply I received from the Parliamentary Secretary.

The Parliamentary Secretary was unable to give any assurance that American drivers, for instance, who were involved in accidents in this country would be subject to a similar punishment in their own courts as they would be in British courts. That is to say, if they were involved in accidents which in our courts would result in the suspension of a licence similar action would be taken by their courts. There does not seem to be any agreement between us and the Americans on this score as yet.

I hope the Parliamentary Secretary can say that the discussions with the Americans have gone sufficiently far to assure us that their drivers will be treated no less favourably than our own. Without that assurance I fear the dangers on the roads will be increased even further under this Bill.

I think there are certain points upon which we must await further elucidation from the Parliamentary Secretary when these Orders in Council are forthcoming. In view of the fact that so much has been left to them, and also the fact that the legislation regarding N.A.T.O. forces has not yet reached us, it might have been better for the Bill to have been delayed a little longer so that the whole matter could have been dealt with at one go.

Mr. Braithwaite

If I may assure the hon. Gentleman at once, everything he said about visiting forces will be noted by the Government in relation to the Bill from another place. At the moment all these matters are outside it, including the question of insurance. Since the hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) spoke, I have managed to clarify one point about the position of disqualified drivers and what they might do to elude the consequences. A person who has been disqualified in this country would be committing an offence if he drove here while so disqualified, even if he were to obtain a licence abroad and come back here to drive.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. P. G. T. Buchan-Hepburn) rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN proceeded to put the Question.

12.45 a.m.

Mr. Benn

On a point of order. We were discussing the three Amendments together when the Parliamentary Secre- tary to the Treasury moved the Closure. Could you tell us, Mr. Hopkin Morris, whether we are now dividing on all three?

The Deputy-Chairman

We are voting on the Closure Motion at the moment.

Mr. T. Driberg (Maldon)

When the Parliamentary Secretary moved, "That the Question be now put," he was heard speaking in the singular. Would you be good enough, Mr. Hopkin Morris, to say whether all three Amendments will be put immediately on the result of the Closure Motion?

Question, "That the Question be now put," put, and agreed to.

Question, "That these words be there inserted," put accordingly, and agreed to.

Mr. Benn

I beg to move, in page 2, line 18, at the end, to insert: (3) Provided always that no such Order in Council shall exempt any person from the provisions of section three of the Road Traffic Act, 1930 (which section provides that it shall be unlawful to use any motor vehicle that does not comply with the regulations applicable to that class of vehicle). As the first Amendment has now been inserted in the Bill by your collection of the voices, Mr. Hopkin Morris, I venture to hope that it will now be possible——

The Deputy-Chairman

I beg pardon, but I made a mistake.

Mr. Benn

No, with great respect, Mr. Hopkin Morris. It has now been passed. You collected the voices and nobody said "No."

Mr. E. Fletcher

I can assure you, Mr. Hopkin Morris, it was no mistake at all.

The Deputy-Chairman

Nobody said "No"?

Mr. Fletcher

Everybody said "Aye."

Mr. Paget

You said, "The Ayes have it." That stands. That is the law. It may be corrected on the Report stage, but it is the law now.

The Deputy-Chairman

It was certainly a mistake if I did say that. It was a mistake on my part.

Mr. Paget

No.

Mr. Ede

When you put the Question asking if the Ayes were in favour there were murmurs of "Aye" from both sides of the Committee and when you asked for the "Noes" there was no sound at all.

Brigadier Terence Clarke (Portsmouth, West)

On a point of order. I most distinctly said "No" from this side and I could be heard.

Mr. Benn

As I was saying, as the Committee has now accepted the first Amendment, which I think was very wise, despite the assurance given, I hope the Minister will now be able to accept the Amendment which I am now moving. It deals with this question of visiting Americans or visiting North Atlantic Treaty Organisation Forces. The Road Traffic Act, 1930—[Interruption.] I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will give me his attention. I am sure he is disappointed at the result just arrived at and may even be contemplating resignation, I do not know.

I am now dealing with Section 3 of the Road Traffic Act, 1930. Under that Section the Minister of Transport lays down certain regulations and rules affecting various types of vehicles that are permitted on the roads. It is the duty of the Minister of Transport under that Section of the Road Traffic Act to make certain exceptions, so that other vehicles can from time to time go on the roads. Normally, the categories of vehicles allowed are the kinds found in every ordinary driving licence, but in certain circumstances—such as a time of war— he has to make exceptions for Service vehicles and other types that go on the roads. [Interruption.] I must say that it would be only courteous when I am moving an Amendment standing in my name for either the Parliamentary Secretary or the Minister at any rate to appear to be giving a little attention.

Mr. Ronald Bell (Bucks, South)

On a point of Order, Mr. Hopkin Morris. May we know in which way you eventually gave your Ruling, just now?

The Deputy-Chairman (Mr. Hopkin Morris)

I gave my Ruling that the Ayes had it.

Mr. Bell

I ask because I understood my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Portsmouth, West (Brigadier Clarke) intervened from the other side to say that he said "No," and therefore I did not rise to say that I also said "No" from this side. I do not know whether you heard, but I also said "No."

The Deputy-Chairman

I did not hear that.

Mr. Benn

If I may go back to the Amendment before the Committee, it deals with the making of exceptions for special vehicles. Since the Road Traffic Act was passed the Minister of Transport has from time to time made exceptions for such vehicles as motor mowers, rotary ploughs, and so on. [Interruption.] Mr. Hopkin Morris, I have asked your advice on this before—nobody on the Government Front Bench, at least, is paying the slightest attention to the remarks I am addressing on this Amendment.

The Deputy-Chairman

Order. Mr. Wedgwood Benn.

Mr. Michael Foot (Plymouth, Devonport)

Would it not help the proceedings if we could have some attention from Members opposite to what my hon. Friend is saying?

The Deputy-Chairman

I hope that the hon. Member will be heard.

Mr. Benn

I ought to count myself rather fortunate to be moving this Amendment at a moment of excitement, when our little band has consumed the Goliath. The instrument we used was so utterly above any challenge by either side that it was, indeed, a true victory.

I am moving another Amendment which deals with the fact that the Road Traffic Act laid down certain types of vehicles allowed on the road. It is obviously necessary that other types of vehicles should be allowed on the roads from time to time. The Minister of Transport makes a ruling that these other vehicles can go on the roads—for instance, a motor mower to pass from a lawn to a cricket pitch. During the war there was a host of orders in which the Minister authorised military vehicles to be put on the roads.

If one looks through the statutory rules and orders to be obtained from the Minis- ter of Transport's Department, it will be found that whenever a new crash wagon was to be used by the Air Ministry to transport aircraft from one place to another the Minister of Transport authorised it. Of course, he authorised all these vehicles with special provision for safety. He said that if those types of military vehicles—tanks or aircraft crash wagons—were to be on the roads, the local police must be given five days' notice and informed of the route to be followed so that civilian traffic should be dislocated to the minimum possible extent. That seems to me a very satisfactory arrangement. During the war, the American equipment that was used was similarly authorised by special Statutory Order issued by the Minister. The big petrol tankers used by the Americans were authorised by the Ministry of Transport under certain safety precautions regarding smoking and the number of attendants.

Here we have a situation when a Visiting Forces Bill will shortly be brought before the House, and when this Bill gives the Minister power to make rules also covering those forces from the North Atlantic Treaty Powers, and all I am seeking to get by this Amendment is an assurance from the Minister that, when these visiting forces bring this heavy equipment, he will not relax the old regulations under which, if these vehicles are to be used, a special Statutory Order has to be made and special safety precautions are laid down.

It must be the experience of almost every hon. Member to have been stopped by the police while a heavy piece of equipment or heavy vehicle has passed by, occupying almost the whole of the road. That is very likely to happen with the American forces here, and it is only reasonable to expect visiting forces to comply with the minimum safety regulations which we impose on similar vehicles here.

I hope the hon. Gentleman will give an assurance that he will look into the question, so that the normal comfort and convenience of the British road user, and the consideration of the police, are not forgotten, but that, in fact, the existing arrangements for all vehicles of a special type on our roads should follow the arrangements hitherto prevailing here in time of war.

Mr. Bing

I rise only to urge on the Committee one or two extra points with which my hon. Friend has not dealt. In the absence of the Patronage Secretary, who if he were here would, I am sure, intervene at once, and before accepting his assistance in this matter, it perhaps is a good thing that the Committee should look for a moment or two at the merits of the matter.

In these circumstances, the question arises concerning vehicles from other countries which, very often, are in a poor state of repair. It is not only a question of large vehicles, but of vehicles the brakes of which are in a very inadequate condition, and which have not got the various safety precautions upon which we rightly insist in the case of any vehicle going on our roads. There is a standard of safety for vehicles on our roads which is not necessarily the same as in other countries, and, for that reason, it is particularly necessary that we should have some Amendment such as this.

The Minister may want to reconsider the decision to which the Committee has come in regard to the three previous Amendments, and may feel that, at a later stage, he should put down some Amendments varying or altering the decision to which the Committee has just come. I do not know, but, if so, this would be a convenient time to adjourn the matter in order to have a look at it again.

It is now very late, and other important business will take some time, and so I hope that, in these circumstances, the Parliamentary Secretary will not brush this off, but will take the opportunity to consider the whole matter, and, in the interval which is now bound to elapse before we proceed further with this Measure, will give an opportunity to see whether it would not be desirable to let this Bill and the other Measure about which we have heard run side by side.

1.0 a.m.

It is clear from what has been said that this Session is going to continue for some time, probably into next year; therefore there is time to deal with these small Bills at a more convenient time than the present. I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will not give a final answer tonight but will reserve this for consideration when the Bill comes again before the House on a subsequent stage, so that we can reconsider the recent decision.

Mr. Wigg

Through the Patronage Secretary, with his usual incompetency, moving the Closure without having listened to the debate, every foreigner, whether he wants it or not, is now to get a copy of the Highway Code. My right hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, South (Mr. H. Morrison) reminds me that he was the inventor of the Code. It seems to me that if the Patronage Secretary intervenes again every foreigner will get his tyres and brakes tested; indeed, if he intervenes often enough he may even get a free car. This is in addition to getting his teeth extracted.

I think there is a great deal in the point made by my hon. Friend, and the hon. Gentleman ought to give careful attention to the safety of vehicles which foreigners may bring here. A British subject is liable to severe penalties if he drives a vehicle which is not in a fit condition, but the standard of safety on the Continent is certainly not up to our standard. We ought to ensure that foreigners are not allowed to take on the roads vehicles which we would not allow a British subject to drive. I agree that it is not an easy point to deal with, and that may be that because of the international complications involved in this measure, we cannot include this form of words. But perhaps the Minister will say whether something can be done, particularly with regard to the heavier type of vehicle.

Mr. E. Fletcher

I will not detain the Committee for more than a few minutes. After the very interesting discussion on the three previous Amendments, the Committee has unanimously decided that the other three Amendments should be inserted in the Bill, notwithstanding the advice of the Parliamentary Secretary.

Mr. Braithwaite

Surely all that the Committee has done is to agree to insert the first proviso.

The Temporary Chairman (Mr. George Thomas)

That is perfectly clear. All that has been inserted so far is the first Amendment. The others have not been put.

Mr. Ede

It does involve this, that although it was promised that there would be an opportunity to divide on the others, if necessary, in the general excitement the putting of the other two was forgotten.

The Temporary Chairman

They have not yet been reached.

Mr. Benn

This is a point of substance. Your predecessor, Mr. Thomas, suggested that all three Amendments should be taken together, namely, the first, the third, and the fourth.

The Deputy-Chairman

It was an agreed discussion which took place on the three. The other two Amendments have not yet been reached; we are dealing with the second Amendment on the Paper.

Mr, T. Driberg (Maldon)

On a point of order. Does the Closure, Mr. Hopkin Morris, have to be moved separately for a Division on each of the three Amendments, even though the debate has gone on for a considerable time about the three of them simultaneously?

The Deputy-Chairman

We have had the Closure on one of the Amendments.

Mr. Michael Foot (Plymouth, Devonport)

Does that Ruling mean that when we come to the other Amendments, unless they are accepted by the Government it is possible to have a further discussion on them?

The Deputy-Chairman

An agreed discussion has taken place. If the Committee wish, they can divide upon the other Amendments.

Mr. Driberg

When will the Divisions occur?

The Deputy-Chairman

We have to dispose of the Amendment we are discussing first of all.

Mr. Driberg

It is a very odd, irregular position.

Mr. E. Fletcher

I do not think that discussion affects the point I was trying to make. During the discussion on those three Amendments, the Parliamentary Secretary invited the Committee to reject the Amendments, and one of the strong points in his argument was that, having regard to the international convention, it would be inconvenient to introduce into the Bill any proviso to the effect that there should be no Order in Council unless it contained such a provision. He said that these international conventions follow a particular pattern, and that it was convenient that the Act should be in a certain form.

He went out of his way to repeat two or three times that it would be inconvenient to have inserted into the Bill a proviso which had the effect of limiting the kind of Orders in Council that could be made under the Bill. He said the Committee could rely on the Government's assurances that when the Orders in Council were made they would have regard to the points raised by my hon. Friends. In the matter of the first, second and fourth Amendments, he said we could rely on the assurances which he gave that the Orders in Council would not contravene the point which was of concern to my hon. Friends.

I listened with great care, as I am sure did all hon. Members, to the arguments which he gave to the Committee, but the fact is that the Committee unanimously decided to disregard the advice which he gave. They decided that whatever force argument might have, it did not weigh with them. In other words, the Parliamentary Secretary was over-ruled by the Committee, who said that whatever may be the ordinary methods of the international agreements on this matter, the consideration of our own domestic affairs, the necessity to give protection to the people of this country, require special, specific provisions inserted in the Bill.

Mr. P. Bell

Is it correct that this has been done? Does the hon. Member seriously want to go on record as saying that the Committee deliberately accepted the Amendment?

Mr. Fletcher

It is on record. Your predecessor. Mr. Hopkin Morris——

The Deputy-Chairman

It is not in order to discuss that on this Amendment.

Mr. Fletcher

The whole point of my argument to the Committee on this Amendment is the Parliamentary Secretary's advice to the Committee having been over-ruled so decisively on the first Amendment——

The Deputy-Chairman

The hon. Member is making the same point that he has made before.

Mr. Fletcher

I will not mention it again, Mr. Hopkin Morris, but will say that the previous decision of the Committee seems to have removed the most serious arguments which the Parliamentary Secretary might have introduced against this Amendment.

The Committee having decided, in principle, that it is necessary to introduce provisos into the clause, it is, I think, also necessary that there should be provisos in the terms of the second Amendment on the paper; because the arguments are equally cogent with regard to the desirability, in the interests of the British public, that no Order in Council shall exempt persons from Section 3 of the Road Traffic Act of 1930. It seems most desirable that there should be in this Bill the limitations on the nature of the Orders in Council which may be made under its provisions.

You will remember, Mr. Hopkin Morris, that in the last Parliament, and in the previous, how right hon. and hon. Members opposite—and the Parliamentary Secretary not less than anybody else—quite rightly inveighed, over and over again, against delegated legislation. They were always to the fore in urging that Parliament should retain control over the kind of Orders in Council which should be made, and the real issue here is whether Parliament should retain control, in this legislation itself, over the sort of Orders which can be made, or whether it should rely on some assurances given from the Government front bench.

If the Orders are made, the House will have the opportunity of disallowing them by passing the appropriate resolution. Of those alternatives, I would prefer to see a definite provision placed in this Bill so that there can be no question of an Order in Council being created which has the effect of infringing Section 3 of the 1930 Act. I would prefer that definite limitation laid down in the Statute rather than any assurance which may be given from the Front Bench opposite to say that no such Order will be made. I hope that the Committee will come to the same conclusion as it did on the previous Amendment.

Mr. Paget

But, until the intervention of the Patronage Secretary, I think it will be agreed—and I am sure that the Parliamentary Secretary will admit it—that we were having a serious discussion on points of importance. There were, it was agreed, new points arising which the Parliamentary Secretary said he would consider, and it will also be agreed that nobody, on either side, was being unduly long and that we were discussing serious matters.

There were three Amendments to be discussed, and there was nothing unduly complex about them. I would ask the Parliamentary Secretary to remember that the hour is now very late and that we are discussing these matters which are serious and which might affect the lives and safety of people in this country. That is an important matter. Possibly the incident which we have just seen shows that some of us are not quite as bright as we were earlier.

1.15 a.m.

I would say this to the Parliamentary Secretary and to the Minister. Why not let us adjourn now, for there must be a further stage as an Amendment has been accepted? That will give us the opportunity, and the Government the opportunity, to have a look at the arguments that have been advanced. Why should not the Government give us a dummy Order in Council, as is often done, showing what provisions they intend to insert, or consider whether it would not be desirable to put some of these proposals into the Bill? If the Government were to take that line we— I think I speak for my hon. Friends in saying this—we should take very little time on the further stage.

On balance, I think that the right hon. Gentleman will find he will save Parliamentary time if he does that. We regard these Amendments as important. We have had this joke; we have had this fun; but we do regard these matters as serious. We do think they affect safety. We think the Government ought to consider adjourning now——

The Deputy-Chairman

The hon. and learned Gentleman must direct his attention to the Amendment.

Mr. Paget

I shall not be more than a moment, Mr. Hopkin Morris. I would ask the Minister to think over the proposal I have made, because I can assure him of this—and I am sure I speak for my hon. Friends on this—that if he does meet us over this we shall be very quick indeed on the further stage, once we are satisfied that the Government have had the opportunity to look at our arguments and think them over. I am sure that they are sympathetic towards them and perhaps they will show us a dummy Order in Council, which is customary on these occasions, or consider whether it is better to insert these provisions in the Bill.

Mr. Braithwaite

Let me, without being guilty of brushing this Amendment aside in any sense of the word, try to explain to the Committee, without being too lengthy, what its effect would be in its widest interpretation. The consequence would be to preclude compliance with obligations accepted as long ago as the 1926 Convention—quite apart from that of 1949—relating to motor traffic, and the 1949 Convention of Road Traffic to permit the use in this country of vehicles which may not comply in some respects with the regulations which govern our own domestic vehicles but which do comply with the technical conditions as to construction and equipment which are laid down in those Conventions.

It was clearly necessary in relation to vehicles proceeding from one country to another to arrive at an acceptable compromise between the differing requirements of different Governments as to the construction and equipment of the vehicles. This was done in the 1926 Convention and again—this time on a more detailed basis—in the 1949 Convention.

Our regulations provide, therefore, that vehicles brought temporarily into Great Britain shall not be required to comply with Part II of the Motor Vehicles (Construction and Use) Regulations of last year, 1951, other than those relating to maximum dimensions, provided that they comply with the 1926 Convention requirements; and in due course will be expanded to cover the 1949 Convention requirements. Regulations for visiting vehicles have been settled as a result of many years' experience, and are not such as to affect the roadworthiness of vehicles in general, and I do hope that, in those circumstances, the hon. Gentleman will feel able not to press his Amendment.

Mr. Benn

I certainly do not intend to press the Amendment, but I think that the Parliamentary Secretary has done less than justice to the case put to him by my hon. Friends, because they did ask for consideration of one specific thing concerned with the big vehicles that visiting Forces might bring here. All we ask is that in those circumstances the Minister should use the method which is open to him of making a Statutory Instrument cover the cover and laying it on the Table of the House in the normal way, thereby making specific safety precautions for the use of the police and others.

The second point dealt with the importation and use of ordinary foreign cars from abroad. Even that is covered by his powers under the Road Traffic Act, 1930. I think it is a little discourteous to the Committee that the Parliamentary Secretary should not have given us some reason why he and his right hon. Friend are not going to continue to use this method of the Statutory Instrument, which is open to them, instead of just waving it away entirely by a magic and extensive power given to the Minister under this Clause.

Mr. Bing

I intervene again a little diffidently, because I do not want to put the Minister in the position in which the Patronage Secretary hurries in to force the Committee to accept an Amendment which the Parliamentary Secretary has asked us to reject. I think that in the interval—no doubt we have a moment or so before he arrives—-we ought to deal with the sort of questions which have not been dealt with by the hon. Gentleman so far, for example, the right-hand drive.

It is quite clear that cars from the Continent are equipped differently from the cars of this country. What is to be done? Are there to be no provisions at all ensuring that they indicate that the drive is on the other side? Are there to be no arrangements indicating that no hand signals can be given? There may be a car which is not equipped with any form of mechanical signals and from which no hand signals can be given in this country. I should have thought all those were questions which required some sort of answer.

It seems rather foolish for us to spend, as we did quite recently, a whole day debating road safety and yet shortly afterwards, in the middle of the night when dealing with a matter like this, not to give some serious consideration to the question of cars brought in by people from abroad which are not equipped to comply with the Highway Code. In a sense the matter is made more urgent because now everybody in this country has to be acquainted with the Highway Code. But what is the use of their being acquainted with the Highway Code when driving a vehicle from which they cannot carry out——

The Deputy-Chairman

I do not think the hon. and learned Gentleman can discuss the Highway Code on this Amendment.

Mr. Bing

With great respect, Mr. Hopkin Morris, I think I can. The argument I am advancing now is that of the vehicle which is not equipped with the type of signals the driver is required to give under the Highway Code. Under the Highway Code it is obligatory for certain signals to be given. The Committee, in its wisdom, saw fit to insert a provision that visiting cars should comply with the Highway Code, and it would be quite ridiculous for us now not to insist that those cars should be physically so equipped as to be able to fulfil the obligations imposed on them under this Bill. Therefore, we ought to have from the Minister, who I am glad to see here, a statement about what is to be done. Will they have to put up a little notice "No right-hand drive" or "No signals," for example? One often sees that on foreign vehicles, but there are other foreign vehicles which do not necessarily have such a notice.

I am prepared to admit that perhaps this Amendment is not drafted in the best possible way. One can always draft an Amendment far better after all the speeches have been made. It is one of the difficulties of our procedure that that is not possible. I would be the first to admit that this Amendment possibly needs some emendation. But whether it requires it or not, we ought to have from the Minister some explanation of what happens to visitors who drive on the blind side and cannot make signals at all. How can they possibly obey the Highway Code? If the right hon. Gentle- man takes no power to see that foreign vehicles comply with the Highway Code he is making the Bill illogical.

I think we really should have an answer from him on that point, even if he can only go as far as to advise people that the traffic here, unlike the politics, runs to the left, although I think our politics will follow the traffic very soon. However, it is not for us to debate at this moment that point, whatever analogies spring to the mind. That is not the issue. What we are really considering is how we are to provide in the simplest way how a foreign motorist indicates to the person following what he is going to do.

The Minister of Transport (Mr. Alan Lennox-Boyd)

As the hon. Gentleman has specifically referred to me I would like, in reply, to make one or two observations. In the first place he asked me what advice we would give to motorists on this matter. My advice would be that they are welcome in this country, and judging from some of the speeches of hon. Gentlemen opposite that might be a little difficult to understand. These visitors are welcome visitors. On them not only our economic survival, but our military security alike depends.

It is our duty to carry out the international obligations into which we have entered in 1926 and 1949. Hon. Gentlemen opposite are very happy when busy breathing platitudes about the brotherhood of man. As soon as opportunities arise they try to keep the House of Commons in interminable discussions on points of detail which defeat the whole object of the Bill. As far as the broad issue is concerned these provisions which affect the international comity of nations appear to us to carry out fully our international obligations. The more people who come here from those countries who are on our side to take advantage of the privileges provided the better for everyone concerned.

The Deputy-Chairman

This is really getting wide of the Amendment.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd

I am sorry if I have been tempted by some of the baits offered by hon. Gentlemen opposite, but I hope I may be allowed to say that we hope that the particular part of the Bill with which we are now dealing may lead to a wide increase in the number of foreign visitors to this country.

The precise way in which the indication of intended movements on the road may be conveyed to other motorists can be left safely to the general good sense of our people and those visiting this country. If we are not going to show a sensible approach to problems of this kind, then we might as well abandon any hope of bringing the nations of the West closer together. I hope the Committee will say that they recognise what is the real interest behind this sort of Amendment by not proceeding very much further in discussing it.

1.30 a.m.

Mr. Ernest Davies

We have just listened to an extraordinary intervention by the Minister. That was his first intervention in the debate I believe; I am not aware that he was present in the Committee during the early speeches. If he had been, he certainly would not have made the remarks which he has just made. He would have heard a welcome expressed during the debate for any tourists coming to this country. We consider that increased tourist trade is of value to this country, and no one has criticised the provisions regarding the N.A.T.O. agreements.

However, we are also very much concerned about the safety of our own people on the roads. Recently the House of Commons was much concerned in a debate about the question of road safety, and now we are concentrating on whether the action that this Bill proposes will increase the danger of the roads. The Amendment was put down with the object of seeking to diminish that danger and, while welcoming all tourists coming here, we hope that the danger on our roads will not increase to all those who use the roads. Having said that, I should like to say that we want to carry out our international obligations, but there is no point in entering into international obligations if they are going to increase the danger to our own people. We want to make sure that they have this protection.

As regards this particular Amendment, I think that the Parliamentary Secretary failed to give us any convincing reasons why it should not be considered a little more carefully. He referred to the 1926 requirements of the Convention and the 1949 requirements but he did not explain to us what those requirements were. We all felt that if some provision could not be made in the Bill through this Amendment then it ought to be done through Orders in Council or in some other way to make sure that vehicles coming to this country are not in such a condition that they fail to meet our requirements, thereby again increasing the dangers in this country to the people who use the roads.

In view of the fact that the Bill has to go to a further stage on another day, I would suggest that the Minister or the Parliamentary Secretary would give a little more consideration to the matter, and that they should seriously consider the proposal of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) that we should adjourn at this stage and consider this Bill on another occasion.

Mr. Edward Heath rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."

Question, "That the Question be now put," put, and agreed to.

Question, "That those words be there inserted," put accordingly, and negatived.

The Deputy-Chairman

The next two Amendments can now be formally moved and divided upon. Does the hon. and learned Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Bing) wish to move the Amendment in page 2, line 18, at the end to insert: (3) Provided always that no such Order in Council shall authorise any person who has had his licence suspended by any court of law in Great Britain to drive in Great Britain during the period of such suspension.

Mr. Bing

It would be ungenerous if I were to move my Amendment in view of the concession by the Patronage Secretary on the first Amendment. As the Minister will now have an opportunity to think the matter over I therefore beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Hon. Members

No.

The Deputy-Chairman

The Amendment has not been moved, and apparently the next Amendment is not being moved.

Motion made, and Question proposed. "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

Mr. Paget

The performance of the Government tonight has been extraordinary. We had arranged to have an early night. I rang up my wife and told her that I should be back at home by 11 p.m.

The Deputy-Chairman

The Question is "That the Clause, as amended. stand part of the Bill."

Mr. Paget

Owing to the extraordinary ineptitude of the Government, time has passed and the Minister's intervention was the most extraordinary thing that I have ever heard. He wanders in to what had been, until the intervention of right honourables, a serious, friendly, and constructive debate. Then the Patronage Secretary, who also had watched none of the proceedings, wanders in and, by his ineptitude, gives us the Amendment that his own Minister had not given us. After that, along comes the Minister and tells us that throughout this evening we have been violating the principle of the brotherhood of men, when in all conscience what we had been doing was to try to limit the appalling toll on the roads.

As hon. Members and the Minister know, a number of Amendments are put down to open a subject. Amendments have been put down to raise for consideration matters affecting public safety. We received assurances before the Minister's arrival that these matters would be considered, and would be brought into the Statutory Instruments which would be used to bring this Clause into operation.

Then, we were told that this was designed to exercise some spite against the Minister's foreign friends, in which, he told us, Spain was certainly to be included, though we were not quite certain about Yugoslavia. This is really a very remarkable effort——

The Deputy-Chairman

I hope the hon. and learned Member will direct himself to the Question before the Committee.

Mr. Paget

I had hoped that the Minister's speech, with which I was dealing, since it was concerned with Amendments to the Clause, was also concerned with the Clause.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd

I said I hoped that we would welcome visitors from Spain over here. As a large number of hon. Members, a very large number of them from the Socialist Party, go to Spain for their holidays I hoped that we should see some Spaniards here.

The Deputy-Chairman

The discussion, on both sides, is wide of the issue before the Committee.

Mr. Paget

The Minister might have realised that, as he had not been present during the debate, that his intervention was of a most extraordinary nature. He made a speech totally irrelevant not only to the matter but to the whole spirit of the debate we have been having. That is why time was wasted——

Mr. Godfrey Nicholson (Farnham)

On a point of order. Are we discussing a Bill, or are we having a resume of HANSARD?

The Deputy-Chairman

I have more than once called the attention of the hon. and learned Gentleman to the fact that we are discussing the Question that the Clause stand part, and I hope he will keep that issue before him.

Mr. de Freitas

We have had a discussion about Spain and Yugoslavia. Would I be in order in discussing Italy?

The Deputy-Chairman

I have already sought to restrain hon. and right hon. Members from doing so, and I hope that the debate will be confined to the Question that the Clause stand part of the Bill.

Mr. E. Fletcher

It seems to me that we could not possibly expect the Committee to allow Clause I to stand part of the Bill without further elucidation of some of the matters we were discussing on the Amendments previously considered, some of which were withdrawn. If the Minister is now going to take charge of the matter, so much the better, although I am bound to say that his maladroit performance was not conducive to the harmonious or expeditious considerations of the Committee. We were getting on quite nicely when the Parliamentary Secretary had charge of the matter——

The Temporary Chairman (Mr. George Thomas)

Perhaps the hon. Member will confine himself to the Question that the Clause stand part?

Mr. Fletcher

That is exactly what I propose to do.

Clause I has regard to the Orders in Council that may be made for the purpose of giving effect to this international Convention. One of the matters about which the Parliamentary Secretary, under great pressure, gave assurances was the question of the insurances to which residents in this country could look for protection in the event of their being involved in accidents with foreign motorists. I think that under pressure from this side he went so far as to say that no Order in Council would be made except upon terms which——

Mr. Wigg

On a point of order. May we seek your protection, Mr. Thomas, against the private conversations which are going on on the other side of the Committee, and which, I am sure, have nothing to do with the matter under discussion.

1.45 a.m.

Mr. Fletcher

The point which I was trying to put to the Parliamentary Secretary is a serious one. I think he said that no Order in Council would be made unless it gave the residents of this country protection to enable them to recover damages on third-party basis, similar to those which obtain against a British motorist. I am not sure that the Parliamentary Secretary went as far as is necessary to give the assurance which the public of this country are entitled to have. Anyone involved in an accident with a British motorist knows that the motorist is insured with a British insurance company. Therefore, if there is a claim against a perhaps impecunious motorist there is behind that motorist an insurance company which will be able to meet any claim for damages, however much, which may be awarded.

The machinery which obtains in the Act to give that satisfaction, is that the British company concerned has to deposit a considerable sum with the Board of Trade. We want to be satisfied that if a foreign motorist takes advantage of this international convention and is involved in an accident in Britain the British public have at least as much protection against him as against a British motorist. Can we be sure that these foreign motorists will be insured against third party risks with a British insurance company or with an international company which also can be sued in the courts, and against whom a claim, if awarded, may be answerable, and which has adequate funds available in this country to discharge such an obligation?

Mr. Driberg

Impartial persons reading HANSARD on Saturday morning will. I think, agree, as indeed the Parliamentary Secretary may agree on reflection, that this Clause has been greatly improved by the Amendment which the Committee has made to it. I wonder whether the Parliamentary Secretary can tell us something about the provisions which he proposes to make to implement this Amendment.

During the main debate on the three Amendments, I thought that the Parliamentary Secretary's main reply was thorough, serious and courteous. The debate was wrecked only by the arrogant folly of the Patronage Secretary.

Mr. Wigg

And the Minister.

Mr. Driberg

That was later. [Interruption.] When the Minister, whom we all like personally, although we detest his politics——

The Temporary Chairman

Perhaps the hon. Gentleman realises that he is going far from the Question that the Clause stand part.

Mr. Driberg

I hope you will realise, Mr. Thomas, that I was tempted to do by the very audible interjection from the Minister, whose ideological approach. I quite agree, helped to wreck what had been a perfectly serious debate. He made the comment that Spain, of course, was on "our side" in the great international conflict——

The Temporary Chairman

The hon. Gentleman must confine himself to the Question that the Clause stand part.

Mr. Driberg

I was proposing to do so, although if the Minister intervenes again I shall have to seek your protection, Mr. Thomas, as I shall not be able to reply to him, in view of what you have just said.

The Parliamentary Secretary was replying perfectly seriously to the main debate on the three Amendments, and the point on which I thought his reply was least satisfactory was that about the Highway Code, on which he said he did not think it was necessary to make any such proviso as this, because foreigners coming here would in any case realise that they were going into a country with different rules—driving on the left instead of the right, for instance—and would quite naturally make it their business to find out what those rules were.

But the best place to find out what all our rather complicated rules are is in the Highway Code, and I should not think it would be very difficult or very expensive to accept the suggestion made by my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, East (Mr. Ernest Davies), that it is possible to provide copies of the Highway Code to visitors arriving here by the Channel ferry with their cars. It might be possible to provide these copies at Calais, instead of Dover, so that the visitors could study the code on the way over.

In replying to this debate, would the Parliamentary Secretary be good enough to say whether this action has been contemplated, whether the Highway Code is available in various foreign languages—French, German, Italian, and, of course, Spanish—and whether he would give serious consideration to my hon. Friend's perfectly reasonable suggestion. I am sure it would not cost much, and foreign visitors would learn from it and would be glad to study the regulations in some detail.

The only other point I put to him is one which has not been mentioned in the debate at all. Will he say a few words about foot-and-mouth disease? That may sound a little remote, but before you interrupt me, Mr. Thomas, may I say that this is a very serious matter indeed. All of us who know about the terrible epidemics there have been in the past few months in this country——

Mr. Nicholson

On a point of order. Surely we cannot discuss foot-and-mouth disease on this Clause of the Bill.

The Temporary Chairman

I was just waiting to see what was the point which the hon. Gentleman was making. I shall be surprised if we can discuss it, but I shall wait and see.

Mr. Driberg

If the hon. Gentleman had been courteous enough to let me finish my sentence he would not have found it necessary to interrupt and thus waste an extra minute.

Mr. Nicholson

A very long sentence.

Mr. Driberg

It was not a very long sentence. I will repeat it for the hon. Gentleman. I merely said that I was asking the hon. Gentleman to consider a point which had not so far been mentioned—the subject of foot-and-mouth disease. I said that this might seem a little far from the subject of the Bill, but there has been a terrible epidemic: and it is suggested by many authorities— veterinary experts, and others—who are well qualified to speak on the matter, that the infection can be carried on motor vehicles coming in from rural parts of foreign countries, and particularly Belgium, where the disease has also been epidemic, or perhaps, endemic.

The Temporary Chairman

That does not come within the Question that the Clause stand part, and I ask the hon. Member, accordingly, to pursue his argument without such references.

Mr. Driberg

I bow to your ruling, Mr. Thomas, but this Clause is designed to facilitate the arrival of drivers and vehicles from foreign countries; and I want to ask merely if it is contemplated that any additional precautions will be necessary if this epidemic should get worse. I should have thought that, with respect, the Parliamentary Secretary could give an assurance that he would look into this, without going outside the Clause at all. It is a perfectly serious point, because all of us know how drastic has been this epidemic, and I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will deal with it, as well as with the point I have put to him on the subject of the Highway Code.

Mr. J. Hudson

I address my remarks closely to the Question before the Committee. We have forgotten, perhaps, that the Clause has been amended. With regard to my hon. Friend's remarks about knowledge of the Highway Code, and the ability to drive according to our standards, I think that raises in most serious form questions about what is to be done under subsection (3) where it is stated that an Order in Council may authorise the Minister of Transport to make regulations for any of the purposes of the Order, as amended.

I intervene to remind the Committee that the Parliamentary Secretary was very fair, as he has been throughout this discussion, in saying that the matters he had listened to would be carefully considered. Although he could not commit himself, he said those matters would be considered; and if we were relying on his word and his promise, it would be carried out to the best of his capacity.

But something else has happened since that assurance was given. The right hon. Gentleman has come in and given us an exhibition which is beyond all endurance. In view of the attitude on the other side, I really must ask whether that undertaking which has been given will be implemented by the Minister.

2.0 a.m.

Does the right hon. Gentleman really intend to carry out the suggestion I made and which was turned down—the hon. Gentleman saying only that it would be considered? Will the Minister, as the Parliamentary Secretary said he would, give his best attention to this issue? I suggest that visitors to this country should have to follow the same regulations on the roads as all the citizens of this country do—the regulations of the Highway Code, with reference, for instance, to alcohol. Citizens of this country follow the Highway Code whether they drive home from a late night Sitting at the House of Commons or whether they drive to or from elsewhere, and foreigners should do so. Will the right hon. Gentleman be as good and fair as the Parliamentary Secretary was in carrying out what literally must be carried out under the Amendment which was carried?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd

I should hope to be as good and fair as my hon. Friend. He undertook that all the points raised would be given serious consideration, and in saying that he was speaking on behalf of himself and on my behalf. I must say this to the hon. Gentleman, whom I respect and like very much, that if his views on the sale of alcohol ever became universal we should have no problem whatever of any foreign visitors to this country.

Mr. Hudson

Are the regulations to be like that?

Mr. Wigg

I would preface my remarks by thanking the Parliamentary Secretary for the courtesy and kindness with which he conducted the debate up to the point the Patronage Secretary intervened. I am not saying anything about the Minister. We know him, and leave him to his constituents, and can congratulate ourselves that he will not be in the next Parliament.

I wish to direct my remarks to the Amendment which is in the Bill as a result of the arrogance of the Patronage Secretary to ensure—though the Minister says not for long—that persons coming to this country are familiar with the Highway Code. That does present a difficulty, as many foreigners will have but an imperfect knowledge of English. So what is to be done about ensuring that they understand the Highway Code?

Of course, it does not matter very much whether the Minister takes the Amendment out or not. It still remains the fact that thousands of people are coming to this country—so we hope—to drive upon our roads, and whether it is in the Bill or not, whether the Minister takes it out or not on Report stage, it remains the case that foreigners who come here shall be aware of what is in the Highway Code. The delay that has occurred would never have occurred but for the intervention of the Patronage Secretary; these words would not have been there.

We were asking the Parliamentary Secretary to do what he would, I am sure, have agreed to do, namely, to make available copies of the Highway Code to foreigners who want to come into this country. The foreigners who come here have a vested interest in not getting involved in accidents because they are risking their necks as well as those of our fellow countrymen, and I suggest that the foreigners themselves would be glad to have copies of the Highway Code.

I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will be good enough, when replying, to tell us that he is aware of the importance of this point, and that he will make available at the ports where foreigners are likely to come into this country, or make available through motoring organisations of other countries, including Spain, if it so please the Minister— perhaps he might arrange for General Franco to hand to each Spaniard as he departs a copy of the Highway Code in Spanish——

The Deputy-Chairman

The hon. Gentleman is now going outside the Question before the Committee.

Mr. Wigg

With great respect, Mr. Hopkin Morris, I am only replying to the arguments of the Minister who, with his well-known Fascist views, would, I am sure, welcome foreigners——

The Deputy-Chairman

The hon. Gentleman is now out of order.

Hon. Members

Withdraw.

Mr. Wigg

If I am directed by the Chair to withdraw, I withdraw. Otherwise, I do not withdraw.

Hon. Members

Withdraw.

The Deputy-Chairman

That remark was out of order and I think that, on reflection, the hon. Gentleman would wish to withdraw it.

Mr. Wigg

If the Chair orders me to withdraw those words I will withdraw them. Otherwise, I will not withdraw them.

Mr. Nicholson

Withdraw them out of decency.

Mr. Wigg

I am not prepared to take a lesson on that subject from the hon. Gentleman. He might address his remarks to the Minister.

The Deputy-Chairman

All remarks should be addressed to the Chair.

Mr. Wigg

I am quite willing to obey your Ruling, provided hon. Gentlemen opposite do the same, Mr. Hopkin Morris.

The point I want to make is that having the provisions of the Highway Code printed in languages which visiting foreigners can understand is a matter of paramount importance, and whether the Minister leaves these words in the Bill or whether he does not, the subject remains important. I very much hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will give us an assurance that copies of the Highway Code will be made available to foreigners in English if he cannot make arrangements to have the code translated into the languages of foreigners likely to visit this country.

Mr. Braithwaite

I should like now to reply briefly to the points made on this Clause, taking, first, the remarks of the hon. Member for Islington, East (Mr. E. Fletcher) on the subject of insurance, which was debated at some length on the Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale). It is a matter of very considerable complexity, and I confess to having made somewhat heavy weather of it when we were discussing it before. It is not easy to get through without making mistakes, but I am informed that the last statement which I made does clarify the position, and that the effect will be that the Order in Council will carry out the provisions of the proviso which the hon. Gentleman sought to insert.

To the hon. Member for Maldon (Mr. Driberg) may I say that it is rather important to avoid anything in the way of aggravation to foreign visitors who come to us by having a multiplication of regulations or officialdom. It would be a pity if they were greeted in such circumstances when setting foot on our shores.

Mr. Driberg

I quite agree, but they are, after all, bound by the regulations while driving here and I only suggest that they should be enabled, more or less painlessly, to know what the regulations are.

Mr. Braithwaite

My remarks were a preface to what I was about to say about the hon. Gentleman's suggestion, and to what I want to say in reply to the hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) and others. We will, as a result of this debate, examine whether it is administratively possible to give to every visitor from a foreign country entering Britain with a motor car—not every foreign visitor—a copy of the Highway Code in English; but I can give no undertaking that it would be translated into the various tongues spoken throughout the world.

It will be recalled that I said last Friday that a new and simplified Highway Code is likely to make its appearance very soon, and I am not sure whether it would not be wise to await that publication rather than issue a great number of copies which would be out of date. It will not be necessary to insert this undertaking in the Bill because we do not think these words need necessarily go in at all.

On the question of foot-and-mouth disease, the hon. Gentleman will acquit me of any technical knowledge of the subject, but I can say that the Minister of Agriculture will study his remarks.

The Deputy-Chairman

I do not know what foot-and-mouth disease has to do with this Clause.

Mr. Braithwaite

Merely that when the hon. Gentleman put his question your predecessor in the Chair, Mr. Hopkin Morris, did say that as far as it affected foreign vehicles suspected of carrying the infection it was in order to refer to it in passing, and, in passing, I would merely repeat that the Minister of Agriculture will be informed of the hon. Gentleman's remarks. I think those are the main points, and I hope that the Committee, after this very full discussion, will allow us to have the Clause.

Mr. Ede

I want to thank the Parliamentary Secretary for the way in which he has answered the various points of my hon. Friends. I fully accepted, at the end of the exchanges that we had, the view he has now reinforced with regard to the most important question of insurance. He and I had a series of exchanges in which we gradually managed to clear the point up as layman to layman. I am not trying to bind any hon. and learned Gentleman on either side to the form of words we used, but I am quite sure everyone felt it was the intention that a person injured in this country should have the assurance that any award received in the courts would be honoured by the insurance arrangements that had been made.

During the six years down to last year I sat a good many hours in this House listening to the denunciations of hon. Gentlemen opposite on delegated legislation. There can hardly be a Measure and hardly a Clause which does provide, more for effect to be given to the law by delegated legislation than this particular Clause. I think it is probably inevitable there should be a considerable amount of delegated legislation in a matter of this sort, and I hope that when the Orders in Council are prepared and placed before the House we shall have an opportunity of considering them privately before the affirmative Resolutions are moved.

It is quite clear that these will be very important, and we want to be sure that the various undertakings given in good faith tonight are, in fact, in accord with the Orders that are made.

Mr. Braithwaite

I gladly give that undertaking.

Question put, and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.