HC Deb 29 May 1952 vol 501 cc1736-54

Order for Second Reading read.

7.25 p.m.

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

I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

This Bill, like its predecessor on the Order Paper, comes to us from another place, and it will, I hope, in due course, form a useful and practical addition to the statutes.

The main purpose of the Bill is to enable Her Majesty's Government to ratify and give effect to the United Nations Convention on Road Traffic, which was signed at Geneva in September, 1949, and to give effect, also, to one of the provisions included in the Agreement relating to the Status of Forces of Parties to the North Atlantic Treaty, signed in June, 1951. This particular provision envisages the acceptance of driving permits or military driving permits held by the personnel of forces visiting this country in accordance with the terms of that Agreement. Both these Agreements have already been presented to Parliament in Command Papers 7997 of 1950 and 8279 of 1951.

Under the 1949 Convention, the Government agreed that they would take the necessary steps to introduce certain modifications in the present arrangements relating to the use and driving of motor vehicles by temporary visitors to the United Kingdom coming from countries which are parties to that Convention. Apart, however, from these specific commitments under the Convention there are certain additional privileges which it is desired to concede to visitors from the Convention countries, and, moreover, with a view to encouraging motorists from abroad to visit this country more freely, it is proposed to extend to foreign visitors generally many of the privileges granted to visitors from the Convention countries. Certain powers for giving effect to international conventions relating to the international circulation of motor vehicles already exist in the Motor Car (International Circulation) Act, 1909.

That was a Measure which was piloted through this House by Mr. John Burns after a debate which lasted some 10 minutes. I do not know whether that is a happy omen for the proceedings this evening, but it is interesting to recall that it was taken immediately following a Division on the Third Reading of the Finance Bill of that year, following on Mr. Lloyd George's famous Budget. History does not relate whether the benches were more thickly populated than they are at the moment. I think it unlikely, as the House had been through a strenuous exercise, but, be that as it may, that Act has lasted for 43 years and worked fairly well.

However, its terms are not wide enough to enable effect to be given to certain obligations which we are now prepared to accept under the 1949 Convention or under the provision of the North Atlantic Treaty Agreement to which I have referred. They are also too restrictive to permit the contemplated additional concessions to visitors from Convention countries or the extension of concessions to visitors from non-Convention countries.

Similarly, the powers already available to the Minister of Transport by the Road Traffic Act, 1930, and the vehicles (Excise) Act, 1949, to make special provision in certain particular respects in relation to persons not resident in Great Britain and to vehicles brought temporarily into Great Britain by such persons, are also inadequate. In these circumstances, it is proposed by this Bill to repeal the Act of 1909 and, in effect, to re-enact it with modifications designed to secure the wider powers now needed to meet modern conditions and requirements. It will be observed that the Bill has been drafted in such a way that effect can be given to any future international convention or agreement without the need for additional legislation.

I need hardly point out to the House that flexibility to enable future agreements to be implemented without the delay involved in securing further, and probably detailed, legislation for the purpose is of special importance at the present time in view of the frequency with which new agreements emerge from the various international organisations which are now in existence.

It is largely to enable effect to be given to future agreements, the exact terms of which cannot now be foreseen, that it was decided in this Bill to follow the precedent of the Motor Car (International Circulation) Act, 1909, and to seek authority for the use of delegated powers. The House will note that the powers to be exercised are confined to a limited field, namely, to matters involved in the provision of facilities for international motor traffic.

Clause 1 provides that provision may be made by Order in Council for the issue of any travel documents which may be required for residents in the United Kingdom and their vehicles for the purpose of travel abroad. In that respect the Clause is a simple re-enactment in revised wording of the corresponding provision written into the Act of 1909.

The Clause will also enable provision to be made by Order in Council for the modification of any enactment relating to vehicles and the drivers of vehicles so that concessions which are obligatory under an international agreement and others which are incidental to, or connected with, matters covered by an international agreement may be made in respect of drivers and vehicles coming temporarily to Great Britain from places outside the United Kingdom.

As an example of the manner in which it is proposed to use these powers, I may say that it is intended to dispense with the need at present imposed by the Road Traffic Act, 1930, for temporary visitors, holding either international driving permits or national driving permits issued by a country which has ratified the 1949 Convention, to hold also British driving licences when driving motor vehicles in this country. It is also intended to extend this exemption to visitors from non-Convention countries provided that they hold acceptable national driving permits.

Perhaps I might remind hon. Members that it is the general practice of continental countries to exempt British visitors holding international driving permits from the need to obtain domestic permits in those countries. A number of countries go further and extend the exemption to visitors holding only British domestic driving licences. Our insistence that holders of international driving permits must hold British driving licences was the subject of considerable criticism during the conference which lead to the signature of the 1949 Convention.

It is, moreover, a constant source of irritation to foreign visitors to be required at the port of entry to make formal application for a British licence which is issued automatically without driving test or fee to holders of international driving permits and without driving tests, but on payment of the normal fee of 5s. to holders of foreign national driving permits who do not hold international permits. It is now proposed to remove this source of complaint and irritation.

Hon. Members will also observe that under subsection (5) of the Clause a draft of any Order under the Clause must be laid before Parliament and be approved by a resolution of each House before it is made, while any Regulations made under the Order will be subject to annulment by Resolution of either House.

Clause 2 deals with the question of Northern Ireland. As the House will be aware, matters relating to the regulation of vehicles and drivers using the public roads in Northern Ireland are, under the Government of Ireland Act, 1920, "transferred" legislative matters within the competence of the Parliament of Northern Ireland. For this reason, the part of Clause 1 which enables provision to be made for concessions to visitors and vehicles from abroad applies only to Great Britain.

There is, however, an element of "foreign relations" in these matters, and, consequently, to avoid any doubt as to competence, specific provision has been made in Clause 2, in terms which have been agreed with the authorities in Northern Ireland, to empower the Governor of Northern Ireland to make concessions to foreign visitors to that country and their vehicles.

The only further point to which I think it is necessary to draw the attention of the House is in Clause 3, which modifies Section 7 (3) of the Vehicles (Excise) Act, 1949, and, in its application to Northern Ireland, Section 13 (5) of the Finance Act, 1920. These subsections will no longer be required in their present form when the Bill becomes law; but their continuance as modified by subsections (1) and (2) of the Clause is required to give statutory authority for a reciprocal arrangement which already exists between the authorities of Great Britain and Northern Ireland under which motor vehicles which are currently licensed in Northern Ireland are exempted from the payment of further vehicle licence duty when in Great Britain, and vice versa.

As I said at the outset, the Bill comes to us from another place, and I trust that the House, after hearing this explanation of the need for which the powers are being sought, will feel able to give the Bill a Second Reading.

7.36 p.m.

Mr. Ernest Davies (Enfield, East)

The Parliamentary Secretary reminded the House that the Second Reading of the 1909 Act lasted only 10 minutes. From the crowded nature of the benches behind me, he will realise that we do not propose to oppose the Bill and that there is no likelihood that it will be very long delayed by my hon. Friends. The moral in that is that if the Government would only introduce legislation of such a non-controversial nature as this the time of the House would not be so fully occupied. Perhaps it augurs well for further Transport Bills which are to come before us.

We welcome the Bill because it facilitates the tourist trade, both inwards and outwards. It is a pity that at the same time as the Ministry of Transport is facilitating the tourist trade within the country it has introduced certain restrictions in regard to civil aviation landing fees which are passed on to the passengers. Nothing is more irritating to tourists than to be called upon to hand out small sums while they are visiting foreign countries. Consequently, we welcome the abolition of the fee previously charged to motorists who came into this country.

There are one or two points which I should like to put to the Parliamentary Secretary. I notice that in the Convention, for the purpose of enacting which the Bill is before us, the relief is only of a temporary nature. I should like to know what was the maximum time that a tourist can be within this country and be exempt from having to take out a British driving licence and having to pay the necessary fee.

As the Parliamentary Secretary pointed out, two categories of people benefit by the Bill. There are the visiting forces who happen to be stationed here under the N.A.T.O. Treaty, and there are also nationals of the countries who have ratified the Convention. With regard to the first category, to what extent are vehicle drivers of foreign forces subject to United Kingdom laws? If a driver who is exempted from obtaining a British driving licence infringes one of our domestic laws—for instance, if a man goes to a party and receives excessive hospitality from his British hosts and is afterwards involved in an accident which is reported to his base—what responsibility has he in relation to any damage caused?

I should very much like to know about the position in such a case. In particular, what happens after an accident occurs and in similar circumstances the penalty on a British national would be the endorsement and suspension of the licence for a period? Would that apply to the foreign soldier, and would it be possible to take away the driving permit which he has in place of a British driving licence? It is important that this should be taken care of, and I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will be able to give me an answer. Because of the increasing number of accidents on the roads, both fatal and nonfatal, it is important that every step should be taken to reduce their number and increase road safety. If, in extending this privilege to foreign troops in this country, we are in any way increasing the risk on the roads, then some further action must be taken.

Perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary could also tell us whether this Convention is in force. I understand that it was signed by 20 member States at the Conference, and it only requires five ratifications before it becomes effective. When it went through another place it was stated that it had not yet been ratified by a sufficient number of member States to become effective. When Her Majesty's Government ratifies, will there be sufficient ratifications to bring it into full force?

I have had a look at this Convention, and, in effect, it is an international highway code, but it seems to me that some of the articles which are included are not really necessary. It seems to have been reduced to the lowest common denominator. It is not for us to criticise it here because the Bill is not very relevant to such articles, but I came across one which rather surprised and mystified me. It is Article 8 (1), which states: Every vehicle or combination of vehicles proceeding as a unit shall have a driver. It hardly seems necessary to include such a requirement in an international highway code. I would ask the Parliamentary Secretary whether this Convention will not require further legislation, or has Her Majesty's Government the power to bring certain sections of the Convention into force simply by regulation?

For instance, I see that cyclists are never to proceed more than two abreast on the carriageway. I favour that because there is nothing more irritating to motorists than to come up behind a herd of cyclists. I do not think that that is at present included in the Highway Code, but I know of no requirement which insists on cyclists riding not more than two abreast. Further, there are certain requirements regarding lighting which certainly are not effective in this country now.

I know that they do not have to come into effect until a certain number of years after the Convention has been ratified, but there is a requirement that cars should have two red lights or reflectors at the rear. As is well-known, a large number of British cars have at present only one rear light. Does that mean that after a certain time when this Convention is ratified it will be necessary for all cars on the roads to carry these two rear lights?

The Convention also requires that headlights and pass lights shall illuminate what appears to me to be a greater distance on the road than most headlights are capable of doing at present. In future, under the Convention the minimum requirement appears to be 325 feet, and I think that most motorists would agree that the headlights of cars today, except a modern car, are not as effective as that. A protocol on road signs accompanies this Convention, and it endeavours to standardise signs which are used in a number of countries and which facilitate foreigners who cannot speak our language. Again that contributes towards road safety. I notice that we did not sign this protocol, and I was wondering why and what we are going to do about it.

As I said at the outset, we on this side of the House welcome the Bill. We consider that it is desirable that there should be an effective international code, which is in the interests of road safety, and which at the same time facilitates tourism in this country, an aspect of the matter with which we are mainly concerned tonight. I trust that the Parliamentary Secretary will be satisfied with the short time which it will take for this Bill to receive its Second Reading.

7.46 p.m.

Mr. Gerald Nabarro (Kidderminster)

I believe that the late Ernest Bevin said in this House in 1946 that one of his lifetime's ambitions was to create a state of affairs whereby a British citizen might travel across Europe without a passport. I rise this evening to make the same plea in connection with motor vehicles. I have waited back here this evening, because tomorrow morning I am flying to Stockholm to collect my car and drive it through three or four Scandinavian and Western European countries. I am using this Parliamentary opportunity to endeavour to demonstrate the extraordinary and incredible complexities which face one today on taking a motor vehicle abroad and driving it through a number of countries.

The British national going abroad must have not only his passport, but, in addition, he must have documents called the International Certificate for Motor Vehicles, the International Driving Permit, and the International Fiscal Permit. There is a fifth document which I am unable to produce this evening because my car has gone ahead but it is called a carnet, a sort of passport for a motor vehicle on which are entered a large number of details of the motor vehicle concerned.

To take a motor vehicle abroad from this country often involves a British national writing 20 or more letters, signing his name 50 or more times, and, however expert he may be in the process, it may often occupy six to eight hours of working time to comply with all the bureaucratic details required on the various forms that must accompany the vehicle or the owner of the car.

I am sorry to say that this modest Bill, which has a few good features to which my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary and the hon. Member for Enfield, East (Mr. Ernest Davies) referred, is in measure a re-enactment of the Statute of 1909, but makes little or not contribution towards the simplification of the complexities to which I have referred. It is true that a foreign citizen coming to this country is to be relieved of the responsibility for getting a British driving licence, but it in no manner or wise helps a British national going abroad, for he is still faced with this mass of complications to get his car out of the country and then to get it from country to country in Western Europe, in North Africa, and the Middle East.

I would make a plea for the simplification of procedure, on an international scale, for the movement of a private motor car and similar vehicles. Is it necessary for such a vast amount of detail to be shown on the travel documents? On the carnet for an ordinary standard British motor vehicle, manufactured in this country, one has to show the registration number, the chassis number, the engine number and the numbers of all five tyres on the car; the detailed specification of the vehicle, its colour and the colour of the upholstery, the nature of the radio set, if any, in the car and the reference number of the manufacturer of the radio set; details of the spare tools carried in the back of the car; and a host of other details much of which I conceive to be totally irrelevant.

A measure of standardisation of the bare and irreducible minimum of the details and specification of the motor car and equipment is urgently wanted, by international agreement. We are hemmed around by more than enough restrictions, controls and interference by bureaucratic officials. In the case of motor vehicles moving around the world, provided the person concerned has a passport, an effort should be made under the leadership of this country to simplify the procedure.

My final point is probably unique. There is no reason why the British passport, British issued International Driving Permit, British issued International Certificate for Motor Vehicles and British issued International Fiscal Permit should not be amalgamated into one and the same document. Each of these four documents need cover only a few pages. There is more than enough room in the passport for them to be inserted.

Mr. Ernest Davies

Not everybody requires to have such documents in his passport.

Mr. Nabarro

No, but the point is that if I, as a motorist, wished to take a car abroad, I would apply for these documents and have them mounted in my passport. They should then be valid for the same length of time, that is six years, as the British passport, so that the whole of the documents are renewable on the same date. They would all be contained within the one cover as one omnibus document, to carry the human being around a number of countries in Western Europe and elsewhere and it should carry his motor vehicle around as well. The hon. Member for Enfield, East (Mr. Ernest Davies) is cynical about this idea. He has experience of the Foreign Office. Has he any experience of moving a motor vehicle around? I will willingly give way to him.

Mr. Davies

I have taken my car abroad.

Mr. Nabarro

Has the hon. Gentleman tried to take it through a dozen countries in one trip, each country with different rules and regulations? Has he suffered the extraordinary inconvenience which is experienced by many British motorists travelling abroad?

I make a plea for standardisation and simplification, and that the lead should be given by this country. We make more motor cars than any country in the world, other than the United States of America. We have a great motoring tradition and powerful motoring organisations such as the Royal Automobile Club and the Automobile Association. We should be capable of furnishing the necessary leadership in this matter.

7.55 p.m.

Lieut.-Colonel Marcus Lipton (Brixton)

The hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) is to be congratulated on the dogged pertinacity with which he is setting out to have a holiday over the Whitsun Recess. I trust that his pertinacity will be rewarded, that he will find his car waiting for him when he gets to Stockholm, and that laden with all the documents to which he has referred, the car will not break down in the course of his travels.

He has raised matters of moment which would require a further meeting of the United Nations. I do not think it will be within the competence of the Parliamentary Secretary to hold out any immediate prospect of an early solution of the difficulties to which the hon. Gentleman has referred. The difficulties are surely a reflection of the general international situation. If other aspects of that situation were to be improved these difficulties would be taken in their stride and solved.

As I listened to the Parliamentary Secretary commending the Bill to the House I thought he drove along at what might be described as a rather spanking pace. It was not possible for the slowwitted among us to absorb all the points which he incorporated in the course of his remarks. I was rather taken with his reference to the flexibility which the Bill will confer upon the Government in its administration. Those of us who sat in previous Parliaments spent many long and weary hours listening to hon. Gentlemen now sitting opposite—I have no doubt that the Parliamentary Secretary played his part in those days—denouncing the Government for introducing delegated legislation which gave the Government wide powers and provided flexibility.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, South (Mr. H. Morrison), when he was Leader of the House, used to commend this kind of legislation on the ground that it gave flexibility. He was fiercely and continuously attacked for introducing legislation of this kind, but I have no objection at all to it. It seems clear that the Parliamentary Secretary, with responsibility, has acquired wisdom and experience which are on all fours with what was advocated in his hearing on many occasions by previous Administrations.

My hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, East (Mr. Ernest Davies) referred to the subject of lighting. There are differences in the lighting codes of different countries. If I am driving behind a very modern American car I am dazzled by the array of red lights at the back, which flash in and flash out. Some of them are apparently permanent while some come out and then disappear. I do not quite know what the object of all that posterior illumination is. It is confusing, unless one has the handbook which will explain what it all boils down to. If I see one of those cars ahead of me I let it get as far ahead as possible so that I shall not run the risk of being confused by the manipulations that are taking place in the rear of that car.

As has been made clear by previous speakers, the Bill gives effect to a United Nations Convention, and to the extent that we do anything to support or bring into effect such a Convention, we are doing something that is good and proper.

The Parliamentary Secretary may rest assured that this Bill will not be opposed. My hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, East (Mr. Ernest Davies) correctly interpreted the views of all my hon. Friends who heard him tonight when he gave an undertaking that this Measure would not be opposed. Although there have been occasions on both sides of the House when front bench speakers have not always correctly interpreted the views of back bench Members, on this occasion there is no difference of opinion between the back benchers on either side of the House and the two front benches.

Although the Parliamentary Secretary almost exceeded the speed limit in commending this Bill to the House, I hope it will shortly find its way on to the Statute Book and help the closer contact that we all want to see established between motorists in different countries. If we establish friendly contact between motorists, who knows?—we may be able to establish a more friendly contact between larger sections of the respective populations.

8.4 p.m.

Mr. Ronald Russell (Wembley, South)

I am sure everyone will sympathise with my hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) in the large pile of documents he seems to have acquired in his efforts to go abroad tomorrow. On the several occasions on which I have had the good fortune to take a car abroad, I have never had to collect such a large number of documents. My hon. Friend has either been unlucky in where he got the documents, having had pressed on him more than he needs, or else he is visiting some strange countries outside the normal conventions—

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton

Perhaps he has a different kind of record from the hon. Member for Wembley, South (Mr. Russell).

Mr. Russell

In going to Spain last year the only documents I took were a carnet and an international driver's certificate. I was not asked for the latter but I had to produce the carnet at the proper place at each frontier. So there is a certain amount of paper wasting.

I think the reason why the carnet and other documents require so many particulars—such as the engine number, chassis number, registration number, colour and so on—is because of that system of protecting Her Majesty's home industries against foreign competition, of which I am sure he and I and most hon. Members of this House approve, which is enforced in most countries. It is to make sure that we do not try to sell our car abroad or change the engine, which is not difficult these days, and bring in something we did not take out.

Mr. Nabarro

I am sure my hon. Friend has overlooked the fact that, if there were the measure of reform which I advocate, all of the car documents would be mounted in the one and same passport document. It would be stamped to show that the national had taken his car abroad, and as the national would have to produce his passport to get back into this country, it would also be shown that he had come back without his car.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Mr. Hopkin Morris)

I hope the hon. Member is not making a second speech.

Mr. Russell

I would not want my passport to be bigger than it is, particularly when one goes abroad without a car and has to carry the passport in a pocket instead of being able to dispose of it in the car.

There are one or two questions I want to ask my hon. Friend. I am intrigued to know why there has been a delay of three years in bringing forward this Measure when the United Nations Convention took place in 1949. The hon. Member for Enfield, East (Mr. Davies) perhaps would be more in a position to explain that than my hon. Friend, though I do not press the point.

I also want to ask whether there is any prospect of third party insurance being made more interchangable than it is at present. In most countries of Western Europe one does not have to take out a third party insurance if one is the holder of a British certificate. I went to Denmark before the war without something I should have had, possibly my insurance policy, and I had to take out a third party insurance in that country. I hope this Bill or any future convention will solve that problem and make the third party insurance even more widespread than it is now.

Also, could the fees which have to be paid on crossing frontiers be made more universal—perhaps I should say, less universal? One often finds in crossing a frontier by car that a fee is charged either on going into one country or on coming out of one, when one may have deliberately exhausted all one's currency of either of the two countries. Could there not be some standardisation of those fees which are charged presumably by the Customs for examining documents?

Both hon. Gentlemen opposite mentioned lighting. That is a complex problem which is also bound up with the difference in the rule of the road. Here we have almost universally a system of headlights by which the offside one can be switched off and the near side one dipped. That is useless in other European countries because it has the effect of switching the near side light, if not into the eyes of oncoming drivers, of making them think it is switched into their eyes. I remember once in Germany when a motorist stopped me and nearly smashed the window of my car in his anger because I had not dipped my headlights sufficiently.

There are different regulations covering headlights in many countries. In France it is necessary to have yellow headlights or a yellow filter over a headlamp. It is true that I managed to get through France in both directions last year without such a filter, but I took great care to dip the lights whenever there was any oncoming traffic. I am wondering if in future we could have some standardisation of headlights both as to colour and dimming.

Like other speakers I welcome this Bill. I hope it will make the circulation of motor cars internationally even easier than at present. I hope it may be the forerunner of more standardisation and more conventions which will facilitate still more the speeding up of international road traffic.

8.9 p.m.

Mr. Braithwaite

If I may have the leave of the House to reply briefly to the points which have been raised may I say that this debate certainly compares favourably with its predecessor in 1909, when the Minister in charge of the Bill was John Burns and the only other speaker from the Tory benches was ruled out of order after delivering a few sentences. The only other contribution came from a representative of the usual channels who moved that the Bill be committed to, a Committee of the whole House. We have certainly gone wider tonight.

The hon. Member for Enfield, East (Mr. Ernest Davies) will not expect me to follow him in the matter of civil aviation fees, for the obvious reason that I should incur your displeasure, Sir, if I did. However, he asked me certain questions to which I shall endeavour to reply briefly. He asked how long visitors from abroad with cars might be regarded as temporarily with us. The period is 12 months. That is a generous allocation of time for what may be described as a temporary visit.

Visiting forces who break our laws are still operating under the 1942 agreement made during the war, by which they are dealt with by their own military courts for offences of this kind. At the moment we have with us only Americans. Should other N.A.T.O. forces come to this island, there is in contemplation legislation to cover them also; but that is not in existence at the moment.

The hon. Gentleman suggested that I ought to say a word about the position of civilians from other countries who break our laws, particularly in the matter of offences which, were they dealt with here among our own people, would mean either suspension or endorsement of licence, because the matter was one of very considerable importance.

The hon. Gentleman cited an instance where hospitality had been too much for drivers. That is the sort of thing that happens. Anyone who is in charge of a motor car when drunk in this country is, of course, liable to have, and frequently does have, his licence withdrawn or suspended. We cannot do that with a foreign licence. What will happen under the proposed new powers in such a case is that the licence will be impounded and returned to the offender when he leaves our shores. One imagines that he would exchange his ration card for his licence when he was leaving.

Where the offence which is committed is one which would have brought endorsement to one of our people, that is a more difficult matter to handle. What happens is that the court reports to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport that the offence has taken place, and we communicate with the country from which the offender comes, telling them that he has committed an offence in this country which would have brought endorsement of his licence. It is for them to take such action as they think proper.

Mr. Ernest Davies

Could we get the position of visiting troops quite clear? In effect, if an offence was committed which would result in suspension of a licence we cannot take any action whatever; and we have no guarantee that the military authorities of the foreign State would take the action which we would take. Is this correct?

Mr. Braithwaite

That is so, under the 1942 arrangement. In fact, however, foreign countries take a very grave view of such offences. I am talking now, of course, of military personnel in uniform. At present, the vast majority of those who drive American military vehicles in this country are, in fact, British civilians. That is one of the things which sometimes happens in practice. The hon. Member can rest assured that the matter is being dealt with.

I was then asked about ratification. Sufficient ratifications were obtained for the convention to come into force on 26th March this year, the necessary five countries having assented. As the hon. Gentleman knows, these provisions are operated by us through Orders in Council. The hon. Gentleman asked about the protocol. I remind him that what the Bill does is to empower the Government to sign. There are certain matters in the protocol to which we do not at present assent. It is unlikely, therefore, to be signed at the moment. There are certain things with which we do not entirely agree.

We would all wish my hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) an enjoyable trip. He did not tell us the route which he proposes to follow. I think he said that he was going to Stockholm, and I have engaged in a little research. If my hon. Friend is going to Sweden, Norway, Netherlands, Belgium, France, Switzerland and Luxembourg—which is as far, I think, as he ought to get during the Whitsuntide Recess, unless his driving is to be like that of the manner of Jehu—all those countries have signed the 1949 Convention, and my hon. Friend will find reciprocity in force. If he penetrates further to Egypt and Israel, he would find the same happy situation. I hope that he will not encounter too much difficulty during his trip.

My hon. Friend pleaded for simplification in these matters. It was the hon. Member for Enfield, East who pointed out, quite rightly, that so often these international agreements are based on the lowest common denominator. They very often are difficult to achieve, and often fall short of what one would like to see. Of course, one would like to see advance in all these matters, and it is my belief that this may well be not the last of such agreements. The Bill gives us power to act upon them as and when they are made.

My hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster pleaded for one document embracing the passport and everything else. I am sure that this does not apply to my hon. Friend, but if there was only one document those who lost it would be in a far graver situation than if there were six. There are people who go abroad and who are good at losing documents of this kind. But not so my hon. Friend. At any rate, that is the kind of objection which might arise.

The hon. and gallant Member for Brixton (Lieut.-Colonel Lipton) pointed out that the provisions of the Bill were the result of United Nations negotations. I congratulate the hon. and gallant Member for addressing the House for some 10 minutes without mentioning London fares—another subject which is at present troubling the Department.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton

I can soon put that right.

Mr. Braithwaite

If the hon. and gallant Member did so on this occasion, he would be out of order.

I am sorry if the pace was too hot when I made my speech on Second Reading. That was not my intention. In any case, the hon. and gallant Member is not one of the slow-witted Members of this assembly, and I am quite sure that he followed everything I said.

Flexibility and the machinery to allow it to operate is, of course, borrowed lock stock and barrel from the 1909 arrangements. In these international matters, it is a good thing if one can move quickly without having to go through the full processes of a Parliamentary Bill. The machinery in this instance is the result of an Amendment inserted from another place on the motion of a noble Lord who adorns the Opposition benches there. I hope, therefore, that the hon. and gallant Member will not complain too much about that.

Lighting is, of course, a problem. Once again, what we endeavour to get is a general agreement on board principles without going into points of detail. There is a shortage of material which prevents us from carrying posterior warnings—

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton

Posterior illuminations.

Mr. Braithwaite

There is a shortage of material which does not enable us to go in for quite such flamboyance on our own vehicles, but we adhere to the main principles of lighting in these international conventions. They vary a little from time to time.

My hon. Friend the Member for Wembley, South (Mr. Russell) asked why there had been three years' delay in introducing the Bill to ratify the convention. We plead guilty only to six months of that period as Her Majesty's present advisers. I do not know what delayed our predecessors. It may well have been pressure of Parliamentary business. Hon. Members will remember the ease with which they seized the opportunity for maladministration during that time, and how a number of Measures which were put through are now in course of being removed or remoulded.

My hon. Friend asked also about the question of insurance. This is a very pertinent point, and I am pleased to inform him that a new international arrangement is now being finalised at Geneva; and this will be put into operation as soon as practicable.

There are many other matters which must be discussed in future on an international basis. This is a good beginning. A number of quite useful agreements were written into this Convention, and I hope that there will be many more. We are moving into a sphere in which international agreement in these matters is somewhat easier than it used to be years ago. The fact that this honourable House, the Parliament of Great Britain, allows the Bill to go without a Division, will be regarded abroad as an earnest of our intentions in this matter to cooperate with other countries in this important sphere of transport.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Committed to a Committee of the whole House.

Committee upon Tuesday, 10th June.—[Mr. Thompson.]