HC Deb 27 May 1957 vol 571 cc164-75

10.25 p.m.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport and Civil Aviation (Mr. G. R. H. Nugent)

I bee to move, That the Draft Motor Vehicles (International Circulation) Order, 1957, a copy of which was laid before this House on 15th May, be approved. This Order is made under the Motor Vehicles (International Circulation) Act, 1952. The effect of the Order is, first, that it will enable us to ratify the 1949 International Convention on Road Traffic, except for Annexes I and II. It also implements a commitment, accepted under Article IV of the agreement, regarding the status of forces of the North Atlantic Treaty Powers, and it supersedes the Orders of 1930 and 1933, which are no longer adequate.

Although the Order looks long and complicated, its broad effect is very simple. It is to permit visitors to this country to drive on our roads up to a period of twelve months on the validity of a current driving licence from their home country, instead of the present arrangement of issuing a temporary British driving licence to each visitor on arrival in this country. This is set out in Article 2 and it includes the driving of commercial vehicles as well as private motor cars.

Article 3 makes similar provision, but without a time limit, for members of visiting forces, for instance the American Forces, over here. The remaining Articles in the Order deal with such matters as disqualification and withdrawal of licences, the issue of documents for vehicles entering this country, and exemptions from our lighting requirements provided that the vehicles conform with the requirements laid down in the Convention. All countries signatory to the Convention will give reciprocal treatment to our motorists visiting them. There will thus be benefits for visitors from this country to foreign countries and for foreign visitors coming into this country. Our tourist trade will benefit and so will our countrymen visiting other countries. These are both matters we want to see encouraged. Therefore, I think that I can confidently say that this is an Order which will be welcomed on both sides of the House.

10.27 p.m.

Mr. Ernest Davies (Enfield, East)

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary is quite right in predicting that the Order will be welcomed on both sides of the House. Our great regret is that it has not been laid earlier. I cannot understand why there has been this long delay. The United Nations Convention was signed in September, 1949, and was presented to the House in 1950. The agreement concerning N.A.T.O. farces. to which the hon. Gentleman referred, was made in 1950 and another was made in 1951. The necessary legislation, in conformity with the requirements of the Convention, was presented to the House in 1952. It was welcomed on both sides, although we on this side had some criticism to make and suggested some Amendments in Committee. It got through the House very rapidly and received the Royal Assent in July, 1952. It has taken the Government five years to produce the Order and lay it before the House. Their record in this corresponds to their road building programme.

Now that the Order has been laid and will, presumably, receive the consent of the House tonight, I hope that the remaining proceedings will be rapidly carried through. I see from the Order Paper of another place that it will be presented there on Wednesday of this week. I hope, thereafter, that it will receive very quickly the order of the court so that it will come into force.

This should be of considerable assistance to our tourist trade, because there is nothing more infuriating to a tourist bringing his car into this country than to have to go through more formalities than are absolutely necessary. The necessity to obtain a British driving licence, after the presentation of the necessary forms and the payment of a small fee, has been of considerable annoyance to many foreign motorists, arid we are glad that it will come to an end.

I wish to put one or two points to the Joint Parliamentary Secretary, particularly concerning matters raised during the Committee stage of the legislation which preceded this, to make sure that the assurances then given have been fully carried out. At that time we protested that too much was being left to delegated legislation; and even now we are in difficulty because we are here considering the Order, which itself provides that certain regulations have to be made particularly under Articles 5 and 6. These regulations cannot, of course, be presented to the House until the Order is passed, and then I believe that they are subject only to the negative Resolution procedure. We are in difficulty, because we are not certain what the regulations will contain.

Article 1, to which the Joint Parliamentary Secretary did not refer, permits the Minister to issue international driving permits to United Kingdom persons going abroad and it provides that the Minister can give tests to those persons for fees set out in the Schedule. As everyone knows who has taken a car abroad, this procedure is carried out at present by either the R.A.C. or the A.A. That is done quite efficiently and we have no complaint to make about it. But the fact remains that, more or less, it is necessary that one must be a member of one of those organisations, and that entails paying the necessary membership fee. In other words, there is a monopoly.

This Article provides that the Minister, or his Department, can function in this matter. Is it the intention of the Minister that his Department shall carry out this function, or that it shall continue to be delegated as at present? I feel it is desirable that the Minister should have these powers, but I feel that there should he an alternative open to people who take their cars abroad to handle the matter themselves rather than be forced, as at present, to go to one of these organisations. That would be a benefit to some persons.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary referred to Article 2, relating to the bringing of vehicles into this country by foreign tourists and others. This is the most important Article in the Order. But it applies equally to tourists and other private motorists, public service vehicles, namely, coaches, and also to road haulage vehicles, namely, commercial lorries and the like. I would like to be sure what is the position about insurance. I remember that during the Committee stage of the Motor Vehicles (International Regulations) Bill we discussed whether it would be obligatory for those visitors coming in under the Order to be insured against third party risks.

The then Parliamentary Secretary—then Mr. Gurney Braithwaite—in reply to points put to him, said: 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. Then my right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) asked: Third party insurance enforceable in this country?"—[OFFICIAL REPORT. 26th June, 1952; Vol. 502, c. 2619.] The then Parliamentary Secretary replied in the affirmative.

But I can see nothing in this Order which covers that point. I should like to know whether it is covered, because I want to be quite sure that that assurance has been fulfilled and that no driver will be allowed on our roads, if he comes in under this international permit, unless he is fully covered for third party insurance. It is quite clear to us all that that is highly desirable. We do not want anybody to be in a worse position if he is involved in an accident simply because the driver of the car concerned is a foreigner and has not a British driving licence. If it is not covered in the Order it may be covered in the regulations, but I hope that the Joint Parliamentary Secretary can give me some assurance on that point, in view of the definite undertaking given during the Committee stage of the Motor Vehicles (International Circulation) Bill.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary also referred to convictions. It is quite clear, under Article 2 (4), that if someone in possession of one of these international permits is convicted and disqualified from driving he will not be allowed to drive on our roads. That is quite right. There is full provision for the enforcement of that provision in the Third Schedule. That fulfils the assurance given during the Committee stage of the legislation to which I have referred, and for that we are grateful.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary had said that these provisions refer also to members of N.A.T.O. forces who are covered by the agreements entered into concerning those forces. As far as I understand, they are still subject to their own military courts in this country. If they were involved in an accident on the roads while on military duty they would then be heard in their own courts and convicted or not, as the case may be. But if they were found guilty and disqualified from driving by their own courts, would they not be permitted to drive under the permit which we had issued?

I ask that question because of the wording of the Order. It refers to a court. Does that include the United States military courts, because Article 3 (2) refers to disqualification under the 1930 Act? Quite clearly, if a person comes before a United States military court for having committed an offence on the road he will not be tried under the 1930 Act, and it seems to me that under those Articles 2 and 3, as the disqualification referred is only a disqualification under our 1930 Act, there is still a loophole, and that it would be possible for a member of the United States forces—who, under normal circumstances, if tried in our courts would unquestionably be disqualified—still to be allowed to drive on our roads. That would be very undesirable.

There are still doubts whether there is sufficient security that those who bring in vehicles and drive them in this country will be subject to the necessary qualifications to ensure that their standard of driving and the condition of the vehicles is as high as that demanded by our legislation and enforced in our courts. We have special driving licences for heavy vehicles for which the age limit is 21 years. The Order provides that drivers bringing in such vehicles may be 18 years of age, thereby reducing the age limit for these special persons. This is a clear case, where we do not demand the same standard of foreigners as we do for our own people. I do not think that can be justified, although the answer may be that we cannot ratify the Convention unless there is that provision. I hope that that matter has been fully looked into.

One reason for expressing these doubts is the greater size of these vehicles on the Continent, the higher speeds at which they are driven and the higher accident rate which prevails and which gives cause for concern. In some countries drivers do not even have to be subject to driving tests. That is the case in Belgium, where the accident rate is very high indeed. Drivers with a licence in Belgium are to be permitted to drive these vehicles on our roads. That may be necessary so that we can carry out this Convention—and it is desirable that we should do so—but I hope that steps will be taken in whatever way possible to ensure that the drivers are made fully conversant with the Highway Code, our rules and regulations on the road, our standards of driving and our discipline on the roads; and that efforts will be made to enforce our rules and regulations with these special-permit drivers as they are with our own nationals.

The Order provides for the bringing in of commercial vehicles carrying goods and of public-service vehicles. Under the 1930 and 1933 Road Traffic Acts and subsequent Acts a great number of regions exist which require both drivers and vehicles to conform to certain conditions. We want to be sure that those conditions are to apply equally in the case of these vehicles which are brought in from abroad as to the present vehicles registered under the licensing system.

If these goods vehicles are brought over will they be able to ply for hire and reward while in this country? That is to say, if they bring goods over from the Continent will they be able to pick up other goods to take to a destination, and pick up return loads for the Continent? Or is there to be a provision in the regulations which can be made under this Order that no such carrying for hire and reward will be permitted? If those vehicles were not so restricted it would be quite a serious matter for the vehicles licensed under A. B or C licences here. There could be unfair competition and an undermining to a small extent of our licensing system if those vehicles were not subject to the same regulations governing working hours and the like as are our own.

I have raised these points only because I, like hon. Members on both sides, am very much concerned about road safety. It is essential that there should be nothing which will follow the making of regulations which can add to the danger on the roads. The accident figures are appallingly high, and it is essential that they should not be allowed to rise higher as a result of this very desirable encouragement of the tourist trade. We all favour an extension of these exchange visits of tourists and the facilitating of the tourist trade, but we must ensure that all drivers do at least maintain as high standards as we demand of our own people, and that they tend in no way to increase the danger. With those qualifications, I assure the Parliamentary Secretary that we welcome this Order.

10.47 p.m.

Mr. R. Gresham Cooke (Twickenham)

In supporting this Order, I think that I should correct one statement made by the hon. Member for Enfield, East (Mr. Ernest Davies). It is, of course, correct that the motoring organisations have for many years issued international driving certificates, but I do not think that it is correct to say that any candidate presenting himself for such a certificate has to be a member of the motoring organisations or must have paid a membership fee. I believe that anybody can get a certificate from those organisations merely for the cost of the certificate.

A good deal of stress has been laid on the value of this Order to the tourist trade, but it will be of considerable value also to the business community. There are many British business men who go overseas in search of business, or who go to international shows, to whom it is a great convenience to have a motor car when doing their business, and doing away with the international driving licence will assist in that way in the future. Indeed, as the Common Market develops, and when, as we hope, the Channel tunnel is built, I envisage hundreds, thousands of British commercial travellers chasing over the roads of Belgium and Holland and France, and over theautobahnenof Germany, seeking business. This Order will be a move in that direction.

We must not forget the amount of traffic which should flow by the carriage of goods in heavy vehicles. It is not generally realised in this country what a tremendous amount of traffic is carried by big lorries on the Continent of Europe. In going from Sweden to Italy, for example, or from France to Austria. a motor lorry will cross half a dozen frontiers, perhaps, on the one run. That kind of thing is obviously to be encouraged, as also is the Continental coach trade. The Order will assist that very considerably.

I would ask my hon. Friend to bear one thing in mind. We ought, as soon as possible, to convert into law as much as we can of the 1949 Geneva Convention. There are certain items which remain. such as the acceptance of motorised pedal cycles with engines of under 50 c.c. in the category of cycles. That is accepted on the Continent but such motorised cycles are not accepted as cycles in this country; they are still classed as motor cycles. That sort of thing in connection with the Geneva Convention has still to be done, and I ask my hon. Friend to give attention to it. We do not want to fall behind other European countries in making the whole Geneva Convention part of the legislative system of the country.

I have pleasure in recommending the House to accept the Order.

10.52 p.m.

Mr. Nugent

In reply to what my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Mr. Gresham Cooke) has said about Annex I of the Convention dealing with mopeds, which excludes a cycle having an engine of not more than 50 c.c. from the definition of a motor-propelled vehicle, it is not at present our intention to accept that part of the Convention. It is not our wish to depart from the Convention unless we really have to, but we feel that it is in the general interest of road safety—I am sure that my hon. Friend agrees—that all drivers of motor-propelled vehicles should be subject to a test in this country, in view of our very intensively used roads. We have referred the matter to our Road Safety Committee, and we are awáiting its report on it. I may say that the manufacturers' association has not asked for that concession to be included in the Annex; all that the manufacturers have asked is that we should consider a reduction of the age limit. In due course we shall consider that; in fact, I am seeing a delegation from them on that point this week.

In reply to the hon. Member for Enfield, East (Mr. Ernest Davies), I have to acknowledge that the gestation period for this Order has been a very long one. The Convention was signed in 1949, in September I think, and I would merely say in extenuation that it did take about three years before the parent Act of 1952, with which the hon. Gentleman and his hon. and right hon. Friends had some contact, found its way on to the Statute Book. I can only suppose that laws which depend upon international conventions take a very long time to make. I might have been held responsible for some of the legislation considered earlier today, but for the four and a half years taken to complete this Order I take no direct responsibility, although, naturally. constitutionally it is partly mine.

One point in extenuation I will mention, because it is important. The lawyers had some difficulty in agreeing about the effect of the Convention as it affected commercial vehicles and passenger service vehicles. There was a doubt as to whether the Convention would extend to foreign drivers driving any commercial vehicles over here, in addition to the ones with which they came over. We felt that extension to be unacceptable. It is one thing to give the concession to drivers in the vehicles they are accustomed to drive but an altogether different matter to extend it to their use of any other vehicle. To clarify that important point, we are making a Declaration at the same time as we ratify the Convention to remove it beyond doubt. It has, however, taken the lawyers over a year to consider that matter and to reach a conclusion on it, and that has contributed to the time that we have taken.

The hon. Member referred to the undertakings given on the Committee stage of the Bill. As that took place four and a half years ago, I congratulate him on his good memory or his good researches. He asked whether the Minister will continue to delegate the issue of documents for drivers going abroad. The answer is that my right hon. Friend intends to continue to delegate this function to the motoring organisations in this country. In Northern Ireland, the Northern Ireland Government does it. We consider that those organisations are competent and efficient for the purpose. If the Ministry did it, we should need extra staff. That would be an additional cost for which the user would have to pay. We are satisfied that we have the best arrangement. My hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Mr. Gresham Cooke) was right in saying that anybody even if he is not a member of one of the motoring associations, can ask for an international driving permit, and can get it at a fee which is non-profit-making.

The hon. Member for Enfield, East asked whether third-party insurance was obligatory for visiting vehicles—

Mr. Ernest Davies

Is it not a fact that if a person is taking his car abroad and requires the necessary documents,carnet,etc., the only way in which he can at present get them is through a motoring organisation? I was referring not only to the driving tests but to the obtaining of the necessary documents.

Mr. Nugent

I should like to check that point. I think that people can get them themselves, but it would put them to great trouble to do so and it is probably worth the fee that is paid to the motoring organisations, which, as I say, act on a non-profit-making basis. It is true that for that purpose people who are taking their cars abroad would have to join, but they can get the documents without joining if they so wish, although they would be involved in considerable work.

Third-party insurance is not dealt with in the Order because it is not part of the Order. The 1930 Act requires third-party insurance to be carried for every vehicle travelling in this country. That procedure applies to all visiting vehicles in the same way as to our domestic vehicles. The Order, therefore, does not affect that situation. Every driver coming into this country must take out third-party insurance unless he brings with him the international insurance certificate—the green certificate—with which many of us are familiar, and which we have to show in some countries on the Continent. Visiting forces have a special arrangement here which is arranged by the forces themselves and which has the same effect.

With regard to disqualification from driving, the position of members of visiting forces, about which the hon. Member asked, is that if the offence occurs whilst the driver is on duty in an official vehicle, he is subject to the disqualification penalty according to the law of his own country and he is tried by his military court. He is outside the jurisdiction of this country. I am informed, however. that the visiting forces have such penalties in their law and that these are inflicted in appropriate cases by their own military courts. If, on the other hand, a member of visiting forces commits his offence when driving his own private car, he is subject to the law of this country in our courts in the ordinary way.

The hon. Member cited Belgium in connection with driving tests. In Belgium there is no driving test and no licence either. In that case, the Minister will require an international driving test permit before admitting the visitor to this country. In that event, the visitor from such a country would have to get an international driving permit from the authorised agent in his home country before he came here, and would be subjected to some driving test before he came. If, however, he came from a country which did have driving licences though no test, then he would come here without having had a test. We have to make some concession in ratifying an International Convention which does, in its broad effect, give great benefit to all the parties.

As to whether commercial vehicles and passenger service vehicles must conform to our regulations, the answer is, no. With regard to driving licences and vocational driving licences the answer is also, no. They are exempt from that under Section 77 of the 1930 Act.

Vehicle licensing, which comes under the 1930 Act, is not covered by this Order, which deals with driving licences. I was asked if visiting vehicles can pick up passengers for hire or reward. The answer is, no. The age reduction from 21 years to 18 for drivers of passenger service vehicles and commercial vehicles, might have some effect on safety, but it was a concession that we felt it right to make in the general interests of ratifying this Convention and coming into line with other nations. We do our best to bring to the attention of every visitor the driving practices in this country by giving him a copy of the Highway Code.

I hope that the House will accept that we have framed this Order in a way which will conform broadly with the Convention, while maintaining the high standard of road safety which we are striving to keep.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved, That the Draft Motor Vehicles (International Circulation) Order, 1957, a copy of which was laid before this House on 15th May, be approved.