MOTOR VEHICLES (INTERNA TIONAL CIRCULATION) BILL [H.L.] (Hansard, 13 March 1952)

§ THE EARL OF SELKIRK

My Lords, I move the Second Reading of this Bill on behalf of my noble friend the Earl of Birkenhead. The Bill deals with drivers and motor cars proceeding on international travel. It enables Her Majesty's Government to ratify and give effect to the Convention signed at Geneva in September, 1949, under the auspices of U.N.E.S.C.O., and also to fulfil our part in the agreement relating to the status of Forces of parties to the North Atlantic Treaty, signed in June of last year. Both these agreements have been laid before Parliament and are available for your Lordships to examine. At the present time the facilities which we afford to visiting motorists in this country are rather less than those available in some other countries. Under the Motor Car (International Circulation) Act, 1909, we had not sufficient powers to do all that was done in certain other countries. We now propose, therefore, to bring up our facilities at least to that standard, and possibly in some cases to a rather higher standard.

The way in which we propose to do this is, first, to repeal completely the Act of 1909, but to re-enact parts of it, and to make modifications giving additional powers which seem to us to be necessary. We are however, adopting the same general procedure which was used under the old Act. The actual changes which will be brought about by this Bill may not seem very great, but we are anxious 746 that we shall put ourselves absolutely on all-fours with other countries in regard to the international agreements we have come to relating to the circulation of motor cars and drivers on international roads. May I give an illustration of the sort of thing we have in mind? At present all drivers in this country must have a British driving licence. If a person has an international driving licence, he gets a British licence without test and without paying 5s. If, however, he is the holder of only a national driving certificate he gets his licence without a test, but has to pay 5s. We propose to use the powers under this Bill to make it unnecessary for holders of international licences, or the holders of national licences of countries who have ratified the convention, to obtain British licences. We also propose to ratify or to fulfil our obligations under the North Atlantic Treaty by accepting military permits or national licences when held by Service personnel who are members of States which are parties to the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation.

I think I should state quite frankly that we ask rather wide powers in this Bill. We are proposing to act by Order in Council, and the powers are fairly extensive. I would Submit to your Lordships, however, that the area in which those powers can be exercised is very restricted indeed. It is difficult to see how the purposes of the Bill could be put into force in any other way. Its purposes are limited to persons who are normally resident outside this country and to the cars which they my bring with them, and, moreover, are further restricted to the points on which agreement has been reached in international conventions or agreements. We think it is necessary to proceed by this method because it gives greater flexibility—flexibility in matters which must necessarily go into great detail and which may require to be frequently changed.

I will turn quickly to the Bill. In Clause 1 (1) (a), power is granted to issue certificates to residents of this country who are proceeding abroad. Subsection (1) (b) deals with persons coming temporarily to Great Britain who are normally resident abroad. The remainder of the clause deals with the manner in which those powers will be used and ensures that any instrument made under it will be laid before Parliament. Clauses 747 2 and 3 of the Bill deal with Northern Ireland. There matters relating to vehicles using public roads are transferred to the Parliament of Northern Ireland. As, however, these agreements necessarily contain elements of foreign affairs, we have to put the question beyond all doubt by giving to the Governor in the Privy Council of Northern Ireland full powers to deal with the matters, if he so wishes, in exactly the same way as we deal with them in this country. I should say that Clauses 2 and 3 have been agreed with the representatives of the Government of Northern Ireland. Clause 4 deals with the repeal of Statutes and provides for the continuation of Orders in Council during the transitional period. This Bill will, I hope, give at least some measure of increased facilities for travellers and visitors coming to this country, and for that reason I am sure it will be welcomed in all parts of the House. I beg to move.

§ LORD HENDERSON

My Lords, we are grateful to the Minister for the concise and clear explanation which he has given of the purposes of this Bill. I need hardly say that we propose to support the Bill. There are just two or three general observations I should like to make, and also two particular points that I wish to raise. I was particularly interested to read in the brief speech with which the late Mr. John Burns introduced the Act of 1909 in another place, the statement that every year 2,000 British motorists go to France and other European countries, and every year 700 motorists come from European countries to this country. The growth of international travel is one of the most notable and encouraging developments of modern times, and one which the free world should seek to promote as a means of greater international friendship and understanding.

I have tried to obtain the latest tourist figures for this country, and those which I have obtained are the figures for 1950. I have excluded 1951, because it was rather an exceptional year, in view of the fact that it was Festival of Britain year. Noble Lords will probably remember a debate we had in this House in the summer of last year on a Motion initiated by 748 the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd. In the course of that debate my noble friend Lord Lucas of Chilworth, who was then Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport, told us that the number of foreign visitors to this country in 1950 was 603,000, and that of those visitors 124,000 were Americans. The money spent was £58,400,000, of which £22,300,000—that is to say, the equivalent of 67,000,000 dollars—was spent by American and Canadian visitors. In addition, 77,000 foreign visitors passed through this country, and as no doubt they spent money on their way through, they were a very profitable re-export. I have no idea what proportion of these visitors brought cars with them, or bought or hired cars for their use while they were here, but I am confident that the number must be many times greater than the figure cited by the late Mr. John Burns in 1909, when the first Bill was brought in.

No people in the world are more motor car minded than the people of the North-American Continent, and no people are less inhibited by currency difficulties from satisfying their desires for international travel. If we want foreign visitors—including, of course, foreign motoring visitors—to come to this country, it seems to me wise to cater for their legitimate needs and personal convenience, so far as it lies in our power to do so. As I understand this Bill, it will make a useful and worth-while contribution to that end. One of the main purposes of the 1909 Act was to provide reciprocal arrangements in respect of the registration of cars of motoring foreign visitors. This Bill, I believe, will maintain those mutual benefits and will add to them.

The noble Earl has referred to the question of driving licences. Every foreign motoring visitor who comes to this country at present must take out a British driving licence. Holders of international driving licences are exempt from the driving test, and from the payment of a fee for the British driving licence, but they must go to the trouble of equipping themselves with a British driving licence. Other visitors holding valid national driving licences are also exempt from the driving test, but they have to take out a British driving licence and have to pay 5s. for it. In other countries they do not insist on issuing their driving licences to British motoring visitors. I submit that the revenue accruing from 749 this differential treatment is bound to be insignificant, whereas the inconvenience which it causes must be substantial and produce a good deal of irritation. To accord to foreign motoring visitors the same treatment in this matter as British motoring visitors enjoy when they go to other countries, will, I think, be regarded on all sides of the House as desirable and proper.

Then there is the question of the lighting of foreign motor vehicles. An agreed set of conditions have been laid down in the Convention, and I understand that in some respects they conflict with our own domestic requirements. I have not the technical knowledge to speak with assurance on matters of this kind, but if the Government, with their expert advice and the road traffic experience they have at their disposal, are reasonably satisfied that the risk of danger to road safety will not be increased by the adoption of the convention standards in respect of foreign motoring visitors, then I think they are right to seek Parliamentary authority to make the modification which will be needed.

There are two particular points which I wish to raise very briefly. In subsection (2) (b) of Clause 1, it is proposed that modifications in favour of visiting motorists may be extended to those coming from countries who are not parties to the Convention I understand that the Convention was signed by twenty-seven of the twenty-eight States represented at the Conference in 1950, and by four of the six States that had observers present. I do not know whether any other nations have since acceded to the Convention. Accession is, I believe, open to any State member of the United Nations. I am not clear however, what is intended by the provision to extend the facilities to visitors from non-Convention countries. Should I be correct in assuming that, where this is done, it will be only on the basis of reciprocal arrangements? I imagine that that is what is intended. I should like the Minister to give an assurance to that effect, if not now, then at a later stage.

The second point which I wish to raise refers to the Affirmative Resolution procedure. The Bill provides that both Orders in Council flowing from the Bill and the Regulations under the Orders in Council 750 are to be subject to Negative Resolution procedure. It seems to me that there is a case for making the Orders in Council subject to an Affirmative Resolution procedure. I would point out that the Bill is designed to enable the Government to give effect not only to existing international agreements but also to future agreements. We all know, on both sides of the House, that Departments dislike the Affirmative Resolution procedure and that Ministers, whatever the political complexion of their Governments, consider it a virtue not to trouble Parliament if they can evade doing so. I think it is right that the Government should not be expected to come out with a new Bill every time they make a convention or an agreement with regard to road traffic. On the other hand, it seems to me that to ask for power to issue Orders in Council giving effect to international agreements that do not yet exist, and that Orders in Council should be subject merely to the Negative Resolution procedure, is not reasonable. There is no question about the Regulations issued under the Orders in Council being subject to Negative Resolution procedure, but I would press the Minister to consider, between now and Committee stage, whether this is not a case where it would be right to provide that the Affirmative Resolution procedure should be applied to the Orders in Council made under the Bill. That, my Lords, is all I wish to say on the matter. We welcome the Bill, and we shall be glad to co-operate with the Government in helping it through its further stages.