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

§ EARL HOWE
My Lords, I listened with great attention to what the noble Earl said in introducing the Bill, and I must say that I welcome it very much indeed. I welcome it because I think it will make it easier for foreigners desiring to visit this country, and because it will help to do away with some of the rather irritating divergencies of practice existing at the moment as between this and other countries. At the same time, I do not very much like the procedure outlined in the Bill for using Orders in Council. This is always very confusing and difficult for people to understand, and all sorts of things are apt to slip through without any real discussion either in your Lordships' House or in another place. I quite recognise that this is unavoidable, and I do not see how any other method could be adopted.
I presume that this Bill is the result of, and entirely based upon, the Convention on road and motor traffic. There are a number of valuable points in the Convention, but there are some recommendations which would appear to call for a certain amount of consideration on the part of the Government. I refer first to the recommendation in Article 16, on page 12 of the Convention, Clause 2 (a) of which states: Cyclists shall use cycle tracks where there is an obligation to do so indicated by an appropriate sign, or where such obligation is imposed by domestic regulations. It then goes on to say: Cyclists shall proceed in single file where circumstances so require, and except in special cases provided for in domestic regulations shall never proceed more than two abreast on the carriage way. I very much wonder whether the Government here are going to accept those two recommendations. There is a third recommendation, stating that this shall not apply where domestic regulations provide otherwise. In due course I should like to hear whether Her Majesty's Government propose to accept those two recommendations. It seems to me rather difficult that one should start picking and choosing in regard to an international Convention. You merely pick some of 752 the clauses and not others, of course picking the ones you like. I think the Convention should be taken as a whole, if possible.
Then, on page 20, one finds Annexe 2, dealing with priority of passage, which reads as follows: Where any two vehicles are simultaneously approaching a road intersection by roads upon which one does not enjoy priority over the other, the vehicle approaching from the left in countries where the direction of traffic is on the right, and from the right in countries where the direction of traffic is on the left, shall yield the right of way to the other vehicle. That is a far-reaching clause, and I should like to know whether Her Majesty's Government propose to accept it. It is a clause which, unless it is well understood, may easily result in severe casualties on our roads.
I have already said that anything which makes it easier for the foreigner to come over here and for British drivers and owners of cars to go abroad (in so far as the exchange regulations permit anybody to go from one country to another), is to be welcomed. At the same time, I should like to ask the Government what is going to be done about the Highway Code. Our own Highway Code is written in English. But what about those people from other countries who are unable to read or write in English? The other day I was sent by the Royal Swedish Automobile Club a copy of their Highway Code. I should like to suggest to the Government that the Swedish Highway Code is really worth consideration. I cannot read Swedish, nor indeed can I understand a word of that language, but their code is accompanied by a number of little drawings which are extremely well done and which make every article in the code quite easily intelligible to anybody of the meanest intelligence. I should like to suggest to the Government that it would certainly make our own Highway Code look a little more attractive if small drawings similar to those in the Swedish code were included. I do not think that is covered by any clause in the Convention, but it struck me as being so eminently sensible that I thought your Lordships would forgive me if I ventured to mention it. Broadly speaking, I think I should be right in saying that all those who have to do with the great motoring organisations in this country welcome, and indeed support, this Bill.

§ THE EARL OF SELKIRK
My Lords, I should like to thank noble Lords for the welcome which has been given to this Bill from both sides of the House. I have not said much about the tourist traffic. I am very sorry that the noble and learned Earl, Lord Jowitt, is not taking advantage of his position as President of the Travel Association of Great Britain, to tell us more of its importance. However, perhaps that is so readily recognised to-day that it does not need a great deal of emphasis. I should like to assure the noble Earl, Lord Howe, that anything he says in regard to motoring is obviously a matter which will receive the closest attention. He has raised two points, the first being in regard to cyclists. I think he will note that the clause in the Convention says that cyclists shall use the cycle tracks where there is an obligation to do so. There is no such obligation in this country; therefore that clause will not apply. The other point which the noble Earl raised was in regard to priority of passage. If he will look at page 20 of the Convention, he will see that the United Kingdom have specifically made a reservation in regard to that matter—perhaps he has not yet had that passage drawn to his attention—so I do not think he need be concerned about it. I assure him that his other remarks will be very carefully considered.
I should also like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, for what he has said. He drew attention to two points. One concerned the position under the first clause with regard to extending rights to countries other than Convention signatories. He is correct in saying that the clause will be used substantially for reciprocal advantages—I will not say identical advantages because, as the noble Lord knows, there are occasions when we warn: to lead people to follow our example. I would mention that the Convention has not been ratified by sufficient signatories; and, therefore, strictly speaking, we are not bound by it at all. We can give advantages or facilities which we have promised before the Convention is ratified. Up to now, United States registration numbers have not been recognised in this country. To-day we can do that, whereas in the past we had not sufficient powers and could not. So we may expect that one of the results of this Act will be that 754 we shall see large numbers of registrations coming in. With regard to the other point which the noble Lord mentioned, I ask him to remember that this is a matter which touches foreign affairs, and I think I am correct in saying that the normal procedure for giving effect to Treaties is by Order in Council with Negative Resolution procedure. I do not want to take this matter any further.

§ LORD HENDERSON
My recollection is that when we discussed a Bill last year, or possibly somewhat earlier, dealing with diplomatic privileges and immunities, we agreed that the Orders in Council would be subject to the Affirmative Procedure. That is my recollection, but I cannot be certain. I do not think that this Bill is concerned on this point with the equivalent of a Treaty. It is a Bill to give effect to international agreements, and applies to this country. For the reason I gave—that the Bill covers not merely the Convention and the agreements which have recently been accepted, but will cover also Conventions and agreements which are not yet in existence but which may come in the future, and the contents of which we cannot possibly have any idea about at the moment—I feel that there are grounds for asking that the matter should be looked at again, with a view to deciding whether the Orders in Council should not be subject to Affirmative Resolution procedure. I do not think that the noble Earl can persuade me to change my mind merely by referring to procedure with regard to international Treaties, because I think that on this point the Bill comes in an entirely different category.

§ THE EARL OF SELKIRK
My Lords, the noble Lord is speaking of something of which no doubt he feels that he has a clear recollection. I am only saying that my information is not identical with what he has said. Let us be clear about this. There is no question but that these things can be discussed, if it is desired, and they can be discussed as fully by the Negative as by the Affirmative Resolution procedure. But, as I have indicated, what the noble Lord has said will be very carefully considered.