HL Deb 10 February 1977 vol 379 cc1281-302

3.29 p.m.

Baroness STEDMAN

My Lords, I beg to move that the Draft Road Vehicles (Registration and Licensing) (Amendment) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 1977 be approved, and I suggest that they and the draft Road Vehicles (Registration and Licensing) (Amendment) Regulations 1977, with the leave of the House, be considered at the same time. These regulations seek a standard charge of £50 for the transfer on request of a vehicle registration mark from one vehicle to another. They have already been passed in another place.

While the transferring of marks is a subject which seems to excite considerable interest—it has a certain entertainment value—it is a matter of little importance when set in the context of the many pressing issues which the country faces today. I shall therefore make my remarks brief and, I trust, to the point. May I say first, that, the Government have every intention that the facility to transfer a mark from one vehicle to another should continue indefinitely. We recognise that many people enjoy having on their cars marks to which they have a sentimental attachment, or which they deem to be distinctive or unusual. We have no wish to put a stop to this innocent and sometimes amusing practice. That is why we took powers in the Finance Act 1976 at last placing the transfer of marks, which has been going on for over half a century, on a proper statutory footing. But, at the same time, we see no reason why those who wish to transfer their marks should not pay rather more than the cost for the privilege of doing so. After all, the registration and licensing system, which creates the possibility of having a cherished mark in the first place, is, though essential, expensive. If its cost to public funds can be offset a little, that is all to the good. It is for this reason that Section 12 of the Finance Act states explicitly that the charge need not be related to the cost, and it is for this reason that the Government seek a charge of £50 for a service which today costs between £10 and £15.

We do not regard £50 as in any way a punitive price. The market value of a cherished mark—or, to be precise, the vehicle bearing it—may be as much as several thousand pounds, with the average being of the order of £150. The proposed charge is not a great deal in relation to that. The motorist who is fortunate enough in these times to be able to afford a new car every year can afford £50 to transfer the mark at the same time. And the average motorist, who changes his car every three or four years would, in effect, pay about £15 for the privilege of retaining his mark. That is certainly not excessive. It is not the object to forestall potential applicants with a high charge, and I doubt that the number of applications would fall substantially as a result of this increase. Perhaps I may anticipate one possible objection to the charge; namely, that it represents a ten-fold increase on the present one. That is so. But it must be remembered that the present charge has stood since 1924, when £5 was the present-day equivalent of something approaching £100. This also illustrates that making a profit for the Exchequer from transfers is hardly a new idea and the profit margin in 1924 must also have been a very handsome one.

Some may argue that £50 is, on the contrary, too little; that those who wish to indulge in this luxury, while many cannot afford a bag of potatoes, should jolly well pay for the privilege of doing so; and that a charge of double the proposed figure, if not more, would be right. My reply would be that not all transfers of marks are to new and expensive limousines. In fact, two-thirds of the transfers are to second-hand vehicles, and all makes of cars are represented. Nor are all cherished marks distinctive marks. But there is no practicable way of distinguishing the valuable mark from the sentimental one, or the rich applicant from the poor. A charge which substantially exceeded £50 might be beyond the pocket of a large number of cherished mark holders. In sum, the proposed charge is a reasonable but not an excessive one, and it will provide some relief to the Exchequer in a fairly painless manner. I commend these regulations to the House. My Lords, I beg to move.

Moved, That the draft Road Vehicles (Registration and Licensing) (Amendment) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 1977, laid before the House on 18th January, be approved.—(Baroness Stedman.)

3.34 p.m.

Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON

My Lords, I should like to start by thanking the noble Baroness for so briefly introducing these regulations. I hope that she and the House will forgive me if my speech is slightly longer than hers, because I have not only to express the indignation of myself and my colleagues, but also to speak for my noble friend Lord Belstead who feels considerably perturbed about these regulations; and as the regulations for Northern Ireland are the same I shall be speaking on both. Therefore I crave your Lordships' indulgence if I speak for him too.

From the noble Baroness's opening remarks in introducing these regulations, it would appear that they involve only a little harmless, perhaps slightly disreputable, personal idiosyncrasy, and a new charge—a mere administrative bagatelle, in other words. And in comparison with certain items with which we may find ourselves involved later this year, when we consider that in all probability we shall be asked to compress what might in other times have been a century of constitutional evolution into a few brief crowded Parliamentary weeks, the insignificance of our business today must appear all the more palpable. However, I would argue that there are certain features of these regulations which give them a considerable degree of importance.

First, nothing which affects the rights of individuals, on whatever matter, is unimportant, and here we have a set of regulations which abrogate certain rights formerly held by the private citizen. Secondly, nothing which affects the purses of private citizens should be lightly passed over by this House, and vigilance on this topic is surely more than ever necessary in our present economic circumstances. Thirdly, anything involving the relationship of Government and trade unions is obviously of some interest and importance. It is my contention that all these three major issues which I have mentioned are involved in this little set of regulations which your Lordships are now considering, and, indeed, that the Government have so mishandled this whole affair as to elevate these regulations from a mere figment of vexatious legislation, a grain of sand in the great anonymous ruck of statutory paper, into an abuse of considerable proportions.

Let us consider the history of this squalid affair. I hope that no one will be so naive as to deny the connection between the industrial action of July last and the new regulations in February this year. I know that provision for increased charges was made in last year's Finance Act, as the noble Baroness said, but their implementation and the new regulations governing future licence transfers followed so clearly after the industrial action at Swansea that it would stretch credulity more if we were to deny the connection, than if we were to see the new charges and regulations as part of a deal to bring the industrial action to an end.

Why did certain civil servants unilaterally and in breach, at least, of the spirit of their terms of employment refuse to perform part of their duties? It was said that civil servants engaged on these duties were subject to harassment and were even offered bribes. But surely there must be many more civil servants in contact with the general public who are, in the course of their normal duties, harassed bullied and threatened, or who encounter attempts to suborn them. I find it hard to believe that the entire vehicle licence transfer unit at Swansea, all its officials, in a whole year's operation have to face as much aggressive behaviour as the average traffic warden in central London meets in one day. No, my Lords, such difficulties as the Swansea unit has to deal with are part of the job and the officials involved must be prepared to deal firmly and decisively with awkward customers and to repel inducements.

I suspect that the origin of the troubles in Swansea does not lie in the telephone manner, whether blandishing or threatening, of the unit's customers. The Swansea centre, since its much heralded inception, has suffered the teething troubles of any new infant. Thus far, the great increase in efficiency and speed of handling, which was anticipated from this new and expensive unit, has not materialised. Not only that, but the unit possesses, as we know, a large expensive and much publicised computer. The computer has now come to occupy an honoured place in what, if we still had a music hall, would be music hall comedy. I am sure that the generality of computers go about their business and perform their functions in an impeccable manner, but there is no doubt that when a computer malfunctions the attendant possibilities of confusion and confoundment are limitless, with chaos beyond the dreams of even the circumlocution office.

Every now and again—I am sure that, statistically, the incidence is infinitesimal—an old lady in a Suffolk village tremulously posts off her driving licence to Swansea, to receive back a heavy goods vehicle licence, usable in nine European countries and made out in Welsh. The Press, needless to say, gleefully seize on such instances. The result of a series of highly publicised errors, added to the general public's dissatisfaction with the, thus far, lack of success of the Swansea centre, has, I suspect, seriously undermined the morale of those working there.

Low morale is a prime breeding ground for malcontents, and it may be possible that in the civil servants' trade union malcontents are considerably overrepresented. But the responsibility for this lies directly with the Department of Transport. It may very well be that the problems of morale at Swansea required firm and sympathetic handling and that the management at the Centre needed to be stiffened and encouraged in their endeavours to sort out this dispute. All of these steps should have been initiated by the Minister and his Department. Instead, not only was nothing done but the Minister's attitude almost encouraged the persistence of the action.

Our debate today ostensibly concerns only the new charge for these transfers. The regulations are made by ministerial edict and are not subject to Parliamentary review. However, I hope that your Lordships will agree that we can reasonably discuss the sandwich's contents as well as its price. I am afraid that the content of these regulations seem to be so designed as to make it extremely difficult to effect number transfers in future. In particular, it will be difficult for motor vehicle dealers to continue with their practice of using distinctive number plates as a form of advertising. In future they will be unable to transfer such plates until they have been on the same vehicle for nine months. Motor showroom display vehicles have a service life of only four to six months. This means that this form of commercial advertising, which has been practised for many years, will now be impossible. To add further burdens to the difficulties of the motor trade during a period of major economic difficulty is quite injustifiable and shows gross insensitivity, I suggest, on the part of the Government.

Also, transfers between different classes of vehicle will no longer be possible. This is a further needless annoyance masquerading as a regulation. In particular, many persons, especially dealers in these number plates, used to keep them in suspended animation between transfers by transferring them to mopeds. Now that these new regulations have come down like an iron curtain, apparently these number plates will remain on mopeds in perpetuity. Nor does this restriction affect only dealers. Why should anybody be debarred from transferring a number plate from one class of vehicle to another? What harm can possibly come from such a transfer? What possible grounds are there for preventing it?

As regards the £50 charge, it is of course right that those cherished number plates should not be a charge on the revenue, but that does not necessitate or justify a 250 per cent. profit. There have been a few highly publicised cases of these cherished numbers changing hands for large sums of money. We are no more justified in assuming from that that the average cherished number plate owner is a very wealthy man or woman than we would be justified in assuming, from the few, very highly publicised cases I mentioned earlier, that the Swansea Vehicle Licensing Centre misdirects all its licences.

Many of these cherished numbers are passed on from father to son in the same family. Many others are kept by the same motorist and transferred every time he or she changes his or her car. I wonder whether the noble Baroness can tell us what proportion of these vehicle number transfers do not involve a change of ownership. She very kindly told us that this involves two-thirds of second hand vehicles; but, if possible, I should like to know the proportion of new ownership. I wonder whether the noble Baroness can tell us what possible justification there is for raising even more money from ordinary motorists. After all, many of these transfers also involve the purchase of a new motor car—on the noble Baroness's figures, one-third. The man buying a new motor car is already paying 14.5 per cent. of the cost of that car in taxes. Why on earth should he have to pay more? That cost would normally include the number plate.

The private motorist, we must remember, contributes at least £800 million a year surplus to the Exchequer after paying his contribution to the roads programme, and if you include road haulage vehicles it is £1,000 million a year surplus. Yet this Government persist in regarding the motorist as a perpetual ram in the thicket, to be sacrificed whenever it is necessary to raise more revenue. The motorist is paying through the nose for his motoring. Why should he have to pay still more for his cherished number plate?

Would it not have been more reasonable to fix the charge at a lower level—say £20, allowing a profit—but to abandon these restrictive regulations? The regulations will have the effect of drastically curtailing the number of transfers. If they were scrapped, the volume of transfers would increase and more revenue could therefore be raised. There is no more unpleasant way of raising money than to impose an expensive monopoly and to complicate the natural process of supply and demand.

There seems, indeed, to be a measure of confusion as to the purpose of what I regard as an exorbitant charge. It was widely and not unreasonably assumed that it was an attempt to kill off such transfers in future by making them prohibitively expensive. In the debate in another place the Under-Secretary denied that he had any such intention. He said, if I may quote his words: It is not the intention to drive would-be applicants away with a high price. I should be surprised if the number of transfers fell dramatically as a result of the increase in price". However, later in the debate a document was produced. The Under-Secretary did not deny the authenticity of that document, which gave a very different interpretation of the previous Minister's motives. According to the document, the then Minister of Transport had told the Swansea Vehicle Licensing unions before 29th July last that, while he could not attempt, for political reasons, to abolish the cherished transfers in the present political climate, his Department preferred to reduce the workload by increasing the charge to the public. Therefore, I ask the noble Baroness which Minister is right? Perhaps she can dispel our scepticism. I would urge the Minister to ask her right honourable friend the Secretary of State to reconsider both these charges and these regulations. The charges are not justified. They represent a profit, as I have said, of over 250 per cent. On that subject, I should like to know more about the calculations by which the figure of £10 or £15 for the cost was arrived at. Is it seriously suggested that if these transfers were to cease some civil servants would lose their jobs? If the civil servants are to be employed, anyway, why are they charged, as it were, to the cost of the transfers?

Equally, why is it necessary to institute a costly system of vehicle inspection? If the new regulations were liberalised, would it not be possible to dispense with inspections, thus cutting the cost still further, especially on the receiving vehicles which are usually in better nick? There are, after all, only 300,000 of these numbers. Perhaps the noble Baroness could tell us how many of them change hands every year. She gave various guesses, as I have done. Assuming that they change hands every three years, which was the figure that the noble Baroness gave, that would give us 100,000 transfers a year, or 2,000 a week, which, when one considers that the Swansea Centre employs 3,000 persons, does not seem to be an excessive workload. I have had four cars in the last 25 years, which works out at one car every six and a quarter years; and the ratio is still increasing because I have not changed my fourth car. So perhaps the figure for number plate changing is even less. Not that I go in for these cherished number plates; I have no feelings about the subject, although I am in favour of those who do. I hope that the noble Baroness will urge on her right honourable friend that at least in cases involving no change of ownership relief should be given in the matter of profit-making fees.

It is not part of my duties to urge self-interested caution on this Government. However, may I offer them some disinterested advice on this occasion. I remember a Labour Minister who, many years ago, expressed some strong views on the subject of cheese. She said that she did not see why anybody should want to buy any other cheese than Cheddar or mousetrap. I am sure that many people are in practice very happy with such a choice. I thoroughly enjoy Cheddar; it has the most splendid taste. However, I can vividly remember the annoyance that was widely felt after this statement, denying people the pleasure of a variety which, after all, is the spice of life. We might remember that that Government did not long survive this Minister's remarks. There is no doubt that little things, trivial circumstances, can have a quite significant influence on public opinion.

We live in a world which is becoming steadily more uniform. There are many who feel that personal choice and personal freedom are becoming increasingly restricted. While nobody can argue that cherished number plates are a very significant part of personal freedom, nobody should underestimate the possibility of our fellow citizens strongly resenting any interference with their harmless personal idiosyncrasies. One frequently sees in the streets around Westminster embassy and high commission vehicles with the first three letters of a country's name and a low number. If diplomatic missions can indulge in this harmless vanity, why should not private owners also do so without being unduly penalised? The Government may well find that cherished number plates will loom surprisingly large. As I have said, trivial issues can affect electoral fortunes. I hope therefore that even if the noble Baroness and her right honourable friend are deaf to the arguments of personal freedom and personal choice, and are determined to override these in pursuit of new regulations, new charges and new impositions on the hard pressed motorist, a certain caution, a certain memory of cheese, perhaps, will make them think again.

3.51 p.m.

The Earl of KIMBERLEY

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Mowbray and Stourton, has said practically everything that can be said on this matter probably rather better than I could have done, so I will make my speech even shorter than I had intended. I suppose that in these days of rising costs we should welcome the fact that the charge is only £50 and not £100. But just because having a cherished number is not a necessity of life like bread, is it really an adequate reason to increase the cost of transferring it by 300 or 400 per cent? I ask myself, why should the individual be penalised over this?

I was very happy to hear the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, saying it was not the Government's intention to do away with the transfer charges for number plates, but I was most unhappy to read what the Under-Secretary of State for Transport said in the other place, as reported in Hansard for 24th January at column 1104, namely, that he would have much sympathy if the whole system were abolished. Unless I misread it, that is down in black and white and it seems to be a slightly divergent opinion from that expressed by the noble Baroness.

I would humbly suggest that the charge should match the cost, and should the cost increase as inflation rises then the charge would be increased accordingly. But the main problem in regard to these regulations is that they make it increasingly difficult for people to change, whether they now have their own number or wish to get one. I should like to consider the hardship caused, despite the fact that it is said not to be a hardship. First, as the noble Lord, Lord Mowbray and Stourton, said, in the case of demonstration models, which will have an agreement between manufacturers and dealers, the cars are six months old. A lot of legitimate advertising will be done away with if the car has to be nine months old, and this will affect trade adversely. That does not seem right. Similarly, should a vehicle be written off or destroyed—it may be stolen or it may catch fire—one cannot then have the number changed, because obviously it cannot attract a Ministry of Transport certificate to the effect that it is fit to be driven.

I have been given to understand that some of these points were never really given a fair hearing with certain relevant interested parties. I believe that most of the consultations that the Government had were with the staff associations at the Licensing Centre in Swansea; the Road Haulage Association, who I really do not think have a great interest in this; the Freight Transport Association, who again, I should have thought, had no great interest; the Automobile Association, who I think agree with the noble Lord, Lord Mowbray and Stourton, and myself; the SMMTA who have similar sentiments; the RAC, who consider the whole thing a dangerous precedent for future licensing legislation.

But who was not consulted? Perhaps that is a little more relevant. The Motor Agents' Association Limited was not consulted. In fact all that organisation received was a note from the Government saying that there was not enough time to consult them. I agree that a cherished numbers dealers association does not exist and that may be their own loss. But it is estimated that there are 300,000 of these motorists in this country. Surely they could have been consulted in some way?

I do not want your Lordships to think that the Government should not have consulted the staff associations at Swansea at all, because they most certainly should have done; but I think they should also have consulted other people who were interested. I do not have a cherished number; but if a private citizen wants to have one, why should it be made more and more difficult for him or her to do so? Except in certain circumstances, we can still paint our houses and our front doors in different colours.

The British people elect their Governments—some may say misguidedly on occasion—but this does not give any Government the right to be dictatorial just because they are being dictated to by the Civil and Public Service Association and the Society of Civil and Public Servants. That is my humble opinion. In most States in America if you want to register a car, you can choose three numbers and, provided they are not immoral or obscene and they have not been taken, you pay your money and you get one of them.

Again, why should it be necessary for both vehicles to be licensed—the donor and the recipient—and furthermore both licensed under the same schedule or class? I believe the oldest number in Kent is "D 1" and that is on a moped, where it will remain for ever more. I really do not see why it should. Although the noble Baroness said this, may I remind noble Lords that the majority of people who have these cherished numbers are not Rolls-Royce or Bentley owners; many of them are owners of motorcycles who graduate to a car and wish to change their number. They are the people who will suffer hardship. There is a lesson here for us all to learn: that if the Government charged a little less, as the noble Lord said, more people might use the facility and therefore more revenue could be produced. Also, if a citizen should dispose of his car and cannot immediately get a replacement, why should he lose his own number which he has had for years? That does not seem right.

My last point is that I believe it is forbidden for a newer vehicle to have an earlier suffix, by which I mean the letter which comes after the number, denoting the year of original registration. Surely today this has become invalid because the computer at Swansea will refuse to issue a tax disc to an owner unless he can produce the MOT roadworthiness certificate. And to say that it helps the police is really out of date, because within a minute and a half the police can today find out who is the owner of a vehicle. This is done by a wireless call and a telephone call.

It seems that the difficulty here must be laid fairly and squarely on the people at Swansea, who for some inexplicable reason, do not seem to want to deal with cherished numbers. Unless the noble Baroness can convince me to the contrary, I am afraid that I cannot agree with the Under-Secretary of State when he says the rules were specifically designed to protect the bona fide possessor of a cherished mark. To me this is yet another encroachment, however small, on the freedom and liberty and individuality of the British citizen or, to put it another way, perhaps yet another small victory for bureaucracy as it remorselessly continues its advance in trying to turn us all into a nation of monastics.

3.59 p.m.

Lord DAVIES of LEEK

My Lords, I hope the House will not look at me in trepidation. I listened with interest to the noble Earl, Lord Kimberley, and I listened to the splendid speech made by the noble Lord, the first Baron of Britain, whose noble ancestor stands in effigy in the corner of this House at the present moment and who stood by the side of King John in his battles and at Runnymede when he made him sign the Magna Carta. Therefore I applaud the effort of the first Baron of England to stand up for the liberties of the individual.

I should like to ask my noble friend Lady Stedman, first, what effect this will have on trade plates? Secondly, is my noble friend aware of the vast columns of numbers in the Sunday newspapers and certain magazines? These number plates are a marvellous avenue for sale and exchange, doing a little on the side, increasing the inflation in society. They are very expensive to buy. This is the complexity of modem life. In a kind of way, the noble Lord is right to raise a brouhaha about this. I am on his side in this case. Does this interfere with the individual's liberty? I do not think so. When we grumble about the price, Heavens above, my poor old granny would roll in her grave if she thought the black sheep of her family, myself, had to pay the modern 6½p for a piece of bread and butter in the cafeteria of the House of Lords. This is about Is. 5d. for one piece of bread and butter. What is the matter with the noble Lord? Bread and butter is much more important than a number plate. The inflation in the price of bread has definitely increased more than that of a number plate.

I must tell the noble Lord that, when his great ancestor was in France and by the side of King John, on the other side of him was the noble ancestor of Lord Salisbury. And what did Salisbury say to King John? I will tell him—just as I can tell him what Gladstone said in 1884. What Salisbury said to King John was this: To gild refinéd gold, to paint the lily, To throw perfume on the violet, To smooth the ice, or add another hue Unto the rainbow, or with taperlight To seek the beautiful eye of heaven to garnish, Is wasteful and ridiculous. The extent of the noble Lord's speech and the extent of his protest, despite his insistence on the fight for liberty, reached a little excess.

Lord LEATHERLAND

My Lords, I am not going to recite poetry to your Lordships. We are living in a country with over 1¼ million unemployed, with prices of every item of ordinary everyday life increasing, with the prospect before us of grave problems to be hammered out in connection with the next wage increase, with the country split from top to bottom on how much we should spend on defence. When we have to take into account the fact that we have to spend four hours or more later tonight on discussing the very important Criminal Law Bill, surely we ought not to go on with this debate much longer. Naturally, I was fascinated by the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Mowbray and Stourton, and the support he received from the noble Earl, Lord Kimberley. I could see what their cherished number plates would be— MOW in one case and KIM in the other. My noble friend Lady Stedman explained this matter very carefully, very fairly, very temperately in her opening speech. It is not fair that the ordinary motorist should have to bear some of the excess overhead costs of this particular sub-department of the licensing department in Swansea. I think we have discussed the matter long enough. Cannot we have a vote?

4.4 p.m.

Lord LUCAS of CHILWORTH

My Lords, I am sorry to upset the noble Lord, Lord Leatherland, if we continue. I would start where the noble Baroness's right honourable friend had to stop, at the beginning of January in the other place, when he said he hoped these number-plates would bring an element of gaiety and pleasure. Unfortunately, he could not continue because time was up. Even if the noble Baroness has not explained just what gaiety and pleasure the Department of Transport were going to bring to somebody, thank goodness that the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Leek, has enlivened our afternoon with a great deal of lighthearted gaiety.

It is perhaps on this point that we could dwell. There is no doubt that the increased charge and the new rules applying to the transfer of numbers are going to have an effect which will diminish the number of transfers. One has a feeling that there are certain forces at the VLC at Swansea that have brought undue pressure to bear in this matter. Whether it is the wish of the noble Lord, Lord Leatherland, and his friends to do away with the numbers, I do not know, but certainly any reduction in the opportunity for an expression of individualism is dangerous, particularly as this expression is harmless. We can shortly be reduced to the uniformity and greyness of mediocrity. Perhaps for some people, with a little Morris Minor, a Rolls-Royce or some other kind of motor car, the individual number plate expresses something of that person's personality and individualism, and it should be encouraged. As somebody who deals with these matters, not every day but from time to time, I can see that the price being asked, £50, will not prove to be such a great deterrent. I would find it difficult to argue against the figure.

The only point of argument I would have is this. At the liaison committee's meeting in October when this matter was discussed, those present, so I understand, suggested that a realistic figure might be £20 or £30. This, on anybody's calculation, will provide a handsome profit, and I do not object to that. But it is surprising that between 1st October, when this matter was first raised, and the 7th January no further formal consultation took place. There was the letter to which the noble Earl, Lord Kimberley, has referred, saying that it is proposed that this fee should be £50. I do not really care about the £50. Whether it be £30, £40, £50 or £60, I do not think is terribly important. Time and time again in your Lordships' House, on matters concerned with the motor industry, I have said that there is inadequate consultation. Not three months since a somewhat stormy exchange of words between the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, and myself about consultation, we have the same thing happening. I beg the Government to make even more strenuous endeavours to improve the channels of communication with legitimate bodies.

The other point is in regard to the regulations; the change in the rules. God knows why they have to be changed. I believe it is suggested that this is so that some abuses may be ironed out. What abuses? To what degree are the abuses so important that ten amendments to the rules have to be introduced? It is these new rules that bear most harshly upon the people who want to keep the system going. If the staff associations feel that the new proposed rules will relieve them of some harassment, I ask them, "Why should you be harassed?" And I answer, equally from personal knowledge, "Because the system is so grossly inefficient". I have actually seen the three registration documents for one vehicle sent from Swansea, not one asked for nor required by the owner, who is extremely mystified.

My Lords, if there is abuse and big money changing hands in the number-plate business, I assure your Lordships that there is a greater abuse and a greater amount of money changing hands over registration documents. Here, almost God-given, are three new documents—the products of a splendid new, highly technical and computerised centre to deal with licensing. It is a farce. What has happened to all those who used to be employed in all the local taxation offices, who could deal with all these matters so simply? One could queue for ten or fifteen minutes, be attended to and go away, and that was an end of the matter. They are still in those offices. I do not know what they are doing, but I know that if I want to license a motor car in Southampton, I have to go all the way to Salisbury to do it; or, if it is a new vehicle, wait between six and 12 weeks for the procedure to be gone through at the computer centre in Swansea. It is those things that worry the industry. As my noble friend Lord Mowbray and Stourton said, it is all part of the filling in the sandwich.

I ask the Government most seriously to reconsider the rules. After all, they do not have to come before Parliament to amend them—they can do that at any time in any way they like. The Government must show that they can open the opportunity to those who want to spend their £50. They must show that they want to deal with the motor trade and those people on the periphery of the trade who have to make a living—and it is a reasonably honest living—by having meaningful and proper consultations, and by bearing in mind what the staff associations say. Your Lordships should not forget that motor cars evoke the most strange sentiments in all sorts of people, not only motor traders. There must at least be a feeling that the staff associations do not have everything their own way, but that those who are interested in this particular topic and who have an interest in motoring also have had their fair say. The outcome may, perhaps, be a compromise, but it should represent the full fruits of proper consultation with all interested parties.

Lord DOUGLAS of BARLOCH

My Lords, I do not own a motor car and I have no personal interest in this matter at all, but I am very curious about the reasons which were given in justification for this charge. My noble friend Lady Stedman said that it was not nearly so much as would have been justified on the basis of the decline in the purchasing power of money since, I think, 1929 as compared with the present day. Does this represent a new Treasury policy? Are all the charges then in existence to be multiplied 100 times because of the diminution in the purchasing power of money? I am also intrigued by the statement that this charge will represent three or four times as much as the cost of rendering the service. This is also a new doctrine in public finance. Will it be applied to the nationalised industries and many other services?

4.15 p.m.

Baroness STEDMAN

My Lords, this has been a very good-tempered debate and a very conciliatory one in many ways. I, personally, have no complaints at all about those who want to have cherished number plates, and indeed one of the pleasures that I get locally is of seeing the number AAA 1. It is the number plate belonging to the noble Marquess, Lord Exeter, who is not present in the Chamber, which recalls by its initials his tremendous athletic prowess and the contribution which he made to this country. Earlier today I heard one noble Lord say that he did not know what all the fuss was about over the payment of £50; he would pay considerably more than £50 if I could produce the number EGO I for him. At least Members of this House have a sense of humour about it all.

The noble Lords, Lord Mowbray and Stourton and Lord Lucas, and the noble Earl, Lord Kimberley, referred to the Minister's statement and the activities of the unions at Swansea. I should remind them that initially the unions wanted to abolish cherished marks altogether. They failed, so the Government cannot be accused of having given in to the unions. My honourable friend the Under-Secretary of State said in another place that the unions were holding out a political challenge to us and that if it was a political challenge, it had been defeated because the system continued to operate. We hope that it will continue to operate and it is our intention that it should. The industrial action was not the reason for introducing this measure. What we charge for cherished number plates has nothing to do with the legitimate interests of the unions. The unions have accepted that. They played no part in deciding what the proposed figure should be and I give Members of this House a categoric assurance on that matter.

Many comments have been made about the Swansea registration unit. If noble Lords will send me details of some of the cases that they have raised, I shall be very happy to examine them and sort matters out. However, I believe that the general attacks on Swansea now are misplaced and misguided. We had teething troubles and the Press took jolly good care to ensure that everyone knew we had teething troubles. However, the general performance now is accepted to be good and is getting better. The Automobile Association is now saying that, so noble Lords do not have to take my word for it, they can ask the AA.

Lord PLATT

My Lords, before the noble Baroness leaves that point, I should like to ask whether it is true, as I was told yesterday by a Member of this House who had personal experience of it, that it now takes three weeks to obtain a provisional licence to drive a motor car.

Baroness STEDMAN

My Lords, I should doubt that, but if the noble Lord will give me the details I shall look into the matter for him. It should not take as long as that. The noble Lord, Lord Mowbray and Stourton, asked about the proportion of transfers that do not involve a change of ownership. Under the new rule, no transfers involve a change of ownership because both vehicles must be registered in the name of the applicant for the cherished number plate. That has always been the rule. How many cherished marks are cherished and how many are simply bought as a status symbol we cannot tell at present. The noble Lord also asked about the number of new cars and, again, I cannot give an exact figure at this time but as I said in my opening statement, abou' one-third are for new cars.

Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON

My Lords, why cannot the noble Baroness tell me how many of the cherished number plates are transferred to the same owner on another vehicle? I do not understand the great problem. Can she give me that information later on?

Baroness STEDMAN

I shall certainly hope to give the noble Lord that information. I shall commence inquiries tomorrow and pass on the information. If a private motorist wants a special number, he can have it if he pays for it. It is purely a matter of personal choice whether he has the registration number that is issued when he buys his car or whether he has a cherished number plate.

I turn to the last regulation where the price was fixed at £5 and has stood at that figure since 1924. I am sorry that my noble friend Lord Douglas of Barloch was a little confused about the mathematics of how we arrived at our figure and why we had to up the charge so much. However, we anticipate that the present charge of £50 will also last for a long time. The charge of £5 stood from 1924 until 1977, and we hope that the present charge of £50 will stand for a long time without us having to come back to the House time and again to revise the price either as inflation or as other things catch up with us.

Only 19 civil servants are engaged fulltime on the transfers of cherished number plates at Swansea. The inspection of the vehicles is very simple and no more staff are going to be needed for that, and it is needed in order to prevent fraud. We think that there are something like 50,000 transfers going through the office in any one year. I will draw the attention of my right honourable friend to the comments that have been made, and I have no doubt that he will take them into account when the rules are being revised.

I am not prepared to make any comments on cheese. I cannot promise the noble Lord opposite that he is going to see an early demise of this Government. The noble Earl, Lord Kimberley, referred to the comments of the Under-Secretary in another place. If he will read the Hansard, he will see that the Undersecretary made it plain that it was his personal view that he would not mind if cherished number plates ended; but the fact remains that the system is going on.

So far as consultations are concerned, there are always problems when you start consultations with people. The noble Lord, Lord Lucas, referred to the consultations that had been held where those people concerned came away from the final consultations assuming that £25 to £30 would perhaps be an acceptable total. The £50 has, I have no doubt, now been accepted perhaps somewhat grudgingly.

Lord LUCAS of CHILWORTH

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for letting me speak. I think that she misunderstood me. The meeting to which I referred on 1st October was the first meeting. Having expressed a view that the price should be £20 to £30, it is surprising that there was no formal consultation after that time. The matter was finally resolved with a letter from the Department on 7th January saying, "No, it is £50, and we are sorry that there has been no time for formal consultation".

Baroness STEDMAN

My Lords, I take the point of the noble Lord, and I shall certainly draw the attention of my right honourable friend to this for any future consultations. Again, the noble Lord raised interesting possibilities with the complaints he had about the Swansea office. Again, if the noble Lord would like to let me have details of those complaints I shall take them up and look into them fairly quickly and let him know what happened. The noble Lord also referred to the question of how long he would have to wait if he tried to re-license a vehicle by post. I am advised that you would never have to wait six to 12 weeks to re-license a vehicle by post, and that postal applications are dealt with within two days. If the noble Lord has information to the contrary and lets me have it, again I shall take it up.

My noble friend Lord Davies of Leek asked what effect there would be on trade plates. There is no effect whatsoever on trade plates. There may be a problem in the future with traders who use cherished number plates on their demonstration models. As I understand it, they usually sell the vehicle after about four months, but they cannot now change the cherished number plate for nine months. This is one of the things we shall have to look at.

We propose to keep the rules under regular review. We propose to have an early review within a couple of months of them coming in to see how they are working. If it is necessary for amendments to be made, then I can give noble Lords the assurance that my right honourable friend will make them and look to see where they need tightening up and where they need to be a little more flexible. It is a question of trial and error for the first few months, and we hope that before long we shall have got them absolutely right, and that everybody will be satisfied.

Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON

My Lords, I asked the noble Baroness one question as to which Minister was right. The previous Minister in his letter, which the unions quoted to each other, said that he was increasing the price in order, hopefully, to bring down the workload; in other words, to decrease the number of people willing or able to take out these licences. The present Minister seems to be encouraging. His speech the other day in the Commons was encouraging. Therefore, I take it that the noble Baroness has answered by implication that the present Minister's view is the current one.

Baroness STEDMAN

That is so, my Lords.

On Question, Motion agreed to.