Local Transport Bill [HL]

moved Amendment No. 81A: 81A: After Clause 107, insert the following new Clause— ““London charging schemes: exemptions (1) In Schedule 23 to the GLA Act 1999 (road user charging) paragraph 11 is amended as follows. (2) In paragraph (c) of sub-paragraph (2), at end insert— ““(d) and in respect of a low emission zone scheme, the exemption of vehicles taxed as ““Recovery Vehicle””, ““Private Heavy Goods Vehicle””, ““Special Vehicle””.”” The noble Earl said: The amendment is not about the low emission zone in London in general; it is about the adverse effects of the scheme, which have not been properly addressed. The LEZ is clearly aimed at vehicles that regularly deliver in London. These vehicles cover a high mileage, are mostly new or nearly new, and are relatively easy to replace. They can also be used in other parts of the country, although that does of course shift the problem. The Secretary of State has the power to exclude certain vehicles from the charging scheme by virtue of paragraph 11 of Schedule 23 to the Greater London Authority Act 1999. My amendment would invite her to do that. My amendment refers to three different classes of vehicle: recovery vehicles, preserved vehicles and special vehicles. A recovery operator near London may have some vehicles that comply with the LEZ technical requirements and some that do not. Perhaps he has a heavy recovery vehicle of 60 tonnes gross that is fully compliant with the scheme, so there is no problem there. Perhaps, however, he has a really heavy recovery vehicle of 150 tonnes, which is perfectly safe but is older and non-compliant. It is uneconomic to retro-fit the necessary equipment because it will not be used in London enough. The operator still has a 60-tonne gross recovery vehicle that can do everything that is legally required, so it is simply not worth making it compliant. Let us suppose that the operator is called out to a loaded 44-tonne artic on Muswell Hill. Noble Lords who know Muswell Hill will know that it is pretty steep. He could of course dispatch his 60-tonne vehicle, which would comply in terms of its gross train weight, but, as someone who has operated heavy recovery vehicles and moved abnormal loads, I would be much happier putting the 150-tonner, rather than a vehicle that is just strong enough, on Muswell Hill. I would use the vehicle that is the strongest and safest, not the one that is the most compliant. The danger we have with the LEZ is some perverse incentives that will make recovery operators not have the full range of vehicles, be unable to use the best vehicle and perhaps unable to use the most efficient vehicle at clearing the obstruction. The operator might say, ““Well, I will send this less capable but compliant vehicle out””. Most lorries are taxed as goods vehicles; that is what the LEZ scheme is aimed at. They are used intensively for business. Each one emits a large volume of emissions on a weekly basis. Vehicles taxed as private heavy goods vehicles on the other hand are used for very low mileages because they are privately funded. An obvious example is a horse box. I know that owners of horse boxes probably will not be voting for Mr Livingstone in the elections.