Local Transport Bill [HL]

moved Amendment No. 119: 119: After Clause 108, 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) After paragraph (c) of sub-paragraph (2), 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: My Lords, we return to the issue of the London low-emission zone. I moved this amendment in Committee. My objective is to exempt certain very low-population and low-usage vehicles from the LEZ. Vehicles concerned are in the taxation class of recovery vehicle, special vehicle and private heavy goods vehicle. In Committee I explained some of the technical problems and risks associated with recovery vehicles coming into the LEZ. I also drew the Committee’s attention to special vehicles. Both these classes of vehicle tend to be mounted with specialist engineering equipment which is often more valuable than the basic vehicle chassis. That will be a problem area, but I do not intend to weary your Lordships with it tonight. My real concern lies with private heavy goods vehicles, which fall into two categories: relatively modern vehicles used privately—horse-boxes are a good example—and preserved classic commercial vehicles. Both categories of vehicle cover low mileage. I declare an interest here as I own one heavy vehicle that will be in the scope of the LEZ. It is technically a very interesting vehicle—indeed, it appeared in Heritage Commercials magazine only last month—but it will not be appearing in London again. Because it is post-1973 it attracts a charge of £200 per day to enter the LEZ and a non-compliance penalty of £1,000. However, the vehicle excise duty is only £165 and the insurance cost is similar. The reason for that is that such vehicles cover very low mileages. I remind the House that I am the patron of the Road Rescue Recovery Association. I think it is vital to preserve our heritage, and I believe the Minister does too. However, it will not be practical to have a preserved lorry in London if it was built after 1973 since, as I have explained, the LEZ charges are so high. In reality this is a ban, and retrospective. We rarely enact retrospective legislation, and when we do it is because of the overriding public interest. In Committee the noble Baroness, Lady Crawley, claimed that emissions per kilometre were the same for a preserved vehicle as for a modern one. I pointed out that a preserved vehicle’s emissions may actually be a bit higher but preserved vehicles cover very low mileage, evidenced by the low insurance premiums. Thus, although preserved vehicles may not be very green, I believe they will have no measurable effect on London’s air quality. Incidentally, I take it that by the end of February this year—bearing in mind that the LEZ starts around 5 February—air quality in London will immediately and measurably improve. If not, surely there is something wrong with the policy of the LEZ. Is the Minister confident that the LEZ will have an immediate and beneficial effect in sympathy with each stage of the scheme’s implementation? Another problem is this: if a preserved-vehicle enthusiast finds that he cannot use his reasonably modern and green lorry in London—say a vehicle built in 1980—surely he will sell that vehicle and buy a pre-1973 lorry that is not in the scope of the LEZ but was built when the manufacturers were happy if their vehicles would only not smoke too much. What a perverse result. In my case, if I cannot use my 1981 vehicle in London I will use my 1955 vehicle, built at a time when manufacturers did not really know what pollution was. What are my objectives today? The Minister will no doubt be supporting the LEZ as its underlying objectives are desirable. I would like him to agree with me that central government, in the form of the Secretary of State, has the power to exempt certain classes of vehicles from the LEZ—but she chooses not to use it. The Minister cannot just transfer all the political responsibility to the mayor. Of course, he may be able to delight me with his response today but, if not, I hope he can answer my question about whether the Secretary of State has the power to exempt certain classes of vehicle from the LEZ. I beg to move.