CONTROLS ON LONDON LORRIES: REPLACEMENT OF DISCRETIONARY EXCEPTIONS (Hansard, 1 November 1994)

Mr. Deputy Speaker
With this, it will be convenient to discuss also Lords amendments Nos. 22 to 24.

§ Ms Glenda Jackson (Hampstead and Highgate)
This issue is of particular concern to all Londoners, because it deals with the Government's proposals to remove the necessity for a permit to be issued to enable lorries to travel on prescribed routes at certain hours—the London lorry ban. I should be grateful if the Minister replied to a specific question. 1517 2.45 am
In perusing the Lords amendment, the noble Lord who responded on behalf of the Government stated that the implementation of the ban—if the necessity for a permit is indeed to be lifted by the Government—would be imposed by the police. That is in direct contradiction to what the police have said—that the imposition of such a ban would be a particularly low priority.
How will the London lorry ban, which has been of enormous benefit to all Londoners during the past 10 years, be imposed if the requirement for a permit is to be lifted from members of the Freight Transport Association? In the light of the recent royal commission report, which highlighted the pollution, both airborne and noise, caused by vehicular traffic, particularly in urban areas—and there can be few urban areas more congested than London—I find it extraordinary that the Government should be considering for a moment the relaxation of the stringent rules which currently apply, and which, for the past 10 years, have prevented lorries driving through the residential streets of London. I should be most grateful if the Minister would respond.

§ Mr. Peter Bottomley (Eltham)
Can my hon. Friend the Minister confirm that, when the lorry ban was brought in by the Greater London council, there was an exemption system and that 20,000 firms filled in 10 pages—that is, 200,000 sheets of paper—that 2,500 signs were put up, at a capital cost of £250,000, that the recurrent costs until the scheme is dropped are probably up to £1 million a year for the residents of London boroughs, and that when it was brought in, the number of lorries denied exemption permits amounted to four?

§ Mr. Norris
My hon. Friend has it in a nutshell. Every Conservative Member would certainly want to see London protected from the unnecessary intrusion of lorries. The idea that that is somehow a prerogative of Opposition Members is bizarre, but the scheme as it exists is a particularly ludicrous piece of Stalinist nonsense inherited from the GLC. Apart from protecting the environment and preserving quite a few trees, which would, as my hon. Friend suggested, otherwise be chopped up in administering the lunatic system of paper chasing, we have made it quite clear that we intend to replace the scheme with one that has a greater accent on effective enforcement.
My answer to the hon. Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Ms Jackson) is that that means that no scheme will be introduced to replace the existing scheme unless it is clear that enforcement—dealt with by police, officials dealing with the vehicle inspectorate or officials dealing with the lorry ban scheme—will be in place and available to operate on behalf of Londoners.

§ Mr. Nigel Griffiths
I am sorry to hear a distinguished former Transport Minister make such a comment, as if the number of people against whom enforcement measures were taken was a necessary sign of the effectiveness or ineffectiveness of the legislation. I think it important to clarify that it may well be a measure of the effectiveness of the deterrent that further action need not follow: many Londoners would agree with that.

§ Mr. Peter Bottomley
I thought that I had spoken clearly and accurately. All the information that I gave was given by the Greater London council in its dying days. 1518 The GLC itself said that the number of lorries not covered by the exemption totalled four. I was not talking about enforcement; I was talking about what the GLC actually did.

§ Mr. Griffiths
I thought that the gist of the hon. Gentleman's comments was that that was an indictment of the system. Many Londoners did not want exemptions: the fact that four were actually exempt is a tribute to the system in the eyes of—I am sure—the vast majority of Londoners.
Let me tell the House why we shall not vote against the amendment. It is clear that, when the Government drafted the measure originally, it was going to open the floodgates; however, it is clear from the arguments advanced in the House of Lords that their Lordships were persuaded that there had to be the possibility of tougher sanctions, and we do not wish to oppose that view. However, let me tell everyone who lives in London, and Labour Members who have diligently pursued the matter, that we shall continue to monitor it, and will not fail to bring to the attention of Londoners and the public any failures that the Bill brings about in the regulation of heavy traffic in London, to the great benefit of the public.