Green solutions to red tape?
Page 16
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
by Nicky Clarke • Law-abiding operators will welcome transport minister Steven Norris' announcement two weeks ago that deregulation is likely to sweep away the need for London Lorry Ban exemption permits to be displayed on vehicles travelling through the capital at night and weekends.
But the ban's success—the five enforcement officers from the London Lorry Ban Transport Scheme which administers the ban prosecute 2,000 operators for not having permits each year—depends on the permit system itself.
The Department of Transport says the permit system is bureaucratic, claiming it costs industry ..f.3 million a year in administrative costs, and that removing it "will strengthen the ban... and release those resources for better enforcement and the reduction of council tax bills".
The DOT would like to see the 1400,000 it estimates the 20 London boroughs in the scheme spent on issuing the permits redirected into enforcement. Each borough spends between 4230-L45,000 a year on supporting the scheme which costs £800,000 a year to operate at current enforcement levels, and whether they are willing to up this amount or redirect it into reduced council tax bills is doubtful.
Today's London Lorry Ban was introduced in 1986 by the Greater London Council on the rec ec
ommendation ommendation of the 1983 Wood Inquiry. The Inquiry studied the effects of lorry bans in London which largely affected vehicles over 7.5 tonnes and exempted those that were loading and unloading. But the police at the time claimed they were unenforceable because all vehicles had to be followed to check if they actually did load or unload. In order to make this checking quicker and easier, the police said all vehicles exempt from the bans needed a marker so they could be easily identified. Thus the current permit/ sticker system was introduced. Indeed it is the axiom on which the ban works.
When vehicles over 16.5 tonnes travel through London at night or at the weekend without an LBTS sticker displayed prominently on their vehicle, an offence is automatically committed for which they are then prosecuted. Thus, removing the need for a permit to be displayed removes the LBTS's enforcement officers' power to request evidence from the operator to prove that his vehicle has a right to be in London.
Unless these powers are replaced with new ones, no stickers means all vehicles travelling through the capital during ban times will have to be stopped and checked.
And this, says LBTS director _John Hale, could cost industry more than the Government's estimate of £3 million in increased administration costs in answering LBTS's enquiries as to why vehicles are in London.
With no permit system Hale fears that more people will flout the ban. "We prosecute 2,000 people now, so the stickers must stop some vehicles going into London," he says.
Hale also doubts that getting rid of permits will save as much as £400,000 a year but whether the money will be redirected to step up enforcement is for the 20 boroughs in the scheme to decide, not the DOT or central Government.
"The enforcement we do now is straightforward. Under a new system with no permits, we'll have to investigate every vehicle, so the ban will cost more without an increased level of enforcement," says Hale.
Decision
One thing the DOT appears to have made its mind up about is that the network of roads exempt from the ban will remain the same, a decision claims the Freight Transport Association, that does not tackle the routeing problems operators making deliveries in the centre of London face daily.
The ban will continue to included a clause, known as Condition 5 which encourages operators to use trunk roads and other exempt routes as far as possible.
But, says the FTA, of London's 550 miles of key roads 220 are trunk routes and the rest are therefore restricted under the ban.
If operators do not want every single one of their vehicles to be stopped every time they enter the ban under restricted hours they had better start lobbying their 11/IPs before the Deregulation Bill gets its second hearing over the coming months.
What, the industry must ask itself, is deregulation for, hauliers, their customers, or the Government?