HUSH MONEY
Page 3
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
• That it should come to this... after years of watching the industry's two major trade associations fighting the London Lorry Ban through the courts we are now treated to the unedifying spectacle of a squabble over how much each should have paid for the privilege.
The Freight Transport Association ..eckons the Road Haulage Association should have paid more than 20% of the E201,500 legal bill — not least as the FTA has been saddled with 70% of the :osts.
Meanwhile the RHA claims that it has oaid its fair share as the ban "affects heir members more than ours". Come :ome, gentlemen; if the Law Lords had -uled against the London Boroughs fransport Committee wouldn't RHA members have benefitted as much as :TA members?
Meanwhile the real villain of the piece )ets off scot free. We're talking about .he Department of Transport. Having lone a marvellous impression of Pontius )ilate the Dip is now reported to have ;aid that it had "no reason" to challenge .he LBTC's air brake silencer clause on )ermits.
In other words it was, and is, quite lappy for a non-elected, non-governnental body to play around with the lational Construction and Use reguations to suit a political whim, The matter is now in the hands of the iuropean Commission which, if it has any ;ense, will tell the European Court to ask vIarshom Street why it allowed the LBTC o amend the C&U regs in the first place.
While the LBTC is basking in its victory, t might recall that three months ago CM :hallenged it to produce 5,000 letters rom London residents who say their ivality of life has actually been improved )y the ban (rather than the M25). We're ;till waiting, but )erhaps 5,000 vas a little unfair. I -low about 500,
)r 50.. .any ad'once on five?