Twists of state: Vested interests have conspired to kill off the London lorry ban

So who does rule London? According to Andrew Gliniecki's recent article in Independent London about the impending abolition of the London lorry ban, the answer would seem to be the hauliers. When the Government's Deregulation and Contracting Out Bill leaps from the minds of ministers and on to the statute book, the ban, which has so far protected Londoners from the menace of juggernauts thundering through their streets at the dead of night and the break of day, will be gone. In its place will come the lorries - 44 tonnes of mobile metal, pounding the streets 24 hours a day, seven days a week.

According to ministers, the abolition of the requirement for a permit to use London as a late- night rat-run will not reduce the effectiveness of the ban. This contrasts sharply with the view of the London Lorry Unit, who are charged with enforcing it, and who say the ban will be made unworkable.

But behind the arguments surrounding the pros and cons of the London lorry ban lies an interesting tale of precisely how a piece of legislation, that has successfully done its bit to protect the environment of London for more than a decade, has come to be scrapped. And it says a lot about who really rules London, and how.

It begins in 1992, when Michael Heseltine established a Business Task Force to identify areas of unnecessary business regulation. Lord Sainsbury was appointed to head it, and he in turn set up seven smaller units to examine the deregulation requirements of the separate sectors of industry. Duncan Bluck, director of John Swire and Sons, an international shipping and aviation haulage group, was appointed head of the transport and communications unit.

In January, Lord Sainsbury published his recommendations. Among them was that the London lorry ban should be relaxed, a move accepted by Michael Heseltine.

Throughout the consultation process, all interests other than those of business were excluded. No consumer groups or trade union representatives were included in any of the Task Forces.

The National Consumer Council pointed out: 'The whole initiative has been driven by the needs of business. We question whether the public interest will coincide with those needs.'

The NCC was right to point to this conflict. With business having a free run at drawing up the recommendations on which the deregulation legislation was to be based, it was left to ministers to protect the interests of consumers and workers, with constituents and slender majorities as their incentive. But as the Deregulation Bill entered the Commons, and with it the proposal to relax the lorry ban, it became clear that ministers were themselves facing a conflict of interest.

It emerged that John Swire and Sons had donated pounds 221,000 to the Conservative Party. Another member of the Transport Task Force, Graham Miller, was operations director of Youngers, the brewing company. Youngers had donated pounds 413,000 to the Conservatives. A third member, Christopher Chope, was a former

Conservative transport minister. As the Deregulation Bill entered its committee stage, the lines between the interests of business, the interests of the Conservative Party and the interests of ministers, were becoming blurred. And the interests of anyone else were fast becoming irrelevant.

In committee, ministers tried to play down the links between those on the Task Force and those companies contributing to the Conservative Party. According to Steven Norris, Minister for Transport in London, the Government had not based its decision to relax the ban solely on the recommendation of the Task Force.

Mr Norris told the committee that representations had been received from more than 20 independent companies, who had complained about the excessive cost of compliance with the ban. However, when asked to identify those companies, he declined on the grounds of 'commercial confidentiality'.

Then the mask of commercial confidentiality slipped. It emerged that one of the companies lobbying the Government was the food retailer Sainsbury's. The company claimed that compliance with the ban cost it more than pounds 40,000 a year, although this was strongly disputed by the Lorry Control Unit.

The revelation that Sainsbury had lobbied ministers on the matter would not have raised any eyebrows, except for the fact that Tim Sainsbury was the minister charged with guiding the Deregulation Bill through the Commons.

The effect of this disclosure was an agreement from Steven Norris to release to me, with their consent, the names of the other 19 companies who had made representations over the ban. But more important was the way in which it shed a rare ray of light on the murky way Government operates.

In a cynical age, it is all too easy to mistake the reflections of innocent coincidence for the shadows of conspiracy and sleaze. John Smith's untimely death highlighted, just in time, that those of us who enter politics do not do so purely for personal advancement, vanity or greed. Most politicians and - do not quote me - even most Conservative ministers, are honourable people.

But if such an important piece of legislation can be drawn up on the recommendation solely of those who have a vested interest in its outcome, if the funds of the governing party come from the same source, and ministers are linked personally to the companies or institutions who stand most to benefit from a change in regulations, is it any wonder that cynicism, rather than hope, abides?

Tim Sainsbury undoubtedly believes that the London lorry ban is an unnecessary regulatory burden on business. Duncan Bluck truly believes that the London lorry ban is costing industry too much. But when the campaign coffers of the one depend upon the donations of the other, the perception of an unhealthy mutual interest is as corrosive as the reality.

The Deregulation Bill will soon become law. Ministers will have their Act, business will have its savings, the Conservative Party will continue to receive its donations. And we will have lorries rumbling past our windows at all hours of the day and night.

Who rules London? Who indeed?

Glenda Jackson is Labour MP for Hampstead and Highgate.

(Photograph omitted)