He extended this invitation in front of the massed ranks of the media andpublic at the final evidence-taking session of the Assembly’s investigationinto his plans for congestion charging. It was in jest (I trust!) andresulted from Ken informing the scrutiny panel, which I Chair, about hisplans to encourage firms to provide showers so that people can bike to work.I simply pointed out that the GLA itself has only two showers, one of whichis by Ken’s office…

Anyway, more to the point, is the substance of the investigation. Over thelast few weeks the Scrutiny Panel has conducted a rigorous examination ofKen’s proposals. Expert witnesses from professional, academic and commercialbackgrounds have come to give evidence on whether Ken can deliver congestioncharging on time and on budget; on the likely effects on London andLondoners in terms of traffic, environmental and social impacts; onenforcement, exposure to legal challenge, costs and revenues and whetherpeople will comply with the charge.

No one witnessing this final session with Ken could have failed to noticethat the cheeky chappy Ken was mostly absent. This was when the joking hadto stop. And rightly so. The introduction of congestion charging to Londonwill be the biggest civil change since the last world war. It is vital forLondon that he gets it right. A well-executed scheme will bring greatbenefits, helping to improve public transport, cut congestion on the roadsand curb air pollution.

Leading a scrutiny panel of six members from four political parties couldhave been a nightmare given the political hot potato congestion charging is.My strategy was always to put Ken’s technical proposals under the microscopeon behalf of London – and to try to avoid a political ‘for or against’ rant.My thesis being that the Conservatives who are against congestion charging,want to find the holes in the proposals to tear it to shreds, and I, as aLiberal Democrat who believes that congestion charging is essential forimproving our city, want to find the holes so that Ken can fill them inbefore he proceeds. And it worked – because we all need to find the holes.

And holes we have found. There are big questions over Ken’s timetable. Heoriginally wanted the scheme implemented by the end of 2002. Evidence wereceived indicates that this may be undeliverable. And the quicker thetimetable the higher the risk of getting it wrong. There are weaknesses inthe project management structure and dangers in the way the contract may beput together. Severe doubts have been raised as to whether he can achievethe promised improvements in public transport before the introduction ofcongestion charging and there are difficulties over who should or should notbe exempt from the charge. There is also a large degree of uncertainty overthe social impacts of his scheme and over possible changes in traffic flowsif people start taking different routes to avoid having to pay the charges.None are insurmountable in my view – but all, without doubt, need to beaddressed.

It was a three-hour grilling. Eyeball to eyeball. Ken now knows where thePanel believes the holes to be. He will get them in writing in the officialscrutiny report in November. During the session, it was clear he waslistening. The timetable began to slip even as we spoke. And that is thepoint. Ken is now advised of the dangers. It’s his call as to what he doesabout them.

(c) Lynne Featherstone, 2000